"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally
screwed
up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing
is
still after her.


It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be
co-defendants in this slander suit?

If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he
never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat
as Vilsack and Obama.
Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I
also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a
media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for
over reacting before they had the facts.
It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger
things they have done were.

Exactly. Scary huh?





Exactly. You're a moron.



You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote:



I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have
one
horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers
coming out of the woodwork.

You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a woman
who had no business being its political target, and you think she
wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her
reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who knows
what else.


She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very good
one.



Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to
Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise.



Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally
screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times.

Let's not forget that this is the real issue here.


That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of
intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind.



Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of
bureaucratic incompetence.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod
is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily
dismissed.

This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards
are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus
plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern
lawyering.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being
offended.

If this is true, why haven't you sued your mom?

Why should I let the lawyers get some of the money when all I have to do
is a wait a few years and I will get all of the money.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 08:27:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod
is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily
dismissed.

This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards
are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus
plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern
lawyering.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being
offended.

If this is true, why haven't you sued your mom?

Why should I let the lawyers get some of the money when all I have to do
is a wait a few years and I will get all of the money.

Makes sense that your mom had only one child after seeing what she
produced.

On 8/1/10 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed
up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is
still after her.


It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be
co-defendants in this slander suit?

Hardly. They didn't start the situation.

If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he
never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat
as Vilsack and Obama.
Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I
also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a
media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for
over reacting before they had the facts.
It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger
things they have done were.

No. He had an agenda.

It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it
really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise.



So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and
firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor
mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants
it.

I bet this suit quietly goes away


The administration apologized several times publicly, and offered here a
new, better job. i doubt she will sue the administration.

Breitbart...he needs to be sued...big time. I have no idea why you are
pushing agenda...and you are.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally
screwed
up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing
is
still after her.


It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be
co-defendants in this slander suit?

If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he
never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat
as Vilsack and Obama.
Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I
also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a
media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for
over reacting before they had the facts.
It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger
things they have done were.

Exactly. Scary huh?





Exactly. You're a moron.



You need to build your vocabulary. You write like a third grader.


You ARE a third grader.

Why don't you call me a bitch or claim I'm a racist. That's always good to
go for you. MORON

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally
screwed
up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing
is
still after her.


It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be
co-defendants in this slander suit?

Hardly. They didn't start the situation.

If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he
never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat
as Vilsack and Obama.
Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I
also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a
media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for
over reacting before they had the facts.
It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger
things they have done were.

No. He had an agenda.

It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it
really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe
otherwise.



You're Right. On the larger scheme of things, this seems to be one of the
administration's lesser mistakes.


I'd even agree with that. The admin has made many mistakes, but in
comparison to the previous administration, they're doing brilliantly. Bush
screwed over this country and Obama is trying to fix it. Mistakes happen,
but Bush's "mistakes" were mostly deliberate.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally
screwed
up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing
is
still after her.


It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be
co-defendants in this slander suit?

Hardly. They didn't start the situation.

If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he
never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat
as Vilsack and Obama.
Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I
also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a
media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for
over reacting before they had the facts.
It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger
things they have done were.

No. He had an agenda.

It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it
really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe
otherwise.



So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and
firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor
mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants
it.

I bet this suit quietly goes away

Yes. In the scheme of national and international affairs, it was a minor
problem. It's not often that the Sec. of Agriculture gets national
attention.

I hope she sues everyone. But, I doubt that it would be considered wrongful
termination, since she was offered a better job (or her old job).

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/31/10 3:35 AM, wrote:



I do wonder what her "damages" actually are. I agree she did have
one
horrible week but now she is the belle of the ball with job offers
coming out of the woodwork.

You're kidding, right? The right-wing slime machine slanders a
woman who had no business being its political target, and you think
she wasn't damaged by that? She was ridiculed on national TV, her
reputation was damaged, she suffered emotional damage, and who
knows what else.


She had no national reputation before this. Now she has a very
good one.



Only for those who actually listen to real news. Anyone listening to
Rush/Faux, etc. would think otherwise.



Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally
screwed up. They've since apologized more than a few times.

Let's not forget that this is the real issue here.


That's one of several issues. The much larger issue is the lack of
intelligence and racial prejudice behind Brietbart and his kind.



Breitbart is merely a small rowboat of enlightenment in a sea of
bureaucratic incompetence.


You're a small moron in a sea of right-wing nutcase morons. What's your
point?

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:22:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:59:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:10:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why was she fired?

--
Me


Because Vilsack and higher ups in the Obama administration totally screwed
up. They've since apologized more than a few times. But, the right-wing is
still after her.


It really begs the question, shouldn't the administration be
co-defendants in this slander suit?

Hardly. They didn't start the situation.

If Breitbart says this edited tape came in over the transom and he
never saw the whole speech either, he ends up being in the same boat
as Vilsack and Obama.
Has he ever admitted he edited the tape? I haven't seen it ... but I
also have not really been paying that much attention to it. This was a
media created event and the administration is as guilty as anyone for
over reacting before they had the facts.
It really makes you question how well thought out some of the bigger
things they have done were.

No. He had an agenda.

It's a pretty minor mistake from the admin in the scheme of things and it
really doesn't say much about anything else. Feel free to believe otherwise.



So you are saying the administration acting on a Fox News story and
firing this woman without doing any investigation was a "minor
mistake"? She certainly has a wrongful termination suit if she wants
it.

I bet this suit quietly goes away

May have been a minor mistake but it was a huge ****up.