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

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

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


wrote in message
om...
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).



She was fired before she was offered a job. She should sue the nuts off
every administration official who requested her to resign. That goes for
the
superiors that ordered the request as well. I wish Bama and the rest of
his
crew were held accountable for all their blunders.
Want to do some pro bono work to help her out? Didn't think so.



Want to stop being a racist/liar? Didn't think so.



You are such a juvenile.

"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
...

"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?



I'm surprised that such a straightforward comment went right over your
head. Whoosh, if you will.


I'm not surprised you're a moron and neither is anyone else. Whoosh...



Totally lame response. It's no wonder you couldn't make it as a lawyer.

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's
a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to
ring the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he
did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.



It's in Obama's best interest that this whole mess be quietly swept under
the rug.

On 8/2/10 5:35 AM, Harry ?? wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700,
wrote:

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).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's
a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to
ring the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he
did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.



It's in Obama's best interest that this whole mess be quietly swept under
the rug.




That's our flajim...always looking out for the best interests of
President Obama. Right. Eat **** and die, dirtbag.

On 8/2/10 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700,
wrote:

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).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's
a
vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring
the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he
did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because
of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.


Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's
investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will
invariably end up being about the 1st amendment.
I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose
and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than
Flynt's case.

I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have
anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person.
He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to be
told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not
clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing it.


Perhaps you are not old enough to remember what the offensive material
was. Flynt did not go to court over the beaver pictures. It was a
cartoon series he did that alleged that Jerry Falwell was a pedophile
and had an incestuous relationship with his mother.
After it was all over they actually became friends in a strange way.


I believe it was a fake ad in Hustler magazine. It wouldn't surprise me
to learn that Falwell was a pedophile who had an incestuous relationship
with his mother. Flynt is an honest sleaze; Falwell was a hypocritical one.

In article ,
says...

On 8/2/10 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700,
wrote:

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).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's
a
vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to ring
the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what he
did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because
of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.


Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's
investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will
invariably end up being about the 1st amendment.
I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose
and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than
Flynt's case.

I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have
anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person.
He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to be
told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not
clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing it.


Perhaps you are not old enough to remember what the offensive material
was. Flynt did not go to court over the beaver pictures. It was a
cartoon series he did that alleged that Jerry Falwell was a pedophile
and had an incestuous relationship with his mother.
After it was all over they actually became friends in a strange way.


I believe it was a fake ad in Hustler magazine. It wouldn't surprise me
to learn that Falwell was a pedophile who had an incestuous relationship
with his mother. Flynt is an honest sleaze; Falwell was a hypocritical one.

Hey, spoofer, my little buddy Don just stated that if you say things
like that YOU are the one with those thoughts. So, that being said, how
was your "incestuous relationship" with your mother?

"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
...

"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



I'm trying to be nice to you.


You're not trying to be a moron. You are a moron.



Really toots, you don't make any sense. Maybe you need therapy.


Really moron, you are one. Maybe you need a brain transplant.

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

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

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


wrote in message
news:fhe956pm6s118n8ieamm2oh3e88l402h0s@4ax. com...
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).



She was fired before she was offered a job. She should sue the nuts off
every administration official who requested her to resign. That goes for
the
superiors that ordered the request as well. I wish Bama and the rest of
his
crew were held accountable for all their blunders.
Want to do some pro bono work to help her out? Didn't think so.



Want to stop being a racist/liar? Didn't think so.



You are such a juvenile.


Poor baby. Don't like me? Fine with me! Don't read my posts.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:07:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen.
There's
a
vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to
ring
the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what
he
did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because
of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.


Why would anyone want to open their life up to a defense lawyer's
investigators on the chance they might win a civil suit that will
invariably end up being about the 1st amendment.
I think you will be surprised at the people who will hold their nose
and support Breitbart. This is certainly not more disgusting than
Flynt's case.

I'm continually surprised by people. However, it really doesn't have
anything to do with a level of disgust. Flynt wasn't lying about a person.
He was publishing "offensive" material. Breitbart lied or caused lies to
be
told about a person. It may end up as a 1st Amend. argument, but it's not
clear that will fly. We'll see. Sounds like she's adamant about pursuing
it.


Perhaps you are not old enough to remember what the offensive material
was. Flynt did not go to court over the beaver pictures. It was a
cartoon series he did that alleged that Jerry Falwell was a pedophile
and had an incestuous relationship with his mother.
After it was all over they actually became friends in a strange way.

Falwell was a public figure. It was a spoof not a lie. There's a big
difference.

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

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 10:31:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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).

That gets back to my question, what were the damages? She will end up
with a whole lot better job than she would have ever got from
diligence and hard work. Her slandered reputation only lasted a couple
days and now she is totally vindicated.

She's only been "vindicated" by people who are willing to listen. There's
a vast community of people (as demonstrated on this ng) who continue to
ring the "she's a racist" bell.

She would get a lot more respect by just saying Breitbart is an
insignificant weasel who nobody should have ever listened to and who
should never be trusted again. Then move on as the winner.

Respect from whom? He needs to get the message that's not ok to do what
he did. Nothing like a lawsuit to do this.

That is a whole lot better than a law suit that might turn up more
tapes. Breitbart will be hiring a lawyer too you know.


More tapes... so this is the right wing refrain. She should be quiet
because of something she might have (even likely) did. BS.



It's in Obama's best interest that this whole mess be quietly swept under
the rug.


Wow.. you're really working overtime to spoof Harry. You must be infatuated
with him. Harry... keep your back to the wall!