Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here...
distribute this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and
pretending
you know what you're talking about.





You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is
clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of
fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no
special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying
"Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the
full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who
think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the
being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the
news...It's not just for liberals anymore!"

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in :

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past 30
years? Real estate?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:25:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here...
distribute this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and
pretending
you know what you're talking about.





You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is
clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of
fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no
special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying
"Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the
full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who
think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the
being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the
news...It's not just for liberals anymore!"

So you political ax is sharpened by the likes of Breitbart.

Thanks for exposing yourself.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I
am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended
to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam
question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least
to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So,
tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute
this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending you
know what you're talking about.




Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the
popcorn please.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:25:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here...
distribute this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and
pretending
you know what you're talking about.





You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is
clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of
fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no
special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying
"Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the
full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who
think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the
being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the
news...It's not just for liberals anymore!"

So you political ax is sharpened by the likes of Breitbart.

Thanks for exposing yourself.

Now we have 3 pseudo lawyers beating on each other. More popcorn please.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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


wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here...
distribute this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and
pretending
you know what you're talking about.





You feel into my trap. The comment about being a racist is
clearly his opinion and opinion is not considered a statement of
fact, especially when the person expressing the opinion has no
special knowledge of the facts. No different than libs saying
"Bush is a murderer" Not to mention the fact that even with the
full video now public, there are plenty of people out there who
think Sherrod is a racist. You just can't get over the fact the
being a conservative a-hole is not against the law. "Slanting the
news...It's not just for liberals anymore!"

Big difference. Bush is a public figure. She wasn't. Thinking someone is a
racist is hugely different that "proving it" with made up or hashed together
stuff.

Here's an example. Breithart said all these words, but obviously to promote
this as the truth would likely be actionable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHN_I...ayer_embedded#!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I
am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended
to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam
question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So,
tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute
this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending
you know what you're talking about.




Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the
popcorn please.

In your case, a moron of one!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I am
a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he intended
to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar exam
question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least
to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So,
tell me, where is the "false
statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past 30
years? Real estate?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

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

wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that I
am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters. So,
tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here... distribute
this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending
you know what you're talking about.




Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass the
popcorn please.

In your case, a moron of one!



Hey. You won't catch me pretending to be a lawyer. I have standards to live
up to.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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

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

wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax .com:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer. Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable. Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls, it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"


"Look what I found... proof that Sherrod is a racist. Here...
distribute this."

Try going to law school instead of copying and pasting, and pretending
you know what you're talking about.




Delicious! One faux lawyer arguing law with another faux lawyer. Pass
the popcorn please.

In your case, a moron of one!



Hey. You won't catch me pretending to be a lawyer. I have standards to
live up to.

Being a moron is a pretty low standard.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

jps wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even
passed the
bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a
lawyer from
my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to
libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed
liable in
the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of
libel?
Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?


Finally a reasonable question. Yes, as a matter of fact, my
practice did in the past include real estate for several years.
Mostly I advised corporations in their business transactions,
contracts, M&A, that sort of thing. For the last ten years I've
been the general counsel of a nationwise logistics company. With
executives spouting their mouths off all over the place, in print
or live, I deal with libel and slander issues all of the time.
Almost anytime someone is fired the issue arises as well. I'm
sure there are bigger experts in the field, but I think I know
the basics and the real world on this issue better the amateurs
on this board. They can question my creditials, or they can learn
a thing or two. And BTW, I consider myself neither conservative
or liberal, more libertarian than anything; socially liberal,
economically conservative. I'm a life long democrat who voted for
Reagan and both Bushs. I don't like left wing democrats or right
wing republicans, but lately the dems bother me more because they
are just as partisan as the GOP, but are hypocrites about it.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in
:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps

wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but
I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never
get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college
and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half
to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to
be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when
the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full
well there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's
the whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

You better watch out, you are libeling me! And I'm pretty sure
I'm not a public figure;-)Please, please tell my boss I'm not a
lawyer. I'm sure he'd fire me without any investigation or even
asking me for an explanation, based on your say so, and then I
can sue you for big damages and finally retire. And I can cite
your own arguments against you just by googling these posts! Oh
boy oh boy, pleeeeeeeze.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:27:37 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even
passed the
bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a
lawyer from
my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to
libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed
liable in
the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of
libel?
Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?


Finally a reasonable question. Yes, as a matter of fact, my
practice did in the past include real estate for several years.
Mostly I advised corporations in their business transactions,
contracts, M&A, that sort of thing. For the last ten years I've
been the general counsel of a nationwise logistics company. With
executives spouting their mouths off all over the place, in print
or live, I deal with libel and slander issues all of the time.
Almost anytime someone is fired the issue arises as well. I'm
sure there are bigger experts in the field, but I think I know
the basics and the real world on this issue better the amateurs
on this board. They can question my creditials, or they can learn
a thing or two. And BTW, I consider myself neither conservative
or liberal, more libertarian than anything; socially liberal,
economically conservative. I'm a life long democrat who voted for
Reagan and both Bushs. I don't like left wing democrats or right
wing republicans, but lately the dems bother me more because they
are just as partisan as the GOP, but are hypocrites about it.

So, you're leaning towards the Naughtzi Party and away from the
Democrats. Interesting.

Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.

And in the meanwhile we can clock some even bigger deficits.

I love it when folks are disgruntled with the party in power and think
by voting for the other guys things will be solved. We've got the
best congress money can buy and nothin' is gonna stop the rape of the
middle class until campaign finance reform is passed.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:27:37 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even
passed the
bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a
lawyer from
my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to
libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed
liable in
the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of
libel?
Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?


Finally a reasonable question. Yes, as a matter of fact, my
practice did in the past include real estate for several years.
Mostly I advised corporations in their business transactions,
contracts, M&A, that sort of thing. For the last ten years I've
been the general counsel of a nationwise logistics company. With
executives spouting their mouths off all over the place, in print
or live, I deal with libel and slander issues all of the time.
Almost anytime someone is fired the issue arises as well. I'm
sure there are bigger experts in the field, but I think I know
the basics and the real world on this issue better the amateurs
on this board. They can question my creditials, or they can learn
a thing or two. And BTW, I consider myself neither conservative
or liberal, more libertarian than anything; socially liberal,
economically conservative. I'm a life long democrat who voted for
Reagan and both Bushs. I don't like left wing democrats or right
wing republicans, but lately the dems bother me more because they
are just as partisan as the GOP, but are hypocrites about it.

So, you're leaning towards the Naughtzi Party and away from the
Democrats. Interesting.

Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.

And in the meanwhile we can clock some even bigger deficits.

I love it when folks are disgruntled with the party in power and think
by voting for the other guys things will be solved. We've got the
best congress money can buy and nothin' is gonna stop the rape of the
middle class until campaign finance reform is passed.


How about some people with integrity.....if they exist?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"jps" wrote in message
...


Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.


Who is proposing "bigger" tax cuts?
All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps

wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but
I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never
get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college
and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half
to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to
be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when
the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full
well there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's
the whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

You better watch out, you are libeling me! And I'm pretty sure
I'm not a public figure;-)Please, please tell my boss I'm not a
lawyer. I'm sure he'd fire me without any investigation or even
asking me for an explanation, based on your say so, and then I
can sue you for big damages and finally retire. And I can cite
your own arguments against you just by googling these posts! Oh
boy oh boy, pleeeeeeeze.


In your professional opinion, do you think Plume is lying about her law
degree?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

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


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:fs0556hdbf63vpsh4hefqnbudfbbr43v2j@4ax. com:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps

wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but
I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never
get to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college
and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half
to pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to
be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when
the day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full
well there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's
the whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a
degree and eveything. I even passed the bar almost 30 years
ago. You
should be able to tell I'm a lawyer
from my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether
he
intended to libel her or not simply
doesn't matter if he never committed liable in the first
place. Bar
exam question: What are the elements
of libel? Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of
the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false
statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?

I can answer that: zero type of law.

You better watch out, you are libeling me! And I'm pretty sure
I'm not a public figure;-)Please, please tell my boss I'm not a
lawyer. I'm sure he'd fire me without any investigation or even
asking me for an explanation, based on your say so, and then I
can sue you for big damages and finally retire. And I can cite
your own arguments against you just by googling these posts! Oh
boy oh boy, pleeeeeeeze.


Oh boy, you're a moron.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

wrote in message
...
jps wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even
passed the
bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a
lawyer from
my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to
libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed
liable in
the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of
libel?
Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? Real estate?


Finally a reasonable question. Yes, as a matter of fact, my
practice did in the past include real estate for several years.
Mostly I advised corporations in their business transactions,
contracts, M&A, that sort of thing. For the last ten years I've
been the general counsel of a nationwise logistics company. With
executives spouting their mouths off all over the place, in print
or live, I deal with libel and slander issues all of the time.
Almost anytime someone is fired the issue arises as well. I'm
sure there are bigger experts in the field, but I think I know
the basics and the real world on this issue better the amateurs
on this board. They can question my creditials, or they can learn
a thing or two. And BTW, I consider myself neither conservative
or liberal, more libertarian than anything; socially liberal,
economically conservative. I'm a life long democrat who voted for
Reagan and both Bushs. I don't like left wing democrats or right
wing republicans, but lately the dems bother me more because they
are just as partisan as the GOP, but are hypocrites about it.

Anyone who believes you're a lawyer is dumber than you.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:34:24 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .


Their plan to invigorate the economy is to give even bigger tax cuts
to the rich. Great plan, eh? Didn't work so well the first time but
maybe if we make the cuts even bigger, it'll have a better effect.


Who is proposing "bigger" tax cuts?
All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

From Huffpost:

After opposing, stalling, stonewalling and filibustering almost every
recession-related bill for the past year, Republican lawmakers have
finally proposed a jobs plan of their own: a bigger, more expensive
version of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

The Economic Freedom Act of 2010 -- introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan
(R-Ohio) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) -- proposes deep tax cuts
favoring the wealthiest in America, a reduction in regulatory
oversight and the elimination of a federal tax on the estates of
millionaires, which will allow wealthy investors to escape taxes
entirely on a significant portion of their income.

Republicans say the bill will create jobs where President Obama's
policies have failed to do so.

"The multi-trillion dollar government stimulus programs and
taxpayer-funded bailouts have failed," reads the bill's official press
release. "A growing private sector economy is the only 'stimulus
program' that will create the jobs needed to restore America's
economic strength."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a conference call on
Tuesday that the GOP's proposal will not only fail to stimulate job
growth, but will triple the deficit by 2015 and devastate an
already-shrinking American middle class.

"The tax cuts they want to give, as usual under Republican policies,
will give 62 percent of the tax cuts to the top 1 percent of
Americans," Hoyer said. "Or said another way, an average $467 tax cut
to working Americans in the middle of the income levels, and to the
top 1 percent earners, an average of $157,000 tax cut, and to Goldman
Sachs, $2.6 billion in tax cuts. When you analyze that, you know what
is happening is the same old Bush policies of advantaging the wealthy
at the expense of the middle income working people and tax cuts which
did not, as they were advertised to, grow the economy and grow jobs.
In fact, they did just the opposite."

Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at the
Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Republican proposal
is "unaffordable on a level we've never seen before."

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry" wrote in news:i3bmfq$b93$1
@news.eternal-september.org:



In your professional opinion, do you think Plume is lying about
her law
degree?


Sad to say, I can't rule out the possibility that she is telling
the truth. In my personal opinion she's awfully frustrated. My
guess is she has the degree, but she's so blinded by anger toward
everything, situation and person, that she hasn't been able to
accomplish anything with it. I've seen the type many times over the
years. Maybe she didn't pass the bar. I'll say one thing, she needs
to find another word for "moron." She's way over the statute of
limitations on that one. A little google action reveals about 170
artices with her as the author and that word used. Oh I have a
synonym for moron: "nom=de=plume."

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Aug 4, 8:53*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



jps wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:22:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

jps wrote in
om:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:32:29 -0700, jps
wrote:

Breitbart is an asshole who should get his ass kicked but I
imagine he
will win on *first amendment grounds.

She's not a public figure and he targeted her specifically
and
unfairly characterized her in order to cause her harm.

That isn't protected under the 1st amendment.

Ha Ha, you poor dumb lame armchair lawyers. It will never get
to
1st amendment, malice or anything else. Truth is complete
defense
to liable. Nothing he posted was untrue. The video was not
edited, it was truncated. There is a huge difference. He
showed
part, but the part he showed was real. She said those
remarks,
and if she took them back five minutes later, that's her
problem.
And she admitted to being a racist when she met the farmer.
Maybe
she reformed, but again, too bad. And then there is the
opinion
defense which probably protects his written comments about
her
being a racist. And BTW, who the **** cares if she was a
public
figure when she made he speech, the question is, is she a
public
figure when the alleged libel was committed. If you're a
public
figure, the media can print stories that you cheated in 2nd
grade
with relative impunity (Bush snorted coke back in college and
deserted the National Guard. BTW, did Dan Rather ever half to
pay
Bush on that one?) If you have any reason to believe it to be
true, even if not, and the "victim" is a public figure, the
public figure is screwed.

Is Shirley Sherrod a public figure? HA! not even debatable.
Of
course she is! She's an appointed government official who's
fitness for her position, not to metion whether she broke
federal
law by discriminating, has been called into question.

This guy has so many defenses, the only issue is if he can't
get
backers and she buries him in legal fees. Otherwise, when the
day
is done, maybe on appeal, he wins hands down. You may hate
him, I
don't particularly like him, but don't kid yourself, he gets
off.

Speaking of armchair lawyers, your rap sounds like it comes
directly
from the comforts of a barcalounger.

He intended to libel her by presenting the purposefully
edited tape
and then characterizing her actions as racist when he knew
full well
there was more to the story.

It's not the editing job alone that hangs him by the balls,
it's the
whole package of mischaracterization and libel.

I do have a very nice recliner, but that doesn't negate the
fact that
I am a real live lawyer with a degree and eveything. I even
passed the
bar almost 30 years ago. You should be able to tell I'm a
lawyer from
my arrogant attitude and didactic tone. Anyway, whether he
intended to
libel her or not simply doesn't matter if he never committed
liable in
the first place. Bar exam question: What are the elements of
libel?
Answer:

1.A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2.The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third
party;
3.If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault
amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4.Damage to the plaintiff.

If you don't get past the first element, then nothing else
matters.
So, tell me, where is the "false statement?"

Please tell us what type of law you've practiced for the past
30
years? *Real estate?

Finally a reasonable question. Yes, as a matter of fact, my
practice did in the past include real estate for several years.
Mostly I advised corporations in their business transactions,
contracts, M&A, that sort of thing. For the last ten years I've
been the general counsel of a nationwise logistics company. With
executives spouting their mouths off all over the place, in print
or live, I deal with libel and slander issues all of the time.
Almost anytime someone is fired the issue arises as well. I'm
sure there are bigger experts in the field, but I think I know
the basics and the real world on this issue better the amateurs
on this board. They can question my creditials, or they can learn
a thing or two. And BTW, I consider myself neither conservative
or liberal, more libertarian than anything; socially liberal,
economically conservative. I'm a life long democrat who voted for
Reagan and both Bushs. I don't like left wing democrats or right
wing republicans, but lately the dems bother me more because they
are just as partisan as the GOP, but are hypocrites about it.

Anyone who believes you're a lawyer is dumber than you.

Anyone who believes you are older than 12 is dumber than you.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On 8/5/10 7:42 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.


Your analogies...suck.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

wrote in message
...
"Harry" wrote in news:i3bmfq$b93$1
@news.eternal-september.org:



In your professional opinion, do you think Plume is lying about
her law
degree?


Sad to say, I can't rule out the possibility that she is telling
the truth. In my personal opinion she's awfully frustrated. My
guess is she has the degree, but she's so blinded by anger toward
everything, situation and person, that she hasn't been able to
accomplish anything with it. I've seen the type many times over the
years. Maybe she didn't pass the bar. I'll say one thing, she needs
to find another word for "moron." She's way over the statute of
limitations on that one. A little google action reveals about 170
artices with her as the author and that word used. Oh I have a
synonym for moron: "nom=de=plume."


Pity she won't see this. Maybe if her name was in the subject line?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 8/5/10 7:42 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.


Your analogies...suck.


It's called leveling the playing field, Obama style.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Yeah, and now Congressman Nader is trying to get an exception for
certain (big donors) in his district... I just don't see how intelligent
Americans don't see this Congress and Administration paying off their
biggest contributors with our money, every frekin' day! Morons...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On 8/5/10 7:42 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.


Your analogies...suck.

So do you, spoofer.

--
The stupider you sound, the more Republican votes you'll get

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:42:41 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.

Dildo-brain. Have you read any of the reports that show the wealthy
gaining ground while the middle and lower income groups are losing
ground?

Is that what you'd call fair?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On 8/5/10 11:49 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:42:41 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.

Dildo-brain. Have you read any of the reports that show the wealthy
gaining ground while the middle and lower income groups are losing
ground?

Is that what you'd call fair?


Individual income over $250000 should be federally taxed at a rate of 49%.

For couples who file jointly, if one of the pair has income over
$250,000, there should be a surtax that taxes *that* income over
$250,000 at the 49% rate.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

"Harry " wrote in message
...
On 8/5/10 11:49 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:42:41 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.

Dildo-brain. Have you read any of the reports that show the wealthy
gaining ground while the middle and lower income groups are losing
ground?

Is that what you'd call fair?


Individual income over $250000 should be federally taxed at a rate of 49%.

For couples who file jointly, if one of the pair has income over $250,000,
there should be a surtax that taxes *that* income over $250,000 at the 49%
rate.


You don't like the idea of graduated tax?

Something like
over 250K 49%
over 200K 45%
over 150K 40%
over 100K 35%
over 90K 30%
over 80K 25%
over 70K 20%
over 60K 15%
over 50K 10%
over 40K 5%
over 30K 4%
over 20K 3%
over 10K 2%
over 5K 1%
0 to 5K .5%
No deductions, no credits, no exemptions.

Wouldn't that be more fair?

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On 8/5/10 11:49 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 07:42:41 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

It is about fairness. If you want a progressive system then my
cheeseburger should cost $2 and your cheeseburger schould cost $6. My
house should cost $250K and your house, exactly the same and right next
door to mine, should cost $2M. And, the car I paid $20K for should cost
you $100K. You have the money and you can afford to pay more for these
things so you should. Just take all the money over what I pay as a tax.

Just think when you go to the grocery store there are no prices on
items. But, when you get to the checkout counter and all of your items
have been scanned, you enter your SSN, and the computer figures out what
you can afford to pay and charges you that amount.

Dildo-brain. Have you read any of the reports that show the wealthy
gaining ground while the middle and lower income groups are losing
ground?

Is that what you'd call fair?


Individual income over $250000 should be federally taxed at a rate of 49%.

For couples who file jointly, if one of the pair has income over
$250,000, there should be a surtax that taxes *that* income over
$250,000 at the 49% rate.

You can sure tell that this spoofer doesn't make over $250k!

--
The stupider you sound, the more Republican votes you'll get

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:04:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:43:56 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

Because nothing is that simple in Washington. To do anything with the
original tax cut legislation they have to pass a new bill and to get
that done they have to make 217 congressmen and 60 senators happy.
These days it seems to take at least 2000 pages of unintelligible
language that nobody reads, before the vote on, for that.
Do you have any idea how many special interests it takes to elect 277
people to congress? The answer is in the tax code. That is why it is
the size of a dozen big city phone books.

Well then, I say let 'em all go fallow. It was fairer the way it was
prior to Bush's tax cuts for his "base."

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:14:52 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:55:09 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:04:17 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:43:56 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:18:15 -0700, jps wrote:

All I've heard about are proposals to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Oh no, they want to make 'em bigger!!!!

I have heard some convincing arguments that they should just let them
all expire. Anything else will require another 2000 page bill with
loopholes for someone.

Why wouldn't they simply renew the cuts for all but the top %?

You mean they wouldn't leave well enough alone?

Because nothing is that simple in Washington. To do anything with the
original tax cut legislation they have to pass a new bill and to get
that done they have to make 217 congressmen and 60 senators happy.
These days it seems to take at least 2000 pages of unintelligible
language that nobody reads, before the vote on, for that.
Do you have any idea how many special interests it takes to elect 277
people to congress? The answer is in the tax code. That is why it is
the size of a dozen big city phone books.

Well then, I say let 'em all go fallow.


That was the argument I heard. The advantage is, it requires nothing
be done to accomplish it and that is what this congress does best ...
nothing.
The only problem is everyone will get a tax hike and that will be
regressive.
Personally I don't think we pay enough to support what the government
spends and most of the future spending is not discretionary.

On this we agree. A pleasure to be in good company.

Breitbart to be sued by Sherrod
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:15:45 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

You don't like the idea of graduated tax?

Something like
over 250K 49%
over 200K 45%
over 150K 40%
over 100K 35%
over 90K 30%
over 80K 25%
over 70K 20%
over 60K 15%
over 50K 10%
over 40K 5%
over 30K 4%
over 20K 3%
over 10K 2%
over 5K 1%
0 to 5K .5%
No deductions, no credits, no exemptions.

Wouldn't that be more fair?


With no credits, deductions or exemptions, those rates could be quite
a bit lower (maybe 30% less) and still meet the revenue goals but we
would not be stimulating the things the tax code currently induces.
This is more of a social incentive code than a tax code. That is why
it is so big. We use the tax code to encourage people to do things a
law could not make them do.

Why not have everyone pay 15% income tax, 15% dividend tax, 15% interest
tax, 15% capital gains tax. Everyone is treated the same, equal. It
seems like the 14th amendment has come up quite a bit lately and it
should be applied to the tax code.