"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/31/10 3:00 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

Bert received his education as an enlistee in the marines, where he spent
many hours studying the ins and outs of our legal system, including the
important aspect of defamation of character.

Bertie's boy Breitbart is going to have a hard time defending the malice
behind his actions. To get off the hook for what he did, the acts have to
be "absent malice."

Whoops.

And Breitbart's previous incidents of faking news with malicious intent
will be part of the defamation trial, if there is one.

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

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 3:14 pm, TopBassDog wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry
if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

Of course, I find that I made an obvious error in typing the word,
"statement." So therefore i am lowering myself to your level,
D'Plume.

Don't you feel fortunate?

I really am not concerned with your typos. And, yes, I feel fortunate
about that.





--
Me

On Jul 31, 5:13*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 8aa22b4c-90d9-49f1-a8e6-e9915bcbb5d7
@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jul 31, 2:13*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I am so sorry but I have to cite you for unmanly use of the letter "U".
Please refrain from that tooty fruity spelling here in this here news
group! Save it for Bonnie and his daughter...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

I can't resist. I'm Canadian, eh?

On Jul 31, 5:11*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...



On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry if
you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I'm sure you didn't attend at all! Ouch, that had to sting. Sorry!

Sting? Is that what I was supposed to feel? Try harder D'Plume.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

How are those fine German screwdrivers working out for you?

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:04:15 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:17:05 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:30:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.


And Breitbart has done nothing that other press and media outlets have
not already done.

You really do need to step back, take a deep breath and take an
objective look at the situation. There is nothing criminal or civilly
wrong with Breitbart's actions.

And your JD comes from which institution?

The same place as yours!

The only media that does this kind of hit piece" journalism" is Fux
Entertainment. Since that's all you watch I understand why you think
it's done by all media.

My JD comes from life as an entreprenuer and generalist, dealing with
everything a business owner/operator in high tech faces including
intellectual property, business compliance and practices, corporate
fiduciary responsibilities and management. Yours comes from standing
in the dole queue at whatever employer was willing to exploit you for
your limited talent.

How are those fine German screwdrivers working out for you?

They're brilliant, unlike you.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 5:11 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...



On Jul 31, 2:13 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in message

...

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

The lawyer gets 100% of the legal fees of the defendant and the
plaintiff's lawyer gets a piece of the judgement.,

Big difference... they incurred cost, so they shouldn't be
reimbursed?
The plaintiff's lawyer's judgment portion is a negotiated %. Sorry
if
you
don't like it.

You no comprende English?

--
Me

You stupid? Si!

"You stupid? Si!"

Brilliant statemen, D'Plume. I'm sure you graduated University with
top honours

I'm sure you didn't attend at all! Ouch, that had to sting. Sorry!

Sting? Is that what I was supposed to feel? Try harder D'Plume.

Yes, we know you're an unfeeling racist/moron. Next question.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

I agree. They really blew it. What they did from top to Vilack was was dumb,
dumb, dumb.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:04:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:37 -0500, Jim wrote:

jps wrote:


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

Doofus Breitbart was all over TV in an interview claiming Sherrod was
making racist statements. This after the entire tape was out.
So you might be right about the totality of it.
Still tough to see how Brietbart can be held responsible for much of it.
The worst offense was by Obama's White House forcing her to resign.
That's what caused her the most damage, and that's who the suit should
be aimed at.
Brietbart isn't worth the effort.
Without the White House the story wouldn't have made it past the
right-wingnuts.
Only way most here would even know about Breitbart's BS is Scotty
relaying the story as truth from Billo and Glen.
And they'd all have shortly been made laughing stocks.
Nope, the White House is the most culpable culprit here.
Wonder who made the call. Emmanuel, Obama, Jarrett?
Probably all of them.
What a pack of suckers.

Jim - They should remember,

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

I agree that the whitehouse ****ed up, in the very same way they and
the congress ****ed up when Breitbart scammed them on the Acorn
fiasco.

They're so quick to want to sweep any controversy away that they get
suckered with bad info. I think it was Vilsack who screwed the pooch.

In any case, it puts the whitehouse in a bad light.

I agree. They really blew it. What they did from top to Vilack was was dumb,
dumb, dumb.

They're trigger happy with their own and gun shy with the enemy.

Seems bassackwards. Need to reinstall balls on the Democrats.

Time for a Grayson pep talk.