"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.


It's refreshing to see you libbers telling the truth about this situation.

"jps" wrote in message
...
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.

Definitely.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"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.


It's refreshing to see you libbers telling the truth about this situation.


Oh go away. You're a moron. You have no credibility and you lie over an
over.

In article ,
says...

On 7/31/10 3:13 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!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Then quit doing it, spoofer.

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
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.


Cool! You gave yourself a JD.

Spoofer alert! *I* gave myself a degree from Yale that doesn't exist, so
who am I to call out others for doing the same?

On 8/2/10 8:28 AM, Harry? wrote:
In ,
says...

On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harry wrote in message
...
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!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Then quit doing it, spoofer.


The ID Spoofer apparently doesn't realize how lame his spoofing makes
him look.

Well, what would you expect from LimpDick Jim, the retired navy paint
chipper.

"Harry?" wrote in message
...
: In article ,
: says...
:
: On 7/31/10 3:13 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!
:
:
:
: Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
: such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.
:
: Then quit doing it, spoofer.

My brother is quite perturbed by all of you guys using similar monikers.

In article ,
says...

On 8/2/10 8:28 AM, Harry? wrote:
In ,
says...

On 7/31/10 3:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Harry wrote in message
...
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!



Stupid is only the beginning of his problems. Imagine, if you can, being
such a loser that you have to post here with someone else's ID.

Then quit doing it, spoofer.


The ID Spoofer apparently doesn't realize how lame his spoofing makes
him look.

Well, what would you expect from LimpDick Jim, the retired navy paint
chipper.

Actually, spoofer, you are bringing up a good point. People spoof the
real me because I'm such a lying, insulting, nasty piece of thrash and I
don't even realize it.

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?"

wrote in message
...
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?"


"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.