"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/30/10 7:34 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Sherrod resigned. She wasn't fired or otherwise forced out. If she has
a
suite it is with OMB.

If the press was sued for printing half the story they would not exist
any more regardless of whether you classify them as main stream media
or
another type of media.

She was pressured into resigning as a result of a false smear
perpetrated by Breitbart.

She was pressured into resiging by a knee-jerk reaction by Obama and
Vislack, both of whom are Democrats.

Her only quarrel seems to be with the asshole who smeared her
unfairly.

Her quarrel seems to be with herself and how she is a racist.

That's the beauty of a free society. You get to choose who you sue
and for what reasons. If this scum bag hadn't have purposefully
targeted her with concocted accusations, her life and employ would
have continued undisturbed.

You mean if she had kept her mouth shut and not outed herself as a
racist.

Breitbart has it coming. Perhaps it'll be a lesson to he and others
who think they can smear people with impunity.

Sherrod is the cause of all of her problems. The fact that the cleansing
light of sunshine and transparency has cleaned another racist out of
government is a plus in my book.


You really, truly *are* an ignorant ass.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:34:22 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
Sherrod resigned. She wasn't fired or otherwise forced out. If she has a
suite it is with OMB.

If the press was sued for printing half the story they would not exist
any more regardless of whether you classify them as main stream media or
another type of media.

She was pressured into resigning as a result of a false smear
perpetrated by Breitbart.

She was pressured into resiging by a knee-jerk reaction by Obama and
Vislack, both of whom are Democrats.

Her only quarrel seems to be with the asshole who smeared her
unfairly.

Her quarrel seems to be with herself and how she is a racist.

That's the beauty of a free society. You get to choose who you sue
and for what reasons. If this scum bag hadn't have purposefully
targeted her with concocted accusations, her life and employ would
have continued undisturbed.

You mean if she had kept her mouth shut and not outed herself as a
racist.

You are a stupid idiot, which is not a fresh pronouncement.

She was found to be anything but racist but you're too much of an ass
to listen to the whole story since it doesn't support your simple
conclusion.

All these years of wisely ignoring you and I wasted my time reading
your predictable drivel.

My bad.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:34:22 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
Sherrod resigned. She wasn't fired or otherwise forced out. If she has a
suite it is with OMB.

If the press was sued for printing half the story they would not exist
any more regardless of whether you classify them as main stream media or
another type of media.

She was pressured into resigning as a result of a false smear
perpetrated by Breitbart.

She was pressured into resiging by a knee-jerk reaction by Obama and
Vislack, both of whom are Democrats.

Her only quarrel seems to be with the asshole who smeared her
unfairly.

Her quarrel seems to be with herself and how she is a racist.

That's the beauty of a free society. You get to choose who you sue
and for what reasons. If this scum bag hadn't have purposefully
targeted her with concocted accusations, her life and employ would
have continued undisturbed.

You mean if she had kept her mouth shut and not outed herself as a
racist.

You are a stupid idiot, which is not a fresh pronouncement.

She was found to be anything but racist but you're too much of an ass
to listen to the whole story since it doesn't support your simple
conclusion.

All these years of wisely ignoring you and I wasted my time reading
your predictable drivel.

My bad.

Any organization that promotes one race over another race is a racist
organization. If it is fair to have an NAACP then it is fair to have an
NAAAP, NAAEP, .... What is the criteria for creating a race based
organization?

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are racist. Membership in
that organization has nothing to do with the constituency of the member
but the race of the member himself. Are we not a representative
republic?

What will be the excuse of the people in the world when poverty still
exists once the people of the world have truly jumped into the melting
pot. Will the distinctions be the varying shades of browness?

"BAR" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
Sherrod resigned. She wasn't fired or otherwise forced out. If she has a
suite it is with OMB.

If the press was sued for printing half the story they would not exist
any more regardless of whether you classify them as main stream media or
another type of media.

She was pressured into resigning as a result of a false smear
perpetrated by Breitbart.

She was pressured into resiging by a knee-jerk reaction by Obama and
Vislack, both of whom are Democrats.

Her only quarrel seems to be with the asshole who smeared her
unfairly.

Her quarrel seems to be with herself and how she is a racist.

That's the beauty of a free society. You get to choose who you sue
and for what reasons. If this scum bag hadn't have purposefully
targeted her with concocted accusations, her life and employ would
have continued undisturbed.

You mean if she had kept her mouth shut and not outed herself as a
racist.

Breitbart has it coming. Perhaps it'll be a lesson to he and others
who think they can smear people with impunity.

Sherrod is the cause of all of her problems. The fact that the cleansing
light of sunshine and transparency has cleaned another racist out of
government is a plus in my book.

You're a racist moron. That pretty much sums it up.

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.

i dont think 1st amendment will enter into it. libel requires intent.
breitbart's an idiot, but it probably wasnt his INTENT to libel her.

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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.

i dont think 1st amendment will enter into it. libel requires intent.
breitbart's an idiot, but it probably wasnt his INTENT to libel her.

Ummm... he's stated as much. Think foot-mouth.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
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.

i dont think 1st amendment will enter into it. libel requires intent.
breitbart's an idiot, but it probably wasnt his INTENT to libel her.

Ummm... he's stated as much. Think foot-mouth.

gee. it would be an early birthday present to me to see him get
bitchslapped in court.

wrote in message
...
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.


Doubtful. This was likely a willful act designed to "ruin" her. That's not
protected by the First.

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.

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.