Andrew Breitbart Getting Sued by Sherrod Yesssssssssss!!!!!

Funny, I always thought it was the frat boys on campus with the silver spoons in their mouths. Feel free to post whatever timeline you want. I don't work for you.

 

1.) Shows what happens when you start categorizing people particularly when you interject your own prejudice.
2.) She was no more slandered than you slandered Beck. See http://www.prweforum.com/politics/2...t-why-have-liberal-pudits-not.html#post295723. Both clips are exact quotes from the originator.
3.) The order was Breitbart's video, WH firing, and then Fox ran with the news about the firing. Go look it up.

 

Oh there is prejudice here without a doubt but let us not go there just yet.

Oh I see. "I slandered Beck" That is your justification for defending Breitbart? Well, let us hope I don't get a subpoena to testify at Breitbarts trial. This is just unreal stupidity.

Again, the firing is not the issue of this legal battle. The slander is. Remember? Political appointee and all. Sherrod serves at the pleasure of her boss. What part of that confuses you?

 

I am glad to see you take the first step to ridding yourself of you prejudice. At least you finally are admitting it.

"He posted a doctored video and then Fox picked it up and ran with it." So now I guess you are admitting that this statement was wrong

Remember; "and the company you work for fires you when they hear about the accusation, which party would you sue?" You brought up the firing and the false timing.

 

Just keep saying to yourselves, the both of you, Political Appointee, Political Appointee, Political Appointee, Political Appointee...maybe it will sink in eventually.

 

You mean she's another one of BO's czars?

 

Uh, Moen... I think the correct term would be "libel" instead of "slander". Libel is printed or, in some states, broadcast defamation--an expression of printed words and statements that damage a person's community standing and integrity by attacking the individual's character or professional abilities. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof and therefore must show that libel did in fact occur.

 

I looked up several news stories and they either said slander, libel, or slander/libel. I think this cross the line between slander and libel but I'm no legal expert so have it whichever way you want it.

 

Perhaps you didn't know this but every time a new president is elected, roughly 2500 political appointees look for new jobs. Does this mean that the new president fired 2500 people on his first day? Sherrod couldn't sue Vilsack's office if she wanted to. She is a political APPOINTEE!!!

Why anyone would defend what Breitbart tried to do can only be related to their own prejudices as far as I can tell. Sherrod was wronged by Breitbart and she isn't suing to get her job back, she is suing Breitbart as her lawyer put it: [I]"for libel, defamation and slander. Sherrod's lawyer released a statement saying that the lawsuit is not about right versus left, the NAACP or the tea party. The lawsuit, however, is about today's internet environment and how quickly a person's good name can become collateral damage in an overheated political debate"[/I]

Spin all you want. This is about Breitbart plain and simple.

 

......and the reason you posted this thread in the first place is because of your politics.....I'll say it again, if there wasn't something to the story the WH wouldn't have taken the action it did. Or are the decision makers there so stupid that they would fall for what you claim is a misleading piece of video. Which scenario do you think is the truth here?

 

Oh, but the WH was that stupid and they offered her job (or another, I don't remember for sure) back.

 

Dr moen loves to tell us how stupid everyone else is because they listen to conservative reporters & bloggers and fall for what these commentators are putting forth. Well, it appears the WH is just as guilty, doesn't it? What does that say about BO and his partners in crime?

 

How many time can you make the same irrelevant point? Whether the WH acted without knowing the whole truth or not is meaningless to this lawsuit. You continue to focus on the White House's role because you can't address the real issue which is Breitbart's illegal tactics. Breitbart is a sleaze ball and you are defending his highly unethical illegal methods beyond all reason. You can't even bring yourself to discuss the merits of the lawsuit because you know how indefensible your stance really is. You are so transparently biased that making any comment on Breitbart's tactics is beyond your capability to defend it. When the case is eventually settled in a court of law, no matter which way the decision falls, you'll still defend Breitbart's reprehensible tactics because he is a fringe Right winger like yourself. I will continue defend the American values of truth, honesty, and the right to not have your name dragged through the mud maliciously and on false accusations without consequences. What values are you defending here?

 

So just where did you get your juris doctorate?

Anyway, one thing I have learned is the the truth is an absolute defense to libel. i.e Sherrod has to prove that Breitbart lied or did not tell the truth, if you prefer. Since all Breitbart did was to release film of her giving a speech, Sherrod is going to have to prove that she did not say what she was filmed saying. Uhm, that is going to be interesting.

Back to my earlier post you evaded so deftly, just where is there a bit of difference between what Breitbart did and what the young turks (and hence you) did to Beck? Both are just clips of what the "defendant" is saying. I would really appreciate it if you could take a couple minutes out of you busy day and use your juris doctorate to explain that to me.

BTW, just when did you become so patriotic? Oh! I see. You defend everything except the American Constitutuion. I guess that is how you can justify your stand on this, Obamacare, and most the rest of your rants.

 

You are simply defending a sleaze bag who employs underhanded tactics to further his ideology or simply line his pockets. If you choose to side with him, you are really no different that he is. A sleaze bag.

 

No answers so you through out insults. Just the usual tripe.

 

Like I said, Brietbart will win. The Alinski tactic used by Moen is " if you cannot beat with them facts, just beat them ", attack the person , marginlize them, single them out. Moen cannot beat Brietbart with facts, and the Alinski model he is using is backfiring badly.

Sorry Moen, I like you, but you are badly beaten in several threads here as of late. Your on the wrong side of current events, and soon to be on the wrong side of history. But , you are a good captain, at least you are going down with the ship.

 

One thing you learn in debate is to never let your opponent determine the winner. Republicans have been on the wrong side of the debate, on gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, voter rights, and you name it. If I simply went with with the historical odds, I couldn't go wrong. I'll take that risk.

 

You might want to jump ship now, Moen:

GAY RIGHTS:

The Republican Party has moved steadily to the left on gay rights. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) invited gay Republican groups to its annual meeting in February. In February well-known GOP consultant Mary Matalin (a veteran of the Bush-Cheney team) will host the first Washington fundraiser for the gay Republican group GOProud. (Prominent conservatives Andrew Breitbart and Grover Norquist sit on the board at GOProud. And Ann Coulter did a fundraiser for the group last year.). During the lame duck Congressional session last year, 15 House Republicans and eight Senate Republicans crossed over to support a repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" that banned gays from serving openly in the military. Gay groups say their initial whip counts were much lower. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) accepted an award from the Log Cabin Republicans in September, becoming the highest-ranking Republican to do so. National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) invited gay groups to meet-and-greets with the party's "Young Guns" candidates last cycle, and the groups have been included in meetings with all three major party campaign committees. Former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman came out as gay in August and began a push to legalize same-sex marriage. Now, though, gay rights issues are largely under the national political radar. And Christopher Barron, chairman of the board at GOProud, said that has worked in his favor. He said his group launched at an "unbelievably fortuitous" time in 2009, given that another movement was sprouting that was generally indifferent to social issues. "Our organization got started at the exact same time that the tea party movement was getting started," Barron said. "It was a natural fit, because the party has been laser-focused on fiscal issues. There's been no interest in going back to the well on the social issues." There's also the matter of how well those so-called "wedge" issues work. While abortion remains a pretty potent point of debate in American society, Republicans and GOP-leaning independents have moved steadily toward accepting gay rights in recent years.

CIVIL RIGHTS:

Individual rights – and the responsibilities that go with them – are the foundation of a free society. From the time of Lincoln, equality of individuals has been a cornerstone of the Republican Party. Our commitment to equal opportunity extends from landmark school-choice legislation for the students of Washington D.C. to historic appointments at the highest levels of government. We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes. We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance. As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Precisely because we oppose discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides, whether in education or in corporate boardrooms. The government should not make contracts on this basis, and neither should corporations. We support efforts to help low-income individuals get a fair shot based on their potential and merit, and we affirm the common-sense approach of the Chief Justice of the United States: that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating.

WOMEN'S (and MINORITIES) RIGHTS:

The Republican Party was the first major U. S. political party to promote and defend the rights of women, including the right to equal pay for equal work. The Republican Party has historically supported the civil rights of African Americans. The Civil War was waged under a Republican president in order to abolish slavery and protect the unity of the United States. In 1856, only five years prior to the outbreak of that war, the Republican Party was founded and its main motivation was the abolition of slavery. The Republican Party fought against the Democratic Party, which opposed equal rights for blacks with its alliance with the Ku Klux Klan and its passage of the Jim Crow laws.

In 1848, the Women’s Right Convention took place in Seneca Falls, New York; thus began the women’s suffrage movement in the United States. A national meeting was held in 1850 in Worcester, Massachusetts; then, in 1870, suffragettes Lucy Stone and Mary Livermore were seated as delegates at the Massachusetts Republican State Convention.

In 1872 at the Republican National Convention, a resolution was passed supporting admission of women “to wider fields of usefulness.” In addition to this resolution was the declaration that “the honest demand of this class of citizens for additional rights . . . should be treated with respectful consideration.” Just as the Republican Party was responsible for promoting and defending the civil right of blacks against the Democratic Party, which fought to retain the second-class citizenship of African Americans, the Republican Party has also been the party of equal opportunity for women. Therese Jenkins and Cora Carleton became the first two women to be seated as alternate delegates at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis in 1892. Also at this convention for the first time, a woman gave an address. The speaker was J. Ellen Foster, who chaired the Women’s Republican Association of the United States.

VOTER RIGHTS:

Republican Senator A. A. Sargent of California pioneered the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1878. Encouraged by Susan B. Anthony, Sargent’s amendment was also called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Unfortunately, a Democrat controlled senate defeated the passage of the amendment four times. Only after the Republicans won control of congress in 1919 did the Equal Suffrage Amendment pass. It found favor in the House of Representatives in May and then passed the Senate in June.

As the 19th Amendment was circulating for ratification, the states with Republican legislatures passed the amendment. Thirty-six states ratified the Amendment. Twenty-six states had Republican legislatures and easily ratified the Amendment. Nine states voted against its ratification—eight of those states had Democratic legislatures.

Even before the Amendment was part of the Constitution, twelve states, all with Republican congresses, had conferred suffrage rights on women. The 19th Amendment entered the Constitution August 26, 1920, after Tennessee, the last state to do so, ratified the Amendment.

 

Most of what you are referencing is ancient history. The party of Lincoln is long dead. If today's Republicans were to go back in history, they would be wearing the colors of the Confederate Army. The South was mainly Democrats after the Civil War because they couldn't stand the thought of being in the Republican Party of Lincoln that had thoroughly destroyed them. The only thing that brought them into the ranks of the Republican Party was when northern Democrats under Eisenhower pushed for civil rights. The constituencies of both parties have changed significantly since the Civil War. You are lying to yourself and us if you really believe that the constituencies in the Republican Party today have any interest in women's rights, minority rights, voting rights, etc. based on their past. You only have to look at their stand on gays in the military, restrictions on women’s reproductive rights, and the fact that minorities in the ranks of the Republican tent are about as scarce as palm trees in the arctic. In other words, don’t look backwards if you want the truth, look around you.