RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video

RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Louve00 -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 5:49:49 AM)
So, if she said she wouldn't sue unless she has cause, someone has obviously been counseling her. My feelings on this is if it happened to any one of us here, we'd be looking for retribution. That she may be too bothers us?

Lucylastic -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 5:51:26 AM)
lets face it Louve, suing him isnt gonna do anything, but give him publicity. There is retribution for her but it wont be thru the courts

Louve00 -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 6:03:43 AM)
Well, thats true too. In fact, thanks to media getting the untruths sorted and reported right, her retribution is already turning to a good karma for her. (But if it were me, I'd want cold hard cash! LOL)

servantforuse -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 6:43:04 AM)
Almost everything politcal seen on you tube has been edited in some way or another.

Owner59 -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 7:14:29 AM)
Right,..... the woman bravely recounts her hard dark journey from a place of bitterness and hard feelings after her father`s murder,.....before getting to a place where she changed her heart and feelings towards whites and you guys cut the tape early. And then purposely title and couch the video with commentary to slander that woman That wasn`t "editing"......that was character assassination.

thishereboi -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 7:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Right,..... the woman bravely recounts her hard dark journey from from a place of bitterness and hard feelings after her father`s murder,.....before getting to a place where she changed her heart and feelings towards whites and you guys cut the tape early. And then purposely title and couch the video with commentary to slander that woman That wasn`t "editing"......that was character assassination. You guys? I believe it was Andrew Breitbart who edited the tape. In fact that was what the OP claimed. But as usual, instead of going after the asshat who is guilty in all this, you try to twist it around to attack a whole group of people. Tell us the truth joether is really one of your sock puppets, isn't he. You can try, but you can't hide that kind of hate.

Lucylastic -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 7:20:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Almost everything politcal seen on you tube has been edited in some way or another. \Who on earth takes youtube vid as proof positive of anything. Youtube isnt the issue, Breitbart is worse than youtube is what you are saying yes???

thishereboi -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 7:22:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Almost everything politcal seen on you tube has been edited in some way or another. \Who on earth takes youtube vid as proof positive of anything. Youtube isnt the issue, Breitbart is worse than youtube is what you are saying yes??? Actually I could give you a couple names, but I think that violates TOS, so I will just wait for them to post another example.

truckinslave -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 7:37:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Well, thats true too. In fact, thanks to media getting the untruths sorted and reported right, her retribution is already turning to a good karma for her. (But if it were me, I'd want cold hard cash! LOL) I commented in another post in another thread that Andy always seems to have another video. There are rumblings that this story may go far deeper than the Sherrod supporters imagine. Some of these rumblings can be found here, in a piece by Jack Cashill. Shirley may not be quite the postracial naif she portrays, and she may not be ready for the next move in this piece. My money is on AB.

Owner59 -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:03:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Right,..... the woman bravely recounts her hard dark journey from from a place of bitterness and hard feelings after her father`s murder,.....before getting to a place where she changed her heart and feelings towards whites and you guys cut the tape early. And then purposely title and couch the video with commentary to slander that woman That wasn`t "editing"......that was character assassination. You guys? I believe it was Andrew Breitbart who edited the tape. In fact that was what the OP claimed. But as usual, instead of going after the asshat who is guilty in all this, you try to twist it around to attack a whole group of people. Tell us the truth joether is really one of your sock puppets, isn't he. You can try, but you can't hide that kind of hate. Bitefart,foxnews and the regurgitaters here and the defenders.That would be you,the defender part. Does that narrow it down for ya?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:19:53 AM)
1. She will lose 2. She is still a racist. Her epihphany story is totally negated by the rest of her comments.

LadyEllen -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:27:53 AM)
From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation. He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation. Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs. Next case E

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:38:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation. He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation. Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs. Next case E She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit. She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd. She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

truckinslave -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation. He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation. Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs. Next case E I might well agree with you if the case was being tried in London, and had the video not been edited before AB got it, and if AB had not consistently said his purpose was to expose the NAACP (not Sherrod) as racist, and, oh well, never mind....

LadyPact -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Slight hijack...but "cocksucker" isn't really that much of an insult on these boards now is it[;)] It certainly shouldn't be used in a derogatory manner, as being displayed here. Whether the guy actually does suck cock or not has nothing to do with the thread whatsoever.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 8:50:57 AM)
Dont rain on his parade. He thinks it makes him sound manly, instead of the insipid wretch that he is.

rulemylife -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 9:00:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I imagine she thinks that suing Andy will both extend her 15 minutes and further her standing with her ideologues. When do you think Andy's 15 minutes will end? The only credibility he has left is with true believers like you.

LadyPact -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 9:11:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Dont rain on his parade. He thinks it makes him sound manly, instead of the insipid wretch that he is. My mistake. I thought we were on a BDSM site that positively promotes the alternative sexuality and lifestyles of others. Promote a partial tape that skews the content so that the person appears racist - not ok. Announce someone's sexual activities with a member of the same gender, whether they are true or not - perfectly ok. Got it.

truckinslave -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 9:13:10 AM)
quote: When do you think Andy's 15 minutes will end? It will end when he no longer can make liberals howl and snap like rabid mice.

domiguy -> RE: Shirley Sherrod To Sue Cocksucker Over Edited Video (7/30/2010 9:22:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Oh, I'll bet he tries, too. Hopefully she'll make him sing for his money, though. (or is that, sting him in his wallet? hmmm) What I mean is that I doubt she has much of a case. At least one law professor agrees with me. Do you ever read the articles that you post? First off, William A. Jacobsen is a conservative....A real piece of work. Secondly, at the end of the article written by William A. Jacobson it includes this little nugget.... "Update 7-30-2010: Real Sherrod Story Still Untold, and Breitbart is just the guy to tell it. Somehow, I don't think she really will sue." Which links you to "American Thinker." here are some of the articles you can find in the archives of "American Thinker" http://www.americanthinker.com/ "President Obama Needs to Prove His Constitutional Eligibility to Be Commander-in-Chief" "Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Clause" Some of the text of this article. "On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Donofrio case concerning whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be President. Also, David Horowitz diagnosed those who claim Obama is not natural born as being afflicted with "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Horowitz told people to "shut up about the birth certificate." A bad day for those of us in tin-foil hats. Even Michelle Malkin is against us ." Here is a cartoon posted by "American Thinker" [image]http://www.americanthinker.com/images/includes/1007.gif[/image] Your inability to provide unbiased sources is becoming incredibly typical. Your opinions mean nothing until you can find more relevant sources.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02