Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you laughing? In the very example you used, Shirley Sherrod's direct quote was altered to say something she didn't actually say. And as I pointed out to you, she sued.
That is ENTIRELY different than some rambling talking head making a statement about someone and then being held accountable by the court for libel. That type of libel is very hard to prove as injurious.
We are talking about two very different scenarios entirely.
You're moving the goal posts by focusing only on basic libel. The issue at hand is the direct quotes in the book referenced in the OP. Quotations add an entirely different dimension than merely saying something about someone and its intent/interpretation being judged harmful or not.
We're talking about whether they're accurate or not and what recourse does Clinton have if they're not. She has none. Klein does not have to prove his facts are accurate if they go to court. He can absolutely lie and make stuff up, take quotes out of context or quote people as saying things they never said (all he has to say is someone told him they said it, that's all he has to do). Clinton would have to prove that he did it deliberately and maliciously (his intent was to damage her). In US libel cases, that's a nearly impossible feat. The same thing works for Sarah Palin and that guy who moved in next to her in Alaska and then wrote a hit piece book about her. Unless she can prove he deliberately lied with the intent to damage her, there's no way she could win a case against him.
Why are you laughing? In the very example you used, Shirley Sherrod's direct quote was altered to say something she didn't actually say. And as I pointed out to you, she sued.
That is ENTIRELY different than some rambling talking head making a statement about someone and then being held accountable by the court for libel. That type of libel is very hard to prove as injurious.
We are talking about two very different scenarios entirely.
No we're not.
You're trying to say this "book" is a "biography" because someone put quotes around something.
I haven't read it, but do tell: Are there citations? A bibliography? Footnotes? Even that doesn't prove much, but at least it would mean someone's going to a little trouble to cover up lies.
And no one's been held accountable for libel in politics in DECADES.
I find this very believable, but also think it reflects more poorly upon the Clintons than BO. "Her place" in the White House? Arrogance much? How dare that BO try to be President! It's mine, I tell you. It's mine!
Bill Clinton did a great job guiding BO. Under his control his lost the House of Representatives 2 years after his election, just like under Bill.
I agree regarding Hilary's attitude in 2008. It is not only arrogance, but a false sense of entitlement to behave like that. I am reminded of that commercial the late John Houseman did for a financial firm where he simply says "They earn it!".
In politics you earn it by going on the campaign trail and getting the most votes. You don't complain when others are merely exercising their same rights that you exercised.
Hopefully, she has learned a lesson from that and will behave more respectfully toward her Democratic primary opponents in 2016 if she decides to run. The American people believe in second chances, but anyone wanting to lead should show some respect to earn it. Just my three of four cents.
Meanwhile, someone is all over the forum posting except on this thread where she out and out lied about another poster, which I have proved.
Do we think the slandered poster should sue? Does simply ignoring proof of your lie reasonably prove that you weren't actually lying? What standards do we have here, when we are so vigorously assured that the simple act of putting quotes on a lie, as was done in this "book" that is the topic of this thread, enough to prove something is true?
Surely ignoring the proof that you lied is just as convincing as a few quotes. What other ways can we decide that something is true?
You're trying to say this "book" is a "biography" because someone put quotes around something.
I haven't read it, but do tell: Are there citations? A bibliography? Footnotes? Even that doesn't prove much, but at least it would mean someone's going to a little trouble to cover up lies.
And no one's been held accountable for libel in politics in DECADES.
Sheesh.
Uh, no i'm not. I have never once said that this book was a "biography." That is an invention of your mind based off of some wild deflection you had about a biography being a truthful account. I merely pointed out to you that you were 100% wrong in your assessment. A biography is only as good as the author. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. But it sure doesn't mean its truthful by default.
Face it. You just can't keep up. It's ok to admit when you're wrong.
Meanwhile, someone is all over the forum posting except on this thread where she out and out lied about another poster, which I have proved.
Do we think the slandered poster should sue? Does simply ignoring proof of your lie reasonably prove that you weren't actually lying? What standards do we have here, when we are so vigorously assured that the simple act of putting quotes on a lie, as was done in this "book" that is the topic of this thread, enough to prove something is true?
Surely ignoring the proof that you lied is just as convincing as a few quotes. What other ways can we decide that something is true?
Laughing even harder now on my way to the pool…
I have no idea who you're referring to, but all I can say is you are far too gone to be considered credible on this issue. Analytics is certainly not your forte.
I completely believe there is a feud between the Clintons and Obamas based on past news accounts. There are many if one cares to look them up. Bill Clinton has made a few snipes at the President in the recent past. I also believe these kind of feuds are common among the ruling elite, but the huge egos always work out a deal. The interesting thing will be who kowtows first. Bet it is the Clintons, as they have more to gain with an Obama presidential endorsement of Hillary. The Obamas don't need the Clintons anymore, if they ever did.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 06-23-2014 at 03:21 PM..
I have no idea who you're referring to, but all I can say is you are far too gone to be considered credible on this issue. Analytics is certainly not your forte.
You know exactly what I'm talking about, because you were all over this thread while this was happening. But I'll humor you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
Yea, you use the word baboon in reference to Michelle then accuse them of calling her that when you are the only one in the entire thread who posted that word. Unbelievable.
Oh, hold the phone, I think I found what you're referencing, and as expected, it's exactly the opposite of what you just accused HeyJude514 of.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed from California
I see that ugly, despicable woman and I think of Chewbacca only not as cool.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38
That baboon hasn't worked an honest day in her life.
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
And Conservatives can't understand why they are seen as racists.
Quote:
I think we all await your apology to HeyJude514.
The poster is still pretending what she said is true by ignoring my proof of her lie, even though she was posting all over the forum at the time. I thought perhaps she was trying to demonstrate yet another way to "prove" a lie, to be helpful in our discussion.
Uh, no i'm not. I have never once said that this book was a "biography." That is an invention of your mind based off of some wild deflection you had about a biography being a truthful account. I merely pointed out to you that you were 100% wrong in your assessment. A biography is only as good as the author. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. But it sure doesn't mean its truthful by default.
Face it. You just can't keep up. It's ok to admit when you're wrong.
An invention of my mind? LOL.
Take your own advice. You did indeed bring up the biography theory in a lame attempt to prove that this smear piece is truthful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
A book based on hearsay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Most books of the biographical nature, are, right?
In short, this "book" is a smear piece. Big deal. But cons will still rush to buy it, proving yet again how much class they don't have. And how much they fear Hillary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
