Skip to comments.Shirley Sherrod says she will sue Andrew Breitbart
Posted on 07/29/2010 12:33:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
And from what I've heard from her in the past week she's for it again.
Maybe she could get appointed as an adviser to John Kerry?
Go Shirley Go. Do it and prove to the world what a racist you are.
If it was oh-so-innocent and redeeming, a tale of "eyes opened" and enlightenment, why the head's up, Ms. Sherrod?
I started thinking about the slew of lawsuits filed against Sarah Palin, while reading the comments here.
Is this a new tactic of the left? Sue those that threaten their world view, to hit them in the pocketbook?
It seems effective, as many will hunker down to avoid the expense of defending oneself in court. If Sherrod does take Breitbart to court, we Freepers should all pitch him to help him with the costs, and make it known publicly.
Of course, that would be “racist” of us, and probably get Jim R. sued as well. And, as an aside, how long before Charley Rangel’s defenders pull out the “race card”?
Maybe he actually had to spend time around her.
Liberal law firms were probably stalking her begging her to let them pursue the case pro bono just to earn points with the high priests and parishioners of their religion.
I bet you are an excellent Chess player.
In the same speech she called tea partiers racist and later said Fox News wants African Americans to go back to looking down when they walk by whites and have them not get jobs.
She’s a racist through and through. And so is her husband.
You can't bury racism, only racists.
Bring it on, Ms. Shirley. I hear discovery can be a real bitch.
LOL! I love it!
I want to know why, if she became so enlightened, did she feel the need to turn the farmer over to "one of his own"?
My dad was a farmer and whenever he needed a loan, he sure didn't "act all uppity and superior" to the person that could turn the loan down. Things that make me go hmmmmm.
What the hell are her damages? Not only can she have her old job back if she wants it, the dept is willing to create a super special tax payer funded awesomely wonderful job just for Shirley.
How has she been damaged by this?
Sherrod is going to sue Breitbart because he is white.
Love it. She’s a fool. Keep playing that video of the audience reaction to her story. Keep publicizing her views. Our most-racial pResident ought to be proud.
Guess what happens to your lawsuit if this cracker be on your jury...
Obama pulls this jerky stuff all the time...It's all about him.....and what else he didn't want us to know about Shirley and hubby...like REPARATIONS!!
Bury the communists and we’ll find there aren’t many racists left in America.
She is doing what comes natural to her..she is sue happy and got 13 mil..wonder if she will try to double that?
I hope Andrew has LOTS of video to make the point she is a racist.
RE: Shes gonna get millions of dollars of air time and become a martyr for the victimhood movement no matter how this goes.
Only if we as a people buy into this “I’m a black victim” garbage. It’s time the American People stand up and ignore this nonsense and not give it any importance.
Stick to your guns, Andy. If you were set up, it will come out.
This beach has more skeletons in her closet. Let’s bring them out.
. . . . . she’s all smoke and mirrors just like the blowhard Blago ,,,,,, Bieitbart probably has hours of tape and video of Shirley saying all sorts of stupid insane things and the world will really get to know who she is ,,,, not a good idea Shirley . Blago didn’t testify and Shirley ain’t suing .
Just came from the DUmmies site. They act like she’s the second coming of Cindy Sheehan (actually one of them compared her to Rosa Parks). They are absolutely positive that she’s going to win and not only take down Breitbart but all conservative media. Honestly, if you read the whole thread, it becomes very obvious that they have no idea of how this whole thing started or who did what & when.
Breitbart should sue all entities throwing barbs at him because they do not have proper reading and viewing comprehension.
Oh, yes she does. DC = black jury. Remember OJ?
"All rise, the jury foreman will now read the verdict. Jury, how say you?"
"Judge, we find cracka cracka cracka!! Hammer that dam' cracka! Fifty million dollars to the plaintiff, bless you dear!"
Bill Clinton never missed a night's sleep worrying about a criminal indictment by Ken Starr, as long as he could be sure the case would have to be brought in DC.
And incidentally, that was what that whole "I'm sorry for racist evil bad white America" trip to Africa was all about. The one that Joe Wilson did the advance work on, as a partisan, spear-carrying 'Rat scum "diplomat".
I wouldn’t be surprised if the DOJ acts on her behalf and she wins either - ignoring the purpose and intent of showing the world once again the racist side of the NAACP...
“They are absolutely positive that shes going to win and not only take down Breitbart but all conservative media.”
Perfect. Let’s roll!
What, you think Obozo and Holder want a piece of this? Doubt it, but NAACP might show up; they're already involved and they're on the tape.
Then I guess we can sue Michael Moore for doing the same and calling it documentaries?
He did the same in Bowling for Columbine, Sicko, Rodger and Me, Farenhight 911 and every movie he makes.
So does NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and all the rest. It is part of reporting the news on most stations. You can’t show long video clips and most show only what gets their point across.
Regardless, the woman is still a racist and her saying she later helped the farmer (still to be proven) doesn’t void that fact. She, like most roaches, hates to be caught in the light of truth. Which she was.
Imagine if political candidates could sue their opponents any time the opponent used a clip from a speech that also had things that countered that clip?
This new argument that anybody making a political point must of necessity also make the countervaling point for their opponent is stupid. In California, the LA times criticized a republican candidate for telling the truth in an ad, but not including additional information that might have mitigated the damage the truth did to the democrat.
Isn’t every video used on every newscast on every TV station -”edited”?
Should be an interesting trial, to figure out exactly who ordered her fired and whether everyone in that chain watched the entire video before announcing their decision.
Oh, very, very carefully.
I answered the questions of a mongrel’s defense attorney in such a way to get me off jury duty, so I figure I can answer the questions of a mongrel’s defense attorney in such a way to get me on that jury.
I am a crafty cracker. I know that attorney’s for mongrels question jurors in an effort to remove those who would convict and retain those who would acquit. Knowing such motivations allows the crafty cracker to fashion the proper answer.
Infiltrate, nullify. Shut these mongrels down in court from the inside.
Ol’ Shirley is quite the litigation thug-ette, isn’t she...
Where are Sherrod’s damages?
Even if one’s assumes that Breitbart wronged her in some way, you have to actually suffer damages in order to collect, no?
Was Andrew SET UP??? WHO gave the tape to ANDREW?? Did they give the WHOLE TAPE??
Not only did she not suffer any real damages, she ended up getting offered an even better government goldbricking job than the one she had before!