1 posted on
01/09/2011 6:30:06 PM PST by
TCH
To: TCH
2 posted on
01/09/2011 6:31:14 PM PST by
w1andsodidwe
(How can you tell when the President is lying? When his lips move, of course.)
To: TCH
I agree. I thought it was slanderous.
3 posted on
01/09/2011 6:37:14 PM PST by
bboop
(Stealth Tutor)
To: TCH
Haul them into Congress, get them under oath, ask where the evidence is?
4 posted on
01/09/2011 6:43:47 PM PST by
VRWC For Truth
(Throw the bums out who vote yes on the bailout)
To: TCH
What about a class action? Anyone know if anything like that has ever been done?
5 posted on
01/09/2011 6:46:07 PM PST by
RoseyT
(Piney Woods of East Texas)
To: TCH
You are absolutely right. We are sitting on our laurals from this summer’s tea partys and tea party spirit, and seem to be just waiting for 2012, while the house is on fire now. I don’t believe we have two years to sit down and shut up.
The class action idea is worth looking into, and Palin should stand up and holler law suit herself to lead the way. And Rush should raise some hell. Democrats understand lawyers!
6 posted on
01/09/2011 6:54:20 PM PST by
RitaOK
To: TCH
7 posted on
01/09/2011 6:54:25 PM PST by
Keith in Iowa
(FR Class of 1998 | TV News is an oxymoron. | MSNBC = Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap.)
To: TCH
I agree completely. In watching the media lie, slander and distort for over 50 years, this is the worst I have ever seen.
8 posted on
01/09/2011 6:55:31 PM PST by
yarddog
To: TCH
Agreed... it might be hard for people like Palin, Beck and Rush to go after the state run media for these blatant lies, but they should.
I would think that it would be easy to prove 3 of the 4 legal requirements for slander:
- The speech must be a lie. The alleged shooter is a leftist. Ample evidence of this.
- The speaker must know it is lie. The state run media continues to report the lie that these individuals are involved when not only is there no proof that they are, but it is proven that they are not.
- The speech must have caused a loss to the subject of the speech. Not sure how to prove this.
- The speech must have been made with malicious intent. Very easy to prove, the state run media hates these people and this is very well documented.
9 posted on
01/09/2011 7:12:08 PM PST by
pnh102
(Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
To: TCH
To: TCH
That’s exactly what I was thinking since the evil leftist blame tactic started yesterday.
To: TCH
Since NY Times v Sullivan in 1964 it’s virtually impossible for public figures to sue for libel in the USA. Get these scum to post their lies on an English website, and then sue them in London!
14 posted on
01/09/2011 8:16:32 PM PST by
devere
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson