Who will blink first?

[rightwinger]

Sharpton is blowing smoke..
Bringing this up in a court of law would subject his character being brought up and force him to defend every sleazy statement he has made.
Sharpton has never paid the judgement Steven Pagones won in the Tawana Brawley case

More than two years after the Rev. Al Sharpton was found to have defamed a former prosecutor in the Tawana Brawley case, the $65,000 damage award entered against Mr. Sharpton by a Dutchess County jury has been paid in full.

Sharpton's Debt in Brawley Defamation Is Paid by Supporters - The New York Times

Since his supporters paid, you escaped a lie by a hair.

Thanks
I didn't realize the judgement had been paid.
However, Sharptons unfounded charges against Pagones and Attorney General Morganthau (He masterbated to pictures of Tawana Brawley) continue to set many peoples impression of Sharptons integrity

 

[mdn2000]

I see some describing limbaugh as committing, what would that federal statue be? It should be a CFR # ???

So which law are you guys refering to being broke by Limbaugh? Not which one you "think", but what is the actual law, by the number, so I may look it up. I never heard of this law. it would be good one, we could charge all those bush accusers with this law.

 

[del]

“Unless Mr. Limbaugh apologizes and clarifies his statements, attorneys for Rev. Sharpton will move forward with a lawsuit. He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal.”

Al Sharpton Threatens To Sue Rush Limbaugh | HipHopWired.com

This isn't the first time Al has made a Republican crawl and beg for forgiveness. If no apology, Al will proceed by the end of the week.

Who will blink first?

name one.

 

[Darkwind]

I think that you'll find that everything Rush said about the Rev. Sharpton is 100% correct and sourced.

The same cannot be said of the Rev. Sharpton.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont believe you can act black

I believe you can act ghetto, white or black

“Unless Mr. Limbaugh apologizes and clarifies his statements, attorneys for Rev. Sharpton will move forward with a lawsuit. He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal.”

Al Sharpton Threatens To Sue Rush Limbaugh | HipHopWired.com

This isn't the first time Al has made a Republican crawl and beg for forgiveness. If no apology, Al will proceed by the end of the week.

Who will blink first?

HipHopWired????!?!!?!?! That explains so very much about you and your asinine opinions. How does someone even go about finding such a joke of a site........... are you one of those wiggers I've heard about?

 

[rdean]

I see some describing limbaugh as committing, what would that federal statue be? It should be a CFR # ???

So which law are you guys refering to being broke by Limbaugh? Not which one you "think", but what is the actual law, by the number, so I may look it up. I never heard of this law. it would be good one, we could charge all those bush accusers with this law.

You could probably find out by finding out the law that Sharpton broke when he had to pay for T. Brawley.

You can't accuse someone of the crime unless they actually committed it. If they are found "not guilty", it's much easier to win a civil suit. However, OJ was aquitted, but still had to pay everything in the civil suit. Innocent in one doesn't mean automaticly innocent in the other.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sharpton is blowing smoke..
Bringing this up in a court of law would subject his character being brought up and force him to defend every sleazy statement he has made.
Sharpton has never paid the judgement Steven Pagones won in the Tawana Brawley case

More than two years after the Rev. Al Sharpton was found to have defamed a former prosecutor in the Tawana Brawley case, the $65,000 damage award entered against Mr. Sharpton by a Dutchess County jury has been paid in full.

Sharpton's Debt in Brawley Defamation Is Paid by Supporters - The New York Times

Since his supporters paid, you escaped a lie by a hair.

How did he "escape a lie by a hair". He was absolutely correct. Sharpton hasnt paid jack.

 

[theHawk]

You can't accuse someone of the crime unless they actually committed it. If they are found "not guilty", it's much easier to win a civil suit. However, OJ was aquitted, but still had to pay everything in the civil suit. Innocent in one doesn't mean automaticly innocent in the other.

How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.

Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.

This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.

 

[rightwinger]

With Sharptons history of bending the facts to meet his political agenda, he would have a hard time proving in court that Rush defamed him. Rush's attorney would be able to bring up every incident in Sharptons career.

 

[mdn2000]

so after twenty four hours all the fools saying Rush broke the law have yet to post the law broke. Gee, you guys aint making shit up, are you?

 

[EriktheRed]

For both of these guys all publicity is good - even when it's bad.

 

[rdean]

With Sharptons history of bending the facts to meet his political agenda, he would have a hard time proving in court that Rush defamed him. Rush's attorney would be able to bring up every incident in Sharptons career.

Unless, when the riot happened, Sharpton was in a hospital in another state. I'm not saying he was, but if he was, then Limbaugh has a problem. See what I mean?

 

[rdean]

You can't accuse someone of the crime unless they actually committed it. If they are found "not guilty", it's much easier to win a civil suit. However, OJ was aquitted, but still had to pay everything in the civil suit. Innocent in one doesn't mean automaticly innocent in the other.

How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.

Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.

This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.

Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.

Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.

I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.

 

[DiveCon]

You can't accuse someone of the crime unless they actually committed it. If they are found "not guilty", it's much easier to win a civil suit. However, OJ was aquitted, but still had to pay everything in the civil suit. Innocent in one doesn't mean automaticly innocent in the other.

How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.

Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.

This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.

Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.

Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.

I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.

uh, wrong
you might want to look at the number of people convicted in those investigations before you say "all they got"

 

[garyd]

First Rev. Al is about to discover that if you are a public figure it is all butt impossible to win a suit for defamation because the bar in this country is set damn near impossibly high. Second how about putting the phrase Rush used in its original context.

 

[sitarro]

You can't accuse someone of the crime unless they actually committed it. If they are found "not guilty", it's much easier to win a civil suit. However, OJ was aquitted, but still had to pay everything in the civil suit. Innocent in one doesn't mean automaticly innocent in the other.

How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.

Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.

This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.

Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.

Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.

I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.

Wow, my memory must be going, could you point to the instance where President Bush blatantly lied to a Grand Jury? Also, are you saying that Clinton was on trial for 8 years and it cost 40 million dollars..... 8 years???? Are you sure on the number? Depending on what leftist hack you talk to, that number goes all the way to 70 million. Why don't you just say a billion, with this new administration, anything short of that isn't even noticed by anyone anymore.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Otherwise, every Republican in congress would spend all their time in court or under house arrest.

lets not forget those other guys in congress Dean-o.....they are not exactly model citizens in case you havent noticed....

 

[Harry Dresden]

they need to run dusce limbaugh out of public eye anyway. not just for this but for opening his mouth from day one.

like Al never opens his big mouth....give us a break....

 

[rdean]

How would anyone be able to accuse anyone of a crime then? People are accused of crimes all the time, then in the court of law are found guilty or innocent, but it was never a crime to accuse someone. Meanwhile, outside of the court of law, private citizens are free to express their own opinion about people's guilt or innocence.

Rush was just giving his opinion that Sharpton helped incite the riot.
Liberals for 8 years have been accusing Bush of commiting crimes he never commited, I don't see you saying all those libs should be held accountable.

This is nothing more than another liberal attempt to squash free speech of conservatives.

Conservatives went after Clinton for 8 years spending more than 40 million in taxpayer money and only came up with Monica.

Democrats did NOT go after Bush the same way because the US is/was fighting wars on two fronts. Democrats rallied around the President making him the most popular president in US history. That is an undeniable FACT!
But if they had gone after Bush, you have to admit, there is an awful lot of material to work with.

I get the impression that most Republicans are not completely against assassination as an option.

Wow, my memory must be going, could you point to the instance where President Bush blatantly lied to a Grand Jury? Also, are you saying that Clinton was on trial for 8 years and it cost 40 million dollars..... 8 years???? Are you sure on the number? Depending on what leftist hack you talk to, that number goes all the way to 70 million. Why don't you just say a billion, with this new administration, anything short of that isn't even noticed by anyone anymore.

What lie?

Bush lied to a country. The majority of Americans (and I mean the majority) believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. The hijackers were from Arabia. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. Bin Laden had tried to put together a coalition to drive Saddam OUT of Kuwait. They enemies.

Yet, some how, Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was behind 9/11. Where on earth did the US get this idea? And, Bin Laden was insulted that somehow Americans got this idea that he had help from Saddam. Go ahead and think it through. Where did America get this idea? Since 15 of the 16 hijackers were from Arabia, wouldn't it make sense that the US would believe the attack might have come from Arabia. But no. Out of the blue, without a shred of evidence, Americans believed it was Saddam. How is that possible. Try now. Think it through.

Republicans spent 40 million on prosecutors and investigations against the Clinton's.

Let me explain something. Republican party members have the weird idea that the Clinton's were just grubbing for money. Since Bill Clinton left office, he has made more than a hundred and nine million dollars in speaking fees and books. He always knew he would make this money. All presidents do.

Bush is speaking as a "motivational speaker" for a hundred thousand dollars for 40 minutes. All the Republican accusations of money grubbing against the Clinton's was peanuts. It was party line. Party leaders knew it. It's the base that's stupid. People on this board have written that Clinton was convicted of a felony and that's why he was impeached. How dumb.

 

[Meister]

they need to run dusce limbaugh out of public eye anyway. not just for this but for opening his mouth from day one.

like Al never opens his big mouth....give us a break....

You are talking about Al Sharpton, the biggest racist in America, aren't you?