Breitbart, Fox and Their Rush To Judgement

[jillian]

The great divider?

Oh, HELL YEAH!

Divider?
How about the cons who vowed to object to everything Obama does...to break him.

How about the divider indicting a WHITE cop over a BLACK brutha' professor, when he clearly had no evidence?

Beer summit anybody?

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

 

[Jarhead]

Divider?
How about the cons who vowed to object to everything Obama does...to break him.

How about the divider indicting a WHITE cop over a BLACK brutha' professor, when he clearly had no evidence?

Beer summit anybody?

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

 

[Wicked Jester]

How about the divider indicting a WHITE cop over a BLACK brutha' professor, when he clearly had no evidence?

Beer summit anybody?

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

Ya' beat me to it!

 

[jillian]

How about the divider indicting a WHITE cop over a BLACK brutha' professor, when he clearly had no evidence?

Beer summit anybody?

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

you know, we all have our baggage. we all have our issues that make the hair on the back of our necks stand up. we've all been subjected to bias of some type, whether its sexism, classism, racism, anti-semitism or whatever... so we react because of what we've experienced. me? i've had more attorneys call me sweetheart than i care to think about....secretaries who, if a male attorney called and said this is george jones, would say, 'please hold, mr. jones', whereas if i call, and say 'hi, this is mary jones', i can tell you that 7 times out of ten they're going to say, ok... 'hold on, mary.' or 'hold for a minute, honey. now, these things are no big deal, but they are small annoyances. a larger deal was my finding my resume in my first boss' office after he hired me with a single word written on it.... 'pert'. nothing about my bona fides; nothing about my qualifications; nothing about my being top 11% of my law school class or five years younger at graduation than the class average at the start of law school. so you can see where, over time, we might be sensitized.

now, imagine being bi-racial and getting it from both sides... not being white enough OR black enough... i can see where he became a bit race-sensitive. i actually think he's done a pretty good job of dealing with it. but he is clearly uncomfortable when he has to face the issue head on. i don't really fault him for that.

and fwiw, notwithstanding the result of the investigation, i still don't think the cop had any business making an arrest once he found out the professor was in his own home.



to me, the test is: what do you do when you jump to an erroneous conclusion.

 

[jillian]

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

Ya' beat me to it!

my response was to it being called 'divisive'. it wasn't close to that.

divisive was signing a bill in the middle of the night created specifically to keep a person from turning off life support on his brain dead wife.

and politicians all engage in showmanship... like 'mission accomplished'...

 

[Wicked Jester]

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

you know, we all have our baggage. we all have our issues that make the hair on the back of our necks stand up. we've all been subjected to bias of some type, whether its sexism, classism, racism, anti-semitism or whatever... so we react because of what we've experienced. me? i've had more attorneys call me sweetheart than i care to think about....secretaries who, if a male attorney called and said this is george jones, would say, 'please hold, mr. jones', whereas if i call, and say 'hi, this is mary jones', i can tell you that 7 times out of ten they're going to say, ok... 'hold on, mary.' or 'hold for a minute, honey. now, these things are no big deal, but they are small annoyances. a larger deal was my finding my resume in my first boss' office after he hired me with a single word written on it.... 'pert'. nothing about my bona fides; nothing about my qualifications; nothing about my being top 11% of my law school class or five years younger at graduation than the class average at the start of law school. so you can see where, over time, we might be sensitized.

now, imagine being bi-racial and getting it from both sides... not being white enough OR black enough... i can see where he became a bit race-sensitive. i actually think he's done a pretty good job of dealing with it. but he is clearly uncomfortable when he has to face the issue head on. i don't really fault him for that.

and fwiw, notwithstanding the result of the investigation, i still don't think the cop had any business making an arrest once he found out the professor was in his own home.



to me, the test is: what do you do when you jump to an erroneous conclusion.

pert (purt). adj. 1. bold; forward; impertinent; saucy. 2. lively; sprightly; in good health. 3. Obs. clever

Do ya' think that maybe you might have jumped to an erroneus conclusion regarding what your first boss meant by writing the word "pert" on your resume there, sweetheart?

Or are they really "pert", cause i'd really like to know!

Just sayin', sweetcakes!

 

[Jarhead]

the 'beer summit' was divisive?

on what planet?

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

you know, we all have our baggage. we all have our issues that make the hair on the back of our necks stand up. we've all been subjected to bias of some type, whether its sexism, classism, racism, anti-semitism or whatever... so we react because of what we've experienced. me? i've had more attorneys call me sweetheart than i care to think about....secretaries who, if a male attorney called and said this is george jones, would say, 'please hold, mr. jones', whereas if i call, and say 'hi, this is mary jones', i can tell you that 7 times out of ten they're going to say, ok... 'hold on, mary.' or 'hold for a minute, honey. now, these things are no big deal, but they are small annoyances. a larger deal was my finding my resume in my first boss' office after he hired me with a single word written on it.... 'pert'. nothing about my bona fides; nothing about my qualifications; nothing about my being top 11% of my law school class or five years younger at graduation than the class average at the start of law school. so you can see where, over time, we might be sensitized.

now, imagine being bi-racial and getting it from both sides... not being white enough OR black enough... i can see where he became a bit race-sensitive. i actually think he's done a pretty good job of dealing with it. but he is clearly uncomfortable when he has to face the issue head on. i don't really fault him for that.

and fwiw, notwithstanding the result of the investigation, i still don't think the cop had any business making an arrest once he found out the professor was in his own home.



to me, the test is: what do you do when you jump to an erroneous conclusion.

You admit your error, retract your statement and move on. And with his poeople around him, he could have ewasily said he was misinformed.

Instead, he made the situation go away by turning the officer AND the professor into a side show for America to watch.

 

[drsmith1072]

I would love to know how anyone could feel that Breitbart was set up? Wasn't HE the one who started this whole charade?

I dont think he was set up. I think he screwed up...and bad.
He lost my confidence. I will never believe what comes off his site without further investigation.

But I heard rumor yet to be able to confiurm it that Jealous was in the audience when she spoke. If he was, why did HE rush to judgement?

In MY HUMBLE OPINION, Breitbart did not even screw up. I believe he spliced the tape together the way he did because he had an agenda. His agenda was NOT to report anything truthfully or honestly.

Brietbart had two parts of her story, the first part, minus her lead in that explained where she was going, and the second half that explained the content of the first clip. Breitbart had both and ran with the one that supproted his attacks against the naacp. He did more than screw up he lied and misrepresented the truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zLJgf6hh8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Breitbart on King[/ame]

at about 1:19 in he admits "we kept that because she says it's not about race."

 

[Jarhead]

I dont think he was set up. I think he screwed up...and bad.
He lost my confidence. I will never believe what comes off his site without further investigation.

But I heard rumor yet to be able to confiurm it that Jealous was in the audience when she spoke. If he was, why did HE rush to judgement?

In MY HUMBLE OPINION, Breitbart did not even screw up. I believe he spliced the tape together the way he did because he had an agenda. His agenda was NOT to report anything truthfully or honestly.

Brietbart had two parts of her story, the first part, minus her lead in that explained where she was going, and the second half that explained the content of the first clip. Breitbart had both and ran with the one that supproted his attacks against the naacp. He did more than screw up he lied and misrepresented the truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zLJgf6hh8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Breitbart on King[/ame]

at about 1:19 in he admits "we kept that because she says it's not about race."

Breitbart is an ass.

There are plenty of them out there on the left and on the right.
And there are plenty of them right smack dab in the middle.

Asses are a part of life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Breitbart puts his pants on one leg at a time like everybody else and because of the tremendous amount of column inches he puts out there, it is an absolutely certainty that he is going to get it wrong and/or make a mistake now and then. He is good to acknowledge his errors when he makes them though.

And he is still one of the best researchers in the business and digs in places that others don't even think about until it is brought to the surface. I guarantee you that EVERY news organization and most members of Congress check his stuff (as well as Drudge) pretty much every day just to see what the news of the day or week is likely to be.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I dont think he was set up. I think he screwed up...and bad.
He lost my confidence. I will never believe what comes off his site without further investigation.

But I heard rumor yet to be able to confiurm it that Jealous was in the audience when she spoke. If he was, why did HE rush to judgement?

In MY HUMBLE OPINION, Breitbart did not even screw up. I believe he spliced the tape together the way he did because he had an agenda. His agenda was NOT to report anything truthfully or honestly.

Brietbart had two parts of her story, the first part, minus her lead in that explained where she was going, and the second half that explained the content of the first clip. Breitbart had both and ran with the one that supproted his attacks against the naacp. He did more than screw up he lied and misrepresented the truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zLJgf6hh8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Breitbart on King[/ame]

at about 1:19 in he admits "we kept that because she says it's not about race."

Yeaaaaaaah, and i'm quite sure you were out there bloviating about the following also:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature]YouTube - MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race.[/ame] =related

LMAO!

I also notice that you haven't provided proof that I said what you attributed to me.

Christ, bloviating liberals these days!

 

[jillian]

The beer summit was the side show.
The President making a judgement call without knowing the facts was the divisive part.
If it were not a white cop and a black man he would likely have ignoired the situation.

Saying you believe otherwise is being naive or being politically correct.

you know, we all have our baggage. we all have our issues that make the hair on the back of our necks stand up. we've all been subjected to bias of some type, whether its sexism, classism, racism, anti-semitism or whatever... so we react because of what we've experienced. me? i've had more attorneys call me sweetheart than i care to think about....secretaries who, if a male attorney called and said this is george jones, would say, 'please hold, mr. jones', whereas if i call, and say 'hi, this is mary jones', i can tell you that 7 times out of ten they're going to say, ok... 'hold on, mary.' or 'hold for a minute, honey. now, these things are no big deal, but they are small annoyances. a larger deal was my finding my resume in my first boss' office after he hired me with a single word written on it.... 'pert'. nothing about my bona fides; nothing about my qualifications; nothing about my being top 11% of my law school class or five years younger at graduation than the class average at the start of law school. so you can see where, over time, we might be sensitized.

now, imagine being bi-racial and getting it from both sides... not being white enough OR black enough... i can see where he became a bit race-sensitive. i actually think he's done a pretty good job of dealing with it. but he is clearly uncomfortable when he has to face the issue head on. i don't really fault him for that.

and fwiw, notwithstanding the result of the investigation, i still don't think the cop had any business making an arrest once he found out the professor was in his own home.



to me, the test is: what do you do when you jump to an erroneous conclusion.

pert (purt). adj. 1. bold; forward; impertinent; saucy. 2. lively; sprightly; in good health. 3. Obs. clever

Do ya' think that maybe you might have jumped to an erroneus conclusion regarding what your first boss meant by writing the word "pert" on your resume there, sweetheart?

Or are they really "pert", cause i'd really like to know!

Just sayin', sweetcakes!

my point wasn't that i was particularly offended. it was that we all have baggage based on life experience.

you know how it works. right, cookie?

 

[drsmith1072]

Fox and Breitbart and a few other sources like them do NOT err on purpose and bend over backwards to avoid doing that. This time they did get snookered with a partial tape and both have owned up to that and admitted their error that they didn't go deeper. Neither are likely to be guilty of that again any time soon.

What a complete load of pure BS!!! I don't know if you are just naive, stupid, a pathological liar or just have your head so far up FOX and Bigotbart's asses you can't see what's right in front of your face!

AFTER the NAACP released the full video, Bigotbart appeared on HanNITWITy and FOX edited the full NAACP video making a clip edited almost exactly the same as Bigotbart's clip in an attempt to show that the NAACP audience was racist. You can tell that the FOX edited clip came from the full NAACP video by the high quality of the audio, Bigotbart's audio was atrocious. FOX edited out the "point of redemption" setup and then HanNITWITy and Bigotbart said after the dishonestly edited by FOX clip that there was no way for the audience to know there was going to be a "point of redemption."

So you can't say they were snookered with the HanNITWITy clip, FOX edited it that way on purpose, and we also know that Bigotbart would have edited (and probably did) the full video no different than the clip you say "snookered" him. After the HanNITWITy clip there is no way Bigotbart and FOX can be salvaged.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMfCAoVPx0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Andrew Breitbart Defends Shirley Sherrod Story[/ame]

American Rhetoric: Shirley Sherrod - Speech at the NAACP 20th Freedom Fund Banquet

But when I...made the commitment years ago I didn't know how -- I didn't...I prayed about it that night and as our house filled with people I was back in one of the bedrooms praying and asking God to show me what I could do. I didn't have -- the path wasn't laid out that night. I just made the decision that I would stay and work. And -- And over the years things just happened.

And young people: I just want you to know that when you're true to what God wants you to do the path just opens up -- and things just come to you, you know. God is good -- I can tell you that.

When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But, you know, God will show you things and He'll put things in your path so that -- that you realize [FOX edited video starts here] that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he -- he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know -- while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me -- was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

Just to remind you what Bigotbart and HanNITWITY said after showing the FOX edited clip from the whole NAACP video.

Andrew Breitbart on 'Hannity': 'This Is Not About Shirley Sherrod' - Hannity - FOXNews.com

BREITBART: And what this video shows and what the NAACP affirms in their initial rebuke is not just that Shirley Sherrod, what she said was wrong, but that the audience was laughing and applauding as she described how she maltreated the white farmer.

HANNITY: Before she gets to the end of the story which is — which she's claiming puts context. But there's a —

(CROSSTALK)

BREITBART: Did the people in the audience know that there was going to be a point of redemption?

HANNITY: No.

Hmm? No response from the right, imagine that.

 

[Wicked Jester]

you know, we all have our baggage. we all have our issues that make the hair on the back of our necks stand up. we've all been subjected to bias of some type, whether its sexism, classism, racism, anti-semitism or whatever... so we react because of what we've experienced. me? i've had more attorneys call me sweetheart than i care to think about....secretaries who, if a male attorney called and said this is george jones, would say, 'please hold, mr. jones', whereas if i call, and say 'hi, this is mary jones', i can tell you that 7 times out of ten they're going to say, ok... 'hold on, mary.' or 'hold for a minute, honey. now, these things are no big deal, but they are small annoyances. a larger deal was my finding my resume in my first boss' office after he hired me with a single word written on it.... 'pert'. nothing about my bona fides; nothing about my qualifications; nothing about my being top 11% of my law school class or five years younger at graduation than the class average at the start of law school. so you can see where, over time, we might be sensitized.

now, imagine being bi-racial and getting it from both sides... not being white enough OR black enough... i can see where he became a bit race-sensitive. i actually think he's done a pretty good job of dealing with it. but he is clearly uncomfortable when he has to face the issue head on. i don't really fault him for that.

and fwiw, notwithstanding the result of the investigation, i still don't think the cop had any business making an arrest once he found out the professor was in his own home.



to me, the test is: what do you do when you jump to an erroneous conclusion.

pert (purt). adj. 1. bold; forward; impertinent; saucy. 2. lively; sprightly; in good health. 3. Obs. clever

Do ya' think that maybe you might have jumped to an erroneus conclusion regarding what your first boss meant by writing the word "pert" on your resume there, sweetheart?

Or are they really "pert", cause i'd really like to know!

Just sayin', sweetcakes!

my point wasn't that i was particularly offended. it was that we all have baggage based on life experience.

you know how it works. right, cookie?

I would say that bold, lively, forward, and clever are excellent traits for ANY attorney, eh, sugarlips?

And hey, havin' "pert ones" doesn't exactly hurt ya' when presenting before men in a jury box!

Just goes to show how words can be mis-interpreted.

How was your trip BTW?

 

[drsmith1072]

I just don't see Reverend Wright as racist.

I think its stuff like this that make people judge him as racist. (skip up to about 1:20 ish)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ]YouTube - Barack Obama Pastor Jeremiah Wright NEW TAPES!!!![/ame]

And, quite possibly he is a racist. However - all we've ever been shown is a handful of tapes - showing selected and highly inflammatory portions of selected sermons, and we judge them on that without knowing the context. I'm always uncomfortable with judgements based on that alone.

Eh who needs the whole story or the context?? Why not just judge him how they wish to becuase it suits their needs and don't worry about getting the whole truth. LOL

Wait a minute, this sounds familiar?

 

[Foxfyre]

my point wasn't that i was particularly offended. it was that we all have baggage based on life experience.

you know how it works. right, cookie?

The above excerpted in reference to 'pert'.

In attending and teaching business organization and management courses, most especially in personnel management, PERT is the acronym for "Program Evaluation and Review Technique" and, when written on an application, would indicate this one needs further research or a closer look.

I would have interpreted it as a compliment, not a disrespect.

 

[drsmith1072]

Breitbart puts his pants on one leg at a time like everybody else and because of the tremendous amount of column inches he puts out there, it is an absolutely certainty that he is going to get it wrong and/or make a mistake now and then. He is good to acknowledge his errors when he makes them though.

And he is still one of the best researchers in the business and digs in places that others don't even think about until it is brought to the surface. I guarantee you that EVERY news organization and most members of Congress check his stuff (as well as Drudge) pretty much every day just to see what the news of the day or week is likely to be.

So that's the best you've got after defending and excusing breitbart throughout most of this thread? you find out that he did lie and misrepresent the truth and this is the best response that you have??

I believe I have been reading through this thread about how you should just admit your mistake, retract your statement and move on, however it looks like some still lack the integrity to do that and prefer the side show.

He had both parts of the story and CHOSE to leave out the part that countered the goal of his argument. That is not a mistake. That is a conscious choice and is dishonest.

 

[drsmith1072]

In MY HUMBLE OPINION, Breitbart did not even screw up. I believe he spliced the tape together the way he did because he had an agenda. His agenda was NOT to report anything truthfully or honestly.

Brietbart had two parts of her story, the first part, minus her lead in that explained where she was going, and the second half that explained the content of the first clip. Breitbart had both and ran with the one that supproted his attacks against the naacp. He did more than screw up he lied and misrepresented the truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-zLJgf6hh8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Breitbart on King[/ame]

at about 1:19 in he admits "we kept that because she says it's not about race."

Yeaaaaaaah, and i'm quite sure you were out there bloviating about the following also:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature]YouTube - MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race.[/ame] =related

LMAO!

I also notice that you haven't provided proof that I said what you attributed to me.

Christ, bloviating liberals these days!

Way to try to change the subject to avoid facts that you can't spin. How typical.
I addresed your false allegations in that other thread but haven't been abck to see if you put up or shut up or engaged in your usual dishonest avoidance tactics. My guess it is the latter.

Fact is that breitbart misreprented the facts even though he had both parts of the story. Care to address that or not?

edit: nope you didn't even bother responding in that other thread. Imagine that.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Brietbart had two parts of her story, the first part, minus her lead in that explained where she was going, and the second half that explained the content of the first clip. Breitbart had both and ran with the one that supproted his attacks against the naacp. He did more than screw up he lied and misrepresented the truth.

YouTube - Breitbart on King

at about 1:19 in he admits "we kept that because she says it's not about race."

Yeaaaaaaah, and i'm quite sure you were out there bloviating about the following also:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature]YouTube - MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race.[/ame] =related

LMAO!

I also notice that you haven't provided proof that I said what you attributed to me.

Christ, bloviating liberals these days!

Way to try to change the subject to avoid facts that you can't spin. How typical.
I addresed your false allegations in that other thread but haven't been abck to see if you put up or shut up or engaged in your usual dishonest avoidance tactics. My guess it is the latter.

Fact is that breitbart misreprented the facts even though he had both parts of the story. Care to address that or not?

edit: nope you didn't even bother responding in that other thread. Imagine that.

I've stated in several threads, hack, that Breibart screwed up, Fox should have been more diligent, and that the President and administration are just as guilty for YET AGAIN jumping the gun without all the facts and firing the woman.

Now, I'll ask again, hack, were you bloviating this loudly when MSNBC stated that there was a "white racist" at a townhall with an assualt weapon when they obviously had the tape, and edited it to suit their agenda?

Why of course you weren't!

Further proving, that you are an a-typical S&P HACK!

Oh, and you have yet to provide proof of the claims that you made regarding my statements on the other thread.

Where's the ******* proof, troll?

 

[drsmith1072]

Yeaaaaaaah, and i'm quite sure you were out there bloviating about the following also:

YouTube - MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race. =related

LMAO!

I also notice that you haven't provided proof that I said what you attributed to me.

Christ, bloviating liberals these days!

Way to try to change the subject to avoid facts that you can't spin. How typical.
I addresed your false allegations in that other thread but haven't been abck to see if you put up or shut up or engaged in your usual dishonest avoidance tactics. My guess it is the latter.

Fact is that breitbart misreprented the facts even though he had both parts of the story. Care to address that or not?

edit: nope you didn't even bother responding in that other thread. Imagine that.

I've stated in several threads, hack, that Breibart screwed up, Fox should have been more diligent, and that the President and administration are just as guilty for YET AGAIN jumping the gun without all the facts and firing the woman.

Now, I'll ask again, hack, were you bloviating this loudly when MSNBC stated that there was a "white racist" at a townhall with an assualt weapon when they obviously had the tape, and edited it to suit their agenda?

Why of course you weren't!

Further proving, that you are an a-typical S&P HACK!

Oh, and you have yet to provide proof of the claims that you made regarding my statements on the other thread.

Where's the ******* proof, troll?

Breitbart didn't merely just "screw up" that is nothing but BS spin to make light of the fact that he LIED and misrepresented the facts in order to produce something that when taken out of context would support his attack agaisnt the naacp.

Although I do agree and have said as much that there is more than enough blame to go around it still shocks me that so many onteh right defend or excuse breitbart et al for their part in this incident.

Can you produce any comments made by me about that incident?? Did I defend or excuse the way they edited the tape?? NOPE and you can't prove that i did so it's funny how you once again expose your dishonesty as you try to attack me personally for comments I never made. GJ hack.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about that other topic let's do it in that thread where the posts are located so I don't have to cut and paste all of your BS spin and dishonest comments into another thread to prove you are a hack all so you can ignore the facts as usual.
However, my guess is that you don't have the integrity to actually debate the facts in that thread which is why you continue to make your baseless acusations and attacks in this thread.
You making the claim here as you ingore what has been posted in that thread is nothing but the same cowardice you exposed when you vandalized that girl's car over a code pink sticker and then turned tail and ran away. LOL