I came to this thread to say exactly that Chet, and now Ana Marie is on Lawrence odonnell . The great things that can arise from an interest in political buttsecks... I am so proud. Hello Babies, for realz.
Yeah, I'm surprised there's not more of a stink about the "No state for you!" dismissal of the Palestinians. Not to mention Mitt's notion that it's OK to ignore the tough problems, because they'll "always be there."
I suspect this comes out of his chat (in a quiet room, natch) with that billionaire fuckwad Adelson. Can't wait for the debates - Obama's gonna kick Mitt around the room when the "two state solution" question comes around.
"Public Disclosure of Private and Embarrassing Facts" is a violation of privacy rights, because intimate details, even though true, can be off limits to the press and public. In order to prevail, Mitt would have to show that the information was: (1) sufficiently private or not already in the public domain, (2) sufficiently intimate, and (3) highly offensive to a reasonable person.
I'd love to see Mitt assert #3 in court! MoJo would happily (and noisily) stipulate to it.
Bigger problem for Mittens is that news organizations have a defense against a "private facts" privacy claim: if the material published was "newsworthy", there's no case. End of discussion, no matter where or how the video was obtained.
If he became an asshole, it would be an upgrade.
So, $50, right?
That would be more useful than the rest of his work. wasn't it Colbert who televised his colonoscopy to raise awareness?
i think it's cool how already mitt romney's presidency is soothing troubled waters.
that is pretty damned good.
I came to this thread to say exactly that Chet, and now Ana Marie is on Lawrence odonnell . The great things that can arise from an interest in political buttsecks... I am so proud. Hello Babies, for realz.
Yeah, I'm surprised there's not more of a stink about the "No state for you!" dismissal of the Palestinians. Not to mention Mitt's notion that it's OK to ignore the tough problems, because they'll "always be there."
They obviously stole it from me. I posted it here a while back referring to that rich bitch slob from Australia.
<a href="http:\/\/wonkette.com\/483309\/forbes-explains-why-you-people-need-more-horrible-rich-ladies-like-gina-rinehart#IDComment435580266" target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://wonkette.com/483309/forbes-explains-why-yo...">http://wonkette.com/483309/...
A few down from the top.
I suspect this comes out of his chat (in a quiet room, natch) with that billionaire fuckwad Adelson. Can&#039;t wait for the debates - Obama&#039;s gonna kick Mitt around the room when the &quot;two state solution&quot; question comes around.
But what does he know about unedited tapes, of people who are not being set up?
In Florida? Those get you the governor&#039;s office.
OK, time for some fun with the law:
&quot;Public Disclosure of Private and Embarrassing Facts&quot; is a violation of privacy rights, because intimate details, even though true, can be off limits to the press and public. In order to prevail, Mitt would have to show that the information was: (1) sufficiently private or not already in the public domain, (2) sufficiently intimate, and (3) highly offensive to a reasonable person.
I&#039;d love to see Mitt assert #3 in court! MoJo would happily (and noisily) stipulate to it.
Bigger problem for Mittens is that news organizations have a defense against a &quot;private facts&quot; privacy claim: if the material published was &quot;newsworthy&quot;, there&#039;s no case. End of discussion, no matter where or how the video was obtained.
There&#039;s a defense for &quot;newsworthy&quot; material about public figures. (Scroll down a bit.)
James is just mad because he wasn&#039;t cast in this movie, but these pimps are way out of his league.
I can think of no response to this shithead but slaming my head against a wall repeatedly.
If it&#039;s a blah kettle, you know he won&#039;t pick up.