DC Tom Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 See there you go again. Like I said, as a mod, you should be kinder and genler. You should think of new ways of calling him an idiot but making him feel good about it. 5978[/snapback] You want someone to make you feel all warm and fuzzy and happy all over, go buy a !@#$ing puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 You want someone to make you feel all warm and fuzzy and happy all over, go buy a !@#$ing puppy. 5981[/snapback] I don't care. I'll take the flak 'til Tenny gets back. Without a liberal to pick on, what purpose would your lives have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I don't care. I'll take the flak 'til Tenny gets back. Without a liberal to pick on, what purpose would your lives have? 5989[/snapback] Wow, you are making yourself the sacrificial lamb in place of teeny tinny. Maybe you are really an idiot. Sorry Tom, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I agree. I think people tend to take their cues from the moderators. You know, if they're calling people idiots and morons, everybody figures well, hell, that must be the coin of the realm. 5968[/snapback] So, what you are saying, is that people are lemmings. They cannot think for themselves, act on their own, without a babysitter here to take care of them? FWIW, posting on the board is different from moderating the board. Mods are allowed to have opinions, and are allowed to express them. Just because they express opinions on issues, does not mean that they are not fair when it comes to moderation. Hell, if I get in an argument with someone, I recuse myself from moderating that thread. I leave it up to the other mods to take care of things, and they have deleted my posts when things get out of control. To think that the mods need to be opinionless while posting, is living in a fantasy world. This is a politics board. People discuss politics, and that includes the mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Read NY Times v. Sullivan for an analysis of the higher standard for public officials in libel cases. Lying weasels like the so-called "swiftboat veterans" (I find it hard to believe the doctors actually served on a swiftboat, by the way.) can get away with a lot of lies. Still I suspect they might have a good lawsuit against O'Neil and may be able to prove actual malice. It would be nice to see that republican lackey squirm in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 SHUDDER. You just KNOW its coming, especially if Bush wins. 4956[/snapback] Believe it or not those are my worst fears. I don't want to see the unstability carry on, it aids our enemies. It was Bush that needed to heal given the results from 2000. It was his job to bring us together, not divide. It was his historical responsibilty because of the upside down results to marginalize the far-left. He dropped the ball. We still could have been fighting his war while achieving these goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Read NY Times v. Sullivan for an analysis of the higher standard for public officials in libel cases. Lying weasels like the so-called "swiftboat veterans" (I find it hard to believe the doctors actually served on a swiftboat, by the way.) can get away with a lot of lies. Still I suspect they might have a good lawsuit against O'Neil and may be able to prove actual malice. It would be nice to see that republican lackey squirm in court. 6001[/snapback] Welcome back you old goat...man!! Tell me komrade what flavor Koolaid are they sending from the motherland this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Believe it or not those are my worst fears. I don't want to see the unstability carry on, it aids our enemies. It was Bush that needed to heal given the results from 2000. It was his job to bring us together, not divide. It was his historical responsibilty because of the upside down results to marginalize the far-left. He dropped the ball. We still could have been fighting his war while achieving these goals. 6002[/snapback] Yeah right!! he was the divider... Kerry, Dashle, Mikey Moore, George Soros, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the minions have worked so hard to be uniters....... give me a break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Yeah right!! he was the divider... Kerry, Dashle, Mikey Moore, George Soros, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the minions have worked so hard to be uniters....... give me a break! 7063[/snapback] Actually you're both wrong. I blame a lot of it on Gore. After all was said and done, he should have had a joint conference, agreeing with the decision and then tell his faithful, to give GWB their full support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Actually you're both wrong. I blame a lot of it on Gore. After all was said and done, he should have had a joint conference, agreeing with the decision and then tell his faithful, to give GWB their full support. 7072[/snapback] Actually as I recall Gore did basically that, with the exception of the joint conference. He said it was over and he supported the President. That really pissed off a lot of the far left fanatics who said he rolled over and gave it to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Actually as I recall Gore did basically that, with the exception of the joint conference. He said it was over and he supported the President. That really pissed off a lot of the far left fanatics who said he rolled over and gave it to them. 7151[/snapback] I could be wrong, but I don't remember that. I also still fell a joint conference should have been best. It would have left Gore in a better light for those on the rihgt, and unified things a little more, IMHO. Okay just looked it up. Here is his speech: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcrip...00/t651213.html Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Problem is he never fulfilled this promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I could be wrong, but I don't remember that. I also still fell a joint conference should have been best. It would have left Gore in a better light for those on the rihgt, and unified things a little more, IMHO. Okay just looked it up. Here is his speech: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcrip...00/t651213.html Problem is he never fulfilled this promise. 7157[/snapback] Wait a minute, I don't understand what you're saying. From your quote it seems that Mr. Gore did say it was over, let's put aside the fight and band together behind the President. Who didn't fulfill his promise, Mr. Gore who kept his mouth shut for over two years, or the compassionate conservative who had not only the entire country but most of the world supporting him and the U.S. after 9-11? We obviously have a different opinion of Mr. Bush but the fact is that he has been in charge while the country has slowly become more and more polarized and I have seen no effort whatsoever on his part to unite us. At the same time he has alienated the entire world. I simply cannot understand how any of that relates to a "Compassionate Conservative" who was going to go to Washington and change the tone of public politcal discourse and be a "Uniter". You are correct that Al Gore has recently been a strong partisan who has been very critical of and in some cases may have gone over the top somewhat. That is to be contrasted with Bob Doles statements this past few days about Mr. Kerry's purple heart comendations? Mr. Cheney telling a U.S. Senator to go ef himself on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Now we have another U.S. Senator calling Mr. Cheney a coward? I'm sorry but this administration has to be held accountable for this breakdown of unity in the country and in November that should be a major factor in who is elected President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Wait a minute, I don't understand what you're saying. From your quote it seems that Mr. Gore did say it was over, let's put aside the fight and band together behind the President. Who didn't fulfill his promise, Mr. Gore who kept his mouth shut for over two years, or the compassionate conservative who had not only the entire country but most of the world supporting him and the U.S. after 9-11? We obviously have a different opinion of Mr. Bush but the fact is that he has been in charge while the country has slowly become more and more polarized and I have seen no effort whatsoever on his part to unite us. At the same time he has alienated the entire world. I simply cannot understand how any of that relates to a "Compassionate Conservative" who was going to go to Washington and change the tone of public politcal discourse and be a "Uniter". You are correct that Al Gore has recently been a strong partisan who has been very critical of and in some cases may have gone over the top somewhat. That is to be contrasted with Bob Doles statements this past few days about Mr. Kerry's purple heart comendations? Mr. Cheney telling a U.S. Senator to go ef himself on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Now we have another U.S. Senator calling Mr. Cheney a coward? I'm sorry but this administration has to be held accountable for this breakdown of unity in the country and in November that should be a major factor in who is elected President. 7231[/snapback] Again working to unify, means more then keeping your mouth shut. It means telling others to do the same. Gore basically petered out on this. Granted Bush, and more Rumsfeld and Cheney, have big issues with this, but as you point out these senators, making cheep shots, etc... need to be stifled. As the previous Democrat presidential candidate is becomes the defacto leader for the party for 4 years. It was his job to guide lead and control the minions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Just a thought on the polarizing thing. Maybe we aren't so polarized afterall. The last election was impossibly close so why wouldn't one conclude that it was close because politically we are all not that far apart? Perhaps we are actually pretty close to one another on the vast majority of issues and thus, it is pretty difficult for any candidate to rout the other. Perhaps, just perhaps, it only seems like we are polarized because the proliferation of broadcast sources, ie zillions of cable channels, has provided plenty of soapboxes for every Tom, Dick and Rush to climb on and start shouting. To get noticed, to get ratings, they have to be extreme. No one is going to notice a dignified, polite exchange of views. If you want ratings, you have to go the Limbaugh route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Under US law, you can lie about a "public person". Such lies are not actionable which is why the Enquirer, Fox News and even Michael Moore can say whatever they want. Next moronic question? 5450[/snapback] That and its not a lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Just a thought on the polarizing thing. Maybe we aren't so polarized afterall. The last election was impossibly close so why wouldn't one conclude that it was close because politically we are all not that far apart? Perhaps we are actually pretty close to one another on the vast majority of issues and thus, it is pretty difficult for any candidate to rout the other. Perhaps, just perhaps, it only seems like we are polarized because the proliferation of broadcast sources, ie zillions of cable channels, has provided plenty of soapboxes for every Tom, Dick and Rush to climb on and start shouting. To get noticed, to get ratings, they have to be extreme. No one is going to notice a dignified, polite exchange of views. If you want ratings, you have to go the Limbaugh route. 7377[/snapback] We are polarized because BUSH is president, not because it's a Republican in the White House. I would never defend Kerry on every thing like a lot of Democrats will do, but I WILL vote for him because things are so far out of control right now in the ol' Executive Branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Again working to unify, means more then keeping your mouth shut. It means telling others to do the same. Gore basically petered out on this. Granted Bush, and more Rumsfeld and Cheney, have big issues with this, but as you point out these senators, making cheep shots, etc... need to be stifled. As the previous Democrat presidential candidate is becomes the defacto leader for the party for 4 years. It was his job to guide lead and control the minions. 7242[/snapback] Again, he did say to cool it and support the President. President said he was going to be a Uniter not a Divider. He immediately began renigging on campaign promises, breaking international treaties and (members of his administration) trashed the Clintons endlessly, remember the pilfering of Air Force One, later debunked? Remember the vandalism of the White House, later debunked? Through it all, not a peep out of Gore, or Clinton for that matter. However, where was Mr. Bush, many on the left would say he was on vacation , but as "the" head of the party as President he also should have been controling his minions. Then comes 9-11. Mr. Gore, Mr. Clinton and the heads of the Democratic party all come out with statements in support of Mr. Bush and again, in a spirit of patriotism make a call to unity, back him to the hilt. Now we're in election year politics and the Dems are supposed to sit around on their hands while the Republicans say and do whatever they want? Democratic Senators should be stifled when they say the VP is a coward, but the VP shouldn't be stifled when he tells a Senator to ef himself on the Senate floor? Al is the defacto head of his party so all the negativism from the left is his fault, while the President who is the leader of the republicans has no responsibility for the actions of the right? Basically what I'm saying is that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander and because it's now a critical time in the election the democrats have decided to play hardball politics right back. However, Mr. Bush had a relative free ride from the Democrats and definately their leaders, for over two and a half years and he blew that opportunity to unite the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 A famous Supreme Court libel case, Sullivan v. NY Times answered your question. The Supreme Court noted that "we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." They went on to write that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate," No surprise that this statement was made in reference to the NY Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.