because slander is the 1st stage of violence and abuse...sm

• Obama - the poster-boy for wimps everywhere
  • What a hate filled post. - Sorry for you...
    • Tell ya what. When I need your sympathy - I'll yank your chain.
    • There is not one thing in the post that leads to hate - just me
  • Wha do you suggest Obama should have done? - ()
  • Agree, posterboy - Pugmom
    • So much hatred in this posting, despicable.. - ()
      • Where were you when Bush was being "slandered"... - watcher
        • Bush was rightfully slandered, not by me, - ()
      • There is no hatred in that post - just me
      • It is not slander. It is freedom of speech - Backwards typist
      • Presidents have been "slandered" since there's been presidents - Patty
        • I agree with you 100% Patty - just me
        • why do we have to continue with what others before - ()
          • I see nothing wrong - Patty
            • I was talking about the slander that is going on on this board! Wake up, Patty!..nm - ()
              • No you were not - it's obvious you were talking about the presidents - see message
              • Sure ya were.... - Patty
                • And I was saying that in my opinion it is - ()
                  • Actually ANY slander is despicable, also in our - ()
                    • and yet you continue... - cj
            • Patty: that's what you are believing, you with your 'biblical, caged' mind..nm - ()
              • I am an atheist and yet I agree with Patty so find - Victoria
                • How can my world be snmall when I am an - ()
                  • You certainly are no independent - me
                    • No, you are wrong, kow can you know - ()
                • Is tht so? So I assume that you are a flip-flop, - ()
                • How do you assume that my world is small? - ()
                • And even though - Patty
                  • Excuse me? I would hardly call Obama - ()
                    • YIKES! If you would not call Barry from Chicago a far liberal.... - watcher
                      • a far-liberal would probably be someone - ()
              • LOL - Patty
                • look beyond your Bible, so that you can - ()
                  • Everyone has something they believe in.... - watcher
        • read my post farer down......sm - ()
          • Maybe... - Patty
      • it is called freedom of speech - nm - cj
        • this is going too far...........nm - ()
          • umm, no... - cj
            • freedom of speech excludes and stops at slander and foul language...sm - ()
              • you do not know what you are talking about - see message - just me
              • The 1st Amendment - for your reading
                • if you accept and confuse slander as freedom of speech - ()
                  • because slander is the 1st stage of violence and abuse...sm - ()
                    • utter nonsense - where in the world did you come up with this line - just me
                    • sm... - cj
                    • And many, many times... - Patty
  • Agree wholeheartedly - Old part-timer
    • And I also AGREE.. - Patty
    • Agree also. He is a leader who wants everyone to - like him...eventually will bite us all.nm
  • LOL.....(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Hi, JTBB, I posted exactly the same thought s a couple - ()
    • Not quite - see message - just me
      • Wrong again.....(sm) - Just the big bad
        • No you are wrong - - just me
      • Not right, as far as I can remember 59% voted for Obama...nm - ()
        • A distortion of the facts - see message - just me
        • With the help of ACORN he got 59% - - nm
    • Sorry...but he is not MY President. He is THE President.... - watcher
      • Iran's meddling accusations....sm - ()
      • yes, he IS your president, and he does not care a bit - ()
        • what?? - cj
          • my reply was for watcher', not for you. - ()
            • nothing of substance to say so.. - cj
              • I put my 'substance' in all my posts, I hate - ()
      • If Netanyahu continues to bomb Gaza, - ()
      • Ahmadinejad is doiing what Khatami is telling him to do.. - ()
      • If you are a US citizen, he is YOUR president - sorry about that chief - nm - rolf
        • I'll try to make this a bit clearer for you - just me
        • Sticks and stones, my friend. Didn't vote for the man... - watcher
          • **Sticks and stones?** How bizarre. - Which is it?
            • The sticks and stones were the smart-A (aleck, not a$$).... - watcher
          • every US president is more or less a puppet...nm - ()
          • If they had been elected, absolutely they would be my President - - Amanda
            • Okay....I don't have to like him or support him, but he IS MY President.... - watcher
    • I know you don't expect an answer. They just bash, bash, bash - But don't have anything positive to suggest
      • as said: jealous and hateful losers...nm - ()
      • After all the Bush bashing this is refreshing.... - watcher
        • Hmmmm......(sm) - Just the big bad
          • Drink some more Kool-Aid!! - nm
          • hmmmm.... - watcher
            • There are so many false statements in your post... - ()
            • Microscope in hand...LOL...(sm) - Just the big bad
              • I second your post and 'watcher's post - ()
              • I woulld call that one a slam dunk! - SNAP
                • The slam dunk was by "Watcher" - nm.
                  • wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm - ()
                    • Then why did you second watchers post - above? ?????
                      • I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm - ()
                        • Sorry. My bad. Didn't realize - there was more inside
                          • no, it was my bad, because I forgot to put - ()

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Probably all of the Middle East has ties in some way to 9/11 and terrorism.  Even Great Britain had terrorist cells as well as North Africa.  We just can't invade/bomb them all, that will only further increase their hatred for us.

Most of the unrest in Iraq is not U.S.-mainland threatening terrorism, it is sectarian violence.  The groups that are fighting each other, Sunni versus Shia, do not pose a threat to the U.S. mainland, never did.  They only pose a threat to the Iraquis themselves.

The information you rely on is from a small and slanted informational source.  The bigger picture would point toward a different set of facts than those you use to form your theories.  So there will never be any agreement on this board between the far rights and the liberals. 

Lots of news that there just isn't enough help and the whole city is breaking down.  Bush has turned down planes and able-bodied assistance from Canada and Russia as well as offers from many other countries.  Says we can handle it ourselves.  Folks in New Orleans say FEMA is there but totally unorganized and not providing enough help.  I'm thinking this is in the U.S. and it's a MESS.  What kind of message are we sending to the world? 

I'm getting pretty darn uptight about this whole situation. 

Liberals don't promote violence, huh?  How about the gay rights protestors who physically knocked a cross out of an older woman's hands because how dare she oppose their opinion? 

8 October 2005, Seattle, WA:
Veteran's Home Vandalized
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/243...html?source=rss

4 September 2005, Louisiana:
Democrat Senator Threatens Violence Against Bush
Mary Landrieu: I'll Punch Bush, 'Literally'

1 September 2005, National:
Leftist Radio Host Encourages Looting
Sean Hannity

25 April 2005, National:
Leftist Radio Threatens to Assassinate Bush
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=17878

17 February 2005, Portland, OR:
Former Pentagon Adviser Assaulted at University
Protester throws shoe at Richard Perle - Politics - MSNBC.com

24 January 2005, Milwaukee, WI:
Five Democrats Charged with Election-Day Tire Slashing
JS Online: 5 charged in GOP tire slashings

8 November 2004, San Francisco, CA:
Muslim/Democrat Mob Attacks College Republicans
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15855

30 October 2004, Durango, CO:
Liberal Professor Assaults Conservative Student
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/artic...ews041030_1.htm

22 October 2004, Tuscon, AZ:
Conservative Commentator Assaulted at University
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...ch22-ON-CP.html

5 October 2004, Orlando, FL:
Democrat Mob Storms GOP HQ, Injures Staffers
Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando - Politics News Story - WKMG Orlando

October 2004, National:
A Pattern of Leftist Hatred
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40898

17 September 2004, Huntington, WV:
3-Year-Old Girl Attacked by Democrat Thugs
Washington Times - Democrats accused of ripping Bush signs

20 March 2003, Madison, WI:
Republican Heaquarters Vandalized
JS Online: GOP headquarters in Madison hit with bricks, paint bombs


11 March 2003, Los Angeles, CA:
Peaceniks Destroy 9-11 Memorial
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=31473

1 April 2005
Violent leftist/Democrat physically assaults conservative Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002026.html

13 February 1996
Liberals steal press run of conservative newspaper Carolina Review in an effort to preserve victory for their liberal candidate
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu.../16/12704.html

1 March 2002
Liberals steal entire press run of a monthly conservative publication at the University of California-Berkeley and harass and intimidate its staff
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26652

30 November 2004
Entire run of the November issue of the Yale Free Press, a conservative student publication, was stolen over the Thanksgiving break
Yale Daily News - Editors say Yale Free Press stolen

October 1999
Liberals at California State University at Sacramento stole 3,000 copies of the student newspaper. They were enraged because the paper, The State Hornet, had published the picture of a Hispanic man being arrested and charged with resisting arrest at a football game.
Nat Hentoff

1992
Liberals vandalize offices of The Collegian at the University of Massachusetts
http://collegefreedom.org/95press.htm

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
   
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
   
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
   
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true

Example:  A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

I.E., what the poster stated was freedom of speech, not slander, libel or defamation of character. It is a known fact that O hung around with not-so-nice people until he ran for President. Is that slander? Nope.

The poster was giving an opinion. That is freedom of speech. If it was slander, O would have be having a lot of lawsuits on his hands towards all the people who have ever stated anything against him, which would probably be around 250,000,000....including me...out of 300,000,000 people living in the USA.

I'm sure the usual suspects from the Conservative board also agree with the conclusions of THIS Pennsylvania nut case and will be ready to blame Kennedy for starting trouble.  LMAO!

Conservatives are getting weirder by the hour.

Kennedy slams Santorum for church sex abuse remarks

By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer  |  July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON --In a rare personal attack on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum self-righteous and insensitive for his remarks linking Boston's liberal reputation to the clergy sex abuse scandal.

In recent days, Santorum has refused to back down from comments he made in a 2002 column, in which he said promoting alternative lifestyles spawns aberrant behavior, such as priests molesting children. He went on to say that it was not surprising that liberal Boston was at the center of the scandal.

"The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say," said Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech from the Senate chamber.

Kennedy called for Santorum to apologize to the people of Boston and across the nation, noting that the clergy abuse happened all across the country, in "red states and blue states, in the north and in the south, in big cities and small."

On Wednesday, Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham said the Pennsylvania conservative recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston.

He said Santorum "was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously."

Santorum's initial observations were in a July 2002 column for Catholic Online, and came back to public light last month and earlier this week in newspaper accounts.

"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote in the Catholic Online column. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., accused Santorum of abject ignorance, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the senator's rationale bizarre.

"As a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I saw some of the worst criminals who had abused children and not once did I hear them hide behind Sen. Santorum's bizarre claim that the state was responsible for their acts," Kerry said.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said Santorum's column tries to minimize the abuse scandal, and imply that "some vague, larger societal defects" somehow caused clergy to assault children.

"In 2002, we gave Sen. Santorum the benefit of the doubt, assuming he was not aware of the scope of the abuse crisis," said Clohessy. "In 2005, it's hard to understand how he could repeat and stand by such misguided and harmful comments."

The scandal began in Boston in early 2002 when internal church files released under court order revealed abusive priests were transferred from parish to parish rather than removed from ministry. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned as archbishop later that year amid criticism over his handling of the crisis.

A 2003 investigation by Attorney General Thomas Reilly found that at least 1,000 children were abused by more than 235 priests and church workers between 1940 and 2000. And the archdiocese has paid out more than $120 million to settle abuse claims since 1950.

Reilly, a Democratic candidate for governor, also criticized Santorum on Wednesday. "For him to equate liberalism with child abuse is disgraceful," he said. "It's embarrassing for him and embarrassing to his party and his party should disown him." 

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
 

When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards.  Still, there was no response.

You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.

Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse? 

I guess we can leave it at that.  You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.

And THAT speaks volumes.

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

So, what goes around comes around.  After a hard week out on that campaign trail attacking Obama right, left and center, seems Sarah has a character issue of her own now to deal with.  Oops!   

If these are *family values* then the right is RIGHT.  I'm proud to say I
don't have 'em!

These people get scarier and scarier every day, and I'm keeping my children
away from them!
 

Christian Coalition head to withdraw from political life 
 

10/10/2005, 5:50 p.m. PT

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI The Associated Press 

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon
said Monday that he is withdrawing from public life, a day after news reports
detailed accusations of sexual abuse against him by three female relatives.

I am thankful for a family that loves and supports me, and intend to withdraw
from public life until this is resolved, Lou Beres wrote in a statement posted
on the organization's web site, at http://www.coalition.org

Beres has denied any criminal misconduct and wrote that he will pursue the
Biblical response and do all within my power to reconcile with that person.

Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told The Oregonian
newspaper that officials are investigating the complaints against Beres.

The three women — now adults — allege they were abused by Beres as preteens.
Their families called the child abuse hot line last month, after the three
openly discussed the alleged abuse for the first time.

I was molested, one of the women, now in her 50s, told The Oregonian. I was
victimized and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the
same room with him.

Beres, 70, has blamed personal and political enemies for the complaint.

Only one of the three cases appears to fall under Oregon's statute of
limitations on sex abuse, which expires after six years. Authorities said that
case involves a young woman who was allegedly abused by Beres when she was in elementary school.

A nephew of Beres' is standing up for the three women.

My family has gone through hell, said Richard Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif.,
who told detectives that his uncle had molested several female relatives over
the years.

Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been
ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination...It must
stop, he said.

In response to Galat's statements, Beres said on the Christian Coalition web
site Monday, I am grieved by the false allegations of my nephew, Richard Galat.
I am attempting to determine the source of each claim.

Beres, who did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated
Press, is the former head of the Republican Party in Multnomah County, the
Democratic stronghold that includes Portland.

Jim Moore, who teaches political science at Pacific University in Forest
Grove, said Monday that Beres has not been particularly influential in Oregon
politics.

In fact, under his leadership, the Christian Coalition in Oregon has gone
downhill.

In state legislative races in 2004, for example, Moore said that, we found
that Christian Coalition candidates basically did not do as well as they did in
the past.

Oregon Republican Chairman Vance Day said Beres hasn't been much of a factor
in state GOP politics since he stepped down as Multnomah County chairman about 10 years ago.

I don't view this as having any major impact on politics here in Oregon; I
don't think the Christian Coalition has a big footprint here at all, he said.

The group did support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that
passed handily with voters in November of 2004, but support for that cause was
rallied by another conservative-leaning group, the Defense of Marriage
Coalition.

Tim Nashif, the political director of that group, said he has few details
about the allegations, and added that his group is not associated with the
Christian Coalition.

Anytime any family goes through anything like this it's a pretty grievous
situation and our hearts go out to them, he said. The truth has a tendency to
come out.