And lets not forget the Global Poverty Act. 

Bwahahahahahahaha.

NBC might as well have the "O" as their logo.  The media is so much in the tank for Obama they don't even try to hide it.

 

A bit condesending one might say.  And no I am 36 years old not 28 and I have the birth ciertificate to prove it.  I saw my father live though some pretty interesting times and have always (since about 10 years old been interested in politics as I watched my father(a journeyman machinst) get laid off for 14 months when Reagan began sending our jobs overseas so we could have cheaper goods and "help" the economy. 

As with anything when yo have a lawsuit and you go after someone or some entity YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.  I mean if you didnt have laws that govern a democracy anyone in power could do anything and George Bush would be president with 99% of the vote every 4 years.

I am not getting down on you for your experiences in life, but your experiences are one small part of US politics and history, just as mine are, and most of our info comes from history books, news reports, talk radio, books, magazines, newspapers and so on.  And I have already said that I agreed with you about your military experiences with regards to the carter era and Reagan times.  So what gives there?

 

Yes they are talking about National and local journalists at news organizations.  What does that mean?  What it means to me is newspaper and news shows.  This is not all the media entails. 

Please show me how we had record unemployment before Mr. Reagan was elected, businesses leaving the country, left and right, and inflation so high no one could afford to hire anyone. Then Mr. Reagan took over and a year later jobs started happening. Businesses started to grow and hire people. It took a while for it to fully filter through the nation but we went through 93 months of the largest expansion and growth period of our history. Your father was out of work for 14 months? What was his field?



How about curious? You use words out of context without any understanding of their actual meaning. I had to explain to you what libel was and how difficult it was to prove. This means that any news organization can say anything they want and get away with it. Only in rare times has a libel suit ever gets won by the injured party. Either you are learning these words as you go or you have no understanding of what you write. That forced the question in my mind.



You still missed the point, you have to prove it was untrue, and then you have to prove that they knew it was untrue and published the lie with malicious intent. If you can’t prove the malice then there is no libel or slander. How many celebrities have had reports of affairs with aliens, are you suggesting that they don’t sue because it is true?



Okay this is where you don’t have the benefit of having been an adult during the Reagan administration and that has messed up your understanding. Talk radio was all liberal until Rush Limbaugh came on the scene in 1988 with one station that quickly grew because people wanted to hear something different, the truth for the most part. There was no fox news, there was only the big three ABC, CBS, and NBC. Cable news did not get going until just before the Gulf war, it was where CNN made its bones. Fox News came on the scene only 10 or 12 years ago. News papers were liberal with few exceptions. So the history of the day was written by liberals.

So there were no conservative media outlets?  If everything on the TV is anti-conservative then how do Nixon and Reagan even get elected?  I am just saying you make it sound as if conservatives had nothing.  In other countries where one side has all the news outlets "under their control" Opposition parties dont win.

He was a journeyman machinst, he worked in manufacturing, specifically he made cement trucks at the time.  Many of these jobs went away and never came back.

While I have been in this conversation I think you have offered one link to a fact which I just asked for clarification on.  The other link you offered was to Trinity church, which when I offered info from Obama's site people here just dismissed it.  Why should I not just dismiss that as people here did to me?  You are taking info right from Trinity's web site that can be constrewed in multiple ways, and I was taking info right from what Obama said. 

I agree you do have to prove it was untrue, but just as someone did reasearch for their article people with the resources like a McCain, Bush, Obama or otherwise can certainly put lawyers on these issues to prove libel or slander.  I agree it isnt easy but you make it sound as if it is impossible to do and its not.

Let me also apoligize right away.  I just got the game Political Machine and just started on this web site as I am sure you can all see.  I know you dont know me from jack and my intention was not to come on this forum and start lecturing everyone who has been on here for many years. I hope to have as many posts as you all do in the future and be respected.  But I am used to debating people in my own realm and have just kind of jumped in here as if you all were people I know in that realm and have as friends(of differing viewpoints).  I simply have passion for my beliefs and think that while there are some things I like about republican ideals, that democrat ideas are better for the whole country.  If I have offended or come off too strong I am sorry.

Just a little aside about libel.

There was a time when the truth of a statement was an absolute defense against a claim of libel based on that (truthful) statement. As I said, there was a time.

In the late 1970's I sued someone in small claims court for money owed me. Being then young and foolish, around the same time I complained about this individual's behavior and actions in a private letter to a voluntary professional oversight organization that I assumed this individual belonged to. The defendant was not a 'public figure' as usually defined, but the organization to which I wrote was a quasi-regulatory body (no relationship with any governmental agency). Turned out this individual was not a member after all & they had no authority to quasi-regulate him.

This individual (an attorney, natch) filed a counterclaim alleging libel based on the letter and upping the ante to get it out of small claims court. Ultimately, the judge in the case found for me on my original claim, meaning that the actions I had described in my letter were indeed true. He then also found for the counterclaimant, meaning that in the opinion of the judge I had committed an act of libel. We both won the same suit! Of course, the libel damages dwarfed my award, because, as the judge confided to my attorney afterward, he didn't think I should have acted 'so unprofessionally' - never mind it was a lawyer who had shafted me in the first place (apparently, shafting students was suitably professional behavior for lawyers in the view of this judge).

My attorney, who had repeatedly assured me that truth was an absolute defense against a claim of libel, was so incensed at the verdict that he took the case all the way to the state Supreme Court, pro bono, where, sad to say, the judge's ruling was affirmed.

As I said, there was a time.

Mooseplow, I was hoping you would prove to be an intelligent left leaning person who might be fun to lock horns with. I was wrong. You are left leaning, but have the intelligence of a pixie stick. Yes I dismiss you, not because you are left leaning, but because you're a total idiot.

There were no conservative networks, or news stations or organizations other than the weekly standard.



They gave speeches and met people. The news covered conservatives as they do now. They show what the republican said then explain how the democrat candidate is better, or more informed. When the democrat gave a speech he was covered and nothing he said was challenged unless it was a glaring mistake. The only reason Mr. Nixon won was because he promised to end the war in Vietnam. That is right Mr. Nixon was anti war. Mr. Reagan won because Mr. Carter pissed off the democrats by beating Senator Kennedy in the last election. They had been gunning for him from that point on. It was not until Mr. Clinton’s second election was Mr. Carter invited to the convention. Keep in mind that the last elected president of your party is the head of that party until the next person from your party is elected president. No one wanted to be seen with that loser.



Right, until 1988 there was only one conservative on TV. William F. Buckley he paid for the TV time once a week on Sundays. Rush Limbaugh was on one station in California, he went national in 1988.



Only in communist countries is that almost true. People talk to each other. Write news letters support their party, and actually learn who the candidates are and what they stand for. Because the airwaves are owned by the Government there has to be some fairness but not much. Remember that Congress was controlled by the Democrats for over 40 years and only lost power at the end of Mr. Reagans second term.



Did it ever occur to you that the reason people that dismissed what you offered was because we have already been to that site and read it long before you brought it up? Can you say the same thing?



Yes, in some strange version of our world that may happen, you have a news paper or news station that can generate billions of dollars and have lawyers on staff. While you have to get a lawyer and then sue knowing that you have to prove malicious intent in order to win. It does not matter that it was a lie, it does not matter that everyone knows it is a lie, it does not matter that you can prove they knew it was a lie when it was published. Not of that matters unless you can prove they did it to harm you.

Now I have pictures of you having sex with a grape. You say no such thing happened and take me to court. Since you are not a public figure you have a good chance of winning unless I come up with the pictures. I say I have pictures of Senator Obama having sex with his daughter and publish this lie. He says it is not true. I print a retraction on page 23 and he has lost his legal challenge. Meanwhile people are running around saying there is a report of the Senator having sex with his daughter. Prove this is untrue senator! The same thing happened with President Bush and his service record. This news broke long before he won the governorship yet that same story came up each time he was up for election for president. It was disproven 15 or 20 years ago and the story still is going around. When CBS came up with falsified documents it was then that the story dropped. Do you have the money to fight that lie for 20 years? and after you prove it is a lie then you have to prove malicious intent. Well I heard it from a reliable source. Is all they have to say and now you have to go after that source and the one behind that and the one behind that. When you finally get to the one that started the lie he did to publish it so he can’t be sued for libel, you have just spent somewhere around two or three hundred million dollars and did to win a penny. Sure you cleared your name but then all someone has to do is reprint the first story and say they did not know it was false and you started the cycle all over again.



To my knowledge only two people have sued the media and won. Carol Brunette, and some other star. They won little or no money, and only succeeded in clearing their names. It only took 8 years to win. Wow! Your right it is not impossible, but is it worth the trouble. If either senator were to sue for libel, it could take four to ten years to clear their name. They could have been elected and re-elected and out of office before their name is cleared. Add to that, every time any news about the senator is reported it will include the law suit, so that old news is new again. So if you want to have to fight the lies over and over and over again then you sue, or you keep quiet and let it die.



I can see that passion, wrong as it may be. LOL. I respect your passion I have a difficult time dealing with the lack of research you do before you jump into a topic. I don’t care what your political stripe is as long as you debate honestly. You have done so as far as I can tell you just have your facts way off on some things because your passion blinds you to reality. Because the left complains about talk radio you assume it has always been around and run by conservatives and republicans. Only in the last 10 years have republicans jumped on the talk radio band wagon until then it was Rush Limbaugh 3 hours a day and liberals 24/7 on every other radio station. The reason why talk radio is so powerful for conservatives is it makes money and whatever makes money is good. Liberals had talk radio and have never made money because no one wants to hear hate speech.



As long as you don’t lie, and speak your mind you have nothing to apologize for except being wrong, I mean liberal, but we will fix that soon enough.  

You would think differently if you met me, but whatever you almighty one.  I shall kneel to your all knowing 1 quote of vague proof.

Wasn't this train headed to National Service?

Oh wait, dammit, this train's been hijacked...I'm getting off now. Literally.

After reading what you have said since coming to this forum, I agree with Parated8k, though I think idiotic is a bit too harsh. I think you are just a bit of a greenhorn, with a fun mix of naivety and ignorance that makes you very fun to hang out with but appear lacking in discussions such as this one.

Perhaps it would be wise to listen more and talk less, until you have something significant to add to the discussion? By significant, I mean original, non-talking-point ideas with the underlying rational explained (ie "A national service corp is a great idea" is vain). Passion is indeed important, but unguided and untempered, it is a blunt instrument. You do not want to use a cudgel when performing surgery?

As it is right now, I believe you would be perfect as an officer in Obama's new "Unity Corp"!

P.S. As a fellow greenhorn, I too am guilty of speaking above myself, but awareness is the first step to self-improvement. Sempur ad Meliora!