• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Specter hints Kemp died of GOP agenda

celticlord said:
HORSESH*T

Nobody on God's green earth has a right to make such a statement. Not for any reason.
Click to expand...

Actually you are absolutely wrong. He very much has a right to make that statement. Just like you and some of your ilk have a right to say some of the very dumb things you are frequently guilty of saying. First Amendment is a bitch.
 
aps said:
How is it not applicable? Please explain.
Click to expand...

1. It is a false statement. There is no right to lie.
2. Being a lie, it is also slander, not just of members of both political parties (as each party has held sway since the referenced Nixon declaration of a "war on cancer"), but also of the deceased, who was a part of the government and the party so criticized by Specter. There is no right to slander.
3. Further, in making reference to the manner of Jack Kemp's death, it represents an invasion of privacy. Such invasions are not protected speech.
 
Lerxst said:
Since when did freedom of speech not apply to Arlen Specter?
Click to expand...
The protections and limitations of the First Amendment absolutely apply to the disgraced Senator from Pennsylvania. As his comments about Jack Kemp are outside the boundaries of the First Amendment, your question is moot.
 
celticlord said:
1. It is a false statement. There is no right to lie.
2. Being a lie, it is also slander, not just of members of both political parties (as each party has held sway since the referenced Nixon declaration of a "war on cancer"), but also of the deceased, who was a part of the government and the party so criticized by Specter. There is no right to slander.
3. Further, in making reference to the manner of Jack Kemp's death, it represents an invasion of privacy. Such invasions are not protected speech.
Click to expand...

your "logic" assumes we have forgotten the facts. I will refresh them for you. Here is what Specter actually said. I am sure that, 3 pages from now, you will once again be accusing him of slander, lying, and invasion of privacy. As you can clearly see (even you), he committed none of these.

If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.
Click to expand...
 
WillRockwell said:
I can't blame you for making this crap up, because every right wing media outlet is saying it. Specter did not say "the GOP killed Kemp". Here is the totality of what he did say:

Now, that seems like a true statement. What part of this actual quote do you disagree with?
Click to expand...


Context is a killer, isn't it Will. Lets see, does this make it sound a bit different?

But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach. And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research. If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.
Click to expand...

That's odd, if you add what was said before it when he points out the apparent difference in "Funding for medical research" between what he was able to push as a republican than as a democrat, it most certainly DOES seem that he's insinuating that the GOP's "agenda" of not spending federal money on medical research helped lead to the death of Jack Kemp.

I ask you Will, why didn't you provide the line right before the one you posted?
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Context is a killer, isn't it Will. Lets see, does this make it sound a bit different?



That's odd, if you add what was said before it when he points out the apparent difference in "Funding for medical research" between what he was able to push as a republican than as a democrat, it most certainly DOES seem that he's insinuating that the GOP's "agenda" of not spending federal money on medical research helped lead to the death of Jack Kemp.

I ask you Will, why didn't you provide the line right before the one you posted?
Click to expand...

If you are so concerned with context, why did you collapse Specter's remarks? As you can see, the line you quoted is not at all "right before the one you posted". Maybe you should be quoting from an actual transcript instead of a rightwing rag. Do you prefer the decision to indict Specter by collapsing his words, or were you just suckered in by it. Hmmm?

RealClearPolitics - Interview with Senator Arnold Specter
And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research. I've been the spear carrier to increase medical research. And I've even established a Web site, Specterforthecure.com, to try to get people to put more pressure on Congress to join me in getting more funding.

This medical research has been a reawakening to (ph) $10 billion. We were about to lose a whole generation of scientists. And now they're enthused. There are 15,000 applications to be granted.

SPECTER: If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.

Now, as the New York Times pointed out in a column today, when you talk about life and death and medical research, that's a much more major consideration on what I can do, continuing in the Senate, contrasted with which party I belong to.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
your "logic" assumes we have forgotten the facts. I will refresh them for you. Here is what Specter actually said. I am sure that, 3 pages from now, you will once again be accusing him of slander, lying, and invasion of privacy. As you can clearly see (even you), he committed none of these.
Click to expand...
He committed all of these....as the quote you provided clearly and emphatically demonstrates. Your proof substantiates my position. Thank you.
 
WillRockwell said:
If you are so concerned with context, why did you collapse Specter's remarks? As you can see, the line you quoted is not at all "right before the one you posted". Maybe you should be quoting from an actual transcript instead of a rightwing rag.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in the future you should actually CITE YOUR SOURCES when you quote people than if its not using the same source that was already quoted in the article. Am I supposed to be some sort of mind reader, able to bore into the Mind of the illustrious WillRockWell to know that the quote he posted, with absolutely no link citing where he got it from, was not taken from the article being discussed and actually linked in here.

My apologizes, how about in the future clean up your sloppy debating and posting etiquette or be a bit understanding when people misunderstand you because of your inability to follow common protocol.

Now having seen the full version, I sit somewhere between the original implication which appears to be faulty reporting (Funny, you seem to be attacking the poor reporting here while just a week ago you were drooling and frothing over information posted from a "liberal" rag without question) that, again, shows how poor our media is and the one presented by you.

It seems, in the context, he is implying that through his shift to being a democrat he now has a better possability to push for funding of medical research than he had for republicans and if the push he has been wanting actually been done in the past decades that the senator would be alive today.

I do think its a slight shot at the republicans, however I think its a far less over the top and questionable comment than it was initially made out to be. He's making an opinion, one that I think its a bit faulty as I believe cancer research has been one of the most heavily focused on and funded research in both the private and public sector when looking at the entirety of the field, and one that I think his personal interest in it clouds his view, but one that I don't see as being as questionable in character as originally posted.

I think it was a political dig, but an extremely mild one all things considered.
 
celticlord said:
1. It is a false statement. There is no right to lie.
Click to expand...
Wrong, it was not a lie. It was a speculation. What Specter actually said was:
Mr. Specter, responding to a question from CBS' Bob Schieffer over whether he had let down Pennsylvanians who wanted a Republican to represent them, said he thought his priorities were more in line with those of the Democrats.

"Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate," Mr. Specter said on "Face the Nation." "But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach. And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research."

Mr. Specter continued: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
Click to expand...

The definition of a lie as you are using it is:

Main Entry:
lie
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
lied; ly·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English lēogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lŭgati
Date:
before 12th century

intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
Click to expand...
Specter said "I think..." This is no lie, this is his opinion. It may very well have been true had the cancer funding been approved. You just don't know. Strike one.

2. Being a lie, it is also slander, not just of members of both political parties (as each party has held sway since the referenced Nixon declaration of a "war on cancer"), but also of the deceased, who was a part of the government and the party so criticized by Specter. There is no right to slander.
Click to expand...
You are making a reach of preposterous length out of pure partisan nonsense. He in no way lied, and he didn't slander anyone....PERIOD. Especially the deceased. He offered his personal opinion. This is a prime example of intellectual dishonesty, playing games with big words in order to make your case. In order to slander someone you must actually make a false statement that is actually about a specific person and actually damages their character or defames them. You keep trying though. Strike two.
3. Further, in making reference to the manner of Jack Kemp's death, it represents an invasion of privacy. Such invasions are not protected speech.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely ludicrous. This is in no way whatsoever an invasion of privacy. Kemp died of cancer, it's publicly known. There is no expectation of privacy on the fact that he died of cancer. You have demonstrated that you are truly ignorant of what a lie is, what slander is, and what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Strike three.

First Amendment applies.
 
Last edited:
I'd begrudgingly have to go with Lex on this one. By all accounts it seems he's giving an opinion here and not a slanderous one. I think its an incorrect one, but he's free to make incorrect and even perhaps insensitive opinions.
 
celticlord said:
The protections and limitations of the First Amendment absolutely apply to the disgraced Senator from Pennsylvania. As his comments about Jack Kemp are outside the boundaries of the First Amendment, your question is moot.
Click to expand...

See my above post. Can you be any more wrong?
 
Hatuey said:
I find it so funny that so many Republicans who defended Joe Lieberman for going 'Independent' on Democrats for what was basically ONE issue(National Security) are now attacking Specter. When Lieberman did it he was standing up for what he believed in! When Specter does it. He's a rhino! a librul! I need a smoke.
Click to expand...
I had no problem with Spector leaving, he needs to go anyway. p.s. I hated Spector as a Republican as well, good riddance.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'd begrudgingly have to go with Lex on this one. By all accounts it seems he's giving an opinion here and not a slanderous one. I think its an incorrect one, but he's free to make incorrect and even perhaps insensitive opinions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Specter was a tool for saying what he said, but it was nothing more than his politically motivated, stinky opinion. No lie, no slander, and certainly no invasion of privacy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I had no problem with Spector leaving, he needs to go anyway. p.s. I hated Spector as a Republican as well, good riddance.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking about this, since there is so much clamor on the forum over Specter right now. How many Republicans/Conservatives on this board actually voiced an negative opinion of Specter prior to this party change? There are certainly plenty right now, and they all seem to think he was worthless as a Republican. Where is the history. A lot of folks seem to be playing the "what...Specter's joined the Dems?...well, huh...I mean...fine, we didn't want him anyway, he's a dirty SOB and always has been, I'm glad the Dems got him...serves 'em right I tell ya!" card.

:mrgreen:
 
And not to be nitpicky here, but it's...

Specter, not Spector.

Geez people!

:mrgreen:
 
Lerxst said:
I was just thinking about this, since there is so much clamor on the forum over Specter right now. How many Republicans/Conservatives on this board actually voiced an negative opinion of Specter prior to this party change? There are certainly plenty right now, and they all seem to think he was worthless as a Republican. Where is the history. A lot of folks seem to be playing the "what...Specter's joined the Dems?...well, huh...I mean...fine, we didn't want him anyway, he's a dirty SOB and always has been, I'm glad the Dems got him...serves 'em right I tell ya!" card.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I think it all boils down to conservative and republican, the people who thought the GOP could do no wrong are bashing Specter right now, the true republican conservatives didn't like him to begin with because he was always a 50/50 vote, you never really knew where his principles were.
 
Lerxst said:
And not to be nitpicky here, but it's...

Specter, not Spector.

Geez people!

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I know man, gotta leave in a minute so I didn't read over.:doh
 
LaMidRighter said:
I know man, gotta leave in a minute so I didn't read over.:doh
Click to expand...

Lol...it's funny though right? I mean so many people get his name wrong. I was the exact opposite...I had to double check it because I kept wanting to spell it with "or" instead of "er" even though I knew better.

:rofl
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think it all boils down to conservative and republican, the people who thought the GOP could do no wrong are bashing Specter right now, the true republican conservatives didn't like him to begin with because he was always a 50/50 vote, you never really knew where his principles were.
Click to expand...

Sort of like McCain?
 
Lerxst said:
I was just thinking about this, since there is so much clamor on the forum over Specter right now. How many Republicans/Conservatives on this board actually voiced an negative opinion of Specter prior to this party change? There are certainly plenty right now, and they all seem to think he was worthless as a Republican. Where is the history. A lot of folks seem to be playing the "what...Specter's joined the Dems?...well, huh...I mean...fine, we didn't want him anyway, he's a dirty SOB and always has been, I'm glad the Dems got him...serves 'em right I tell ya!" card.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Specter was routinely criticized by the right, including on this forum. There wasn't a lot of noise about him the past two years because the Dem's had a majority and it didn't matter as much. If you think back to the "Gang of 14" thing, he was ridiculed a lot. Anytime "RINO'S" were brought up there was a good chance Specter was mentioned. There was a thread ressurected from a couple months ago criticizing him once the news came out he moved to the new party.

Quite frankly, Specter hasn't been loved by Republicans for some time. The ONLy real "conservative" bedrock stance I've found him to be strong on was the 2nd amendment. In every other issue he is either about as moderate as you can come (having a mix of positions or just no strong real feeling), liberal, or conservative in the meekest least outspoken way possible.

Specter rarely made the news because he was strongly pushing for a fiscal budget, or to push for tax cuts, or for calls of needing to shrink the size of government, or to strengthen our borders, or to other things. He was generally only in the news when he was pushing strongly for the "amnesty" bill, was blocking conservative judicial nominations, or was one of 4 to 7 republicans that would jump over and side with Democrats to break fillibusters or sway a big item.

I think if Specter had been at the forefront of a conservative issue or two he'd have had a lot less vitriol shown to him; likely more on par with McCain, who gets insulted but also praised, than with someone like Olympia Snow who I've never seen a good thing said about. But he wasn't, he was a meek quite person on almost all conservative issues unless he was jumping ship to the other side in which case suddenly he was loud and prone to lectures.

His cache had just gone down in recent years becuase there was less of a need for a token republican to drag over to make something "bipartisan" in hopes of getting it to pass or put onto the floor.
 
Lerxst said:
Lol...it's funny though right? I mean so many people get his name wrong. I was the exact opposite...I had to double check it because I kept wanting to spell it with "or" instead of "er" even though I knew better.

:rofl
Click to expand...
No doubt.

Lerxst said:
Sort of like McCain?
Click to expand...
Exactly the same situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom