Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 128 of 128

Thread: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Yes there are

    But would not lies about your opponent that cause the public not to vote for your opponent be a subversion of democracy.
    You mean like this??

    YouTube - Obama, Which One Did You Vote For?

  2. #122
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    One that is heavily using drones or long range missile attacks and sends out hired mercs to do the infantry fighting.
    Where did McCain say anything remotely resembling that? He was referring, specifically, to troops remaining after hostilities had ceased, just as they did in Germany and South Korea. If you have to go to such lengths to read so much into the statement, then I've made my point.

    Using my basis as the defense stating McCain wanted 100 years of war would be allowed, provided I did not leave a trail that indicated I didnt believe that is what McCain wanted, and that I was using that statement to hurt his chances at election. McCain would have to prove I knew what I said was a lie
    Again, how could it have been anything BUT to hurt his chances at election? It was said BY THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE, AT A CAMPAIGN FUNCTION.

    And no, by the standard as set in the law, the burden of proof is on Obama to show he had a reasonable basis to believe it was true, not McCain to show it was a lie. Look, I didn't write the law, but that's what it says.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #123
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Where did McCain say anything remotely resembling that? He was referring, specifically, to troops remaining after hostilities had ceased, just as they did in Germany and South Korea. If you have to go to such lengths to read so much into the statement, then I've made my point.



    Again, how could it have been anything BUT to hurt his chances at election? It was said BY THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE, AT A CAMPAIGN FUNCTION.

    And no, by the standard as set in the law, the burden of proof is on Obama to show he had a reasonable basis to believe it was true, not McCain to show it was a lie. Look, I didn't write the law, but that's what it says.
    He didnt say it, but he did not say it.

    All he said was he would be ok with soldiers in those countries for 100 years provided americans were not being killed. You said it was similar to what happened in Germany and Japan, but McCain did not say that. You had to infer it. I could infer something else, and provided I "believed it" I would not be subject the law that striped the UK MP of his office. The amount of evidence that will be required to strip any MP of his office using this law will be quite high (a paper trail stating he was going to lie about his opponent, and that said lies were the only way he was going to win was required in this case) The vast majority of politicians are going to be able to lie to their hearts content, they just have to ensure they dont send an email, a letter or leave other permanent evidence of their intent and planning
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  4. #124
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    HELL no.. the truth is the truth. It is your attitude that have lead to the worst atrocities in human history, because the "audience" denied the truth or facts, and took it out on others.
    Yeah, grey area never exists...
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  5. #125
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    He didnt say it, but he did not say it.

    All he said was he would be ok with soldiers in those countries for 100 years provided americans were not being killed. You said it was similar to what happened in Germany and Japan, but McCain did not say that. You had to infer it. I could infer something else, and provided I "believed it" I would not be subject the law that striped the UK MP of his office. The amount of evidence that will be required to strip any MP of his office using this law will be quite high (a paper trail stating he was going to lie about his opponent, and that said lies were the only way he was going to win was required in this case) The vast majority of politicians are going to be able to lie to their hearts content, they just have to ensure they dont send an email, a letter or leave other permanent evidence of their intent and planning
    Dude.

    He compared it to South Korea and Germany.

    And "he didn't not say it" is one of the dumbest things I've read recently. You didn't NOT say a whole lot of things -- shall I accuse you of saying them?

    As I said, the lengths that you feel you need to go to here make my point.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #126
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Why am I not surprised Rupert Murdoch's newspapers have such a problem with UK libel law? He's been trying to get his newspapers to be allowed to publish biased in their reporting here in the UK for years

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    -- JFC. Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and alleged dishonesty in electioneering?
    Interesting that you emboldened "actual financial fraud" and then used "alleged dishonesty in electioneering" - the problem with your argument is that the dishonesty in electioneering wasn't "alleged" - it was proven so your statement should, without bias read as this - "Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and actual dishonesty in electioneering? "

    Puts your outrage in a very different context doesn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Obama could be removed from office for saying that McCain said he'd be fine with 100 years of war. McCain never said that. So, Obama lied.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The public has a responsibility to keep itself informed and to scrutinize anything any politician says. And, as you cannot know the mind of anyone who's voting, you don't know if the lie affected the outcome anyway.
    OK, A politician lies and smears his opponent to become President, you have to wait 4-5 years to vote him out. In the meantime at the next election if he lies again and has the money to make more election adverts in the meantime against whoever his next opponent is - and it's all the American electorate's responsibility and fault for voting for him in the first place.

    Fabulous system you guys have - out of interest, how many US Presidents or US politicians have lied about their opponents in the first place? How many of that lot were re-elected on more lies? If the answer's more than one then the system is broke but you don't realise it.

    We have one proven case here in over 100 years and you're claiming our system is at fault. That our freedoms are impinged.

    The argument of "freedom of speech" is a strawman - I believe we simply have standards that we demand from our politicians, that they rip into each other's policies but do it truthfully and that way our country is best served. You believe politicians should be allowed to lie or make misleading statements.

    I'm curious therefore about Richard Nixon's impeachment charges.

    The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

    1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

    2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

    3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

    4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

    5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

    6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

    7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

    8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

    9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

    In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
    Why if lying is protected in US Govt, why bother with the charges where false or misleading statements are mentioned? Why not just charge him with misuse of Govt Agencies, interfering with the Dept of Justice etc?

  7. #127
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    No Government "HEARS" a case. That falls on the Judiciary, our Courts! The Government is not allowed to interfere with cases.
    Please fill in the blanks in the following sentences:

    "There are three branches of ______________: The executive, the legislative and the judiciary"

    "Criminal charges are brought by prosecutors, who are employed by the ________________."
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #128
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    Why am I not surprised Rupert Murdoch's newspapers have such a problem with UK libel law? He's been trying to get his newspapers to be allowed to publish biased in their reporting here in the UK for years
    Erm, you know that the NYTimes is not owned by Rupert Murdoch, right?

    Interesting that you emboldened "actual financial fraud" and then used "alleged dishonesty in electioneering" - the problem with your argument is that the dishonesty in electioneering wasn't "alleged" - it was proven
    Whether someone has stolen money out of an investment fund is a question of fact not subject to personal opinion. Actual financial fraud like Madoff committed is always obvious.

    Whether someone has been entirely truthful or materially misleading is a question of perspective subject to personal opinion. "Lying" is by no means always obvious.

    so your statement should, without bias read as this - "Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and actual dishonesty in electioneering? "

    Puts your outrage in a very different context doesn't it?
    Not really, as I still don't see them as being even remotely analogous. Politics is an industry that expects a certain level of gamesmanship and false promises. There's not a politician on this planet (even in perfect little ol' England) that has not done something that could be considered a lie. In contrast, it's not really expected or tolerated that when I hand Chase my paycheck, the teller will spend it on a yacht.


    OK, A politician lies and smears his opponent to become President, you have to wait 4-5 years to vote him out. In the meantime at the next election if he lies again and has the money to make more election adverts in the meantime against whoever his next opponent is - and it's all the American electorate's responsibility and fault for voting for him in the first place.

    Fabulous system you guys have - out of interest, how many US Presidents or US politicians have lied about their opponents in the first place? How many of that lot were re-elected on more lies? If the answer's more than one then the system is broke but you don't realise it.
    If you think that the politicians in your country are any more honest than ours, or if you think that this law has any material impact on conduct, then I don't really know what to say to you. That's just absurd.

    We have one proven case here in over 100 years and you're claiming our system is at fault. That our freedoms are impinged.
    How is this concept so hard to understand? This is like the fifth time that I've had to say it - the fact that something has not been misused in the past is not an argument in favor of the law. A bad law is a bad law whether its used once or a thousand times.

    The argument of "freedom of speech" is a strawman - I believe we simply have standards that we demand from our politicians, that they rip into each other's policies but do it truthfully and that way our country is best served.
    If you actually believe that, then maybe I was wrong above. It sounds like your politicians are great liars.

    I'm curious therefore about Richard Nixon's impeachment charges.

    Why if lying is protected in US Govt, why bother with the charges where false or misleading statements are mentioned? Why not just charge him with misuse of Govt Agencies, interfering with the Dept of Justice etc?
    I think there's a slight difference between committing/suborning perjury and telling tales about your opponent on the campaign trail.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 11-19-10 at 11:21 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •