- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
:lamo
This is sooo the same as torturing. :roll:
Yeah. That's the only thing that gets criticized. :roll:
:lamo
This is sooo the same as torturing. :roll:
Yeah. That's the only thing that gets criticized. :roll:
It's the biggest thing US gets criticised for when it comes to rights of others
Wow. I guess that Canadian magistrate was right and freedom of speech really IS an American concept.
Yay, us!
If I was American. I wouldn't criticise other countries on rights of any sort. Go torture some more and pretend to hold a moral ground on preaching to other countries.
:lol:OK, Pirate Lady.
:lol:
Thanks!
I take that as a compliment btw. I'm just a thief, not sadistic .... just saying :shrug:
Wow. I guess that Canadian magistrate was right and freedom of speech really IS an American concept.
Yay, us!
"Sadistic"? My, what overblown fantasies you have.
I can't even imagine, though, what's more "sadistic" than a Somali pirate attacking a UN ship filled with food destined for Somali civilians and then keeping it for themselves -- especially when in so doing, the UN decided not to send anymore.
Yeah, you have a right to be blatantly lied to in your media and politics! Yeah, go America, #1! :2party:
:roll:
I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.
I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.
I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.
I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.
You can tell when Woolas is lying; his lips move. I don't need a judge to tell me that, but to do something about it.I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.
You seem to have a weird definition of arbitrary. I don't believe the judges based their decision on random choice or whim, it wasn't autocratic and was definitely conducted within strict evidential limitations. Your use of the word is invalid.I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.
I'd hope that a party I supported would not resort to using fallacious, racial baiting materials during their election campaign. It is for just such cases that the Representation of the People Acts were framed and it was under that legislation that he was stripped of his parliamentary seat. An appeal is pending but he has already been permanently ejected from the Labour Party.I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.
An appeal is pending but he has already been permanently ejected from the Labour Party.
He won't win and even on the slim chance he does. His political career is over (thank god!)
Harman was pretty impressive in this weeks PMQ's.
There is a reason why this is the first judgement in 100 years. :roll:
The fool even had leaflets and a paper trail
He deserved to be anally shafted by the law :shrug:
If the lies cross over into being libelous, I would have no issue with it being used against any candidate
You can tell when Woolas is lying; his lips move. I don't need a judge to tell me that, but to do something about it.
You seem to have a weird definition of arbitrary. I don't believe the judges based their decision on random choice or whim, it wasn't autocratic and was definitely conducted within strict evidential limitations. Your use of the word is invalid.
I'd hope that a party I supported would not resort to using fallacious, racial baiting materials during their election campaign.
It is for just such cases that the Representation of the People Acts were framed and it was under that legislation that he was stripped of his parliamentary seat. An appeal is pending but he has already been permanently ejected from the Labour Party.
I'm afraid that I can't stand her either, but on this issue she did the right thing.
Oh, well that makes it okay.
I'm sorry that you think you need a judge to tell you whether a politician is lying or not.
I'm sorry that you think an unelected branch of government should be able to veto the results of elections based on an arbitrary determination of accuracy.
I wonder how many people applauding this move ever stopped to think about what it would be like if the party that they don't like decided to use this against their preferred candidates.
Did the guy who had been criticized sue him for libel? Did he win? Why is that not sufficient?
I'm sorry that you don't seem to grasp the fact that this kind of court ruling is incredibly rare and requires an abundance of evidence for the court to take action.
I would suggest it is not sufficient if the person won the election based on the libel. The whole profiting from a crime thing