- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,122
- Reaction score
- 33,464
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Actually everything your write on this board, is your opinion....In your opinion. Glad we cleared that up.
Actually everything your write on this board, is your opinion....In your opinion. Glad we cleared that up.
HORSESH*T
Nobody on God's green earth has a right to make such a statement. Not for any reason.
It is. It is also not applicable.First Amendment is a bitch.
It is. It is also not applicable.
It is. It is also not applicable.
How is it not applicable? Please explain.
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.Since when did freedom of speech not apply to Arlen Specter?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
He committed all of these....as the quote you provided clearly and emphatically demonstrates. Your proof substantiates my position. Thank you.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 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.
Wrong, it was not a lie. It was a speculation. What Specter actually said was:1. It is a false statement. There is no right to lie.
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."
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.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>
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I had no problem with Spector leaving, he needs to go anyway. p.s. I hated Spector as a Republican as well, good riddance.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.
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.
I had no problem with Spector leaving, he needs to go anyway. p.s. I hated Spector as a Republican as well, good riddance.
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.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:
I know man, gotta leave in a minute so I didn't read over.:dohAnd not to be nitpicky here, but it's...
Specter, not Spector.
Geez people!
:mrgreen:
I know man, gotta leave in a minute so I didn't read over.:doh
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.
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:
No doubt.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
Exactly the same situation.Sort of like McCain?