Lies & Censorship, DNC Style

I'm sure most of you know about the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and their ad campaign. Probably many of you don't know that the Democracts tried to censor the ad, claiming it "slander."

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Then there's the clever gambit of telling college students that a draft bill (HR 163) has been put forth to Congress, and is likely to be passed now that Bush is in office for another term. Nevermind that Bush firmly stated he was against a draft. The cute thing here is, all the Representatives sponsoring the bill are Democrats.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

For those of you who don't know who these Reps are, here are their respective websites:
Charles Rangel
Jim McDermott
John Conyers
John Lewis
Pete Stark
Neil Abercrombie

All Democrats. All voting for a draft bill. Why, you may ask, would a sextet of liberal pinko peaceniks vote for a draft? To decieve the young voting public, of course. This bill is not going to be passed as legislation, believe me. It was simply written to have something to show to college students who are afraid of being drafted.

 

All you do is attack.

I can't believe we're seeing this post a week after the election, sigurd, did john kerry wink at you in a way that was just a little bit too friendly for your tastes? If he pisses you off so much, why not get a bunch of your homeboys together and stomp his ass skinhead style? What good is a chain belt if you're never going to use it?

I think it would be a safe compromise if both sides of this issue agreed that the people scrounging up dirt on the candidate's war records were all lying. I mean, either way, wouldnt it be nice if certain people would just shut the fuck up about it? I swear, we're all going to go blind watching all the bullshit cinematography produced by the 2004 USA elections.

 

How else can you win a battle if you don't attack?
Dumbass.
The fact that the election was won by the right man (and the people's man) doesn't mean that the Democratic Party doesn't continue to be decietful and manipulative.
I bet you didn't even click on any of the links.

 

If you've ever read The Art of War (Sun Tzu isn't just a cool name you heard somewhere you know) then you'd know there are many ways to win without attacking.

But of course, your simple, rage-filled Sicilian mind cannot comprehend that, which is why every other ethnicity secretly laughs at you for your Neanderthal-like obsession with violence.

 

We all serve a purpose.

Except for democrats and censorship.

 

Jar, why are you so right, at least about that?

Sigurd, it might be censorship in a way, but slander is against the law. If the case can be made for it, than stopping something slanderous from airing is technically crime prevention. There's a difference between censoring something that's actually illegal, and censoring something that you just find icky, or don't like talking about. There's the difference between your example, and Howard Stern or others.

 

Silly boy.

Obviously there are other methods of victory than violence, but no matter what it is likely to be an attack. The attack I just waged on the Democrats involved absolutely no violence.

But you can't really say if the Swiftboat nonsense was actually slander or not. There would need to be more research to find out whether their claims are true.
So are you saying that Farenhiet 9/11 ISN'T slander?

 

Slander is not a crime. It is a civil cause of action for damages, and possibly an injunction.

Violence does not always mean physical force. There is emotional violence too.

Why is everyone being so mean?

I don't believe there will be a draft. But then again I didn't believe the United States would invade Iraq either, or that the World Trade Center would disappear from the New York skyline. We live in unbelievable times.

Arafat is about to croak, the result should be interesting to say the least.

 

You're such a bitch.

What is it exactly that you're winning? What are you attacking? All I was saying who the FUCK CARES?

 

Actually, yes. It is. Slander is a crime like breaking a contract is. It isn't punishable by jail time, but it is still illegal.

No, they couldn't prove it was slander Sigurd, that's why the ads got released. They tried to make a case that it was slander, and if they had made that case, the ads could have been barred.

 

Your mom might. But even that I'm not sure.
Oh, you mean who cares about what I said? I thought you meant who cares if you die.

 

Actually, no, it's not. And breaking a contract is not a crime either. It gives rise to a cause of action for a civil lawsuit.

 

Actually, where I live slander and libel are crimes. At the very least you can get sued for them, but at least in the US you can state an opinion without getting your ass legitimately sued off (as long as you don't present it as a fact, you're okay). Unfortunately for me, fact and opinion are treated the same way in the eyes of the law when it comes to slander and libel.

Because I am me and I am your lord and master.

 

Dude, breaking a contract is illegal, for that reason you can be held liable in court. It's called civil law. Slander is not illegal under criminal law, that's why it's not tried under criminal courts and can't be sentenced with jail time. It is illegal under civil law, that's why people can sue over it.

The problem was that these swift boat veteran's for truth, who were later found to be almost all lying, were presenting their opinions as facts. That's where the case for slander came in, and the attempted injunction to have the ads banned. The case fell through. And hence the ads were released.

 

Sorry about that, I've only been a lawyer for 15 years, what do I know. I'm sure you're right about these legal definitions.

 

BURN!

 

I don't give a damn if you're sandra day o'fucking connor, civil law is still law. And slander and breach of connor are under civil law.

 

Perhaps you're forgetting the part where you wrote

"If the case can be made for it, than stopping something slanderous from airing is technically crime prevention. "

and

"Slander is a crime"

It's funny to see you say the opposite now (slander is covered by civil, not criminal, law) with great conviction and emphasis, as if you hadn't changed your position 180 degrees, which you have. Interesting way of admitting you were wrong while emotionally acting as if you were right. Rather silly to those who see through it however.

 

Whoopedie fucking DOO! HURRAH HURRAH I SAID SOMETHING WRONG! BREAK OUT THE BELLS AND WHISTLES!!!!

I was using the term crime vaguely. I should have expected to confuse you. I mean, it's not like lawyers have any experience at all with ambiguity after all. And I couldn't have expected you to just point out my minute error, acting like a dick is proving far more effective.

I don't care if I look follish to you, you're a stupid prick. My statement, despite my incorrect use of crime, once again sound the fucking alarums, was that since slander is illegal it justifies an injunction. You blew a fucking hissy fit over two quite commonly confused words. Congratulations on proving me so damn silly.

 

Now now kiddies, play nice...