Originally Posted by RichieLion

As I understand, your post is meant in a humorous way, but to give a serious response I'd like to point out that the original post was a personal attack and continued vilification of Christine O'Donnell by Actor. All responses to his original personal attacks on O'Donnell, which were nothing of policy or substance but just an attack on her an her character, were in the way of showing that she won because of the extremely flawed Republican that is Mike Castle; meaning he is a liberal at best. All subsequent responses by Actor were continued personal attacks and not a view of the election in any sense with any reflection on the mood of the electorate.
To repeat; all personal attacks were directed at Christine O'Donnell in this post and all political explanations were given by TOTV conservatives. I don't really see one personal attack on Actor, do you?

as a personal attack when someone posts information you consider negative about one of far right's candidates. When you and your fellow conservatives slander the President, or Speaker Pelosi, it's ok. Once again, you show how hypocritical you are.

Originally Posted by actor

When you and your fellow conservatives slander the President, or Speaker Pelosi, it's ok. Once again, you show how hypocritical you are.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Slander.aspx
The US Supreme Court defined slander as:
"... slander ... may be divided into five classes, as follows: (1.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offence involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished. (2.) Words falsely spoken of a person which impute that the party is infected with some contagious disease, where, if the charge is true, it would exclude the party from society; or (3.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which impute to the party unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment. (4.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a party which prejudice such party in his or her profession or trade. (5.) Defamatory words falsely spoken of a person, which, though not in themselves actionable, occasion the party special damage.
"Certain words, all admit, are in themselves actionable, because the natural consequence of what they impute to the party is damage, as if they import a charge that the party has been guilty of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, or that the party is infected with a contagious distemper, or if they are prejudicial in a pecuniary sense to a person in office or to a person engaged as a livelihood in a profession or trade; but in all other cases the party who brings an action for words must show the damage he or she has suffered by the false speaking of the other party."

Sorry, Honestly haven't seen any SLANDER of POTUS or Speaker.

It attempts to categorize any disagreement or non support of the party or it's issues as something bad/negative.

One can disagree and be wrong but if that is what they believe that is what they believe.....slander....I don't think anything in this forum has ever qualified for such an allegation.

btk

Originally Posted by actor

as a personal attack when someone posts information you consider negative about one of far right's candidates. When you and your fellow conservatives slander the President, or Speaker Pelosi, it's ok. Once again, you show how hypocritical you are.

Again the personal attack comes from the Liberal; you. Show me one post I've made that is slanderous of the President. I've never posted anything about him except for ideological or policy disputes.


P.S. Thanks for the slander primer you posted; I appreciate it and hope the meaning of these words are not lost on the intended reader.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I may have to thank Actor for starting this thread, because as I'm reading about O'Donnell I'm liking her more and more. Even this article in Politico made me smile.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42348.html

Read this.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/o...-human-brains/

Also, slander is usually not something you can bring charges against if it deals with a public figure unless it is done with "actual malice" The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1964 in the case New York Times v Sullivan.

Actual malice means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

I knew those various Business Law courses I had to take in college would come in handy someday

OK, I read it. It's a leftist blog, but I read it. I didn't read anything in there that has anything to do with how Miss O'Donnell would perform as Senator based on these allegations. I read a mocking of her moral beliefs. I guess that's enough for the pickers of straws.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

OK, I read it. It's a leftist blog, but I read it. I didn't read anything in there that has anything to do with how Miss O'Donnell would perform as Senator based on these allegations. I read a mocking of her moral beliefs. I guess that's enough for the pickers of straws.

this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42141.html

Originally Posted by actor

this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42141.html

I guess we'll have to see how this all shakes out. If there's validity to Murray's tale then I'm sure it'll be picked up by the major media outlets and aired. If it the action of a disgruntled worker, that may come out, or this tale will be largely ignored.
In the end it'll be her against the self-described "bearded Marxist". I have an idea how this is going to turn out.

enough to sort out the oppositions increasing efforts to discredit her. However, they should hold their own to the same standard ().

I think she has a very good chance to win. If the reasons for voting for a person are to vote for her because the other guy is unacceptable (you know the standard used when so many did not vote for McCain) then she surely will win.

This will be a contest of the establishment VS whoever is running.
We know that if Christ just won the primary there would be all kinds of smear being put up.....eh?
Watch what they do not what they say.

btk

$9.3 million in overdue taxes owed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090907023.html

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

$9.3 million in overdue taxes owed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090907023.html

This is incredible in it's content and the fact that it was posted 5 minutes after BillyTheKid postes about such a scenario.
The people who write the laws and sic the IRS on the American public are significantly in tax arrears. You can't make this stuff up.
Good post BK.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I guess we'll have to see how this all shakes out. If there's validity to Murray's tale then I'm sure it'll be picked up by the major media outlets and aired. If it the action of a disgruntled worker, that may come out, or this tale will be largely ignored.
In the end it'll be her against the self-described "bearded Marxist". I have an idea how this is going to turn out.

tongue in cheek reference, and you know it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You think she's a good candidate who would be an asset to the country as a US senator. I think she is a nutcase and pathological liar who has been derelict in meeting her financial responsibilities, among many other things that have been included in recent press reports in both the liberal as well as conservative press.

Originally Posted by actor

tongue in cheek reference, and you know it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You think she's a good candidate who would be an asset to the country as a US senator. I think she is a nutcase and pathological liar who has been derelict in meeting her financial responsibilities, among many other things that have been included in recent press reports in both the liberal as well as conservative press.

I really only think she has to be better than Coons. A conservative, albeit one with issues, has to be better than a dyed-in-the-wool progressive liberal to help win back the America I used to know. This is where we really differ, I imagine; because I think you'd like Obama's vision to continue and I'd like to reverse it a.s.a.p.

the liars, the thieves (like Rangle), the lechers, the tax evaders, etc are OK?

If you would use the same microscope you (borrowed from the media et al) and used it on the incumbents....how many would get an OK from you (the media et al)?

Just google last weeks efforts by the WH, Obama and the media to discredit John Boehner. He has been around for some time so why is he, too also a target of the current administrations wagging tongue and finger?

BECAUSE HE TOO IS A THREAT.

Y'all are entitled, however, what is becoming more obvious as each day goes by, anything or anybody that is a threat to the current establishment (either party) but especially the current congress and WH occupants....it matters not who or what the person is or has done....the objective is to dis-credit.

What happened to running and defending on current accomplishments as a reason for being counted. Since the WH is light on that category it is not used in any of the campaigning.

Yes it is normal politics, but significantly more amplified and abused by the current administration. Business as usual.

btk