Re: Re: Does "you're a liberal" have to be proven in court, too?
First of all, in order to sue for defamation, you mostly have to prove that the accusation is NOT true. If it's a judgement call, or opinion, or otherwise undermined, it would pretty hard to call defamation on it. Furthermore, just because you could be, successfully, sued for defamation for something, doesn't make it "legally and outright lie" either.
New media says "alleged" mostly because they think it's best, i.e., it had been determined to be Best Journalistic Practice, and that's fine, but that neither makes it law, nor does it mean the rest of us are bound by these rules.
Mike pulls out this notion, that really doesn't exist anywhere else, that you can't say something about someone until it has been proven "in a court of law." Interestingly, he only does this when he disagrees with the position being taken, and he routinely makes fun of people who go after people saying things about them.
I have no problem with the latter, but the fact is Mike uses this as way to wield his biases, all the while pretending to be "neutral" between left and right in some way.
I actually have no problem with Mike being Liberal, what drives me absolutely frigging nuts is that insists on pretending it's not true.
"Supposedly" should not be in quotes. She was not quoting someone else, nor being ironic, she really meant "supposedly" as part of the structure of the sentence. You might want "child pornography enforcement" in quotes, but I think that's a judgement call.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
SO much wrong here. 20% is the figure quoted in all the recent news. GO argue with the newspapers.
What, you thought NPR was the only thing I thought the government shouldn't be spending money on?
About FOX, like I said, you're free to try to get your cable company to not carry them, but regardless, it's not the government making you pay for them. Also, that money is pittance compared to what ads (which are derived from ratings, which is derived from your viewership) brings in.
Blatant strawman. You can do mostly whatever you want, presuming you're a civilian. If you were in the military, then you may not. You have the right to ignore unlawful orders, nothing more, which is where the "I gassed civilians based upon their religion, but I was under orders" part comes in.
Yes. But really I was heading off some snide comment about "making an example of". In the theory of Justice and Punishment, on of the prime purposes of a harsh sentence is to serve as a deterrent to others who would act similarly.
Diplomatic cables was just the most recent batch. Before that there a bunch of after action reports, analysis, info about sources, informants, intel. All this stuff is extremely valuable, the same way simply knowing the rough location of a unit of troops is valuable.
"if a general turns against a king for the good of their country...."
All you're really pointing out here is that might makes right, winners write the history books, etc. People who over through their government are "rebels", those who fail are "traitors" all that. I really hope this is not news to anybody.
"If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes."
You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order. I respect this principal, though I'll tell you it doesn't usually work in practice. Regardless, it doesn't translate to a right to undermine your side if you feel there are wrongs being committed (and there are ALWAYS wrongs being committed). That's still treason.
The enemy is trying to kill you, facts, etc.
Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first.
"Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed"
Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said. Death is an appropriate penalty for his crimes, it would not be unreasonable. Due to some mitigating factors (mostly youth, naivete, and ignornance) I would probably rather that not be the result. His case is sad. He still should of known better, and yes, he needs to be "made an example of" for all the same reasons movie villains make examples of people (so that no one else is stupid enough to do the same thing) but his case is still sad.