Wow, things must be getting bad for the anti-Bush crowd when they have to resort to arguing semantics. From Dictionary.com: slan·der n. 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. My use of the word was completely appropriate. Class dismissed.
.....sigh....wrong again...I explained that your OPINION that someone else's OPINION is wrong doesn't make that a factual, or legally supportable claim, hence your use of the word was completley inappropriate...and class..( I do teach, including law)...is apparently still in progress...
Watch out TJ because I actually got a ticket for accusing someone of slander on this site a few weeks ago. It is subject to the law apparently. This big robot came to my door and said if I didn't pay him $150 for my accusation of slander crime he was going to rip my ethernet card up. I think what Jorge is talking about is that it is getting a little old to see Batman posting these fiery political posts where instead of just pointing out his opinion he tries to do battle with a republican poster as if he can somehow beat the person and their opinion down into submission. He can do what he wants though and I support his ability to slander me if he cares to.
I think Batman posted this because Refman posted a thread earlier about certain politicians playing politics over Iraq. Refman did mentione both Republicans and Democrats in his thread, but seemd, IMO, most angry at Democrats for huggin Bush at one point, and then questioning immediate military action in Iraq. What Batman seems to have done here is show that Republicans in Bush's own administration are on record for using this issue as a political one. It may not surprise some that Batman is against Bush, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't post articles backing up his opinion, or that any article he posts is automatically null and void. The thing is that people bashed Batman for what he did even though he had an article to back up his opinion. Yet some in this thread accused Batman of slander, but provided no evidence to contradict the articles that are in this thread.
Now Daschle. It does sound to me like Bush's remark was little over the top. washingtonpost.com Daschle Accuses Bush of Politicizing Iraq Debate Majority Leader Demands Apology By Jim Abrams The Associated Press Wednesday, September 25, 2002; 11:56 AM WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday accused President Bush of seeking to politicize the debate over war with Iraq and demanded that he apologize for implying that Democrats were not interested in the security of the American people. "That is wrong," Daschle said in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. "We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death." "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people" because they are Democrats, Daschle said. "That is outrageous. Outrageous." Daschle cited a string of actions by the administration including a comment by Bush that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." Daschle made his comments as congressional leaders negotiated in private with the administration over the terms of a resolution that would authorize the president to use force to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Despite misgivings by some rank-and-file Democrats, Daschle and House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt have both signaled support for such legislation, to be passed before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections. At the same time, Democratic political strategists have expressed concern that the national debate over Iraq is overshadowing domestic issues in the campaign. The quote Daschle referred to came during a political stop that Bush made earlier this week in Trenton, N.J. Speaking on the issue of homeland security before a fundraiser for Republican Senate candidate Doug Forrester, the president said, "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure." Bush was speaking to reporters in the Oval Office at the same time that Daschle leveled his criticism Wednesday. The president said he is determined to battle terrorism on two fronts – Saddam's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network because "they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." In his remarks, Daschle referred to several comments by Republican political strategists and White House officials that discussed the war debate in political terms. "Now even the president," Daschle said, citing Bush's comments in Trenton. "The president ought to apologize," Daschle said. "He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. He ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death." Asked at a White House picture-taking session whether he is politicizing the war, Bush did not respond directly, but said Americans "understand that life has changed here in this country ... that this country must deal with the true threats." "My job is to protect the American people," Bush said ahead of an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. "And I will continue to do that regardless of the season." On Tuesday, Daschle, D-S.D., said he hoped to reach a compromise by the end of the week with the administration on a resolution giving the president the authority to use whatever means necessary to deal with Iraq. He said his party, seeking to return attention to the economy before the election, wants a quick vote on the Iraqi resolution.
You totally missed the point here. 2 things: 1) This is the umpteenth thread started by Batman regarding Bush politicizing this issue. I found it reprehensible the first time and no less today. BUT...the Dems have been JUST AS GUILTY. 2) He started this particular thread by assailing my integrity stating that I cynically support our leader. He deserves any bashing he gets for that one.
And so you agree Mr. Gore was rallying those against any actions on Iraq for support of his on political aspirations once 04' comes around? Is this correct?
Maybe I misunderstood the cynically supporting part of the thread. From the way I read it, I presumed that was something that had been said before... i.e. 'I support bush, though I'm sometimes cynical of his motives on certain issues.' I guess I was reading way too much into that line. Sorry about that, Refman. I will hold off any judgements until I hear/read all sides of the issue.
No problem...I was afraid that many people would miss the fact that this thread was specifically tailored toward me. Batman's stating that I am cynically supporting Bush is to insinuate that I do so without conviction. That is a personal affront to my intergrity. I hope I misunderstood it and that it wasn't meant that way...but I'd have to hear that from him. No offense taken from you FranchiseBlade. I do appreciate the apology though.
It wasn't personal Ref, and I didn't mean to suggest you'd done anything cynically. It was my grammatical failing. I meant that, if it bothered you so much before, cynicism would be required to continue to support this president. If you go back and read my original post, you'll see where the confusion lies. It wasn't personal towards you. None of my posts have been, including my 9/11 response to your post about Dems acting politically. I agree they have, but only by being sissies. They haven't been "playing" politics, except to try and stay out of this particular debate. That's where I think Gore has been courageous. Please email me when you think I'm personally attacking you and I can probably clear it up. I never mean to do that. It was poor sentence structure. That's all. p.s. To all who say Clinton did the same thing and I'm wrong not to admit it, check the record. I thought it was gross when he did it too. The difference is he didn't commit troops. It was gross, it was wrong, it was politically motivated, etc. But he didn't send Americans to die. This is worse. They're both the same, but this is worse.
p.p.s. Ref: I haven't started umpteen threads on Bush's political manuevering re: Iraq. I've started two. If you hadn't started the first one on 9/11, I'm not sure I would have started any. Peace.
