Well, I admit to a higher level of naivity than most, and the inner workings of gossip rags (left or right) have always been outside my area of study. I will only say that the ethics of a system that allows the publishing of intentionally false claims is Neanderthal in its conception. It is, in my opinion, tantamount to fraud and should be illegal.
There, that’s telling 'em, and telling 'em good! I can practically see your arms crossing and hear your humphing all the way over here.
:rolleyes:
Not for her religious beliefs.
That interesting, and a little unexpected.
How far do you take this position? How much do you rely on the free market of ideas to root out and quash false information, and at what stage should legislation step in?
For example, what about an advertiser making hyperbolic and even untrue claims about a product?
I’m not saying i disagree with your position here. In fact, for example, i’ve always thought the law should be tougher on false claims in the media, and in advertising. But i’ve had libertarians disagree with me on the issue, so i’m curious about where you draw the line.
Ah, I see your point now, and I’d wish you’d explain your points more often. Nevertheless, she is not being attacked due to the fact of her Christianity, but rather due to the odd form in which her Christian beliefs were imposed upon those she was allegedly helping, i.e., pain is good.
These attacks on Mother Theresa, in fact, emphasize tom’s point that the attacks by the left on particular Christians are not based on their Christianity, but rather on political or moral points.
Have you actually read that thread?
(a) the question on the poll is so ambiguous that no one can agree what it really means
(b) everyone in the thread who commented said something like “well, I don’t quite know what “success” or “failure” means, but I want whatever results in a peaceful stable Iraq and US troops back home”.
I want all US troops safely home. A lot of terrorists/insurgents (at least the ones who aren’t thinking a step ahead and realizing what a big publicity boon this all is for them) want all US troops driven out of their country. Obviously, there’s some similarity their. Does that make me in any remote way a terrorist sympathizer?
What’s he done that makes him qualified? He made a speech at the Democrat convention and they considered him the second coming of Jesus. I’d never heard of him before that and he certainly hasn’t done anything since then that makes me think he might be qualified to be President.
What did W ever do, as governor of Texas (a largely ceremonial office), or in his (utterly disastrous) business career, to make anybody think he might be qualified to be president?
Which does not prove Obama is qualified, but does show he might be electable, despite being only a freshman senator with no executive experience.
Ran as a Republican, obviously.
Are you new to humper’s posts or something?
-Joe
According to the Constitution, the qualifications are to be a natural-born American citizen, resident in the United States for fourteen years, and at least thirty-five years of age.
I believe Senator Obama meets those requirements.
Clothahump, you specifically said that what you “care about is the ‘fact’ that he is unqualified to be President.” Be so kind as to explain what evidence leads you to regard that as a fact. I found your last effort to be somewhat lame.
As for qualifications to do the job, I wouldn’t discard someone’s resume on the strength of the fact that one of the bullet points was “Not GWB.” All other factors being equal, I consider that to be a fine quality in any potential leader of my country.
Well, it seems never to matter no matter how many times I say this, and maybe I’ve never had the opportunity to say it to you, but I do not advocate free-market anarchy. As a libertarian, I believe in a very strong government that will not hesitate to interfere in human affairs in order to secure the rights of its citizens. To answer your question directly, I do not rely on the free-market at all to root out and quash false information; I rely on government to do that. And as far as when legislation should step in, I think that legislation should be pre-emptive. Fraud should be forbidden because it is a coercion — i.e., it circumvents volitional consent.
Actually, it’s for her religious beliefs, namely her belief that suffering is holy, and that performing the Great Commission is more important than actually helping people.
I believe I have that right.
People who cause unnecessary suffering deserve every verbal punch in the face they get regardless of their motivation.
‘God/Allah/The IPU told me to do it’ is no excuse. God tells some psycho’s to butcher prostitutes and gays too. I expect God told her to hobnob with dictators and avoid suffering herself when ill also.
For anyone to claim this board calling the malignant old crone on her wickedness ‘Christian persecution’ is a sign either of stupidity or disengenuousness. Or probably a combination of both.
First of all, good for Obama! I’ve been hoping some Democratic candidate would take on the lie and rumour machines directly and I’m disappointed Kerry didn’t do it with the Swift Boaters.
Second, as I recall, Mother Teresa opposed birth control and only helped those who’d convert to Christianity. Those are hardly left-wing positions in my book.
I find it funny that the office of the Texas governor is downplayed when Bush is described, yet nobody (Democrat or Republican) seems to describe the governorship of Ann Richards in these tones.
Strange how that works.
As for Obama, he might be the best of the Democrats out there, which means, of course, that I certainly wouldn’t vote for him. Still, his running is good for the national conversation, and thus welcomed.
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/index.html
http://www.utdallas.edu/~msweet/th%20page_4.html
Sorry. You were saying?
Yeah, strange how people talk more about the current president, the most controversial of our lifetime, than we do about a former governor of Texas who has since died. Fucking hypocrites.
I wanted to be the one to say this. I want to say it every time I hear the damn argument.
But Adlai Stevenson shot someone too!
So that’s who Hillary & Billary hired to off Vince Foster. Who knew?