Can Dem's explain this?

McG,
By the way, I pointed out one of the SPECIFIC discrepencies when I called your post crap and included unbiased link to Federal Code to support my claim. I notice you failed to point to anything in mine as being innaccurate or outright false.

0 Replies

JustWonders,

I hope you know that if Kerry loses the Presidential race he keeps his Senate seat. ;-)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

McG,
Posting crap doesn't change the fact that is crap nor does it change its stink. Perhaps you should read things before you post them in threads where you have already pretty clearly shown what you are now posting is a flat out lie.

...snip...

...snip...

Now a quick link to the US Code on elections
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php
Start by doing a search for USCode Title 2 Section 441d

After comparing these items an amazing thing becomes clear; The "Kerry campaign approval" seems to be just as it is codifed in Federal law.

Do the Republicans not want the law followed? Is it intimidation to remind people about the law? Maybe you could finally respond to one of my posts with some answers McG. Or are you the mindless cut and paster you really appear to be?

How's that parados?

0 Replies

McG writes,

Quote:

Parados, they chose their words carefully. The post says "warn local newspaper..." as though they are children to be warned against the dangers of fire. No newspaper needs to be "warned" of anything, they know how to do their job. What that means is, like the article said, to intimidate the newspaper with threats of legal action and to not post any anti-kerry news/editorial articles.

ROFLMBO.. McG. I have to admit you make me laugh. Your responses are so out of left field that one is left wondering which mental institution you escaped from. <-- JOKE (disclaimer)

McG,
It seems you have failed again to read the entire statement. No where does it state that they will bring legal action for any anti-kerry news. In fact, they would have no case to do so. The statement says, "Warn local newspapers not to accept any ADVERTISING that is not properly disclaimed." I find it interesting that you equate advertising with news and editorials. They are not the same nor would most people confuse one for the other. To place an ad, an outside person has to pay money to the newspaper. News is either written by persons on the newspaper staff or bought from other news sources like AP or Reuters. Editorials are run on the editorial page and can be either non paid or paid. (I feel like I AM explaining to a 6 year old about the difference between fire and water.)

Under Title 2 of US code it is illegal for any person or entity to place a political ad that does not include the required disclaimer of who ran the ad. Based on Fed law, it is the person or entity placing the ad that is guilty of the act and subject to civil penalties. In fact, the newspaper can't be accused of anything unless they knowingly and willfully conspired to avoid the law. There is no threat of legal action that can be made. Any suspected violation of Title 2 requires a complaint to the FEC under penalty of perjury that stipulates to the facts and how the law was violated. The FEC then investigates the alleged violations. The Kerry campaign can not file any suit against the newspaper. If a newspaper refused to run an ad because it did not have the disclaimer they would be saving the person attempting to run the ad a heavy civil fine.

I think you got it correct when you said newspapers "know how to do their job." One of the jobs of a newspaper is to not confuse ads with news and editorials. It appears that you are the only one that has that confusion, not the Dem pamphlet and certainly not any newspaper I know.

Quote:

If a Republican flyer was found that said to warn newspapers how would you characterize that?

I would have no problem with a Republican flyer that warned newspapers to not accept ads that violated the law. In fact I would love to see such an attitude from Republicans as well as Democrats. Everyone should be for seeing that campaign laws are followed.

0 Replies

Why would they need to WARN[/i] any newspaper about anything?

Why is a warning neccessary at all?

Let's see, what is a warning anyway?

Quote:

Main Entry: warn
Pronunciation: 'worn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English warnian; akin to Old High German warnOn to take heed, Old English wær careful, aware -- more at WARY
transitive senses
1 a : to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil b : to give admonishing advice to : COUNSEL c : to call to one's attention : INFORM
2 : to order to go or stay away -- often used with off
intransitive senses : to give a warning
- warn·er noun

So, the democratic party feels it is vital, no matter what happens, to give notice beforehand of danger or evil?

It doesn't say remind them, it doesn't say to advise, alert, apprise, inform, notify, tip; counsel, direct or guide, it says warn them. Those are fighting words! A warning usually denotes consequences.

0 Replies

McG,
You amaze constantly with your failure to read things before you post them. What are the synonyms given in your definition of 'warn'? Let me highlight them in red so you can't miss them.

Quote:

1 a : to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil b : to give admonishing advice to : COUNSEL c : to call to one's attention : INFORM

Quote:

It doesn't say remind them, it doesn't say to advise, alert, apprise, inform, notify, tip; counsel, direct or guide, it says warn them. Those are fighting words! A warning usually denotes consequences.

Actually it used "warn" which is a SYNONYM for "counsel" and "inform" based on the definition you posted. In case you didn't realize it the dictionary gives several definitions because one or more can apply. The first definition is not necessarily the one that is accurate for usage. I would say b or c are the more accurate usage of "warn" in this case.

0 Replies

But, they chose "warn" because that illicits a consequence whereas the others do not.

0 Replies

Well it all may wear out in the wash. The Democrat scare the pants off everybody campaign is starting to backfire here. Little old ladies are calling in to the talk shows to complain how disgraceful it is for the Democrats to prey on the senior citizens with scare tactics about social security and trying to scare other people about the draft and health care and even blaming George Bush because a British drug company screwed up the flu vaccine. (I guess it is asking too much to give the administration credit for not allowing contaminated vaccine get to the public.)

This latest from the Dems playbook is nothing new. Intimidate the media as much as possible--Kerry has been doing that ever since the Swift Boat guys put out their book--and scare the black people into believing the Republicans are going to keep them from voting.

If nothing else, this shows Dems to be loyal to the core and able to overlook just about anything from their own. And if they can't sweep it under the rug, they go to the "the GOP is worse" defense.

McG is right. If the Dems had come up with a page from the GOP play book that was a fraction this damning, it would be leading every headline in the country and this forum would be smoking with gleeful Democrats exposing the sin.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well it all may wear out in the wash. The Democrat scare the pants off everybody campaign is starting to backfire here. Little old ladies are calling in to the talk shows to complain how disgraceful it is for the Democrats to prey on the senior citizens with scare tactics about social security and trying to scare other people about the draft and health care and even blaming George Bush because a British drug company screwed up the flu vaccine. (I guess it is asking too much to give the administration credit for not allowing contaminated vaccine get to the public.)

This latest from the Dems playbook is nothing new. Intimidate the media as much as possible--Kerry has been doing that ever since the Swift Boat guys put out their book--and scare the black people into believing the Republicans are going to keep them from voting.

If nothing else, this shows Dems to be loyal to the core and able to overlook just about anything from their own. And if they can't sweep it under the rug, they go to the "the GOP is worse" defense.

McG is right. If the Dems had come up with a page from the GOP play book that was a fraction this damning, it would be leading every headline in the country and this forum would be smoking with gleeful Democrats exposing the sin.

If you ideologues would just get your heads out of your asses...you might finally see that this is not Democrats versus Republicans...and the moves to show the moron-in-chief for the inept, incompetent, deranged, dangerous idiot that he is...is not purely a partisan or ideological function.

I frankly couldn't care less if the Democratic party evenutally becomes the minority party in our country with three or four other parties ahead of it. I frankly couldn't care less if every liberal in this country shoots him/herself in the foot every time he/she opens his/her mouth.

What I am concerned about....is the state of well-being of my country...and the state of well-being of the world. And to be honest...George Bush and this pathetic excuse for an administration he has assembled represents a greater danger to our country; our personal freedoms; and to the world in general...than all the goddam terrorists now alive.

What is preventing you people...other than your blind allegience to ideology...from seeing these dangerous bundlers for what they are?

0 Replies

Frank, you forgot to mention that "A-Dumbya-OL is a moron." (c)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well it all may wear out in the wash. The Democrat scare the pants off everybody campaign is starting to backfire here. Little old ladies are calling in to the talk shows to complain how disgraceful it is for the Democrats to prey on the senior citizens with scare tactics about social security and trying to scare other people about the draft and health care and even blaming George Bush because a British drug company screwed up the flu vaccine. (I guess it is asking too much to give the administration credit for not allowing contaminated vaccine get to the public.)

This latest from the Dems playbook is nothing new. Intimidate the media as much as possible--Kerry has been doing that ever since the Swift Boat guys put out their book--and scare the black people into believing the Republicans are going to keep them from voting.

If nothing else, this shows Dems to be loyal to the core and able to overlook just about anything from their own. And if they can't sweep it under the rug, they go to the "the GOP is worse" defense.

McG is right. If the Dems had come up with a page from the GOP play book that was a fraction this damning, it would be leading every headline in the country and this forum would be smoking with gleeful Democrats exposing the sin.

If you ideologues would just get your heads out of your asses...you might finally see that this is not Democrats versus Republicans...and the moves to show the moron-in-chief for the inept, incompetent, deranged, dangerous idiot that he is...is not purely a partisan or ideological function.

I frankly couldn't care less if the Democratic party evenutally becomes the minority party in our country with three or four other parties ahead of it. I frankly couldn't care less if every liberal in this country shoots him/herself in the foot every time he/she opens his/her mouth.

What I am concerned about....is the state of well-being of my country...and the state of well-being of the world. And to be honest...George Bush and this pathetic excuse for an administration he has assembled represents a greater danger to our country; our personal freedoms; and to the world in general...than all the goddam terrorists now alive.

What is preventing you people...other than your blind allegience to ideology...from seeing these dangerous bundlers for what they are?

This is the kind of absolute certainty that has led to religious wars.

Only you and like minded individuals can possibly see the truth. The rest of us are blind or have our heads up our asses...or are evil.

0 Replies

Well Frank, I agree it isn't a question of Dems vs Republicans. It's a quiestion of right vs wrong and intellectual honesty and shameless demagoguery. I disagree that the current administration is more dangerous than the terrorists or even more dangerous than a Kerry administration would be. And I think (I hope) a sufficient number of American voters agree and will put the best candidate we have iback into office.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well Frank, I agree it isn't a question of Dems vs Republicans. It's a quiestion of right vs wrong and intellectual honesty and shameless demagoguery. I disagree that the current administration is more dangerous than the terrorists or even more dangerous than a Kerry administration would be. And I think (I hope) a sufficient number of American voters agree and will put the best candidate we have iback into office.

I agree that it's a question about right vs. wrong and intellectual honesty vs. shameless demagoguery, but see the republicans and the evil demogogues, Fox! Think about the chad debacle in Florida! With a republican in charge of the vote counting and the brother of the candidate who benefitted from the suspicious counting techniques was the governor! Given that history, why shouldn't democrats remind the public of the history of 4 years ago?!?!?

0 Replies

McG writes
But, they chose "warn" because that illicits a consequence whereas the others do not

McG,
Not every day I see someone use an adjective for a verb. You continue to make me laugh. I can only assume you meant "elicit" but that would also be illicit (2. improperly formed, ungrammatical) since one can not "1.) provoke or draw out" a consequence nor is the consequence "2.) arrived at by logic." But enough of your malaprops. Lets deal with what I have to assume was your underlying meaning.

Lets rewrite your phrase to what I think you meant. "Warn implies a consequence." Not quite true. Warn might imply a POSSIBILITY of a consequence. A couple of examples:

My mother warned me to look both ways before crossing the street. If I don't their MIGHT be a consequence but the likelihood is actually pretty small since there are many other mitigating factors to get to that consequence. (Take a moment to think about when I don't need to look both ways.)

Microsoft warns constantly about security flaws. And again, there might be a consequence but more than likely I will never have a problem.

The real key in BOTH of these examples is that the person WARNING is not the threat that exists in the possible consequence.

You make too many assumptions in your claim. You assume a meaning that is not correct based on the definitions. You assume the threat is from the warner. You assume a consequence that can't exist under Fed law.

0 Replies

Foxfyre writes,

Quote:

McG is right. If the Dems had come up with a page from the GOP play book that was a fraction this damning, it would be leading every headline in the country and this forum would be smoking with gleeful Democrats exposing the sin.

What is damning about the statement? McG can't tell me in a logical fashion. Perhaps you can.

Tell us what in this statement is so horrible? Why is it wrong to warn local newspapers to make sure that ads submitted to them follow federal law?

Quote:

Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contain false warnings about voting requirements and/or what will happen at the polls

0 Replies

parados, why the need to warn them of anything?

0 Replies

Maybe to remind them that we are watching and they better do their job as well as we do our day jobs. Try to remember that the people in the media are just like you and me, they only do well what the boss checks.

0 Replies

Shocked? Yes, I'm flabbergasted--bad print quality, horrible grammar--this is truly a low quality manual Very Happy

And then there's the dishonesty of it all but since when did the American electorate demand facts and honesty over sensationalism?

0 Replies

Well from Frank's occasional (cough) reference to the President as a moron to Princess's belief that the bipartisan recount in Florida,under the supervision of professional watchers from both sides wasn't cricket because it presumably should have been all foxes watching that henhouse and therefore all is fair game for the Democrats now, yes?--to the rest of you who presumably would have no problem with the GOP issuing orders to intimidate the media and the black vote since you find no problem with the Democrats doing that, I'll go with Steppenwolf's theory that the American electorate no longer demands facts or honesty.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well Frank, I agree it isn't a question of Dems vs Republicans. It's a quiestion of right vs wrong and intellectual honesty and shameless demagoguery. I disagree that the current administration is more dangerous than the terrorists or even more dangerous than a Kerry administration would be. And I think (I hope) a sufficient number of American voters agree and will put the best candidate we have iback into office.

Fox

We are now so close to the election that hysteria seems to trump reason.

It is not surprising to me that, at crunch time, it is the Left that seems to be so unwound.

Frank is simply one of a large number of Left leaning individuals ( screaming to the high heavens that they are not Left leaning) who have surrendered their reason to raw emotion.

This is quite ironic in that the Left would like to think of itself as the force of intelligence and reason.

November 2nd will come and go, and (depending upon the volume of Democratic law suits) someone will eventually be elected as president. If we are lucky, Bush will be that person; if we are not it will be Kerry. However, if it is the unfortunate latter, the world will not come to an end; America will not come to an end.

Compare the postings of Bush supporters on A2K to those of Bush Haters/Kerry Supporters. Which are more rabid?

Ultimately, it is reason vs emotion. It is evident on A2K and it is evident in the American body politic.

0 Replies

Can Dem's explain this?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know