News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Well, in this case "defense" would refer to having a smaller army to deal with regional/sphere of influence issues (like you explained), rather than having a massive, Soviet-sized force capable of worldwide intervention/domination.

They still have their Spetznaz though. The troopers are trained in Chechen...against hardened terrorists.

Even Marine Recon didn't get real life training like that.

[cors8]

Wrongly ousted USDA official not sure if she wants job back

This is just a sad situation. When will Obama and the White House learn not to over-react to Fox News and blogs in general?

As for the conservative blog that pushed this story, which is also the same as the stupid Acorn story, I hope they get sued so hard for defamation.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by cors8

As for the conservative blog that pushed this story, which is also the same as the stupid Acorn story, I hope they get sued so hard for defamation.

I don't mean to sound facetious, but defamation... in the United States? How do such laws work, if at all, in the context of the First Amendment...?

And, for a country that prides itself on free expression, I take note, again, how the need for political correctness can sometimes go towards unhealthy extremes. Racism and racial biases do exist, but the merest chatter about such feelings, however reasonably carried out, appear to lead to instant career suicide (in the armed forces or the civil service) or social ostracism.

[Xellos-_^]

defamation in the US is almost impossible to prove if you are public or famous figure.

[james0246]

^For defamation of character, the plaintiff must prove 1) that the defendant (Breitbart in this case) made an untrue statement about the plaintiff; and 2) the statement was intentionally (sometimes accidentally) published (i.e. others saw/heard the untrue statement). So, Sherrod would have a case. But, there is a slight caveat to the problem. The Supreme Court held that public officials cannot recover from defamation unless they can prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice" (wherein actual malice implies a reckless disregard to the validity of a statement). As you can imagine, this caveat is extremely hard to prove...

That being said, bloggers can simply claim opinion, and libel is almost never actionable when dealing with opinions (which is why there are so many opinion based shows and blogs in America).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by james0246

The Supreme Court held that public officials cannot recover from defamation unless they can prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice" (wherein actual malice implies a reckless disregard to the validity of a statement). As you can imagine, this caveat is extremely hard to prove...

So which simply means, the defamer can simply just make it seem as though it wasn't malicious, then just offer an apology.

Defamation and slander are pretty hard things to prove, like backstreet assaults. Anything that goes within "word of mouth" as court statements are pretty much hit-and-miss.

[Hage-bai]

Look what happens when you turn politics into a race war.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

So which simply means, the defamer can simply just make it seem as though it wasn't malicious, then just offer an apology.

More or less. Intent is a big part of a defamation case, and unless real evidence can be brought forth that shows a malicious intent (toward the plaintiff by using false information), then, at best, you will get the defendant to apologize, but nothing else.

Honestly, this entire story was simply ludicrous, and shows, more than anything, just how powerful Fox News is (they can cause Obama's Administration to fire a civil servant based on a false rumour (and they've done it before (Van Jones anyone?, or how about the destruction of ACORN based off of false tapes?))...that's pretty damn powerful), and just how bad the modern American News world has become...

[cors8]

Arab Man Convicted Of Rape After Posing As Jew To Seduce Woman

So many people going to jail if this becomes a legal precedent.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by cors8

Arab Man Convicted Of Rape After Posing As Jew To Seduce Woman

So many people going to jail if this becomes a legal precedent.

He didn't even "pose" he just said his name was Daniel and she assumed that he was jewish and seeking a long term relationship. Sigh most men would be in jail because of this style of ruling. Barney Stinson beware, your days of womanizing are over!

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by cors8

Arab Man Convicted Of Rape After Posing As Jew To Seduce Woman

So many people going to jail if this becomes a legal precedent.

its an 18 month sentence, and there is already an appel to reduce the sentence.
its not really "rape" so much as "exploitation under false presentation" which is common enough in tort law (except in this case, the contract was less then conventional)
the nature of the offence, means that its called "rape" in the same sense that "statutory rape" is called rape
there's consent on the part of the woman, but the circumstances make that consent questionable (un-informed)

and its not even the first time that someone is punished for it, though it IS the first time the offender is an ARAB-israeli.
so naturally the media is having a field day about it.

[TooPurePureBoy]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Co...titutions.aspx

Wow. Those are some low numbers for congress. If I read this correctly, this is an all time low. Well done Pelosi, you and your buds just pretty much handed over the house to the GOP. Wonder if we will get any Libertarians or other fringe party candidates in the house. Now would be the time to try for it.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Co...titutions.aspx

Wow. Those are some low numbers for congress. If I read this correctly, this is an all time low. Well done Pelosi, you and your buds just pretty much handed over the house to the GOP. Wonder if we will get any Libertarians or other fringe party candidates in the house. Now would be the time to try for it.

Congress’ approval ratings aren't really indicative of anything. We do not vote for a congress, we vote for individual congressmen/women (and in the worst case scenario, the disapproval for a congress would probably only really reflect on the current leaders in congress, but not necessarily the parties behind the leaders). It's kind of the secret joke of the US democracy: we hate the overall government, but we love our individual representatives... (Besides, Pelosi is actually generally more liked than the other current congressional leaders (Reid, McConnell, and Boehner)).

Personally, I found the drop in confidence in church/organized religion, and the rise in confidence for the medical system to be the more interesting polls. The drop in Military confidence was also interesting (considering that confidence had been holding steady for the last few years, and before that it had risen greatly after 2001-2002)

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I don't mean to sound facetious, but defamation... in the United States? How do such laws work, if at all, in the context of the First Amendment...?

And, for a country that prides itself on free expression, I take note, again, how the need for political correctness can sometimes go towards unhealthy extremes. Racism and racial biases do exist, but the merest chatter about such feelings, however reasonably carried out, appear to lead to instant career suicide (in the armed forces or the civil service) or social ostracism.

If we're going to be honest to our constitution, there really shouldn't be any laws pertaining to 'race' in the first place, but of course the constitution has been taking a back seat to political interests for years now.

Originally Posted by TooPurePureBoy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Co...titutions.aspx

Wow. Those are some low numbers for congress. If I read this correctly, this is an all time low. Well done Pelosi, you and your buds just pretty much handed over the house to the GOP. Wonder if we will get any Libertarians or other fringe party candidates in the house. Now would be the time to try for it.

I'm hoping, as a libertarian, this could serve as an opportunity to end the liberal/neocon strangehold over Washington. Those two groups are just determined to get us nowhere, fast.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If we're going to be honest to our constitution, there really shouldn't be any laws pertaining to 'race' in the first place, but of course the constitution has been taking a back seat to political interests for years now.

143 years, right? The 14th Amendment established citizenship to all races born (or legally coming to) America; and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying any citizen the right to vote base on "race, color or previous condition of servitude" (it still took another 40 years (1920) before women's suffrage could take place, and another 50 (1970) before 18 year old citizens can vote). These 2 amendments then went on to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is an immensely powerful document for all citizens, not just based on race, gender or religion.

So, while certain race/gender crime laws are a little superfluous (An argument can be made that assault (etc) should just be charged as assault, and the religion/ethnicity/gender of the victim should be ignored), it is still obvious that certain laws pertaining to race/gender/religion are very relevant and were needed.

[Vexx]

The usual procedure is that its always "someone else's district" with the scum representing it. And the majority of Congress comes back to play. But agreed, the two party system and the level of corruption on both sides is well beyond the tipping point. Its just that the game is rigged to prevent another party (unlike the last 200+ years where a party was regularly tossed into oblivion every 50-100 years).

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If we're going to be honest to our constitution, there really shouldn't be any laws pertaining to 'race' in the first place, but of course the constitution has been taking a back seat to political interests for years now.

Wait What??????? You do in 1884 The reconstruction amendments weren't even ratified in the constitution and not till the 1964 Civil Rights act which James brought up did we even get some semblance of parity between white and black. The notion that slavery and racism would all have been taken care of either market forces or the constitution is absolute MADNESS. Without laws like the civil rights act, people could still get fired for not being the right skin color or the right gender. I really don't understand this, "constitution is a perfect piece of paper and the founding father never meant for it to be changed" You do know that the constitution is inscribed with slavery, I mean you did go to school and learn about the 3/5 compromise, how slaves are only counted as three fifths of a person?

This is why in America there will always be race issues:

Glenn Beck calling Sherrod a person who wants "revenge"

Glenn Beck lying about not jumping the gun, I guess radioverse and tv land are in two seperate dimensions.

It's not just minorities who claim racism as many whites want to believe.

In the end I think if your going to portray yourself as some sort of "trusted" news source you have a responsibility to report things truthfully. The fact is after the Acorn Tapes were found out to be doctored, Fox had a little blurb scrawl on the news feed to note the mistake, unlike the 60hrs of straight programming they did about Acorn. I mean this is what this nation has become, attack voter outreach programs and civil servants just to rile up your base. Nothing more than a pack of animals.

[TooPurePureBoy]

Y'know the 3/5 of a person clause may seem like a reprehensible thing to you but you should probably understand the context of it before you use it as an example the the constitution is inherently racist.

You see they were very worried about having one state or region having more control than any others back then. Many or the northern politicians who already had a moral/religious reason for not liking slavery ( I know that sounds crazy to many, but these men were actually influenced positively by religion(!!) in that they felt it was wrong to enslave their fellow man just on a basic level. They were already contemplating emancipation during the early scripting of the bill of rights.

We also know that the amount of citizens in a state effects the amount of representatives. So how were these men who philosophically "apposed" the idea of slavery, but were bound by social constructs of the time, going to prevent this flawed ideology to take even deeper root in American society? Well honestly they knew there wasn't much support for there beliefs from the normal citizen.

One problem they foresaw in granting slaves "full-human" (god that sounds so wrong, but context people, context) status was that it would only put more "representatives" (as if any slave would be represented) from slave owning states in power.

Not knowing what else to do, and certainly not thinking of how it might be read by smarmy internet readers in the future they put in the 3/5 clause, not to belittle slaves even further, but actually for their benefit. It's ironic that it is now used as a rallying cry for people looking to accuse America of maltreatment to African-Americans. There are plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of real legit atrocities commited in our past but the 3/5's clause is not one of them.

There is always 3 sides to an issue, you have one side, the opposite side, and then there is the truth.

[Nosauz]

I know that it was about congressional power, but the fact that slavery is enshrined in the constitution and needed the 13-14-15th amendment to attempt to rectify shows the extent and power of racism, and trying to belittle me by calling me smarmy when you yourself have said many things without bringing the nuances of the times should be slapping your hypocritical ass to the shed..

Also this notion that the North was opposed to slavery is a crock. Historically the North had slaves too but due to the development of the manufacturing industry the need for slaves and their slave labor became less valuable. The idea that the North was pro antislavery is such a false hood or else you would not have gotten things like the Fugitive Slave Act that let Southern owners come North to claim freed slaves as property. There is this insipid notion that the North chose to protect slaves by comprimising, when in fact it was to protect it's industrial might, and the ability to demand cheaper goods from the South and depressing the value of their cotton as a cash crop. Hell even in the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln himself did not advocate for free blacks to openly roam the United States, he infact was a staunch supporter of emigration of black people back to Africa. Also the reason why the North stopped slavery was because as time went on slaves became more and more expensive, leading up to the civil war slaves could easily cost 1000 dollars per, and the fact that they didn't have to do anything with the institution and still generate more riches than the South made for ending slavery as a tool to cripple Southern Farmers.

In all honesty the Civil War was not about slavery, the ending of slavery was a by product, Lincoln's real goal was to maintain the Union and he would put down insurrection to do so. Please don't be an apologist and say that the 3/5's compromise is some sort of god send for slaves in America, because those scars on their backs prove otherwise, this kind of thinking is how conservatives have rebranded McCarthy as hero eventhough he systematically destroyed his politically enemies using the red scare as ruse, but in the process caught a couple of commies.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by james0246

143 years, right? The 14th Amendment established citizenship to all races born (or legally coming to) America; and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying any citizen the right to vote base on "race, color or previous condition of servitude" (it still took another 40 years (1920) before women's suffrage could take place, and another 50 (1970) before 18 year old citizens can vote). These 2 amendments then went on to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is an immensely powerful document for all citizens, not just based on race, gender or religion.

So, while certain race/gender crime laws are a little superfluous (An argument can be made that assault (etc) should just be charged as assault, and the religion/ethnicity/gender of the victim should be ignored), it is still obvious that certain laws pertaining to race/gender/religion are very relevant and were needed.

I understand that. But what the point of those constitutional amendments was to uphold equality for all 'races.' We shouldn't need additional laws pertaining to 'hate crimes' and treat 'racial crime' in its own category. Not to mention affirmative action which is an attempt to balance things only ends up worsening the situation. I think over legislating is unnecessary; all we have to do is uphold the simple tenets we have in place that guarantee equality.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Wait What??????? You do in 1884 The reconstruction amendments weren't even ratified in the constitution and not till the 1964 Civil Rights act which James brought up did we even get some semblance of parity between white and black. The notion that slavery and racism would all have been taken care of either market forces or the constitution is absolute MADNESS. Without laws like the civil rights act, people could still get fired for not being the right skin color or the right gender. I really don't understand this, "constitution is a perfect piece of paper and the founding father never meant for it to be changed" You do know that the constitution is inscribed with slavery, I mean you did go to school and learn about the 3/5 compromise, how slaves are only counted as three fifths of a person?

This is why in America there will always be race issues:

Glenn Beck calling Sherrod a person who wants "revenge"

Glenn Beck lying about not jumping the gun, I guess radioverse and tv land are in two seperate dimensions.

It's not just minorities who claim racism as many whites want to believe.

In the end I think if your going to portray yourself as some sort of "trusted" news source you have a responsibility to report things truthfully. The fact is after the Acorn Tapes were found out to be doctored, Fox had a little blurb scrawl on the news feed to note the mistake, unlike the 60hrs of straight programming they did about Acorn. I mean this is what this nation has become, attack voter outreach programs and civil servants just to rile up your base. Nothing more than a pack of animals.

I don't think the constitution is perfect but I'm pretty solid in my belief that many current ills in American government come from an executive branch run out of control and the only way to wrangle that problem is return them to following our 'rules' so to speak. And I'm not convinced the constitution couldn't end public discrimination, I think the main problem is it was ignored by Jim Crowe laws. As for the rest of your post, I don't know if it is meant to be related or just another topic you're introducing but if it has some relation I don't see what it is lol.