- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Actually I thought Don Imus's comment was taking out of context, and the whole thing was overblown. It was a joke, and I kind of found it funny.
It's a free speech issue not matter what. Unless you wanna crack down on the birthers as well.
Apples and oranges.
Running for public office, is basically filling out a resume/job application. I think it's considered fraud to lie on a job application.
And it's been proven he is a natural born American citizen. So the birthers are clearly making fraudulent claims.
With that said they have every right to say what they are saying. It's America, you have the right to say whatever crap you want.
And it's been proven he is a natural born American citizen. So the birthers are clearly making fraudulent claims.
So, you're cool with a political candidate producing faked college diplomas, or any other docs that make him qualified to hold an elected office? You think those judges would b cool with a politician lieing about graduating from law school? Hell know they wouldn't! He'd be ****ting in their sandbox, then.
The question is: where does it end? Today, it's okay to lie about military service and awards received, tomorrow someone lies about everything else. There has to be a line in the sand, at some point.
It's one thing to say you're pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gun/pro-choice etc., but when it comes to official stuff like military service, or college educations, their needs to be some rules.
There are some highly educated folks that swear up, down and sideways that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Dan Rather used fake docs to prove that Bush was AWOL from the national gaurd. However, I don't think any of them should have faced legal action. They have to go through life being stupid; that should be punishment enough.
That's why you're comparing apples to oranges.
With that said they have every right to say what they are saying. It's America, you have the right to say whatever crap you want.
apdst said:So, you're cool with a political candidate producing faked college diplomas, or any other docs that make him qualified to hold an elected office? You think those judges would b cool with a politician lieing about graduating from law school? Hell know they wouldn't! He'd be ****ting in their sandbox, then.
The question is: where does it end? Today, it's okay to lie about military service and awards received, tomorrow someone lies about everything else. There has to be a line in the sand, at some point.
It's one thing to say you're pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gun/pro-choice etc., whn you're not, but when it comes to official stuff like military service, or college educations, there needs to be some rules.
Apples and oranges.
Running for public office, is basically filling out a resume/job application. I think it's considered fraud to lie on a job application.
Do they even understand what valor is, or is that a foreign concept?
Another in the long line of disgusting things our courts have ruled qualify as "free speech". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
The honor of the Military is damaged by allowing scumbags to lie about awards they have earned. It reduces morale, reduces respect, it devalues the sacrifice of our men and women. And there is little surprise our more liberal posters see no problem with a ruling that does such.
For shame. The 9th Circuit will be overturned.
This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.
I sincerely believe that military honors, by definition, have a certain exclusivity that needs to be protected. Very few awards on this Earth are granted for the ultimate sacrifice, and by that exclusive nature their value is attained. By allowing individuals the right to also acquire many of the social bonuses, without taking any of the risk, detrimentally affects the emotional wealth behind the legitimate recipients of the award's receivers.
He didn't use this lie to con people out of money (then it would be fraud).
Question,
If people donated to his campaign fund based in part on the belief he was a medal of honor winner, would you no consider that conning people out of money?
The shame is that conservatives who claim to be "strict constructionists" of the Constitution ignore it when their feelings are hurt.
This isn't just lying. It's perpetrating a fraud, a scam on others of the most despicable kind.
And that's already covered by law.
So what was his gain? Getting on the water board? He ended up getting kicked off of that once people found out he's a liar.http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/17/08-50345.pdf
Generally speaking... Intentionally misrepresenting hard facts for your own personal material gain has not been protected by the First Amendment....
Quantify the harm. Tell me in measurable terms how this is different than run-of-the-mill lying.Of course you don't get it. You see the end justifying the means. Society has both a NEED and the RIGHT to protect certain institutions, we do this through laws. If this were a case of a man bad mouthing MOH winners, I would agree with you 100%. It is not, it is an issue of fraud, of harm to society. Free Speech is a bumbersticker argument that only sounds good till you think about the matter.
I'm not ignoring it. The courts have restricted speech in the past. And will do so in the future. Obscenity laws are examples of restrictions of Free Speech based on the probably Harm such could do, and the needs of Society.
How many of you would like your child exposed to a say... someone having a T-Shirt showing a close up of two men engaged in anal sex? Say with the caption "Real Love"? It's just a Free Speech issue after all.
The issue isn't about whether or not "Lying" is a crime, it's about the Harm that is done to the Institution of the Military, Societies vested interest in that Institution, what it means and the Value of the Awards for service. The only person a 5-Star General Salutes first, aside perhaps the President, is that E-3 with a MOH. There is a REASON we hold such men in high regard, the award in such regard. Allowing it to be diluted in the Public Realm because it's "Free Speech" to claim you were awarded it harms the Military and it harms Society.
So you are against Hate Crime Legislation too? Just out of curiosity.
I am as well. We should punish the act, not the thought.I certainly am, as I said here plenty of times. I think Hate Crime legislation is unconstitutional, in that in punishes people for what they think.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?