Don't worry, little fella. You can still play big shot at your rarely visited, over-budget vanity blog. NeoMajority, I believe it's called.
Posted on 09/29/2009 4:38:33 AM PDT by steve-b
Cute.
Ok...
Let's make it a bit simpler for you:
"Which URL('s) CONTAIN(S) a lie?”
|
To: Diogenesis
repeat a lie often enough, and ... No, it’s just still a stupid annoying lie. |
I would have said “which page do you think is a lie”, but my response would be that I wasn’t commenting on any of the links anyway, it was the poster’s comment (as I did explain in another comment).
Basically, McCain was never ahead by 8+ points, he fell back WAY before September 18.
I do however get a chuckle out of how a team which, dispite millions of dollars, couldn’t even beat a broke John McCain in the primary, somehow being capable of defeating Sarah Palin.
Don't worry, little fella. You can still play big shot at your rarely visited, over-budget vanity blog. NeoMajority, I believe it's called.
Maybe fill out one of these? Frum already did.
I expect Frum to come out of the closet any day now and announce that he was a gay liberal all along. Remember David Brock?
Too bad that Team Romney found that that was the moment
to attack Gov. Palin and her handicapped child.
How Romney is that?
I don’t have a problem with cruelty to animal suits....but the animal can’t be the one suing!
You are obsessed with this magical “Team Romney”. “that was the moment”? Your entire belief about how McCain lost, and who was attacking Palin, is myopic and mostly wrong.
It was shameful how Palin was attacked, and shameful that those attacks included people who should have been on our side.
You are wrong when you blame an entire class of people, and only those people, for these actions.
A vast majority of the attacks came from people other than former supporters of Romney.
A vast majority of people who supported Romney supported McCain/Palin. Some only after Palin was chosen.
In the end, Palin was not enough to save McCain. Whatever else she may be, she was not a miracle worker. McCain was, in essense, unelectable, and he showed that when he botched his response to the economic crisis.
It was that inability to handle the crisis that cost him his lead in the polls.
And in fact, most of us here at FR understand that the number one problem with McCain was that he sided with TARP, instead of opposing it.
Only a few people with their own agenda try to hide that truth by blaming other things instead.
And that effort hurts the conservative cause, because by trying to deny the real reasons McCain lost, you risk sending the wrong message.
TARP was the primary reason McCain lost; Palin’s biggest problem was McCain hiding her in a way that made it look like he didn’t trust her, failing to adequately defend her when the rediculous attacks first started, and then keeping her on a too-short leash.
McCain’s people trying to blame her for McCain’s failures also hurt her. Not as much as it hurt him though, because she was the only thing that could save him after his disastrous handling of the financial crisis, and instead his team marginalized her.
The problem is a technical/legal one. FOr a civil suit, one must have a cause of action. If a person tortures an animal, who has a harm that can lead to a course of action? The only thing harmed is the animal. So technically, the animal is the one who needs to have standing.
Any law would of course provide a human “standing to sue” on behalf of the animal. Otherwise the person would have to argue and show that the person was harmed by knowing about the animal cruelty.
I think it is a bad idea, because civil suits should be for collecting actual damages, not for punishment. If people are being cruel to animals because the current punishments aren’t severe enough, change the law to make punishment more severe.
What animal-rights groups want is civil punishment, so they can act like a police force/prosecuters and go after all sorts of cases they believe are “cruelty” that the actual police and prosecuters would reject.
You’re absolutely right1 Who would have thought thousands of people in California would be out of work over the Delta Smelt!
We lost it when we forgot why we have animal cruelty laws.
Yes, people love animals, and feel bad when they think animals are suffering.
But the purpose of animal cruelty laws is to control human cruelty, not protect animals. Because we know that people who are gratuitously cruel to animals will also be cruel to their fellow human beings. SO we want to teach kids it is wrong to torture animals.
Nowadays, it’s all about keeping the animals safe, but that makes little sense given that we put them to sleep, we eat them, we let them run around the neighborhood and get run over by cars, we use them for drug and other tests.
These are not gratuitous uses, and under the original intent nobody would ask for more than that those activities be done in a “humane” way, minimizing the harm to the animals to what is necessary for the task.
But now we are actually worried about what the animals are “going through”, and about their “suffering”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.