Posted on 11/16/2001 2:47:44 PM PST by John H K
Dan Rather just stated on the evening news that a second anthrax letter, postmarked from Trenton NJ on Oct. 9, was found in the undelivered Senate mail, addressed to Senator Patrick Leahy.
Gee, sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy to me. Early on I believed it really was terrorists. One would be hard-pressed to find a radical right winger in Trenton, New Jersey of all places. Doesn't anyone find it odd that this letter was found following Leahy's recent challenge to Bush on the Military courts? Seems like a publicity stunt.
#2. You have decided he is a clear and present danger to the U.S. However there is a small problem for you in that no court, agency, investigator or department with any legal standing has agreed with you. To publish (as you have done in a legal sense) such an accusation without such legal determination is a very short trip to damages for the Dr. in question.
Unfortunately for you, you cannot make the argument that LEOs do not know about this person. The truth is that they have received your information, examined it, and by your own confession, found it wanting of one or more elements of a required proof.
#3. By your actions, you place FR, JR (and of course yourself) at severe legal peril because you have a beef with someone. Unfortunately for all of us, having a beef is not enough. You do not have proof, as pointed about above. Therefore you cast FR et al. into peril for a "false light" tort action.
If the Doctor's lawyers can show you did this out of spite, to hurt him, or the like, there will be punitive damages like telephone numbers!
If you think you private beef and temper tantrum is worth costing FR tens of thousands in legal fees, plus damages, go right ahead. I doubt anything short of a jury verdict will convince you.
PS, forget about all this BS your hear about making yourself suitproof. Ask your spouse, children, etc. how they would like being evicted from your home to pay court-awarded damages from your written temper tantrum.
Words, like guns, can do incredible damage…… and those who would shoot them off with recklessness often pay severe penalties.
One more thing. The Law requires Truth, not just your idea of truth or some self-created "Spirit," "Idea, or "Semblence" of it. I hope that is not very expensive lesson for you to learn
If that comment was made on national television or something I could see your point. I guess I've spent too many hours in political chat rooms to not recognize a very lighthearted joke when I read one. Are you saying you really think the posters meant it literally?
This is an internet conservative forum, for gosh sakes. What people say in here is meant to be taken in that context. We joke around about stuff we'd never say in an idealogically mixed audience. It was not meant seriously. I don't see how you can miss that.
Well, this is round two of the same conversation.
No I wouldn't like it if someone said that about the Reagans. I do believe I could put it in context, however, if I were cruzing a liberal internet political forum website. I could understand, also, that it was in no way meant literally, but was an expression meant as a joke.
You should hear the stuff the liberals say in the "from the right" chats on AOL. See: DrChicago1, JNFedUp, GOPSux, ....I cannot begin to list them all. They are just trying to be rude. The posters on this thread, to the contrary, were just taking note of the liberal choices and expressed it with a touch of humor on a CONSERVATIVE FORUM.
Try and keep it in context.
But I do agree with you.
I certainly hope so.
I can't get over your selfishness. You would put FR, Jr and others in legal danger so you can wage your own personal vendetta that clearly does not meet legal standards of sufficienty. Do you call removing a multi-million dolar liability "censorship?"
FYI, I would stop posting period if I were you. Your admission that you really don't know who he is digs you and FR in even deeper.
Please, quit while you are behind. FR is too valuable to lose to your personal ventetta against someone you now admit/claim you don't even know!
Do you know of any crime of which he has been acused by any court, grand jury or law officer of competent jurisdiction?
Other than possibly having his name in the phone book/call records of a known terrorist, has he had any provable contact with terrorists? Is there any proof of what they discussed, with the possibility of the conversation being entirely about comming attractions on "Baywatch"!?!? (Baywatch is very big on Saudi TV now!)
Other than the writings of some author, who you may have never met, is there even any proof of such phone communication/listing?
Other than working within a mile of her, is there anything to connect him to the death of the New York hospital worker. Does it matter to you that approximately 650,000 other people also live or work within a mile of her workplace? Does it matter to you that there is no reason to believe he ever met her, had any contact with her, etc?
Do you see the beginnings of a pattern here........
What do you think would be the outcome of a jury of 12 sane people hearing this information in a "false light" litigation against you and FR?
It's a different world this cyber space. I've learned alot about taking crticism (who likes it?) and allowing people space to vent.
Politics is like a court trial. (the court of public opinion) When fought fairly there are two different representations that are vastly different from each other. I enjoy cyberspace because all voices are heard, albeit very blunt. The dictatorship that is the mainstream media gives no representation, or very little, to conservatives. Perhaps that's why I understand the frustration level that produces comments like the one on this thread.
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.