[Rhodes22-list] ... failure of leadership or leading ...
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Tue Oct 21 16:01:39 EDT 2008
Sorry Ben, doesn't fly. You weren't talking "someday", you said
"inquiring minds want to know.
People are not the fools you assume them to be. Your idiotic comment was
a threat, and anyone that can read could recognize it as such.
A Marxist is one who follows the teachings of Marx. I think it would be
a pretty easy case to make when one is espousing Marxist philosophies to
show that they are indeed marxists, it would only be to what degree.
He made no accusation about a particular action, but rather about your
philosophical view point.
Further, as you said, they would have to prove damages. I think you
would be hard pressed to show any damages.
Finally, as Ed pointed out, he wasn't calling you anything, he was
talking about Obama. He would not be able to be sued for calling Obama a
Marxist.
I would be interested in some (not many) of the case studies you're
talking about. My recollection of the time period you mention (I wasn't
around at the time, just studied it) was that the accusations that were
actionable were very specific in nature. Keep in mind, Communism is both
a philosophy AND a party. One is hard to prove or disprove, the other
not so much
Personally, I think you need to develop a little thicker skin.
And I stand by my statement, anyone that uses what's written on a
past-time such as this to threaten, even hint at, legal action reveals
themselves as an asshole.
Ben Cittadino wrote:
> Herb;
>
> To address your concern, I would not sue Ed, but somebody, someday (who
> doesn't have a sense of humor) will make real trouble for him if he doesn't
> learn that there are rules under our laws about what you can and cannot say
> about people. Call someone an asshole, as you did, and as you have done to
> several in the past, and it means nothing. It is merely an expletive. It
> cannot be literally true and therefor it cannot really hurt anyone. It says
> a lot about the speaker, but vitually nothing about the object of the
> speech.
> But, accuse someone of a crime (like conspiracy) who you know to be
> innocent, disparage someone in their profession where you know or should
> know the statement isn't true, falsely say some woman is unchaste, or
> spread a story that someone has a loathsome disease when you have no reason
> to believe it, and you may well find yourself responsible for the damage you
> do to that person. In the 1950's calling someone a communist or marxist
> could get them blacklisted, could hurt them in their reputation in their
> community, could impact their ability to support themselves and their
> families. Lawsuits were filed and damages were awarded because people were
> really injured by false accusations. Surely you understand this.
> Opinions about a program being "based on mao or marx" aren't actionable
> because Brad wasn't talking about a person. He was opining about a
> philosophy.
> Ed can express his opinion all he wants, but if he calls someone a marxist,
> (and that is a statement of fact not opinion) and that person is injured in
> some real way by that label, he could have a problem. I'd rather he got a
> heads-up to watch his language, than see something bad happen in his life. I
> love Ed. Jesus wants me to love Ed. I even love you Herb.
>
> Peace, Love,and Dope;
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
> hparsons wrote:
>
>> There you go. Express your opinon Ed, and the lawyer lists vague threats
>> to sue.
>>
>> Ben, sue ME if you want. Anyone that even hints at suing over something
>> like that is an asshole. Go look in the mirror, then file your motions.
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>
>>> Ed;
>>>
>>> Will you answer some questions for me? What is a marxist as you see it?
>>> What
>>> makes me a marxist in your view? Does the 1st Amendment to our
>>> Constitution
>>> immunize folks who libel other folks? Does calling someone a marxist who
>>> is
>>> not in fact a marxist constitute defamation of character? Do you have any
>>> life savings? Inquiring minds want to know?
>>>
>>> Have a nice day.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ed,
>>>>
>>>> Obama intentionally and cynically has misled the public about his
>>>> relationship with Ayers. This issue isn't going away and it shouldn't
>>>> go away. Speculation is strong and the evidence is growing that the
>>>> Obama and Ayers relationship goes all the way back to Obama's days in
>>>> NYC at Columbia (Ayers was there at the same time and they were both
>>>> friends of Dr. Saed) and that Ayers actually ghost authored Obama's
>>>> first book (the word count and sentence structure mirrors Ayer's
>>>> writing and was written at a 12th grade level, Obama's second book was
>>>> written at a 9th grade level). But let's forget speculation for a
>>>> moment and stick with what is known. I'm posting a link instead of
>>>> the article so you can see the photo.
>>>>
>>>> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/
>>>>
>>>> We know from tax returns from the Annenberg Challenge that Obama,
>>>> Ayers, and Klonsky all had offices on the same floor of the same
>>>> building. Michelle and Ayers' wife both worked at the same law firm.
>>>> Obama and Ayers appeared at joint speaking engagements (which by the
>>>> way, Illinois ethics law prohibits receiving fees for speaking but
>>>> Obama's tax returns show "speaker fees" during the period he was in
>>>> the Illinois Senate, another MSM oversight).
>>>>
>>>> "Just a guy in my neighborhood with a degree in English"
>>>>
>>>> That was willful intent to decieve and the MSM has for the most part
>>>> let him get away with it.
>>>>
>>>> The man is a liar, if he were on trial he would certainly be guilty of
>>>> perjury - and he may well be, soon.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ben said, "... Since I socialize mostly with folks in my own
>>>>> socioeconomic
>>>>> class, while most support Obama, ..." The term leadership comprises
>>>>> many
>>>>> atributes. And part of what are call traditional values is simple
>>>>> honesty.
>>>>> Sometimes honesty requires analysis of what is going on and saying hey,
>>>>> "
>>>>> America, we have a problem..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben discounted the Bill Ayers thing. Even if he is a Marxist as is
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> Ayers, he as an American has an obligation to speak the truth. In
>>>>> America a
>>>>> Marxist is obligated to tell the truth and not lie about it. So it
>>>>> goes
>>>>> with his candidate Obama.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what are the elements of Conspiracy? If you know or should have
>>>>> reasonable known something? Are you obligated to say something? If
>>>>> you
>>>>> do
>>>>> not say anything are you a coconspirator?
>>>>>
>>>>> In Ben's case I have to ask, if a fraud is being commited is he
>>>>> obligated
>>>>> to
>>>>> speak out?
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is why I routinely for years have quoted:
>>>>> In Germany they first came for the Communists
>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
>>>>> Then they came for the Jews,
>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
>>>>> Then they came for the trade unionists
>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>>>>> Then they came for the Catholics
>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
>>>>> Then they came for me
>>>>> and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>>>>>
>>>>> --The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing
>>>>> Church
>>>>> who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben said, "... I, on the other hand, wish there were no connection at
>>>>> all
>>>>> because then we could argue about policy instead of who knew who, where
>>>>> and
>>>>> when, and what possible difference it makes."
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this an admission of an issue? Saying that because most others deny
>>>>> the
>>>>> connection is using Richard Nixon's arguement that everybody else in
>>>>> politics did it, therefore it was o.k. Saying his friends deny the
>>>>> issue
>>>>> does not make it go away. It is Richard Nixon's arguement all over
>>>>> again.
>>>>> Wasn't Nixon a lawyer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does law school teach ask the hard questions in court, but do not ask
>>>>> them
>>>>> of yourself? Are lawyers above the law? Inquiring minds want to know?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed K
>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>> attachment for Andrew:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20084939/Andrew%2527s%2Bversion.jpg
>>>>> Andrew%27s+version.jpg
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/...-failure-of-leadership-or-leading-...-tp20084939p20084939.html
>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list