G
gnjsdad
Guest
In my opinion, if every Catholic who voted voted for McCain, we’d still have abortion on demand.
- Status
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
That is the great misconception of our time, that the President is in control of this. The only way abortion on demand can get reversed is to get 5 strict constitutionalist judges on the Supreme Court. We have 4, but we will never get one as long as Obama or the Democrats are in power. Ever. We will continue to get the progressive “Constitution is a living document” sympathetic …errr…perople like Kagan and Sotomeyor. That means we need a President who will nominate, and a Senate with 60 votes to confirm a candidate that will make the replacement for one of the liberal progressive judges, like Ginsburg, who has to retire or otherwise leave office at the right time.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Yep. We would for awhile at least. But what about Mexico and Kenya?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
This is true. McCain would have kept the Mexico City policy in place, preventing the funding of abortion overseas. He would never have funded governmental politicies in Kenya that resulted in AoD. I believe that he would have vetoed the so called “Health Reform” bill, particularly if it funded abortion. So, while we would still have the stare decisis issue of Roe v. Wade, we wouldn’t be using taxpayer money to be funding abortion both at home and abroad.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
We’re not in court, but you’re wrong otherwise. There is a difference between reckless and intentional acts in civil law as well as criminal law.
I’m no legal scholar, and maybe one will come along in here to help you out, but there is a whole genre of civil actions based entirely on intentional conduct.
Returning to “we’re not in court”. I realize that. However, since those (including some Catholics) seem to take their moral principles from the law rather than from the Church, and since Democrat apologists so often say that it’s wrong to “impose morality” with the law in the case of abortion, I thought perhaps this could have some resonance with those who think that way.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
As to misrepresentation, I think the distinction is largely evaporated, although it depends on the state.
There is always the possibility of punitive damages if intent is found, but the separate genre of intentional torts is tiny:
Assault
Battery
Conversion
False imprisonment
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Chattels (Personal property)
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Fraud
Invasion of privacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_tort
As to misrepresentation:
Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_misrepresentation#Types_of_misrepresentation
Fraud includes recklessness. Negligent misrepresentation varies state to state, and is covered in the article as well.
Realizing that wikipedia isn’t a legal resource, of course.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I would say you have established the distinction despite your earlier assertion that it didn’t exist. Probably you did not, in Post # 534, intend to deceive. I’m sure you didn’t. I wouldn’t even accuse you of being reckless, even though you stated as a fact something that’s just plain incorrect, in support of your argument that Beck is a thoroughgoing skunk.
Oh, and “fraudulent misrepresentation” is not at all the same thing as recklessness. The first is intentional. The second isn’t. Again, I’m not a legal scholar, but recklessness, to my understanding, is doing something when one SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that it was wrong or would cause harm or did it in conscious disregard of a potential danger of harm. Intent is when one KNOWS it’s wrong.
I really don’t think you have proved that Beck intentionally misleads. Reckless? Maybe. Not sure, because I have seen him only a few times. But they’re just not the same thing.
“Lying”, which you accused Beck of, implies intent to deceive, but we shouldn’t be reckless about accusing people of it. If we were, I could accuse you of lying because of your prior statement in Post #534 that there is no distinction in the civil law between intentional and reckless acts. I don’t think you lied, and would be reckless in asserting that you did, particularly since you corrected your error in the above-quoted post.
So, if you hate Beck because of his politics, go ahead and hate him and tell us why you think his political views are in error. But let’s not be calling him a liar when that’s just a suppostion on your part, based on your feeling that he has been inaccurate in his assertions at times.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Don’t know what to say anymore. I point to a resource that says fraudlent misrepresentation includes recklessness. I realize it’s only wikipedia. I’m sure if you are right, you could find something better. Look at the Restatement of Torts, section 526:
fraudlaw.org/Definitions%20and%20concepts/DEFINITIONS%20fraud%20defined.htm
I know have two sources that illustrate that the civil law does not require intent in this context. Fraud is “not having confidence” in the accuracy of a representation. Intention, recklessnes, etc have the same consequence in civil court with respect to false statements. If you have something, please provide it.
Yet you continue to assert a baseless opinion that in court I would have to prove intent to hold someone civilly liable for false statements.
But that is how the thread works. I produce evidence, and discuss two misrepresentations, and I provide a detailed resource identifying more. That resource is ridiculed for winning the Pulitzer Prize. I am told that I have a burden of proof, which I haven’t met, but no coherent reason is given for my having a burden of proof or why I haven’t met it. Then I’m told I’m wrong for accurately stating that civil fraud doesn’t require specific intent to deceive.
I conclude, based on the evidence, that evidence is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s an exercise in rationalization.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Part of the legal definition of recklessness is a disregard for the outcome of an action. This speaks to intent. Since we cannot guess what Beck’s intent is, it is pure speculation, to accuse him of fraud or recklessness requires the capacity to read minds. Since I have yet to see any evidence of that capacity of anyone here, we have to assume that you all are expressing personal opinion. No one here has any idea if Beck is intentionally and with complete disregard for the consequences, spreading erroneous information.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
However, since those (including some Catholics) seem to take their moral principles from the law rather than from the Church, and since Democrat apologists so often say that it’s wrong to “impose morality” with the law in the case of abortion, I thought perhaps this could have some resonance with those who think that way.
Ridge, you should retire and move down here to Oklahoma and be a cattle rancher down here.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I’ve not been trying to defend Beck personally, just to clear up the accusations that he’s, and Good didn’t call him this, been made it out to be some pathelogical liar.
I’d think that if he lied as much as it’s been said he had, that there would be a slew of reliable resources pointing out that without a doubt he had lied. At that point I don’t think his show would last much longer.
That being said, personally, I think he is trying to do a good thing. I see him and Palin on the right. Talking about God, personal responsibility, accountability in the government.
And on the left, I don’t see anyone talking about God, they demonize people they hate, promote more government. And if they can’t see that our government, and debt is too big for our britches then I have nothing more to say to them.
You can sometimes judge a person’s character by those who associate with them.
On Becks side, you have Palin, Judge Napolitano, O’Reilly all pro-life people.
To me, that’s my kind of crowd.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
See the Restatement as to intent for fraud, posted above.
As to consequences, I’m not sure it’s relevant under the restatement, but I think the consequence Beck clearly has in mind is maintaining ratings.
It is truly extraordinary the deference this mere mortal inspires. People are held responsible for fraud everyday, by juries with no mind reading capacity, after hearing the defendant take the stand and proclaim his good intentions, but here, with Reverend Glenn, accusing him of lying is literally impossible. To recap: I have a burden of proof, but can’t fathom why, I can’t meet that burden of proof with facts, because the only facts that are relevant require superhuman powers, and the standards the courts use in multi-million dollar lawsuits are simply too lax for the purposes of a casual discussion on Beck.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Ya, you have a point. The political left and the notion of “personal responsibility and accountability” don’t seem to mix very well.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
You accused him of one lie. But made the assertion that he is constantly lying.
That was said over a year ago if I’m not mistaken.
You point out a source, ran by a newspaper I believe, that categories liars under “pants on fire”. And wonder why we question the source.
And you dont understand why you have the burden of proof?
Let me put it this way. If I, which is against the rules on this forum, made the assertion that Good_News was a liar.
Would the burden of proof, at that point not be on me to explain why you are a liar?
Or would there be a burden of defense on your part without any direct evidence from the accusor?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Part of the legal definition of fraud includes an intent to deceive (mens rea) for personal gain, absent this critical piece, the worst that he can be considered is pulling a hoax, which bears neither the intent or personal gain piece. While it could be demonstrated that he stood to benefit from any potential misinformation he disseminated, there is nothing that can be proven about his intent. First, because he hasn’t been charged with anything, either criminally or civilly, and second, because you can’t read minds. Intent must be PROVEN, either beyond a reasonable doubt (in the case of felony charges) or upon the preponderance of evidence (in civil proceedings). This is a discussion forum, so anyone is allowed to both say and believe whatever they want without it affecting the price of tea in China. Until you bring suit against Beck for fraud, this is all just bluster, including my own comments.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Nope. Check the restatement as to civil fraud, which I have quoted above.
I think we’ve all reached the end of this digression. Thanks for the discussion.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Let me say it differently: I not only disagree that I have a burden of proof, and am mystified as to why my burden of proof is greater here than it is in court, I have no idea what you mean by the burden of proof.
In other words, is your burden of proof that I produce 35 lies that could not have any conceivable innocent explanation? Or do I need to produce a videotape of him admitting to a a pattern of lies over many years? Does it count if he not only makes clear, indisputable misstatements, or does it matter at some point that he mixes these provably false statements with ones that are highly suspect? Does he need to say something that even his fans would agree is ridiculous like “Dick Cheney is the Secretary of State” (or would even that be excused as a simple, innocent mistake)? Does Beck get the same presumption of contorted defense in his absence, or is he granted less leeway after one lie is proven? And who judges the reasonableness of the excuplatory explanation which is fabricated for him in his absence?
When you say “you have the burden of proof” you seem to mean that you will accept no quantum of evidence that could reasonably be presented in the context of the discussion. If everyone could agree at this point that I had pointed to a group of false statements, we could possibly have a discussion, but we aren’t even at that point. Perhaps you are objecting to the very idea that someone, anyone, could be called a liar in any context. If that’s the case, however, why enter the discussion?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
You are making this much harder than it should be. Obviously this is not a courtroom, just a forum for discussion and debate. Someone posts a credible news article, and people discuss it, 99.9% of the time there is a disagreement at which time it becomes a debate until either someone concedes, or there is a stalemate. It’s simple.
In your case, you made Beck out to be a liar, with the accusation that he lies regularly. In that case, you should be able to come up with multiple lies. Yet, you came up with one, and your proof is questionable making you unable to prove that he lied on one occasion, much less on multiple occasions.
Therefore, if Beck is such the liar, there should be more than one lie that would undoubtedly be proven that he said something that was outright untrue.
But, if you could come up with one…just one, statement from Beck, that could by more than one unbiased source be proven to be untrue. You might have a case.
I don’t know why you are mystified as to why the burden of proof is on you. That’s the way it works, period. Nobody is just going to take your word for claims you make unless you make obvious claims, such as the sky is blue.
Like I said, if I called you a liar, I better have proof to back it up.
You can not, or have not, showed substantial evidence that Beck lied.
Just a simple, honest debate, easy to do.
G
Good_News_1
Guest
I came up with at least nine, by my count. If those are the rules, then I am a little bored with winning at this point - it’s sort of like the end of a game of Monopoly.
I just called Glenn and asked him to settle it. He admitted everything to me, said he was sorry he had been lying to people all these years and broke down crying. I felt a little bad for him.
Now, don’t you dare call me a liar about that!
Take care.
- Status