Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Since when can someone sue for being insulted?
    In today's world.. it's definitly possible.

    If someone could sue for defamation of character.. (hahaha rumors).. I'm sure they'd get away with an insult.. especially if it plays the race card.. and if it occurs in the work-place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    america is ok
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    In today's world.. it's definitly possible.

    If someone could sue for defamation of character.. (hahaha rumors).. I'm sure they'd get away with an insult.. especially if it plays the race card.. and if it occurs in the work-place.
    Good luck winning that case. The burden of proof in these types of cases is sufficiently high that it is extremely rate for anyone to win them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Good luck winning that case. The burden of proof in these types of cases is sufficiently high that it is extremely rate for anyone to win them.
    Yeah, they're basically there just to waste time. People are so desperate to get money they will try/do anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evenstar88)
    america is ok
    That was a complete waste of a post.

    Care to elaborate on "america is ok?"

    Why not good, why not great? hell, why not shi**y?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Good luck winning that case. The burden of proof in these types of cases is sufficiently high that it is extremely rate for anyone to win them.
    Though, if they sue someone prominent enough, the person will probably pay something to settle, rather than deal with the bad publicity and general hassle of fighting it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Though, if sue someone prominent enough, they will probably pay something to settle, rather than deal with the bad publicity and general hassle of fighting it.
    Except that it's usually the prominent people who are suing others for libel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illuvatar)
    Do you?
    No..........how could I..............I've been to Disneyworld :rolleyes:
    Seriously............ no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Though, if sue someone prominent enough, they will probably pay something to settle, rather than deal with the bad publicity and general hassle of fighting it.
    Either way there's a measure of bad publicity and sometimes more hassle if they settle.. because then it makes the person feel they can get more out of them..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No I don't hate Americans, I hate George Bush.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Basilisk)
    No I don't hate Americans, I hate George Bush.
    Why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Why?
    I'll reply, since my answer would have been broadly similar (though I would have mentioned a lot more than George Bush). But on the issue of George Bush alone:

    Walking away from the Kyoto Treaty?
    Ignoring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
    Pulling out of negotiations on the Biological Weapons Convention?
    Scrapping the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?
    Recanting the signature on the Rome Treaty?
    Abstaining (and so killing) some of the UN's most important resolutions on things like the militarisation of space?
    The Iraq war?
    All the deception and corruption involved with it?
    The millionaire oil baron executive?
    The spending of the US surplus?
    The 2 million American job losses?
    Guantanamo Bay?
    Refusing UN elections inspectors?
    The draconian new public broadcast controls?
    The $40bn dollars of public money to oil companies?
    Killing Social Security?
    Killing Medicare?
    The 90% "phantom aid" figure?
    The list of reasons to hate that man could literally fill a thousand pages.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    Walking away from the Kyoto Treaty?
    It was rejected by the US Senate.

    Ignoring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
    America never ratified the treaty.

    Scrapping the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?
    What's wrong with leaving a treaty through the mechanisms set forth in that treaty?

    Recanting the signature on the Rome Treaty?
    The Senate made it clear that it would not ratify the ICC treaty.

    Abstaining (and so killing) some of the UN's most important resolutions on things like the militarisation of space?
    There are no vetoes in the General Assembly.

    The millionaire oil baron executive?
    You hate Bush because he's rich?

    The spending of the US surplus?
    How does that make you worse off?

    The 2 million American job losses?
    How does that affect you?

    Refusing UN elections inspectors?
    Did Britain allow UN elections inspectors during the last election?

    The draconian new public broadcast controls?
    List them.

    The $40bn dollars of public money to oil companies?
    Proof?

    Killing Social Security?
    How did Bush kill Social Security? This implies that he already killed it and is not planning on doing so in the future by the way.

    Killing Medicare?
    How?

    The 90% "phantom aid" figure?
    What are you talking about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That post is a nightmare to reply to from a technical perspective.

    On things the senate rejected: a) it is a Republican senate, b) the White House was not utterly uninvolved in either issue - yes, the senate made certain decisions, this doesn't mean the White House did not.

    On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, yes. The White House simply ignored it.

    There is nothing wrong with leaving a treaty through the mechanisms of the treaty. There is a lot wrong with pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

    As for the no vetoes in the general assembly, that I know. However, when the US and Israel abstain in many cases, such as in this one, the treaty dies and killing the treaty is the purpose of that action.

    If you believe a White House staffed with oil industry millionaires represents the views, needs and interests of the American people that is your problem.

    Spending the surplus? Well, for one it leaves no money to save Medicare or Social Security. For another it jeopardises and indeed damaged the US economy. For another it cements America's utter lack of a significant welfare state.

    The question "how does this affect me?" is not the sole criteria by which I judge an action. If it was, I would be a Conservative. The question "how does job loss affect two million Americans?" is a more interesting one.

    I have no idea on the UN elections inspectors thing. I expect so though, as there were no reports in the press of them being refused. Just because they were allowed, doesn't mean they came.

    As for the public broadcast stuff, I don't know the details. I can get them but it is more research than I am prepared to do at this time of night. I can find, easily, a little part of a speech made by Bill Moyers last month:
    I thought the current CPB board would like to hear and talk about the importance of standing up to political interference. I was wrong. They wouldn’t meet with me. I tried three times. And it was all downhill after that.

    I was naïve, I guess. I simply never imagined that any CPB chairman, Democrat or Republican, would cross the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House. But that’s what Kenneth Tomlinson has done. On Fox News this week he denied that he’s carrying out a White House mandate or that he’s ever had any conversations with any Bush administration official about PBS. But The New York Times reported that he enlisted Karl Rove to help kill a proposal that would have put on the CPB board people with experience in local radio and television. The Times also reported that “on the recommendation of administration officials” Tomlinson hired a White House flack (I know the genre) named Mary Catherine Andrews as a senior CPB staff member. While she was still reporting to Karl Rove at the White House, Andrews set up CPB’s new ombudsman’s office and had a hand in hiring the two people who will fill it, one of whom once worked for… you guessed it … Kenneth Tomlinson.

    I would like to give Mr. Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t. According to a book written about the Reader’s Digest when he was its Editor-in-Chief, he surrounded himself with other right-wingers -- a pattern he’s now following at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There is Ms. Andrews from the White House. For Acting President he hired Ken Ferree from the FCC, who was Michael Powell’s enforcer when Powell was deciding how to go about allowing the big media companies to get even bigger. According to a forthcoming book, one of Ferree’s jobs was to engage in tactics designed to dismiss any serious objection to media monopolies. And, according to Eric Alterman, Ferree was even more contemptuous than Michael Powell of public participation in the process of determining media ownership. Alterman identifies Ferree as the FCC staffer who decided to issue a ‘protective order’ designed to keep secret the market research on which the Republican majority on the commission based their vote to permit greater media consolidation.

    It’s not likely that with guys like this running the CPB some public television producer is going to say, “Hey, let’s do something on how big media is affecting democracy.”
    I don't have a complete list of the White House's oil company spending and subsidies on tap. I can dig up the source where I learnt that but not at short notice at this time of night.

    How has Bush killed Social Security? By ensuring there's no possible way to fund it and as such necessitating its death? I quite openly don't know much about it but I know it's going to be gone soon and that that's because of the actions of George W. Bush's government.

    With the Medicare thing, it's not my area of expertise, I'm not an American.
    The New York Observer
    The Nation



    On the aid thing:

    US Foreign Aid Greatly Exaggerated, Says New Study

    WASHINGTON, May 27 -- The world's richest nations greatly exaggerate their aid to poor countries -- with the U.S., the worst offender, giving only 0.02 percent of its income in real assistance, says a study released today by ActionAid International.

    The report, which can be downloaded at http://www.actionaidusa.org/Action Aid Real Aid.pdf says that some two-thirds of the money donated by the world's wealthiest countries is in actuality "phantom aid" that is not genuinely available for poverty reduction in developing countries.

    Phantom Aid is aid that is diverted from poor nations for other purposes within bureaucratic aid systems. This includes aid that is, among all G7 donations:

    -- not targeted for poverty reduction, estimated to be worth US$4.9 billion

    -- double counted as debt relief, totaling US$9.4 billion

    -- overpriced and ineffective- Technical Assistance, estimated at US$13.8 billion

    -- tied to goods and services from the donor country, estimated at US$2.7 billion

    -- poorly coordinated and with high transaction costs, estimated at US$9 billion

    -- too unpredictable to be useful to the recipient – lack of data prevents an estimate

    -- spent on immigration-related costs in the donor country; totaling US$1.5 billion

    -- spent on excess administration costs; totaling US$0.4 billion.

    In total, says the study, at least 61 percent of all donor assistance from G7 nations is phantom aid, with real aid in 2003 accounting for just US$27 billion, or only 0.1 percent of combined donor income. Nearly 90 percent of all contributions coming from the United States and France are considered phantom aid.

    Says ActionAid International USA Policy Analyst, Rick Rowden, "what this comes down to is that the US government is spending the tax dollars of well-meaning Americans on bloated, inefficient, and manipulative programs that do little to help the poor. This is inexcusable when you consider that a child dies every two seconds from hunger somewhere in the world."

    The report argues that the share of real aid is unlikely to increase unless a system of genuine accountability, which balances the interests of donors, recipients, and the poor, can be put in place.

    In addition, the report calls for a new International Aid Agreement that will hold donor countries accountable. This Agreement should include clear policies from developing countries on the criteria for accepting aid; mutual commitments from donor and recipient countries; national and international review forums; and new mechanisms for increasing the amount and predictability of aid to the world’s poorest countries.

    Every day, 800 million people go to bed hungry, 30,000 children die of preventable disease, 100 million children are denied education. Three children a minute die due to unsafe water and sanitation. Approximately 30 children die a minute of hunger.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Basilisk)
    No I don't hate Americans, I hate George Bush.
    Do you hate me for voting for him?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe this thread is back again! :mad:

    *kicks the mighty thread*

    Ouch *rubs toe*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I generally dislike Americans (with the exception of New Yorkers and Californians). I despise George Bush and the people who voted for him (yes, Made in the USA... as soon as I heard you voted for him, your IQ dropped 40 points).

    I hate the Conservatist Theocracy Movement.

    I am very proud of the way the government is set up, and I'm proud of some of the military feats we've pulled off before.

    Americans tend to be easy to hate. We are no smarter than any other countries, yet we think we are. We are not much stronger than other countries, yet we think we are.

    We're going to do something stupid within the next 15 years and the EU or China is going to own our faces.

    I've lived in America my entire life. I am currently in the process of getting my dual citizenship so I can move to Europe when I finish college.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    How does [the job losses] affect you?
    I know you weren't talking to me, but how do you think I ended up in Texas?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    On things the senate rejected: a) it is a Republican senate, b) the White House was not utterly uninvolved in either issue - yes, the senate made certain decisions, this doesn't mean the White House did not.
    For starters, Kyoto and the ICC were rejected by a Democratic Senate. More importantly, they were rejected by enormous margins. Kyoto was voted down 95-0 I believe.

    As for the no vetoes in the general assembly, that I know. However, when the US and Israel abstain in many cases, such as in this one, the treaty dies and killing the treaty is the purpose of that action.
    The UN has 191 member states. Why does the abstention of America or Israel kill any reaty?

    If you believe a White House staffed with oil industry millionaires represents the views, needs and interests of the American people that is your problem.
    Bush got more votes than his competitors in two consecutive elections. That means that the American people think that Bush represents their interest. Who are you to say that you know what the American people want better than the American people?

    Spending the surplus? Well, for one it leaves no money to save Medicare or Social Security. For another it jeopardises and indeed damaged the US economy. For another it cements America's utter lack of a significant welfare state.
    The surplus would never be spent on creating a larger welfare state, mostly because both major parties oppose it. You have yet to show how Bush's domestic policies harms you.

    The question "how does this affect me?" is not the sole criteria by which I judge an action. If it was, I would be a Conservative. The question "how does job loss affect two million Americans?" is a more interesting one.
    Why does that make you hate Bush? You're not an American. Why do you care if we have higher unemployment?

    I have no idea on the UN elections inspectors thing. I expect so though, as there were no reports in the press of them being refused. Just because they were allowed, doesn't mean they came.
    Developed countries don't use election inspectors. That's the reason that Bush rejected the proposal (which was made by a small minority of Congress); it would be embarassing for the US to become the first Western country to accept election inspectors.

    As for the public broadcast stuff, I don't know the details. I can get them but it is more research than I am prepared to do at this time of night. I can find, easily, a little part of a speech made by Bill Moyers last month:
    No one in the US watches PBS. I could assure you that no one will notice if that station will go off the air tomorrow. I'm amazed that you could hate someone for someone that you admit to knowing nothing about.

    I don't have a complete list of the White House's oil company spending and subsidies on tap. I can dig up the source where I learnt that but not at short notice at this time of night.
    You mean those companies weren't receiving these subsidies before Bush was elected?

    How has Bush killed Social Security? By ensuring there's no possible way to fund it and as such necessitating its death? I quite openly don't know much about it but I know it's going to be gone soon and that that's because of the actions of George W. Bush's government.
    What are you talking about? How has Bush cut funding? Bush's proposal has not passed; it doesn't even have the support of the Republican party.

    With the Medicare thing, it's not my area of expertise, I'm not an American.
    The New York Observer
    The Nation
    So first you complain that Bush killed Social Security by intending to cut spending on it and in the next sentence you complain that Bush intends to kill Medicare by increasing funding of it? Make up your mind.

    On the aid thing:
    Most American aid is given through private charity. If you take private charity into account, America gives around 0.2% of its GDP to foreign aid. Why is aid given by governments any more important than aid given by individuals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Bush got more votes than his competitors in two consecutive elections.
    Bismarck, you know that's not true. He got more votes the last election, not the first.
    Tsk, tsk.

    Bismarck, instead of proving Tomorow2day wrong, why don't you tell us why you dislike the current Republican party (which Bush represents). I'm assuming you don't love Bush, either.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.