Being the Dems can't cut off funding directly because they know it would be political suicide, they have decided on a new course of action, Slow-Bleed Strategy. This has got to be the one of the most cowardly and despicable acts I've ever seen. They are completely overstepping their constitutional role and severely limiting the ability of our troops thus putting them in greater danger.
Thanks to all you "conservatives" who stayed home or lodged a protest vote this past election. You are just as culpable in this if it happens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
just curious, who's behind the funding of the supplemental "multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable" in association with the slow-bleed strategy?
from the Close Up participant that asked for your business card)
Hi Kelsey...thanks for dropping by...please drop in anytime. Quite a few asked me for my card, so unfortunately that doesn't help me remember who you were...what questions or topics did we discussed may help =)
As far as who is funding the ad, I'd have to check for sure, but it is probably MoveOn or one of George Soros' other groups. I hadn't paid attention to it that much as I am ususally looking for something to throw at the TV...lol
hah. yes, throwing something at it can be quite useful at times. I was the girl who told the liberal he needed to back up his opinions/statements with solid facts if he wanted to actually convince anyone of anything. i also told the girls discussing abortion in the case of a rape victim had no right to speak for rape victims unless they themselves had experienced it or had spoken with a substantial number of victims about their views on abortion/right to choose
i may have been the first to ask for the card? if that helps
hah, that last comment there from me was a little long winded, but i think you get the point
Or you could have said you were the one that stumped me with a question I didn't know the answer to =) Which, by the way, I sent to a lawyer friend of mine to find out the answer...check back in a few days and hopefully I'll have the answer for you.
i was surprised you didn't have an opinion on that one actually... especially considering you have a blog yourself.
Well I guess the excuse is that being I don't ever plan on doing anything illegal, I never really thought about the stuff on my blog being used against me =)
I have the response from my friend, so I'll post it in a separate comment.
Question to my friend: I did a Close Up debate and got a question I didn't really know the answer as it was very legal based. The question was can stuff you write on the internet like in a blog for example be ever used against you in a legal case thus trumping your right to not incriminate yourself?
His answer:
This would be covered by the "hearsay" exception rules. Generally speaking a person may not testify in a trial what they have been told by others. In other words you can't testify to gossip you've heard in court. In the court room we want any witness to be able to be challenged. A piece of paper or other written document is difficult to challenge unless you can prove it is a forgery. Thus courtrooms prefer human witnesses who can be questioned by both sides.
However, there are exceptions to allowing hearsay evidence. Take for instance, if a person is suing for a back injury and claims to be 70% disabled -- i.e. they are not paralyzed but they can't work. You as a witness would be allowed to testify that since you attend the same church as they do you have testimony that is relevant to offer. You can lawfully testify that they went up for prayer and after the prayer they stood before the church and said "Wow, I'm completely healed. I can raise my arms in the air. Watch I can do a somersault." Although this is "hearsay" or gossip, it is allowed because it is your report of the person's own statement and not a report of someone else about the person.
Similarly, if the person had written this statement into his diary or a blog or told it to a reporter for a news story the evidence would be allowed in. The exception is "statements against interest." So if a person says in his blog, diary or to a reporter that he's tricking the insurance company, such an admission although written would be allowed in.
Why, because the thought is that people would rarely if ever voluntarily admit in writing that they did something that they didn't do. Note however, saying the opposite would not be allowed unless the person is dead. If a person is tricking his insurance company and he says on his blog, diary, or to a reporter that he is deathly ill and in severe pain and "would never decieve anyone about it" he could not admit this evidence as proof that he's truly sick, unless he were dead. It would be considered hearsay. And since he's not dead he can actually testify. Since a court operates on the ability to confront evidence, it prefers live witnesses whose veracity can be challenged.
So a short answer to your question is that for courtroom purposes a blog would be treated just like any other written document. In circumstances where similar documents would be allowed in then so would a blog.
mm, makes sense. thanks.
I was just curious considering the numerous cases that have come up surrounding the internet recently (i.e. mark foley case, miss america case... etc.)
Thanks for the response.
You are very welcome...anytime =) I'm doing another debate Monday, any advice from your perspective?
Post a Comment