posted on April 10, 2004 04:12:45 PM new
Linda this is just more left wing BS...
He has every right to decide if his speeches are to be recorded through electronic means... there used to be a thing called short hand... I would suggest reporters learn it...
Has nothing to do with the 1st admendment, which these people seem to want wrap themselves up in...
Even Howard Stern is not immune to decency and law... while trying to hide behind the 1st admendment.
posted on April 10, 2004 04:34:55 PM new
::A question of ethics??? I would NEVER listen to anyone who talks about ethics when they defended the actions of clinton lying under oath? how funny..... ::
What in the world are you talking about? When have I ever said anything about any Clinton testimony?
If you are not goiing to show proof of your original allegations in this thread I would at the very least like for you to show proof of this one.
I'm dead serious. I resent the tone, I resent the implication at I am calling on you to now back p your words otherwise I think it is you that hat has no place in a conversation regarding ethics.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 10, 2004 05:02:43 PM new
BTw - when did ethics start being measured by comparrison? An action is either ethical or it is not, is is not something that is not something based on a sliding scale using an example of choice as the standard.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 10, 2004 10:15:36 PM newA question of ethics??? I would NEVER listen to anyone who talks about ethics when they defended the actions of clinton lying under oath? how funny.....
Clinton's actions didn't cause anyone's death nor billions of dollars in theft. What Clinton did isn't even on the same scale as what Bush and Scalia do.
I guess a married man parsing words about a BJ rates pretty high on the morality scale with insecure women. But lying about WOMDs and getting 600 American soldiers killed is nothing but a wonderful thing Bush has done for our country.
"As I understand it from press reports, a United States Marshal erased, or caused you to erase, the tape recorder that you were using for the purpose of assuring the accuracy of your press report," Scalia wrote in an apology to both reporters. "I imagine that is an upsetting and indeed enraging experience and I want you to know how it happened."
Scalia explained that in a speech earlier that day he had asked that his appearance not be recorded.
"That announcement was not repeated at the high school, but the marshals believed (with good reason) that the same policy was in effect," Scalia wrote.
"The marshals were doing what they believed to be their job, and the fault was mine for not assuring that the ground rules had been clarified."
Scalia normally bars television cameras from his appearances, but his policy on the use of small audio recorders has not been clear-cut.
The two-page letter states that Scalia has had a long-standing policy of refusing radio and television coverage of his public appearances. He also noted his policy is to not allow personal interviews.
"It has been the policy of the American judiciary not to thrust themselves into the public eye, where they might come to be regarded as politicians seeking public favor," Scalia wrote.
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/updates/5598.html
posted on April 13, 2004 05:30:53 PM new
Scalia's apology
"I have learned my lesson (at your expense), and shall certainly be more careful in the future. Indeed, in the future I will make it clear that recording for use of the print media is no problem at all,"
posted on April 13, 2004 06:40:01 PM new
Hey Linda - I'm stil waiting for you to offer support of your state in which you indicted my ethics. You are losing credibiliity fast. I have repeated asked you to support indictments made in this thread and you keep ignoring those requests. Could you explain how you can be so high handed i your statement and then when called on to provide justification for you statement, just ignore it? Persnally, I'm stuck by the iromy.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 13, 2004 06:40 PM ]
posted on April 13, 2004 06:44:20 PM new
:: "It has been the policy of the American judiciary not to thrust themselves into the public eye, where they might come to be regarded as politicians seeking public favor," Scalia wrote. ::
Could someone explain how taking a speaking engagement is avoiding the appearance of thrusting yourself into the public eye? Iff he does not want his thoughts and opinions to be made public, maybe he should keep them to himself, or remove himself from public service.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 13, 2004 07:43:34 PM new
fenix I'm stil waiting for you to offer support of your state in which you indicted my ethics.
Get off your high-horse. I didn't indict your ethics. I made a general statement, that did not have your name in front of it, as it always does when I'm addressing you. Both you and helen mentioned ethics. That is until helen edited her post. And so I made a general comment that I would never listen to those who argue 'ethics' when clintons un-ethical behavior was accepted and pushed aside as not being important by many here.
You are losing credibiliity fast. My credibility is in fine shape thank you. Because I disagree on a subject doesn't affect my credibility in any way, shape or form.
I have repeated asked you to support indictments made in this thread and you keep ignoring those requests.
Yes, when you start making accusations that aren't true....I usually back away from any discussion with you because I'm not in the mood to defend false actions you accuse me of. Like your statement..."clinton card"..."but since we can't find an actual clinton in a similiar situation you pick the nutcae of the group in Tipper..." I'm sure you can see the insinuation in that statement. I wasn't looking for anything 'gag order related' to clinton. I remembered watching an interview on Fox News where the journalism student make that accusation and I did a search to pull it up. To back up what I had said. AS I HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED....so it should have been very clear. But you had to add the sarcasm....then question why I don't want to continue discussing the issue with you?
----
has a long history of denying the press access to speeches he gives
posted on April 13, 2004 08:12:21 PM new
::Fenix I'm stil waiting for you to offer support of your state in which you indicted my ethics.
Get off your high-horse. I didn't indict your ethics. I made a general statement, that did not have your name in front of it, as it always does when I'm addressing you.::
I am the onloy person in this debate that brought up ethics so exactly who should I have thought you were esponding to? Wny would I assume you would state that you were not going to debate ethics with others when no one else had brought them up?
As for untrue accusation - I brought up the "Clinton Card issue because when I asked you to support an earlier claim you completelly ignored it, as you did in every one of your subsequent posts and brought up Tipper Gore who has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand but does fall into a frequent pattern of trying deflect attention towards the Clintons when someone you support is brought into play. As far as false indictments, you have made them towards me thruout this thread so I think you are the one that needs to get off the damn horse.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 13, 2004 08:13 PM ]
So, fenix should not be disturbed by your insult because after three days you have redirected it to me? I suggest that next time you want to deliver such an insult, name your target. To do otherwise is cowardly and sneaky.
