Does it really matter what type of law he was practicing?

 

Honest question.

 

It does if he accuses someone else of being a liar, all while lying himself. Makes him look like a bit of a hypocrite.

I guess there's some perspective here that differs

 

How credible is a liar to call a someone a liar when...they've lied?

 

If the man hasn't been an immigration lawyer, why does he say he has?

 

In this country, isn't the accused innocent until proven guilty? Why is it then, that the accuser can't be looked at as closely as the accused? Why is it that the onus has evolved from the burden of proof on the accuser, to the accused?

 

I realize this isn't the court of law we're speaking of, but the same principle should apply.

 

If one wants to cast stones, then one better make darned sure that, at the minimum, their house is made of plexi-glass and not glass.

 

 

Credibility of a liar accusing some one of lieing of course is suspect. Agreed.

 

But that doesn't mean the accusation has to be without merit. Police regularly receive info from past criminals. They don't totally rely on it; yet they don't totally ignore it. They look into it.

 

The accuser can be looked at closely. Never said or even remotely implied that he shouldn't. If Wilson has lied to his constitutients about his background he should be taken to task. But that doesn't give the President a pass if he too lied.

 

I surely haven't "convicted" Obama of lieing, so I don't know where you get off with the innocent until proven guilty language. Irrelevant to my point. I think we should be examining if Obama lied; I have not said he did. If he did lie, he too should be taken to task.

 

Obama has been accused of lieing to the American public about an important issue. It wasn't too long ago that the Dems had their panties and boxers in a bunch about Bush allegedly lieing to the American public about WMDs. I agreed that if it was proven that Bush intentionally lied or misled the country about WMDs he should be taken to task. IF (and I put it in capital letters so you didn't miss it) Obama lied to the American people about info in the health care bill he is supporting, he should also be held accountable. That's a much bigger issue to me than whether Wilson does or does not have immigration law experience; that's a much bigger issue to me than Wilson's breach of decorum. Maybe not to you, but it is to me.

Edited September 17, 200917 yr by leatherneck

It does if he accuses someone else of being a liar, all while lying himself. Makes him look like a bit of a hypocrite.

 

You mean like politicians who assail the adultery of a President while they themselves were having or did have an affair with someone?

You mean like politicians who assail the adultery of a President while they themselves were having or did have an affair with someone?

 

Or famous evangelical preachers who say, "It is wrong to lie, cheat on your spouse and do drugs" while they are lying, cheating on their spouse and doing drugs? :lol:

You mean like politicians who assail the adultery of a President while they themselves were having or did have an affair with someone?

 

I agree with both of your and HB20's points. Nonetheless, does the accuser's own failings absolve the accused's failings in your opinion?

I agree with both of your and HB20's points. Nonetheless, does the accuser's own failings absolve the accused's failings in your opinion?

 

What if the accusers accusations aren't true? He certainly lacks credibility to call anyone a liar, if he is lying in the same sentence in which he is calling that person a liar.

I agree with both of your and HB20's points. Nonetheless, does the accuser's own failings absolve the accused's failings in your opinion?

 

No. It does however harm the validity of the points that might be needed by the one accusing.

 

I have to constantly speak about the problems of sin and evil in this world, and still I find myself a sinner myself. The best way I've found to confront these issues is with speech that is tempered with "grace" and a constant reminder to myself as to what my goal or aim for my speech really is.

 

I've found that when I work on speaking in those ways, it is difficult to succumb to the urge to "yell out" in a meeting with this kind of self-righteous indignation.

 

For the Record, if Mr. Wilson called Obama a liar I would have no problem with that castigation in an interview, a commercial or a speech. For me the whole problem lies in the method.

Credibility of a liar accusing some one of lieing of course is suspect. Agreed.

 

But that doesn't mean the accusation has to be without merit. Police regularly receive info from past criminals. They don't totally rely on it; yet they don't totally ignore it. They look into it.

 

The accuser can be looked at closely. Never said or even remotely implied that he shouldn't. If Wilson has lied to his constitutients about his background he should be taken to task. But that doesn't give the President a pass if he too lied.

 

I surely haven't "convicted" Obama of lieing, so I don't know where you get off with the innocent until proven guilty language. Irrelevant to my point. I think we should be examining if Obama lied; I have not said he did. If he did lie, he too should be taken to task.

 

Obama has been accused of lieing to the American public about an important issue. It wasn't too long ago that the Dems had their panties and boxers in a bunch about Bush allegedly lieing to the American public about WMDs. I agreed that if it was proven that Bush intentionally lied or misled the country about WMDs he should be taken to task. IF (and I put it in capital letters so you didn't miss it) Obama lied to the American people about info in the health care bill he is supporting, he should also be held accountable. That's a much bigger issue to me than whether Wilson does or does not have immigration law experience; that's a much bigger issue to me than Wilson's breach of decorum. Maybe not to you, but it is to me.

 

First of all, I never said YOU said Obama lied. I was only bringing to the table the points I made about the credibility of the liar.

What if the accusers accusations aren't true? He certainly lacks credibility to call anyone a liar, if he is lying in the same sentence in which he is calling that person a liar.

 

To answer your question, then Wilson be taken to task for make false allegations, particularly since he made them against our President and on national TV.

Don't attorneys take classes that focus on areas of study within their field? I would assume that an attorney who specialized in First Amendment law or corporate law would have taken classes geared toward this specialty, much the same way I would expect a military history professor to have spent his undergraduate and graduate career studying wars and military tactics.

 

There are required classes & core classes, which every law student is required to take. After that, there are quite a few electives, which you may or may not take.

 

Once a law student passes the BAR exam (and becomes an attorney), they're able to practice in whichever field of law comes across their desk. Typically, attorneys will specialize in a field, but quite frequently they do not (more so in smaller towns).

The Democrats in the early 90's and Daddy Bush was talking to the students.

They had an investigation because they said Daddy Bush was using taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate the students. GAO said it was fine.

 

There wasn't a cry from the public though was they, as there was with Obama? Did it make national headlines? There were people that was furious that our President. President mind you, was going to speak to our students. Racism friends.

There wasn't a cry from the public though was they, as there was with Obama? Did it make national headlines? There were people that was furious that our President. President mind you, was going to speak to our students. Racism friends.

 

Racism? Could it possibly be there was no cry because that was an entire different time? Cable and internet were both in their infancy so there was not as much information overload as there is now. Nope, got to be racism, that's the answer to everything anti Obama, now isn't it?

Racism? Could it possibly be there was no cry because that was an entire different time? Cable and internet were both in their infancy so there was not as much information overload as there is now. Nope, got to be racism, that's the answer to everything anti Obama, now isn't it?

 

Cable was in it's infancy in the early 90s? Did people not have newspapers back then? I bet in the early 90s, some people even had radios. Could you imagine?

There wasn't a cry from the public though was they, as there was with Obama? Did it make national headlines? There were people that was furious that our President. President mind you, was going to speak to our students. Racism friends.

 

I am sure that with some, race is an issue. BUT, my understanding was that the initial speech was more about what could the students do for Obama's administration. Once the speech was changed, I certainly hope that noone had a problem with what he said. I love the idea of the POTUS speaking to students about the importance of working hard and getting an education for their future and the future of the country. My father was very opposed to what was reported the speech was going to say. Then when the revision came out, he was all in favor of it. In his case, it had nothing to do with race, but the message.

 

I have no problem with the POTUS speaking to students. In fact, I think it is a GREAT idea and I am glad he did it. I think that accusing someone who may oppose the ideas of the POTUS of being racist is an easier way to deal with their objections than to actually look at the merit behind their argument.

Cable was in it's infancy in the early 90s? Did people not have newspapers back then? I bet in the early 90s, some people even had radios. Could you imagine?

 

Yep, Cable news was in it's infancy. Can you imagine that it was spit compared to what it is now? There was CNN and it didn't reach many people. Newspapers? Do you really think they got people fired up? Radio? Same as cable news, there just wasn't much out there. I believe Rush went national around 1990. Not sure who else was out there but I remember it being mainly local radio programming. It was a whole different media world.