|
DomKen -> RE: Anti-Obama Group Rolls Out New Birther Informercial In 7 States (9/28/2009 11:53:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Keep up, DomKen...I am doing neither. I was responding to a post that asked for one incident of besmirching---to charge falsely OR (please note the OR) with malicious intent; to attack and defame someone---Bush that rose to the level of accusing Clinton of being a murderer. Now, the arguments have gone back and forth over whether Bush lied or those beneath him did and nothing has ever been settled. So the charge may or may not be false but it was damn sure made with malicious intent.
So saying something that there is strong evidence for with 'malicious intent' rises to the same level as lies about Clinton being a murderer and a drug dealer? I think not.
Difficult to answer further without the context. I've been watching politics fairly close for the last 30 yrs and yet I don't recall charges being made against Clinton as a murderer and drug dealer. Could you refresh my memory, please?
As to your question, there is nothing stated in the dictionary as to what level of "evidence" must be brought forth to make it besmirching. All that the dictionary states is that it must be done with malicious intent OR done falsely. Now, if Clinton was besmirched and there is no evidence at all, then he was done so falsely. If Bush was besmirched and there is even the slightest evidence but not enough to prove a case in a court of law (which has yet to be done, by the way. He hasn't even been charged there), then there was malicious intent behind it. Either way, it is besmirchment.
So in this message:
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2822295
where you claimed the lies told about Clinton being a murderer and drug dealer were equivalent to "Bush lied, people died" you had no idea what you were actually making a comparison too. Thank you for wasting my time.
|
|
|
|
