Who cares. They're her quotes.Quote:
So perhaps their "story" is a bit biased.
Printable View
Who cares. They're her quotes.Quote:
So perhaps their "story" is a bit biased.
Do you see the :mooner: at the bottom of my post? I have no idea who this guy is, and have no idea if he is biased. I was making a joke b/c you tend to always bring up the author whenever there is an article which you disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
But, apparently, you cannot take a joke, so I will just say sorry, and please leave me out of this because, frankly, I don't care about her or her comments.
I assume you heard it firsthand or just what you have read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rojo
One quote can be interpreted in many ways. You know this, Rojo. Mr. Wellsten is a far-left leaner. Google him up... although I suspect that you know of him already. Wellsten IMO is part of the problem for people who vote different than myself. Very extreme in his writings. I hope people like him keep getting the limelight.
It is too bad that freedom of speech is only for certain people. I am sure (HA!) that the ACLU would be upset at you all for this. Any cases that this lady based her decision on religion when interpreting laws in the United States? Throw them out here for all to see. If not, then there is not a problem.
Yeah but why do I get the feeling that if this were a story coming from a conservative publication with a person's exact quotes that some on here would be attacking the type of publication and claiming a biased slant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rojo
Just jokin' back atcha. I knew what you meant and where you were coming from on your comments. You are right though... always need to consider the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffy
I did not bring you into this... you did that. I'll remember how sensitive you are in the future!
Peace! :mooner: :)
that's the first thing in this thread that's made sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
I'm not sensitive at all - I just am avoiding political topics. And if you were joking back then one of the emoticons would have conveyed that, and thus I would have known.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
If she's nominated to be a federal appellate court judge, I'd say "her audience" is the whole country.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
I'm just asking what she means. I think there might be something wrong with that comment, so I'm trying to get clarification and not jump to conclusions. You said there was "nothing wrong with her comments." I presume that means you understand them.
So can you tell me what she means by that comment?
It's all cool, Puffy. I guess some of our political talks of old made your joke hit below the belt a bit. But it was funny! And I ripped into an author yesterday, so I asked for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffy
My apologies. :)
Are you implying they put words in her mouth?Quote:
I assume you heard it firsthand or just what you have read?
I don't know why you get that feeling.Quote:
Yeah but why do I get the feeling that if this were a story coming from a conservative publication with a person's exact quotes that some on here would be attacking the type of publication and claiming a biased slant.
Meaning I don't understand why she would think otherwise--as in, why does a federal judge think that liberty and freedom cannot exist without religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
That is what I don't understand about her comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rojo
Oh, I know exactly why I do, the question was rhetorical.
My only guess is because its an easy deflection.Quote:
Oh, I know exactly why I do, the question was rhetorical.
BTW, Brown has the lowest American Bar Association passing rating. But then again, this is about politics.
PS: I'm sure the ABA is part of the cabal arrayed against God-and-freedom lovers everywhere.
I am not sure that I agree with the whole country is her audience, Rosie. She was speaking to a certain group of people when her comments were made. Granted, future appointments could depend on words that come out of her mouth now. And this is the decision of the president (appointing) and the congressional committee (vote on it). Technically we do elect the president and the members of congressional committees, so you are right to a degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by RosieRed
Honestly I do not care about the meaning of her comments. At least not as they are reported by The Advocate. There is no doubt that The Advocate has a bias (like Jerry Falwell has a bias... been in a much-much diff. way). So when I hear news from a source that is not known to be objective (politically), I take it with a grain of salt and do not read too much into it. Now if she had said something to the degree of "we must call all illegal aliens", then I might be alarmed. She seems to be a religious person and perhaps firmly believes in her religion. But unless she makes rulings (her job as a judge, not as a speaker) based on religion, then I do not care about these sort of comments. If she starts ruling on law interpretations bsed on only religion, then I will call her out as well.