Actually if you look it is closer, you'll see she said this in an effort to support her claim and hider her way out left liberal bias.
It's a little shifty and underhanded on her part. But I'll give her an A for effort to fool people on the real motives of her ruling.
"Anything she does that makes her not look like a liberal activist wienie Judge, is just a veiled attempt by her to try to fool you. Of course she has her own agenda, it just takes us who are smart enough to see that she is black, a woman, and appointed by carter to know this. everyone else is foolish"
There, Just said what you really feel. Just let it out Spidey. Its cathartic to get it off your chest.
Man oh man, are you a comedian?
That's one of the best stand-up routines I've heard in a while!!
I've made the font as big as I can and I still can't see "this in an effort to support her claim and hider her way out left liberal bias."
I guess I need to tell my boss that my Dell 30" is too small to catch the subtle details.
OK, I'll spell it out...
The crux of the issue was whether there was enough public info to make a ruling without exposure. She said there was. By making that statement it makes her appear to be fair and supports her position.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see right through it.
If you want more - just read her history. Read about the BS she tried to pull with the michigan afirmative action case. She should have been booted for impropriety for that one. Then there's her feverent support for hate crime punishment.
Really guys, just read up on her. It's pretty obvious.
The crux of the issue was whether there was enough public info to make a ruling without exposure. She said there was. By making that statement it makes her appear to be fair and supports her position.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see right through it.
If you want more - just read her history. Read about the BS she tried to pull with the michigan afirmative action case. She should have been booted for impropriety for that one. Then there's her feverent support for hate crime punishment.
Really guys, just read up on her. It's pretty obvious.
See through what? It's a simple yes/no question. It's not the judge's fault that the administration has already blabbed about this program to the point where there would be no exposure.
Is there ANY judge where you find you agree with their decisions 100%? I sincerely doubt it. Or is this really just typical right wing loathing of the judicial branch when they dare rule against any of the administration's "gray area" activities?
I'd easily wager it's the latter in your case.
I disagree, not to derail this lovely discussion, but I would say the punishment should be more severe in the case of a racially motivated murder vs a random murder.
It works the other way, there have been more lenient sentences in murder cases where the judge had some sympathy with the defendent.
Breaking the law is breaking the law but if you can have lighter sentences for "sympathetic" defendents why not the other way around?
I agree with South Park's stance on hate crimes. It's a savage hypocrisy.
DealMonkey - i just want a fair ruling and not one motivated by the agenda. I believe we'll see this play out as an incorrect ruling and will be overturned.
As I said already if it stands, then I will merely look at it as proof that check and balances work and accept it.
That being said I keep seeing statements by you and others to the effect of
": They can hit us again whenever they want, with or without illegal wiretapping.
You bed-wetters better stock up, there's a sale on sheets at Bed Bath and Beyond"
So if I understand your point that you are trying to make with your satirical remark.
It would seem to me your saying ,"Basically there is nothing we can do so we should do nothing."
Does that about sum up your analysis of Terrorism?
Better stock up on sand for sticking your head in if thats the case.
No offense, but when someone with such an extreme political lean such as you have goes around saying things are "painfully obvious", I tend to think that the opposite position is almost certainly the truth. You seem to feel very strongly that this judge is some liberal activist and the NSA wiretapping program is legal...so I'm inclined to believe that she a fairminded and impartial judge and that Bush's program is a big pile of illegal horseshit.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't because I think you're stupid (on the contrary...) just because you disagree with me, I just happen to think that extremists of ALL political bents tend to be universally unable to see past their our BS and their own bias.
In any case, I wouldn't be so eager to see this case argued before the Supreme Court if I were you. The appointment of Alito aside, the Supreme Court has shown itself to be more centrist than Bush and his supporters on a variety of issues (notably the "torture and imprisonment" issue). The Supreme Court case will end up not being about the wiretapping program so much as it will be about deciding whether or not FISA is constitutional. The argument that Bush is somehow outside of FISA makes no sense, the only reasonable argument is that FISA is an unconstitutional limit on the President's power...and based on past Supreme Court decisions, I don't think they'll come to that conclusion.
No but the illusion of security that is supposed to come from surrendering our basic rights is what I have issue with.
I have no problem with doing everything WITHIN the law to protect our citizens. I also take exception with the aura of fear that has been perpetuated by this Administration that created this bed-wetter mindset in the first place.
These same people won't lift a finger to secure our ports.
Also, I live in FL, there's plenty of sand here, but I don't need it because from the beginning I have had my eyes wide open to what is really going on, I'm not the one being led around by my balls by the fear police.
Edit - Why do you think they haven't hit us yet? It's not because of Bush or any of his policies, we are in fact playing into their hands and Bin Laden and the rest are laughing at us.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
same.
I do not think giving up rights is going to work. they have easy access to get a wiretap even after they have done it. there is NO reason to have warentless wiretaps.
everything you hear out of the goverment is aimed to scare people. then they fallow that up that without the patriot act, llistening in on phone calls etc terriost will atack again!
Rainsford,
You're definately correct. However I sometimes play a little more right in P&N in an attempt to present another side. We'll see how this all plays out, and if I'm wrong and it is upheld well then I'll just say "guess I was wrong" Heck, everybody is free to call me out on it. No big deal. I've been wrong plenty of times, almost daily.
"Don't get me wrong, this isn't because I think you're stupid (on the contrary...) just because you disagree with me, I just happen to think that extremists of ALL political bents tend to be universally unable to see past their our BS and their own bias. "
This statement can be taken both ways. That the left can't see the bias. It goes both ways on both sides IMHO. Just look at all the following - "faux news" and "drive-by liberal media". Both are indeed correct (to an extent) and which one you believe is an accurate description of where you fall on the scale. For example i picked up a new york times to read on a flight home yesterday. It was so far left I thought "how can anybody take this seriously?"
You're definately correct. However I sometimes play a little more right in P&N in an attempt to present another side. We'll see how this all plays out, and if I'm wrong and it is upheld well then I'll just say "guess I was wrong" Heck, everybody is free to call me out on it. No big deal. I've been wrong plenty of times, almost daily.
"Don't get me wrong, this isn't because I think you're stupid (on the contrary...) just because you disagree with me, I just happen to think that extremists of ALL political bents tend to be universally unable to see past their our BS and their own bias. "
This statement can be taken both ways. That the left can't see the bias. It goes both ways on both sides IMHO. Just look at all the following - "faux news" and "drive-by liberal media". Both are indeed correct (to an extent) and which one you believe is an accurate description of where you fall on the scale. For example i picked up a new york times to read on a flight home yesterday. It was so far left I thought "how can anybody take this seriously?"
Originally posted by: ayabe
No but the illusion of security that is supposed to come from surrendering our basic rights is what I have issue with.
Ok, that opinion I at least respect as your view. You apparently do feel we should protect ourselves . good!
I have no problem with doing everything WITHIN the law to protect our citizens. I also take exception with the aura of fear that has been perpetuated by this Administration that created this bed-wetter mindset in the first place.
I suppose you could make an argument for it not that I would necesarily buy the argument.
I feel though that the many people who run around saying the fear aura, would be the first ones to say "why didn't you warn us?"
These same people won't lift a finger to secure our ports.
Agreed Homeland security needs to be approved. Probably what we wouldn't totaly agree on is how to do it.
Also, I live in FL, there's plenty of sand here, but I don't need it because from the beginning I have had my eyes wide open to what is really going on, I'm not the one being led around by my balls by the fear police.
So you fly internationally quite a bit do you?
Are the cubans still celebrating down there?
Edit - Why do you think they haven't hit us yet? It's not because of Bush or any of his policies, we are in fact playing into their hands and Bin Laden and the rest are laughing at us.
I think bush has been somewhat effective....no attacks here since 911. why do you think they havent hit us yet? Because they are a religion of peace?/sarcasm
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 28,604
- 39,931
- 136
Guess mailing people anthrax doesn't count in your book. But we never found out who did that so I can see why you'd want to ignore those incidents.
If you were aware of the MO of al Qaeda, you'd know they hit and then fade away, only to surface again 9 or 10 years later. Who currently resides in the White House is irrelevent in regards with al Qaedas patterns. I'm not saying there haven't been success stories by us and our allies, but no second 9/11 is not direct proof of Bush's competence.
But I like how you equate the actions of al Qaeda with Islam as a whole. Such an accepting, undertstanding christian you are. /sarcasm
As for the OP, kudos to this judge and her upholding the Constitution (nice to see someone doing it) - I hope she's prepared for the right-wing smear campaign that is no doubt in the mail.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
This is a useless talking point. It took them 9 years to attack us after the original WTC attack, not to mention the antrax attacks that went unsolved. BTW the current plot in the UK was taken down with traditional police work and intel. No PATRIOT act provisions, no illegal wiretapping. Interesting, we and the Brits seems to have the tools we need.
But again, these rag tag terrorist are for the most part incompetent - they rely on slipping through the cracks and dumb luck to pull anything off.
Personally I think the only reasonable way to approach political issues (or any issues at all really) is to realize that everyone (including yourself) has a bias of some kind and adjust for it. While my comment was about YOUR views, I also think it's important for ME to realize that I have a bias here too...I believed from the beginning that the wiretapping was illegal, so I have at least some bias in that direction.
Another part of this whole thing is the concept of detecting bias in other people and organizations. Using your example, you've identified what you see as a very strong lefty bias in the NYT...similarly, I see a strong right-wing bias in the Washington Times. But how good are we at judging something like that? I drift left on a lot of issues, and you seem to drift right. Perfectly unbiased papers would seem a little "righty" to me and a little "lefty" to you (assuming "unbiased" means centrist). Trying to detect the bias in someone else assumes we have a good view of our own biases. That's not to say you can't judge something like that...it's just worth noting when Michael Moore is complaining about Fox News, or when Sean Hannity is bitching about the liberal media.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter