Judge Roll
-
Damn political ops for Obamao who put those tshirts on every freakin seat.
And yes, Obamao played up to them. It was a "look at me, I want to be Pres again" moment,
that should never have been.
-
Just a guess fellows.
Why do you think the murder of Judge Roll has been largely unmentioned in the mainstream press while Ms Giffords has been covered 24/7 ?
Because he's dead?
Because he's a man?
Because he's a Republican?
Because his death doesn't do much to promote the "agenda?"WSS
Certainly the fact that the Congresswoman is, well, a female plays into the sentiment. How many women have been executed from death row? That is a strong element.
However, political opportunism reeks. First Obama turned a very sad and, should-have-been, solemn event into a de facto campaign rally. At the same time, the strangestream media is jumping up and down at the thought of turning this into a 'them' vs. 'us' situation.
Shameless.
Certainly the fact that the Congresswoman is, well, a female plays into the sentiment. How many women have been executed from death row? That is a strong element.
However, political opportunism reeks. First Obama turned a very sad and, should-have-been, solemn event into a de facto campaign rally. At the same time, the strangestream media is jumping up and down at the thought of turning this into a 'them' vs. 'us' situation.
Shameless.
That about sums it up.
Nearly every story contains commentary about "civil discourse" along with the phony disclaimer over the reason for the attack.
Even the speech Obama read.
But if the presidents promo people actually passed out the T shirts that'd be pretty distasteful wouldn't it?
Heck?
WSS
-
For instance, I've seen this headline a lot today:
Doctors remove bone chips from Giffords eye socket
It's a bit easier to write that story than the one about a guy still being dead.
For instance, I've seen this headline a lot today:
Doctors remove bone chips from Giffords eye socket
It's a bit easier to write that story than the one about a guy still being dead.
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...that got played for 2-3 years.
-
I'm not seeing the "distasteful" in handing out T-shirts that say "Together we stand" - or whatever they said. That hardly gets me going.
Only the party that doesn't hold the presidency could give a shit about such a thing. Which is to say, I could see Democrats complaining if Bush did this. And it wouldn't have made any more sense then either.
-
I'm not seeing the "distasteful" in handing out T-shirts that say "Together we stand" - or whatever they said. That hardly gets me going.
Only the party that doesn't hold the presidency could give a shit about such a thing. Which is to say, I could see Democrats complaining if Bush did this. And it wouldn't have made any more sense then either.
I'm not seeing the "distasteful" in handing out T-shirts that say "Together we stand" - or whatever they said. That hardly gets me going.
Only the party that doesn't hold the presidency could give a shit about such a thing. Which is to say, I could see Democrats complaining if Bush did this. And it wouldn't have made any more sense then either.
Probably.
But in this case it was Dems.
I'm sure you'll bring it up to me when Republicans do it.
And the shirts were blue.....
WSS
-
Oh my God.
-
Oh my God.
-
Mine was too.
-
>>I'm not seeing the "distasteful" in handing out T-shirts that say "Together we stand" - or whatever they said. That hardly gets me going.>>
"Together we stand" against what? Mentally deranged people shooting and killing people?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's organization commandere, "Together We Stand" as Obama's campaign slogan in 2012.
To bad all the, "We Are Fam-ily" shirts are torn, stained or already licensed.
-
I don't know, John, as a community after a giant tragedy?
Just a guess.
-
It was a political rally of sorts. It was just a situation to be used and abused, in the favor of Obamao and the left.
Not anywhere near like that business where the left blamed Rush and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party...
but, they leave no op unused, no stone unturned, no chance wasted, no minority interests that aren't worth buying...
blech.
-
Together We Thrive
Tuscon abd America.
FWIW
University says it was their idea and made no profit.
Shirts cost about 60K.
WSS
-
Yes, I think we can lay that one to rest now.
BTW, according to the Safeway security video it seems Roll acted very bravely and saved another man's life at the cost of his own.
-
that judge is the judge who ruled in favor of illegal immigrants, and against a Rancher, and let their lawsuit continue.
Not much of a hero with that much lib bias.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/0...-john-roll.html
-
Cal, he's a Republican. Nominated by the first President Bush at the behest of John McCain. He's a conservative.
When people do things you don't understand (make legal decisions) for people you automatically don't like (illegal aliens) that doesn't make them liberals. It just makes you a crank.
-
Heck, I know he was appointed by Bush. No freakin conservative judge rules
against an AMERICAN rancher, in favor of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
I remember reading about that fiasco. I never said he was a Dem.
That ruling was a sham, I don't care that Bush appointed him or not.
The rancher has had his home broken into, calves killed, trash dumped all over,
and he caught these illegals TRESPASSING on his property. He called the sheriff.
The rancher didn't do anything wrong. The freakin ILLEGALS have no civil rights.
You name me ONE conservative in this country, who says that illegals immigrants have
the rights of American citizens. If they DID, you would not be FREAKIN ALLOWED TO KICK THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
I just don't know where our country is headed, but I think we're headed for big, big, big trouble...
-
Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?
And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.
Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.
-
Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?
And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.
Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.
Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?
And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.
Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.
Not to question this particular decision Heck but of course there's ideology involved in the law.
If there wasn't every SC decision would be unanimous.
WSS
-
This is the fundamental problem with how the conservative base thinks of the courts.
Ideology, or a legal ideology, and someone's personal preferences and political beliefs are not the same thing. They don't come down differently in cases because of their personal beliefs. They come down differently because they interpret the Constitution or certain statutes or case law differently.
"I believe the Constitution allows this" is different from "I wish the Constitution allowed this."
When the decision ends up being something conservatives disagree with, they think it's because someone inserted their liberal political beliefs into the equation, as if the Constitution doesn't leave certain gray areas that are subject to different interpretations.
And it's even gone beyond that - now base conservatives think that if you can't find the actual words of something in the Constitution, that means it's unconstitutional. Ex: Michelle Bachman asking Tim Geithner where in the Constitution it says he could bailout the banks.
Well, where does it say you can drill for oil? Where does it say you can tell businesses they can't dump untreated waste into a watershed?
Maybe it's that part where it says Congress gets to make laws about all of this stuff.
-
heck you are comparing oranges to pears in your analogy. I know that is your opinion but lets get real.
Does the Constitution say you have to buy oil?
Does the Constitution say you have to buy insurance?
And when is one judge allowed to create laws because that it is their political belief?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login