http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/09/12/00/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-criticises-donald-trump

The judge nominated to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump last week has taken the extraordinary step of criticising the president for his Twitter account.

Neil Gorsuch told a Democratic senator in a private meeting that President Trump's tweets attacking a fellow judge were "demoralising".

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told the press after the meeting that Gorsuch was not impressed with the president's behaviour.

"He said very specifically that they were demoralising and disheartening and he characterized them very specifically that way," Senator Blumenthal told CNN.

"As the nominee of a president who has viciously attacked the independence of the judiciary and declared multiple litmus tests for justices, Judge Gorsuch has a special responsibility to reassure the American people that he will be an open-minded and independent jurist."

A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange.

Trump had been responding to a federal court ordering a stay on his executive order blocking visas for citizens of Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

Trump took aim at George W Bush-appointed judge James Robart after he issued the stay.


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/09/12/00/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-criticises-donald-trump#EMk8T0C1F52tBkb4.99

;D ;D ;D ;D

expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:

;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him

IM not sure he was a yes man, but it is good to see some more people from his side of politics giving him a serve.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:

;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him

I dont think you know what a yes man is.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is.

so says the poster still trying to explain why 'alternative facts' are okay

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:56pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. so says the poster still trying to explain why 'alternative facts' are okay

Lol.  Now youre sticking up for john smith, not because im wrong, but because i upset you.

Running short of people willing to put up with your bullshit eh longy?  It couldnt have happened to a nicer guy.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is.

you think trump would have nominated anyone who he didn't think was going to toe his line? :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. you think trump would have nominated anyone who he didn't think was going to toe his line? :D :D

What does it look like smith?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:56pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. so says the poster still trying to explain why 'alternative facts' are okay Lol.  Now youre sticking up for john smith, not because im wrong, but because i upset you. Running short of people willing to put up with your bullshit eh longy?  It couldnt have happened to a nicer guy.

No, I am asking you to amuse us once again by supporting 'alternative facts'.

It is fun to watch you and your fellow trump-apologists trun yourselves inside out trying to support his incredible lies.

Youre not having fun at all longy.  I dont think youve had fun this millennium.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:59pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. you think trump would have nominated anyone who he didn't think was going to toe his line? :D :D What does it look like smith?

what does what look like Honky?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:02pm:

Youre not having fun at all longy.  I dont think youve had fun this millennium.

Oh I am having a great deal of fun and every day I go online just to see what incredibly stupid thing Trump has done. It is never a disappointment.

TODAY he rang his national security advisor to ask him about the US dollar. The advisor told him to 'call an economist'

What a dunce that Trump is.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:01pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:59pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. you think trump would have nominated anyone who he didn't think was going to toe his line? :D :D What does it look like smith? what does what look like Honky?

Well obviously he has nominated someone for another reason than just to "toe his line".  Maybe its because he'd be a good fit for yhe job?

Its not hard to see that you started at your desired conclusion, and worked backwards from there.  Its always difficult when reality dorsnt match your preconceptions isnt it?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:01pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:59pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. you think trump would have nominated anyone who he didn't think was going to toe his line? :D :D What does it look like smith? what does what look like Honky? Well obviously he has nominated someone for another reason than just to "toe his line".  Maybe its because he'd be a good fit for yhe job? Its not hard to see that you started at your desired conclusion, and worked backwards from there.  Its always difficult when reality dorsnt match your preconceptions isnt it?

and do you support the mans opinion on your beloved Trumps deeply disturbing twitter commentary on the judicial system?

Im not sure, im going to need more information, straight from the horses mouth.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:13pm:

Im not sure, im going to need more information, straight from the horses mouth.

LOL...

let me guess how this goes.

A poster goes to lengths to list all the offensive and stupid Trump comments and tweets and then you scream FAKE NEWS and go on your normal deluded way.

The link in the OP can give you all you need to know... but we know you wont do that.


'The delusion is strong in this one...'

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:01pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:59pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 4:28pm: ;D ;D ;D ;D expect a lot more of his 'yes men' to turn on him I dont think you know what a yes man is. you think trump would have nominated anyone who he didn't think was going to toe his line? :D :D What does it look like smith? what does what look like Honky? Well obviously he has nominated someone for another reason than just to "toe his line".  Maybe its because he'd be a good fit for yhe job?

like his education secretary?  :D :D :D

Probably the only thing stopping him putting a family member in as a supreme court judge was the fact that they have to be qualified.

Quote:

Neil Gorsuch told a Democratic senator in a private meeting that President Trump's tweets attacking a fellow judge were "demoralising". Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told the press after the meeting that Gorsuch was not impressed with the president's behaviour.

Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. 

As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Quote: Neil Gorsuch told a Democratic senator in a private meeting that President Trump's tweets attacking a fellow judge were "demoralising". Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told the press after the meeting that Gorsuch was not impressed with the president's behaviour. Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal.  As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth.

and there we go...  more of the 'fake news' delusion.

idiot.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:25pm:

Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth.

you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D


A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:35pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:25pm: Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth. you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange.

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are.

This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:35pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:25pm: Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth. you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange.

He missed the entire thing including all the tweets themselves.

It is fun watching trumpoid twist around like this.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:35pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:25pm: Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth. you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange. No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

LOL you are better at AVOIDING meaning. The meaning is very clear that the exchange happened exactly as reported.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim.

actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D

All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange.

All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:35pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:25pm: Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth. you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange. No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. LOL you are better at AVOIDING meaning. The meaning is very clear that the exchange happened exactly as reported.

How easily and uncritically you accept what fits with your prejudices.

Don't worry, you're not alone on that score.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask?

in this case, yes. You were not party to an unrecorded conversation. You are however party to the summation of that conversaion and its salient points as agreed to by BOTH parties.

You cannot continue to deny the undeniable.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:35pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:25pm: Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth. you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange. No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. LOL you are better at AVOIDING meaning. The meaning is very clear that the exchange happened exactly as reported. How easily and uncritically you accept what fits with your prejudices. Don't worry, you're not alone on that score.

tell me... how many people (approx) were physically at the Trump inauguration? was it bigger than Obama's in 2009 as Trump has claime or not?

this is an easy answer for an intelligent person.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes.

Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias? 

How I ask you - how?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:47pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:35pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:25pm: Interesting that only one word was a direct quotation from Neil Gorsuch, while the rest of the fluff was spoken by Richard Blumenthal. As I said, I need more information straight from the horses mouth. you must have missed this bit  :D :D :D A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange. No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. LOL you are better at AVOIDING meaning. The meaning is very clear that the exchange happened exactly as reported. How easily and uncritically you accept what fits with your prejudices. Don't worry, you're not alone on that score. tell me... how many people (approx) were physically at the Trump inauguration? was it bigger than Obama's in 2009 as Trump has claime or not? this is an easy answer for an intelligent person.

Physically at the inauguration - no it was not.

But undoubtedly it was the most witnessed inauguration ever.

If you bothered listening to sean Spicers own words, this would not confuse you so.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask?

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange? surely if that were the case he would have made it known he'd been duped by now, don't you think?

Especially thrumpy and his penchant for twittering. :D :D

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:45pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes. Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?  How I ask you - how?

Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange?

Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed?

Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used?

Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:45pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes. Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?  How I ask you - how? Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

ALL texts have a bias.  There is no such thing as a neutral text. 

I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses. 

And this is how you end up believing in the Bowling Green MAssacre or that Trump had 2million+ at his inauguration. You start at the desire outcome and simply work back changing facts along the way.

idiot.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:51pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:45pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes. Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?  How I ask you - how? Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case Oh god this is getting ridiculous. ALL texts have a bias.  There is no such thing as a neutral text.  I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.

what a ridiculous claim. Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it. but that degree may also be infinitessimally small so if you are going to make that ridiculoud claim then you have to QUANTIFY the degree of bias.

Ive played games with nuttes like you before.  It is always the .1% argument while avoiding the 99.9%.  Thats why you end up believing in the flat earth or vaccines cause autism etc

idiot.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:49pm: so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange? Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed? Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used? Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt.

no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it. Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something.
Like I said, if he hadn't really confirmed it, trump would have tweeted about another fake news story a hundred times by now

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:52pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:49pm: so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange? Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed? Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used? Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt. no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it. Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something. Like I said, if he hadn't really confirmed it, trump would have tweeted about another fake news story a hundred times by now

forget it. Honky is just the kind of fool for whom there is no possible proof of anything he doesnt like.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:51pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:45pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes. Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?  How I ask you - how? Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case Oh god this is getting ridiculous. ALL texts have a bias.  There is no such thing as a neutral text.  I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.  what a ridiculous claim.

A "ridiculous claim" that you go on to confirm as correct in your very next breath. 


Quote:

Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it.

You're just throwing your toys out of the pram at this point. 

John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:52pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:49pm: so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange? Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed? Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used? Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt. no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it.

Probably?  Or you hope so now I've shown you the flaw in your thinking?


Quote:

Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something.

You don't know any judges and even if you did, it would be irrelevant since it was a spokesperson who confirmed 'something' and a journalist who wrote about it.  The judges contribution was one, solitary word.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:58pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:51pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:45pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes. Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?  How I ask you - how? Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case Oh god this is getting ridiculous. ALL texts have a bias.  There is no such thing as a neutral text.  I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.  what a ridiculous claim. A "ridiculous claim" that you go on to confirm as correct in your very next breath.  Quote: Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it. You're just throwing your toys out of the pram at this point.

Incomplete quotes and quots out of context are the bread and butter of fools and propagandists. are you the former, the latter or BOTH?

I see you cant tell me how many people attended Trumps inauguration.  Too difficult for you to answer since you have to disagree with your Dark Lord Trump, his head witch COnway and court jester press secretary?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 6:10pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:52pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:49pm: so you think he confirmed a totally different exchange? Ask yourself how the question was asked - do you think the reporter relayed the entire conversation before asking for it to be confirmed? Or, do you think they asked "was there an exchange in which the word "demoralising" was used? Its subtle stuff, but propaganda doesn't work if its overt. no idea what the reporter asked ... probably gave him a run down of his story and asked if he could confirm it. Most judges I know tend to ask for specifics before deciding on something. Like I said, if he hadn't really confirmed it, trump would have tweeted about another fake news story a hundred times by now forget it. Honky is just the kind of fool for whom there is no possible proof of anything he doesnt like.

Sure there is - peoples own words, untainted by third party bias, as I stated twice already.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 6:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:58pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:51pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:45pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:43pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:41pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2017 at 5:39pm: No, I did not miss that, I'm simply better at finding meaning than you are. This says that a spokesperson confirmed AN exchange, not that this particular rendition of it is verbatim. actually he confirmed THE exchange  :D :D :D All that we're given is one word - that cannot, by definition, be an exchange. All I need is peoples own words.  Is that too much to ask? in this case, yes. Then how could a reasonable person unequivocally state an opinion on something, when the only available source has been injected with bias?  How I ask you - how? Prove it was 'injected with bias'. This was simply two people agreeing on a statement of what was said during a meeting. You cannot be biased in this case Oh god this is getting ridiculous. ALL texts have a bias.  There is no such thing as a neutral text.  I would have expected a litereary genius like yourself to know that which is taught in the first week of first year English/journalism courses.  what a ridiculous claim. A "ridiculous claim" that you go on to confirm as correct in your very next breath.  Quote: Text inherently carries a degree of bias by virtue of people writing it. You're just throwing your toys out of the pram at this point.  Incomplete quotes and quots out of context are the bread and butter of fools and propagandists. are you the former, the latter or BOTH?

And this is why I pointed out that there was only one word of direct quotations in your article.

For some strange reason* you didn't object to it when it plays to your prejudice.




*not strange at all, just unpalatable to you.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

I see you cant tell me how many people attended Trumps inauguration.  Too difficult for you to answer since you have to disagree with your Dark Lord Trump, his head witch COnway and court jester press secretary?

No, too difficult to answer because no such figures are kept.  There is no answer.

I did say however that the number that physically attended was lower than Obamas, so what are you crying about?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

Probably?  Or you hope so now I've shown you the flaw in your thinking?

at some time you're supposed to think for yourself and put 2 and 2 together rather than wait for someone to hold your hand.
I'll repeat, given trumps history, if it weren't true trump would have let you know by now.


... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

You don't know any judges and even if you did, it would be irrelevant since it was a spokesperson who confirmed 'something' and a journalist who wrote about it.  The judges contribution was one, solitary word.

judges aren't in the habit of sending representatives who don't know what they are doing

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 4:26pm:

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/09/12/00/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-criticises-donald-trump The judge nominated to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump last week has taken the extraordinary step of criticising the president for his Twitter account. Neil Gorsuch told a Democratic senator in a private meeting that President Trump's tweets attacking a fellow judge were "demoralising". Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told the press after the meeting that Gorsuch was not impressed with the president's behaviour. "He said very specifically that they were demoralising and disheartening and he characterized them very specifically that way," Senator Blumenthal told CNN. "As the nominee of a president who has viciously attacked the independence of the judiciary and declared multiple litmus tests for justices, Judge Gorsuch has a special responsibility to reassure the American people that he will be an open-minded and independent jurist." A spokesperson for Gorsuch later confirmed the exchange. Trump had been responding to a federal court ordering a stay on his executive order blocking visas for citizens of Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and Iran. Trump took aim at George W Bush-appointed judge James Robart after he issued the stay. Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/02/09/12/00/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-criticises-donald-trump#EMk8T0C1F52tBkb4.99

Reverse psychology..... 

I love it! Deceptive Politics at it's very best!  ;)

Perfect......Absolutely perfect......doing exactly what's needed to be done.....this will soften the resolve of the more moderate factions of the  demonrat party in their resistance towards a Trump nominee, namely himself, as they....the dems....will see him as less a threat to their positions on progressive matters if on the court.

Perfect!!!!    Bravo!!!! https://i.imgsafe.org/3fc1043062.gif

https://i.imgsafe.org/f487d37.gif    https://i.imgsafe.org/24e54c2.gif

This is going to be better than 3D Chess!

http://s3.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Scalia-Blessing-600-LI-594x425.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

hillary voters? most people on here didn't vote for either of them mistie ... you're gonna be so devastated when thrumpy is impeached. ;D ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:45am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

Repetition of jokes. You could write for SNL.

https://youtu.be/Sl5efai8_yg?t=2

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:29am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/taunt.gif When the "G" Man gets confirmed by the Senate, the Republican Senate that confirmed him UNANIMOUSLY not long ago, we'll have more of these same Dummy-Spits across Australia & America! http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/lolfun.gif



[media width=625]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeifUBqosa8[/media]

http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/cray.gif  Awwwwwwwwwwww, it must be damn tough being a
Leftist Progressive these days! http://www.s22.site88.net/smileys/firefart.gif

He is rreally going to hate Congress when they repeatedly deny his bills or the courts which will throw out his executive orders.\

It will be fun to watch.