USA Politics

I get the point you are making, the point I am making is that someone blanking on a name is not that big of a deal .. you can find tons of interviews and discussions with him where he addresses Syria in particular and the Middle East in general and the US role in that area and has made his policy pretty clear around that.
 
bearfan said:
I get the point you are making, the point I am making is that someone blanking on a name is not that big of a deal .. you can find tons of interviews and discussions with him where he addresses Syria in particular and the Middle East in general and the US role in that area and has made his policy pretty clear around that.
Click to expand...

I can only hope that he did actually blank and not realize the importance of Aleppo after realizing what is was.
 
On a more light subject ... FOI request for pic of Trump and Clinton came up with this

90


3tOotFk.jpg
 
Bearfan and Flash are both right on Aleppo.
Anyone who has put any degree of effort into gaining a full understanding the situation in Syria should know Aleppo.
And many North Americans with a general understanding of Syria would have made the same gaffe.

It could almost function as a test at how engaged someone is with the Syrian conflict.
It's like dropping the name Dave Murray randomly to see if someone is a real Iron Maiden fan.
 
Last edited:
verdict delivered by the judge in a lawsuit asking for the removal of the confederate flag from the state flag of Mississippi.
Uh3pFwr.jpg
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
In other words, the judge despises the Confederate flag, but doesn't find that the law can be used against it. Sounds reasonable.
Click to expand...
I don't get why he goes on in length about the bad side of it. It seems all worthless. Almost hypocrite rhetoric. Four fucking alineas and then suddenly shoveled over as if it doesn't have a single bit of importance.
 
Forostar said:
I don't get why he goes on in length about the bad side of it. It seems all worthless. Almost hypocrite rhetoric. Four fucking alineas and then suddenly shoveled over as if it doesn't have a single bit of importance.
Click to expand...

I guess he does that in order to show clearly that his personal opinion is that the flag stands for racism and that he despises it.

I don't see the hypocrisy. The judge must separate between his personal opinion and what the law says. All judges will be in a situation like that from time to time - that the law doesn't say what the judge would like it to say. But in any country where there is a separation of powers (typically the classic legislative-executive-judicial separation) this is natural. The job of anyone in the judicial system is to give court rulings based on their interpretation of the law. Not based on their personal opinion on what is wrong and what is right.

My opinion on the matter is that as long as the state of Mississippi keep that flag, they lose out on an opportunity to say clearly "the days of racial discrimination are behind us". But it is not a legal matter.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I guess he does that in order to show clearly that his personal opinion is that the flag stands for racism and that he despises it.

I don't see the hypocrisy. The judge must separate between his personal opinion and what the law says. All judges will be in a situation like that from time to time - that the law doesn't say what the judge would like it to say. But in any country where there is a separation of powers (typically the classic legislative-executive-judicial separation) this is natural. The job of anyone in the judicial system is to give court rulings based on their interpretation of the law. Not based on their personal opinion on what is wrong and what is right.

My opinion on the matter is that as long as the state of Mississippi keep that flag, they lose out on an opportunity to say clearly "the days of racial discrimination are behind us". But it is not a legal matter.
Click to expand...


I agree with this ... this guy seems like a good judge
 
Forostar said:
I don't get why he goes on in length about the bad side of it. It seems all worthless. Almost hypocrite rhetoric. Four fucking alineas and then suddenly shoveled over as if it doesn't have a single bit of importance.
Click to expand...
Legally, it doesn't. If one judge could just rule from their feelings the world would be a much worse place.
 
Hillary Clinton filmed nearly fainting and being held up by other people before boarding the car that would take her to the 9/11 ceremony today. Shit's about to hit the fan. Just after Trump's accusations of her being unhealthy.
 
Forostar said:
Who cares? Nothing is done with that notion.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, he made a very powerful statement based on on the facts of the case.
Good things are done when people speak out. He meant a powerful statement when the perfect opportunity to do so presented itself.
 
Last edited:
Usually if they put an opinion like that in, it is the judge officially asking a competent branch, in this case the state legislature to change the law. It is not uncommon and in my mind, a proper action
 
@Forostar - haven't you written many times in political discussions how you think words, and the choice thereof, can have an effect?

If the judge had just said "case dismissed", wouldn't that be a weaker statement than "I dismiss this case, but I am of the opinion that the flag should be changed"?
 
The more powerful the statement, the bigger the gap with the lack of power to do anything. It can only increase existing frustration that people who feel discriminated have.

An immediate "case dismissed" fits well to a society where discrimination and lack of laws to do anything about it is held high in regard.
 
Hate to stoop to the level of the alt-right here, but I am reminded of a scene from Doctor Who:

 
Forostar said:
An immediate "case dismissed" fits well to a society where discrimination and lack of laws to do anything about is held high in regard.
Click to expand...

What if the judge does not "hold discrimination high in regard" at all, but is well aware that what he is presented with is not legal matter?

He takes an opportunity to make a statement. Nothing hypocritical about it.

What would you rather have? No statement of his personal opinion at all? Or rather, an unnecessarily long argument for why he dismissed the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top