Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd...

[Bo D]

too bad you have to be so biased and read into what you want...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/obama-and-the-courts/

and the washington times got it wrong to, huh?

Yes they did!

[Henry Hawk]

Yes they did!

I think this comes down to what is being enterpeted...because it is pretty clear what Obama was saying....I think there are some serious spinning going on....maybe by both sides...but, his actions as of lately back up what he said....

[LOsborne]

and the washington times got it wrong to, huh?

Go back and look at your source, H. It says in very large letters at the top of the page "EDITORIAL." Editorials are the author's opinion (or the opinion of whatever spin doctor the author uses because he is too lazy to do the research himself) of the meaning of a particular factual event. They are NOT hard, fact-based news. This is why the Op-Ed section existed in the old print newspapers, and why most broadcast news programs clearly tag an editorial piece "opinion." It is an attempt -- evidently a fruitless attempt -- to alert readers and viewers that the article is only one person's interpretation of the facts.

To come to a conclusion on a particular event, you can do what Olias and I do, which is examine the raw data from the factual event, and draw our own conclusions, or you can do what you evidently prefer -- go to whatever FanZine type site you have found spins the facts the way you like them, and take the verbage printed there as gospel. But be prepared to have the "True Believer" title applied to you if you do. You have to be very much afraid of learning something uncomfortable to insist on getting your facts filtered through your "approved" interpreter. And awful damned trusting too.

In the interest of fairness (not that I'm all that interested right now, but I will cool down,) I will concede there are those who oppose you on this board who apparently also get their conclusions and views delivered carefully filtered. I don't. Neither does Olias. Calling either one of us biased only underscores your inability to counter our (factually sourced) remarks.

[LOsborne]

yeah go with that Lolly........everything I stated was truthful

Nothing you posted was truthful. It wasn't even factual.

[Sandy Eggo]