To: PeterFinn
This story did come out last year. Sandy baby just in whine mode. Compared to the fate that awaits the judges in Iraq in the Saddam Hussein trials I find her whining ludicrous.
She wants everyone to stop criticizing judges because it get's people angry at them.
12 posted on
11/17/2006 2:57:08 PM PST by
OldFriend
(WEAKNESS IS A PROVOCATION, AN INVITATION TO OUR FOES TO CONFRONT US)
To: OldFriend
Sandra, just go home. Live out the rest of your days APOLITICALLY, please.
13 posted on
11/17/2006 3:00:49 PM PST by
STARWISE
(They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
To: OldFriend
Did you hear she was on the 'Iraq Advisory Panel'?
16 posted on
11/17/2006 3:05:35 PM PST by
johnny7
("We took a hell of a beating." -'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell)
To: OldFriend
"This story did come out last year. Sandy baby just in whine mode. Compared to the fate that awaits the judges in Iraq in the Saddam Hussein trials I find her whining ludicrous.
She wants everyone to stop criticizing judges because it get's people angry at them."
You are wise. That is exactly what this is about, as she shows with her misrepresentation of the facts;
"Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don't know why, (but) the staff decided to analyze them," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted O'Connor as saying..."
The note saying that the cookie crumbs/candy were poisoned might have been a tip-off.
A better question might be what is wrong with our system of justice that this woman was out on the loose after having tried to kill off her relatives a few years ago by sending them all bottles of poisoned wine.
45 posted on
11/17/2006 4:46:20 PM PST by
Sam Hill
To: OldFriend
She wants everyone to stop criticizing judges because it get's people angry at them.
It's not a joke, there are some real nutcases out there. HOWEVER comma, it does seem to be a common rhetorical device often used - so-and-so received "death threats". Guilt by association from a debate standpoint. They don't have to be real or legitimate even. It goes hand in hand with the trend these days for folks to get exercised and offended over just about golly knows what these days. A sort of "professional" class of offended. Now what's interesting when people start talking about protecting speech that is disagreeable. It's not going to get any better, since students these days are further taught there is no objective reality/truth, so one opinion is as good as another! Not very healthy. Expensive, too.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson