yeah...and i think that to answer those questions you should do a little more to educate yourself on Ms.Meirs fruit before you call your sister in Christ to the carpet in front of others and do harm in other's eyes to what could be a very strong ally. What your doing is nothing more than gossiping about things you have no concrete evidence of. Your hypothesizing!
You declared me a gossip for referencing a news publication. That is an assault on my character. I wasn't referencing the national Enquirer. I stated factually what was in the article, then acknowledged their reputation as dented. What I did not state was that everything they print is inaccurate, it is not. You seem to sweep aside WAPO as nothing more than the National Enquirer, and that is factually untrue.
Matter of fact, I am not even sceptical of WAPO so much as I am Leahy. Which is why, if untrue, Miers should be given the opportunity to clear her name. Your real argument should be with those that unquestionably accept every word from Leahy's lips.
Further, you accuse me of intending to harm Ms. Meirs before the world. Very much untrue. This position is high profile, so is the confirmation process. It is inevitable these questions are asked in a public forum. I have no control over the environment in which questions are asked.
Thirdly, you claim I an unaware of Ms. Meir's experiences and work product. A falsehood.
Again I addressed your action, admonished...i said you were gossiping...not called you a name..'gossip'....there is a difference...but I have said my apology....and will say it again. I'm sorry.
Will say this though...you will have me worried if Meirs says she likes Warren cuz of the Roe vote....in light of other info, i strongly suspect that is not the case....look at all the info together...
Cheers SS.
"You declared me a gossip for referencing a news publication."
Actually i called your action gossip and hypothesising based on the inference you made....not your quote from the news story.