BillsFanNC Posted May 5 Author Share Posted May 5 Conflict of interest: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 25 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Conflict of interest: The thread is about Uncle Clarence. If you can't keep up, drop out. Such language described by Orwell is called doublespeak. It is explained by William Lutz, author of the book “Doublespeak”, as language which “makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. It is language that conceals or prevents thought.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: The thread is about Uncle Clarence. If you can't keep up, drop out. Such language described by Orwell is called doublespeak. It is explained by William Lutz, author of the book “Doublespeak”, as language which “makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. It is language that conceals or prevents thought.” Actually it's about your silly conspiracies. You can't even name one case, only conspiracies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted May 5 Author Share Posted May 5 Hey Quack... You listening? Closer.. ***** OFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 REMINDER: The usual PPP suspects whine and spin their 'takes' on Justice Thomas, then howl in protest when the left's organized assault on the Supreme Court is documented. No matter, their complaints will get them nowhere, despite their spittle-ridden posts. Not ONE example of a case that his opinion has been 'compromised' on has been given. Why is that ? Don't bother, there isn't any. . 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, B-Man said: REMINDER: The usual PPP suspects whine and spin their 'takes' on Justice Thomas, then howl in protest when the left's organized assault on the Supreme Court is documented. No matter, their complaints will get them nowhere, despite their spittle-ridden posts. Not ONE example of a case that his opinion has been 'compromised' on has been given. Why is that ? Don't bother, there isn't any. . the justices unanimously signed a document explaining the rules of ethics. There was no "slamming" of D senators in the signed letter. You and the writer of this article are mischaracterizing it at best, lying at worst. The letter in no way implies that they unanimously agree that all members are following them. The chief justice's refusal to appear before a senate subcommittee based on the premise that few other justices have appeared before congress is weak but within his rights. This is the case example I alluded to: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf. Others have cited other examples. Watch the hearings and find out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted 4 hours ago Author Share Posted 4 hours ago 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts