Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Or hack into government servers.. Let's not forget.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Democrats had better not even think of it.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
Bias
Nope and nope.
Hampton, his lawyer rather, is claiming the judges objection to Hampton's WS is a prejudice. If the lawyer can make a case for it the lawyer can file for a mistrial.
Nope as it was specific to the judge as per your own citation. You do not read what you cite. Simple as that.
And they didn't bring it up about motive either. Your point is nonsensical babble.
You are clueless. I am not arguing the judge is biased. I am pointing out Hampton, his lawyer, is claiming the judge is.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Right. It would be bias. So, that the judge is not sympathetic (not the same as objection, as you keep stating), in your mind is also bias. What would be an unbiased position?
The judge and the defendant can't possibly have all their sympathies aligned. That's obvious. So, why bring this particular one into play, if it in actuality has nothing to do with the case? Why not make a list of things the judge may, or may not be sympathetic towards?
Shad
Veteran Member
You are still clueless. Hampton, not I, is claiming bias based on the judge's objection to Hampton's WS. It is a lawyers trick. One which I do not buy. Get it now? Do I need to draw you a map?
You have conflated me explaining it to you as if I believed it myself..... I do not.....
Again it is a lawyers trick. Why bring it up? To get the lightest sentence possible as the lawyer can claim anything higher is due to the judge's object to Hampton's WS thus a prejudice thus leading to a mistrial. Provided some foolish judge buys a load of BS. Hence why I said it was smear targeting the judge's ability to be neutral.
No reason to as judges are expected to bias free as possible.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
No. I know exactly what you're trying to say. And, apparently going any further with you is pointless, possibly resulting in yet another 'clueless' insult.
But, humor me: What would be an unbiased position towards WS? Just curious.
Shad
Veteran Member
If you did you would have understood my point from the start. You didn't ergo you are still clueless and in denial about your mistake. Instead we have you being confused about what I said all while replying to me based on your misunderstanding. Asking me to defend a position I do not believe and called a lawyers trick. All started as you can't tell the difference between motive and what Hampton claims about the judge. Remember it was your blunder in which you cited something that has nothing to do with motive as if motive.
One which does not let one's own bias influence their judgement.
Seems its the right wingers out to assassinate people as would be expected!!
Explosive Device Found Near George Soros’s Home in Westchester County
Explosive Device Found Near George Soros’s Home in Westchester County
Shad
Veteran Member
There is a section from the right that has begun to justify violence due to the violence from the fringe left and figures they see as supporting that fringe. Not that I buy such a justification.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Nope. Ended up that a terrorist Trump Disciple sent pipe-bombs to various people, so it seems that the right is a bigger threat if potential violence has any weight.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Being uncivil is not in any way speaking to violence or terrorism. So, what's your point? She is obviously talking about the incivility that Trump has made popular with his divisive rhetoric, encouragement of violence against the left, etc.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The level of anger has risen and so people are voicing their fears.
It is also politically expedient to raise fear in order to motivate one's constituents (to vote)...especially if they have been fed on a diet of fear and lies for a long time.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
It has been demonstrated recently that the majority of domestic terror attacks come from right leaning individuals...
Majority of terrorists who have attacked America are not Muslim, new study finds
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oh, I'm sure there is enough violence to go around. Question is who to blame for riling people up enough to do so.
Poll: Nearly 4 In 5 Voters Concerned Incivility Will Lead To Violence
Actually I'm in the minority, but I would say irresponsible media is to blame for all the rhetoric spewing out and getting the fringe on both sides all up in the tisy.
It's been over a month since I posted what you're quoting, so I didn't recall. I looked back and checked the context earlier in the thread, which is what you should have done. Then you would have understood the point.
I think this points up another form of incivility, when people try to pretend that they don't know what you're talking about.