Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lie by omission is when someone tries to create an impression by leaving information out that doesn't support the story they are trying to tell.
Sessions is trying to tell a story, about a judge that he doesn't like. And he's leaving out parts.
It doesn't matter if what he says is true. Because he's painting a larger picture. And he leaving out things so that the picture looks the way he wants it to look.
It's like an old master painter painting a picture of a monarch. He leaves out the red nose, the broken veins, the thinning hair, because that's not the story he wants told. He puts in the jewels, the regal bearing, the rich clothing. All those things are the truth. But it's not an accurate picture. It's dishonest because the painter and monarch have an agenda, a story they want put forth. An incomplete story.
Here in these hearings, we have two sides battling each other over the story. The Democrats and Kagan are going to leave out the red nose, the broken veins, the thinning hair, that's not the story they want told. But Sessions is focusing solely on the red nose, broken veins, thinning hair. He wants to leave out the jewels, the regal bearing, the rich clothing. And the truth includes all of it, the red nose, the extraordinary jewels, the thinning hair, the regal bearing, the broken veins, the rich clothing. All together, they tell a story different from the stories of the two sides. A more complete story, a more honest story. That's what the hearing is about. To let both sides be heard, so that the American people can get the more complete story, the more honest story, and make their judgment after hearing BOTH versions of the story. Sessions is being partisan, and not completely honest, it's his job to be this way, to present this side of the story. But it's not our job as witnesses to these hearings to listen only to his side, to judge before hearing more. It's our job to listen to both sides, to consider what we've heard, to weigh it, and to let our Senators know what we've decided, thoughtfully and impartially, just as we want our Supreme Court justices to hear both sides, to weigh it and thoughtfully make their decision.
You have yet to prove what he said to not be true.
By your standard they are all lying because they are all picking out things to bring up about her and leave out other parts.
can you please prove what he said about her to not be true.
I agree, but they aren't just about designing a narrative. The drama in these hearings is that two sides are each talking about the same person, telling a story about the same person. But one story is negative, and the other story is positive. The truth is somewhere in between. And it's up to the audience to find that truth. The final narrative is what the audience determines it to be, not just what the Senators are trying to manufacture.
All I have heard from the left are accolades for her accomplishments and nothing about her actual acts and actions showing her to be an activist.
Obama was supposed to have many accomplishments and a good education but they have done nothing to make him a capable leader.
You said Sessions was partisan and lied by omission and went on to post things that showed Kagans accomplishments but not things IMHO that would show what kind of a SCJ she would be as Sessions had. I asked you to explain how the things that YOU posted would, and you have posted "junk shot" after "junk shot" attempting to divert from the original question and they are not going to work. Tell me how the things you posted will show that Kagan will be an impartial SCJ and that they shoe Sessions to be partisan.
How could Sessions show what kind of SCJ she would be if he didn't look at ALL her achievements?
Your argument is like a recruiter looking only at how fast a pitcher can throw a ball, and determining from that how great a big-league baseball player he would be. You have to look at the complete package to guess whether a player could make it in the big leagues, don't you? Maybe the pitcher can throw it fast, but has no control. Maybe the pitcher can throw, but he can't hit a ball to save his life, or he can't run the bases, or he can't field balls. You have to look at the complete package in order to predict what kind of player he'll be.
So when Sessions only looks at a few factors, and ignores others, how is he accurately predicting her performance? He's not. And that's what I've been saying all along, but you keep trying to re-frame my argument.
Sessions isn't looking at the complete package. So he cannot predict her performance with any degree of accuracy.
All I have heard from the left are accolades for her accomplishments and nothing about her actual acts and actions showing her to be an activist.
Obama was supposed to have many accomplishments and a good education but they have done nothing to make him a capable leader.
Obama is irrelevant.
All you've heard from the left are accolades. And all you've heard from Sessions is condemnation. The truth is somewhere in the middle. You have to listen to both sides in order to find it.
You have yet to prove what he said to not be true.
By your standard they are all lying because they are all picking out things to bring up about her and leave out other parts.
can you please prove what he said about her to not be true.
Oh, please. I've already said that his talking points were true, but incomplete. If you don't understand that deliberately misleading people by leaving out things is dishonest, then you have a morality deficit that I cannot address in this thread.
All you've heard from the left are accolades. And all you've heard from Sessions is condemnation. The truth is somewhere in the middle. You have to listen to both sides in order to find it.
Sessions did not condemn Kagan, he pointed out the things that she has actually done to show that she was an activist and would be an activist SCJ. I am sure there are Dems. who will have questions on her actions and decisions as well, will that be condemnation?
Sessions doesn't like an activist court, unless it acts the way he wants it. I don't see him whining about recent decisions of the Court overturning laws unpopular with conservatives.
Oh, please. I've already said that his talking points were true, but incomplete. If you don't understand that deliberately misleading people by leaving out things is dishonest, then you have a morality deficit that I cannot address in this thread.
Another "junk shot". These are hearings for conformation, it is not misleading to bring up the things she has done showing her past activism and question her about them. The left will more than offset for her the other way.
Sessions doesn't like an activist court, unless it acts the way he wants it. I don't see him whining about recent decisions of the Court overturning laws unpopular with conservatives.
Is there anything that can be done about the current SCOTUS except to try and make sure there is not another activist added? No...there isn't.
You have yet to prove what he said to not be true.
By your standard they are all lying because they are all picking out things to bring up about her and leave out other parts.
can you please prove what he said about her to not be true.
Oh, please. I've already said that his talking points were true, but incomplete. If you don't understand that deliberately misleading people by leaving out things is dishonest, then you have a morality deficit that I cannot address in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
