Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Judith, Jul 13, 2014.
Had enough yet
Not that I disagree with what I watched, which was up to 1:30ish; but it is difficult to take a booby-woman too seriously.
Women should resent that remark. I resent that remark. It wasn't very well thought out.
Judge Pirro is one of the most intelligent women to come out of New York, her main difficulty being she's a conservative in a liberal state. She was one of the prosecutors who elevated domestic violence out of the shadows. She also was, as a judge, one of the leading proponents of treatment over imprisonment for first time offenders convicted of simple possession. She almost beat Andrew Cuomo for the attorney-general's office, and was the victim of a smear campaign by feminists and pro-choice activists in her efforts to gain the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2006.
In case you missed it -- which, given the "things" you chose to pay attention to, you probably did -- she blasted Obama and makes a case for the very real possibility that he is bringing these young people into the country illegally in order the change the voting demographic in this country. Why else do you think he is shipping these kids -- again, illegally -- all over the country? Not only that, but in the segment of her show, she laid out in detail the aspects of the law he is violating, which leaves one to wonder why she's noticed those violations and Congress hasn't?
And you reject her because of her figure? Does shapeliness disqualify her despite her credentials?
Shame on you, Rolf. You owe Judge Pirro and the women on this board an apology.
Wow, your first draft was bad enough, but your edited version is worse.
There was a first draft??
And it was worse???
No, the first draft was not as bad, but it was snarky, this edited (changed) version is worse.
So you two think that letting them hang out makes her more credible?
It is simple marketing. Sex sells.
Funny thing is, until you mentioned it, I didn't notice how she was dressed. I was more interested in what she had to say.
It is only marketing if it works. It is only sex when it is acted out.
Resent that I think it unfortunate that a woman should debase herself to such an extent?
Perhaps I could have worded it better, but the sentiment remains the same.
I see no sin committed against anyone that deserves an apology, and until I do none will be offered.
It was intended to be snarky... toward Fox.
Interesting that you posted this in response to my first post and ignored my second ...
What were you expecting?
My brorher....I love ya. Have you tuned into current news programming? Particullary Fox News! If not, youmight be shocked.
Regarding the judge, please focus on the content of the message...it is noteworthy. Fact is, she gave it to BO with both barrels. I liked that!
EWF- I have counted you as a friend for a long time, so your words mean much to me. I know the spirit in which you offer them.
Again, I had no issue with the portion of the message that I listened to. My issue, and the reason that I did not finish the video and why I decided a while ago to ignore Fox News is the flesh-flashing packaging of its product. It is distracting, and I suspect that most men will secretly admit the same. To me is a matter of protecting the mind, so as not to violate Matthew 5:28.
If Scarlett and Disconnected wish to jump on me for it, fine. I do not answer to them for my Christian walk.
She's smart, she's sexy, and she's got something to show, and the boobs were not hanging out, Rolf.
I'd much prefer listening to her, than the nicely dressed-no-boobs-no-cleaves and no-brains over at MSNBC or the view.
While I agree that she is immodest and very worldly, and I am ashamed for her, but those things do not change the facts of her editorial. You really need to listen to the whole message she gave. Minimize it and just listen and you will not have to see her immorality.
Actually.....if you spent any time in NYC, you would know that this type of dress is commonplace and the judge is a native New Yorker. Honestly, I also find the dress a little on the provocative side but I blot it out of my mind ....and that isn't easy sometimes. Personally I would never allow my wife and daughter to dress that way and. I agree with you that its become too commonplace. Still the content of the message was spot on.....with no illusions from the left to hide behind. And I totally agree with the judge that it is an outrage what BO is doing to this country. I ask that you listen to her message in audio w/o viewing the woman's dress and then lets talk. Thank you.
Satan has succeeded in destroying the home.
This goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, discovered good and evil. They used fig, maybe sweet gum, leaves to cover their nakedness.
Now we have everything from berkas to bikinis. Interesting: the dress code for men and women at the beach. Men can show off their mammary glands without fear of reprisal. Yes, we do have a few man-made double standards.
Skin shows are everywhere. "Don't look Ethel".
We have watered down the meaning of Bible based modesty. On the other hand the Bible standard does not apply to the world.
Watch PBS and BBC news--less bias, less skin.
"If your eyes offend you, pluck them out..." Now what? "Let your light shine(not your body) before men that they would see your good works and glorify God"
Now for the rest of the story..."
Even so, come, Lord Jesus
I agree that Fox's use of provocatively dressed women hurts their argument. I can't take it too seriously as a result. Effective presenters don't need provocative dress.
At least you never have that problem at Al Jazeera
Judith, EWF- Listened as suggested. I did not disagree with what I heard before and still do not disagree with the rest of it.
My problem was with Fox's "packaging". Others on this thread have an issue with this, as evidenced by previous comments. Tough.
EWF- As for NYC fashion, it is mild compared to some places...