PDA

View Full Version : Another non-partisan headline from AP


Bootlegged
09-13-2005, 01:32 PM
Roberts Dodges Specifics on Abortion
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
31 minutes ago

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 01:34 PM
Did he dodge specifics on abortion?

oldandslow
09-13-2005, 01:36 PM
Pretty much...

as he should.

No judge should comment on how they would decide a specific case before it is presented.

BTW - I am not a Roberts fan. However, since GW is in office, he gets to move the pieces.

Bootlegged
09-13-2005, 01:37 PM
Did he dodge specifics on abortion?


Do you think Roberts, or those in "his camp" would say he "DODGED" abortion questions? I think not.

It's all in the eye of the beholder and AP consistently shows no doubt about where they sit.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 01:39 PM
Do you think Roberts, or those in "his camp" would say he "DODGED" abortion questions? I think not.

It's all in the eye of the beholder and AP consistently shows no doubt about where they sit.
No because those people are in Roberts camp.

So is it your opinion that based on a hearing an objective person could not come up with the conclusion like the one above?

If it happened....then it will be reported.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 01:40 PM
Pretty much...

as he should.

No judge should comment on how they would decide a specific case before it is presented.

BTW - I am not a Roberts fan. However, since GW is in office, he gets to move the pieces.
No one expects the nominee to answer questions related to how he would rule in a particular case, or to make any promises regarding decisions in upcoming matters before the Court.

However, the nominee should expect to answer questions about important legal principles, just as Justices Ginsburg and Breyer did during their confirmation hearings. The American people deserve to know the answers to these questions, and it is the responsibility of this Committee to elicit those legal views.

Bootlegged
09-13-2005, 01:41 PM
No because those people are in Roberts camp.

So is it your opinion that based on a hearing an objective person could not come up with the conclusion that Roberts didged questions about abortion?

If it happened....then it will be reported.


By that logic, if we sit you in a chair and 20 people with agendas ask you, "Zach, why do you fondle little boys?", and you refuse to answer..the headline should read,

"Zach dodges questions about molestation"

oldandslow
09-13-2005, 01:42 PM
No one expects the nominee to answer questions related to how he would rule in a particular case, or to make any promises regarding decisions in upcoming matters before the Court.

However, the nominee should expect to answer questions about important legal principles, just as Justices Ginsburg and Breyer did during their confirmation hearings. The American people deserve to know the answers to these questions, and it is the responsibility of this Committee to elicit those legal views.

Oh, I agree.

But I don't think a judge should say - I am (for - against) any particular issue. Legal principles, yes. Precedent, yes. Abortion - out of bounds.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 01:44 PM
By that logic, if we sit you in a chair and 20 people with agendas ask you, "Zach, why do you fondle little boys?", and you refuse to answer..the headline should read,

"Zach dodges questions about molestation"
I think that headline would be a fair one if there was some reason that my thoughts on the subject were important one way or the other. I am not sure where that would be relevent but if it was...then I indeed did didge the question.

Do you think it is impossible for him to dodge a question? If it happens...then it is reported as such.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 01:47 PM
The way you frame this just seems ludicris.

If you accept that it is possible that Roberts dodged a question you see the mere process of reporting that as bias.

If it happened. It will be reported. This is a central issue in the hearts and minds of many Americans.

Bootlegged
09-13-2005, 01:48 PM
Ok, there is no bias. You changed my mind.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 01:51 PM
Ok, there is no bias. You changed my mind.
Dude, you are deflecting. I know you have it in you...playing stupid must be geting old Lattimer. Why not put your big boy pants on and have a conversation...

Lets start with something simple...

Is it possible that he dodged a question? Is it possible that could happen?

If it is possible why could it not be reported in your mind?

mlyonsd
09-13-2005, 01:58 PM
Without the article it can't be determined if he dodged it the question or the writer added bias. There's a difference between dodging a question and refusing to answer it.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 02:00 PM
Without the article it can't be determined if he dodged it the question
Ssssshhhh. Laittimer is playing stupid. Don't get in the way.

Bootlegged
09-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Dude, you are deflecting. I know you have it in you...playing stupid must be geting old Lattimer. Why not put your big boy pants on and have a conversation...

Lets start with something simple...

Is it possible that he dodged a question? Is it possible that could happen?

If it is possible why could it not be reported in your mind?

I don't need a conversation with some pontific, idealistic 20 year old kid. I have plenty of adults to talk politics with if I'd like. Maybe you can organize a meetup with some net friends and talk about saving the world.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 02:29 PM
I don't need a conversation with some pontific, idealistic 20 year old kid. I have plenty of adults to talk politics with if I'd like. Maybe you can organize a meetup with some net friends and talk about saving the world.
I didn't think you could back anything up with substance.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 02:35 PM
That some here don't recognize the pejorative nature of "dodge" in this headline is amusing, and the fact that it could easily be replaced by a less subjective description/adjective....such as:

"Roberts Doesn't Satisfy Dems with Abortion Answers" or "Roberts Refuses to Answer Dems Questions"

Afterall, THOSE headlines would be more clear and accurate, would they not?

Taco John
09-13-2005, 03:06 PM
I don't get it? How is this headline partisan?

Seems that is newsworthy, given it's on a lot of people's minds.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 03:13 PM
I don't get it? How is this headline partisan?

Seems that is newsworthy, given it's on a lot of people's minds.

The word "dodge" is a pejorative.....in journalism classes, you are taught to avoid pejoratives in favor of more objective phrasing when writing headlines. Not that many of them follow that sage advice....:shrug:

Taco John
09-13-2005, 03:47 PM
The word "dodge" is a pejorative...

I don't know how... Seems like an objective word to me. I'm trying to think of another word that could replace it and still convey that the questions were directly asked and I'm not coming up with anything.

What word would you suggest replace the hyper-offending word "dodged."

Eye Patch
09-13-2005, 03:52 PM
However, the nominee should expect to answer questions about important legal principles, just as Justices Ginsburg and Breyer did during their confirmation hearings. The American people deserve to know the answers to these questions, and it is the responsibility of this Committee to elicit those legal views.

Wrong... Ginsburg refused to answer 31 questions....

Not dodging... but refusing...

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 03:53 PM
I don't know how... Seems like an objective word to me. I'm trying to think of another word that could replace it and still convey that the questions were directly asked and I'm not coming up with anything.

What word would you suggest replace the hyper-offending word "dodged."

"avoids specifics" would be an improvement...

Main Entry: 1dodge
Pronunciation: 'däj
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick b : EXPEDIENT
2 : an act of evading by sudden bodily movement

If that's not a pejorative, in this context (it infers deceit or trickery), I don't know what is.

How about something less subjective, like:
"Roberts Refused to Answer Dems Questions on Abortion"

A Democrat can read that "dodge" if they choose to; a Republican might read it "refuses to bend over." The rest of us knows what "refuses to answer" means, without the "editorialization" of a clearly pejorative term.

Bottom-line, though, is "dodge" creates controversy--and sensationalizes the story. And sells newspapers/increases ratings....at least in Blue/urban parts of the country.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 03:55 PM
Wrong... Ginsburg refused to answer 31 questions....

Sshhhhhhhhhh!

No one wants to remember that now.

Eye Patch
09-13-2005, 03:57 PM
Speaking of dodging... Taco why aren't you talking about how fine your donk football team is.

Area 51
09-13-2005, 04:17 PM
The word "dodge" is a pejorative.....in journalism classes, you are taught to avoid pejoratives in favor of more objective phrasing when writing headlines. Not that many of them follow that sage advice....:shrug:

Objective? Biased Media? The two do not go together!!!

Area 51
09-13-2005, 04:21 PM
Presuming they are asking him how he would rule on the abortion issue, he shouldn't answer as all of the information pertinent to the argument would not be there for him to review. Thus, he could not answer due to inadequate background information for the question.

Answering off the cuff sometimes can be cute, but if you want a judge that is going to interpet the law he should consider what he says and if he doesn't have all of the information at hand, don't answer. Simple, right?

Area 51
09-13-2005, 04:22 PM
Speaking of dodging... Taco why aren't you talking about how fine your donk football team is.

He quit answering questions when he got caught with his Plumber comments a while back. Denver isn't spiraling in, it's in a flat out nose dive!!!

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 04:29 PM
Presuming
heh

Eye Patch
09-13-2005, 04:34 PM
He quit answering questions when he got caught with his Plumber comments a while back. Denver isn't spiraling in, it's in a flat out nose dive!!!

Yeah I have heard those Plummer comments before.... all tj is doing is covering his ass so he won't look stupid again like the way he did with Griese. That’s all it is.

It has nothing to do with football... but all about TJ saying anything to be right... no matter how big an asshole or hypocrite that he can be.

|Zach|
09-13-2005, 04:50 PM
Yeah I have heard those Plummer comments before.... all tj is doing is covering his ass so he won't look stupid again like the way he did with Griese. That’s all it is.

It has nothing to do with football... but all about TJ saying anything to be right... no matter how big an asshole or hypocrite that he can be.
Man, you are obsessed...

How can you deny it. You literally follow him around this whole board. Isnt that amazing?

Taco John
09-13-2005, 05:15 PM
He quit answering questions when he got caught with his Plumber comments a while back. Denver isn't spiraling in, it's in a flat out nose dive!!!


Got caught with my Plummer comments? What are you talking about?

Taco John
09-13-2005, 05:16 PM
Speaking of dodging... Taco why aren't you talking about how fine your donk football team is.


Probably for the same reason you're not talking about the Raiders you dope.

Area 51
09-14-2005, 06:23 AM
Got caught with my Plummer comments? What are you talking about?
Non-retentive memory works for you just about every time doesn't it?

patteeu
09-14-2005, 07:07 AM
No because those people are in Roberts camp.

So is it your opinion that based on a hearing an objective person could not come up with the conclusion like the one above?

If it happened....then it will be reported.

Please try to be objective. "Dodged" is a loaded word.

"Roberts declines to offer specifics on abortion" would be a more neutral phrase.

Eye Patch
09-14-2005, 08:20 AM
Man, you are obsessed...

How can you deny it. You literally follow him around this whole board. Isnt that amazing?

I think you have mentiond this a few times.... you must be obsessed about this.

I guess you like to pick up Tj's jock when I knock it off.

You're a good little helper.

Eye Patch
09-14-2005, 08:22 AM
Probably for the same reason you're not talking about the Raiders you dope.

As usual you are wrong again.

check out some of the Raiderz chief threads you dope.

You could join in if you like... but first you have a have a real football team.

rowdyone
09-14-2005, 08:16 PM
BTW - I am not a Roberts fan.

Boy I am. I have all his albums dating back to 1975.

Unless you are some kind of courtroom loser that has sat around watching Roberts preside over cases in DC for the last few years, how can anyone possibly be a "fan"?