"no business commenting on anything"

Depew NY

Description

It is interesting, I point out that a retired judge was consulted by the Pence team and your reply is: "Why did he retire as a judge? He is no longer a judge and has no business commenting on anything. " I have 2 comments on your interesting reply. 1) You seem to be trying to plant the seed that he retired due to some nefarious reason. I have noticed you like to discredit the source. You are a spin machine. The truth be damned. You trumpists always say, "do your own research". A simple search will reveal the reason why he went from a government job to one in the public sector. Just don't rely on your right wing spin sites for the answer. (remember garbage in, garbage out) 2) In your logic, you don't allow comments from a retired expert. Maybe your idol - former president trump - should keep his mouth shut because he is no longer president (more importantly because well over 90% of what he says is lies and BS). You certainly have some sort of education and I thank you for your grammar lesson (ie "The proper English way to write this would be: I guess we should rely UPON YOUR postings.") but in a case of the pot calling the kettle black, in your own posting you say "Mikey Luttig resigned as a judge to work for Boing. ". Boing??? I guess you didn't proof read your comment. I am fine with being corrected on spelling, punctuation or grammar as sometimes I can learn from constructive criticism. However, let it be known, my use of unconventional capitalization or lack thereof is often done on purpose, without concern for the rules. I sometimes invoke poetic license. Back to the real problem: Your logic is flawed. Nothing in your rebuttal has any logical or relevant content. A snippet of your argument is quoted below. Even an imbecile could understand your rebuttal has no logical relevance. You say: "It would be like relying on the cart boy at Walmart to give you your "news source" because he sees the tabloids at the register all day long! Who else has this FORMER judge worked for? Yes, Coca-Cola! You remember them, the company that made all of its white employees take a course in how to be less white."*** You cite sources however what you cite has no relevance to the former Judge's ability to express a valid legal opinion. Apparently when you were on the debate team they taught you underhanded ways of handling an argument that you can not win: deflect - change the subject away from the one of relevance and hope no-one notices. *** Yes I know, I put double quotes around a quote that already contains a double quote. Can you advise me? Am I correct that I am supposed to change the inner quote to single quotes? Or am I supposed to use single quotes to quote the whole thing and leave the nested double quotes alone? I am too lazy to "do my own research" on this.