The Awesome Obama Thread II

Do you really think it was someone that the judge sent it to that reported it? It was probably a 4th or 5th gen forward that went to the person that reported it. Stupidity like this deserves to bite him in the ass. His judgement is questionable on multiple levels.

If it was not someone that the Judge forwarded it to, then the Judge is not the person who should be questioned.Sorry but still don't see why anyone would be upset at the Judge.

Doesn't anyone care about Obama's momma?!No one's fighting for women here, and rather settle on defending the racist part of it. Which as you can see is way too subjective.Look, I don't really enjoy sticking up for the broad either but, you know, sometimes I can be nice like that.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Dear Onifres evil twin, please bring back your lost brother, and leave.

Yes, I read what you wrote. And as I note, you seem completely unwilling to criticize the judge for his actions, but completely willing to detail exactly how someone who receives the message is supposed to act. I don't understand the logic. Why is the judge beyond criticism, yet the person who reports the message some kind of wuss.Further, if the judges email is to be considered simply good clean fun, then he need not complain when we find out about it.

Try reading it again, slowly. If there are words you don't understand I will try to explain them to you.

Private comments versus public comments. A judge, by being in a public position, can be said to be accountable for whatever he says. If the remark was meant in a private context than no, we shouldn't be mad at the judge...I guess it depends on how the comment was overheard and who repeated the gossip.

Even public people make private comments.Had he repeated the joke on TV or from the bench then he should be held accountable.But he did neither.

Let me see if I have this straight.

• the judge received this in a communication;
• the judge then sent that out to others;
• the judge is somehow surprised that people who received it from him would also send it out to others.

Yup. The judge was not all that bright but he was but one in a chain of folk.

Jar:Stop being a shit. The reason people ask you for clarification of your remarks is that you make remarks that appear nonsensical and obscure, it's not a trick or a trap.There's no need to get snide about it. Either you consider it important to express yourself in such a way that people understand you, or you don't. People asking you to clarify yourself are doing you the favor of finding your words and ideas interesting. The least you could do is be obliging when people have misconstrued your meaning.

Well, I will try again.The Judge was foolish, may well be an asshole, but I support folks rights to be fools and assholes.Those who get their panties in a wad over the email though are simply being sophomoric whining gossips totally missing what is relevant.There is a lesson that most kids learn in kindergarten. "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never harm you."I'll support that the folk with their panties in a wad over this have a right to be uncomfortable, even offended. But no one has a right to not be offended or made uncomfortable.Granted, basic good form is to try to never unintentionally offend someone or make them feel uncomfortable, and if the Judge is guilty of anything in this incident it might be showing bad form. From what he said though he was not being unintentionally offensive.

Thus marvelously missing the point.This wasn't my semi-literate brother-in-law who sent this email. This was a sitting federal court judge, a person whom we have the right to expect is intelligent and exercises good judgment. It was not good judgment to send this email using his official court email account.Yes, we did learn in kindergarten about sticks and stones. I'd like my federal court judges to have moved beyond kindergarten level maturity, please.

The Judge has moved beyond that point, it is those who have their panties in a wad that are still at the pre-kindergarten level.

No, I'm quite certain that anyone who objects to this becaue they expect federal court judges to exercise a level of judgment commensurate with their position is considerably more mature than kindergarten level.