Explaining his views on the Church's involvement in politics, he said: «While St Paul's is not on
any particular political side — that is not its role — it does have an important part to play in providing a place for reasoned debate within a moral and spiritual context.»
Not exact matches
Blodget: You've talked about how in the current
political climate in
particular — the country's incredibly polarized, huge emotion on both
sides.
A lot of people on here seem to want to have the corner on Christianity via their
particular political brand, but are you guys on God's
side as much as you presuppose He's on yours.
The fact that Senators can develop expertise in
particular areas means that the Senate Banking Committee, for example, can assess the fine print of business legislation in ways that back - bench MPs can't — or won't (because they're making cheap
political points, if in opposition, or on a tight leash from the Centre, if they're on the Government
side).
So, apparently, people thought that CA stole data from 50 million people and then used it to target
particular groups with
political messages to sway them over to the Trump
side?
So, what the learned, but possibly biased (remember, the 50/50 rule pro or con here) Judge has publicly stated as reasoning for the continuance of Dale's suit is, in «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological /
political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this
particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both
sides in this dispute,
side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (s):
When tribunal members are made to squirm under the microscope of media and public scrutiny when ruling on a contentious issue of legal veracity, and not just on
political expediency, they often will choose to err on the
side of the strict interpretation of the legislation as it was intended to be interpreted by its framers, and not by another legal analyst with awarded limited power who wants to twist the original intent into a shape that suits his / her
political spin (at that
particular point in time) to the detriment of his / her chosen target, which target was actually chosen by a third - party legal analyst with a vested interest.