Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[Madeline]

Like you and your George Soros gossip.

Bless your heart, you don't know the difference between gossip and fact. I know understand you better. That's helpful.

This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...

It was a Tea Bagger, Mrs. Justice Ginny Thomas, who placed this asshole back in the news cycle -- not us.

Try again, Annie.

 

[California Girl]

Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.

Uh, character, remember that?

Seems to me you are mighty quick to allude to someone's private life when news breaks of a leftist being an ass.

I think you'll find, Maddie, that I do not. I generally ignore stupid accusations, from either side. Unless, of course, the left are getting all hysterical..... then I might laugh at their hysteria but I don't do 'gossip' on either side.

 

[Flaylo]

Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.

Its gossip only when its about conservatives dipshits and Tea Bastards but if its the left its believable, just fuck off and knock off the fake objective shit. he does apparently support pornography based on his SCOTUS votes on the issue, thats not gossip.

Thomas does not "support porn" as a Justice, Flayglo. He supports freedom of speech.

And his decisions were correct.

I disagree that his decisions were correct. I don't see a reason why that woman would lie.

 

[Annie]

Bless your heart, you don't know the difference between gossip and fact. I know understand you better. That's helpful.

This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...

It was a Tea Bagger, Mrs. Justice Ginny Thomas, who placed this asshole back in the news cycle -- not us.

Try again, Annie.

Nice use of the pejorative again, Maddie. You're correct about her bringing it up, that was stupid. However I do not think the spinmeisters of your party are stupid. They hope for a new card to play. I just don't think this one is active either.

 

[L.K.Eder]

This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...

the irony of your own post is surely lost on you.

It surely is.

try with canards and rosa parks, e.g.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.

Uh, character, remember that?

Seems to me you are mighty quick to allude to someone's private life when news breaks of a leftist being an ass.

I think you'll find, Maddie, that I do not. I generally ignore stupid accusations, from either side. Unless, of course, the left are getting all hysterical..... then I might laugh at their hysteria but I don't do 'gossip' on either side.

damn, are you in for some soulsearching.

maybe when you are less of an immature loudmouth brat. in several decades.

 

[Madeline]

The dipshit loves porn.

Clarence Thomas - Conservapedia

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."[7] Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the First Amendment to regulate indecency on cable television.

Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.

O for fuck's sake, Flayglo. I despise Thomas and not even I would suggest he votes with his dick.

Grow up.

So why would anyone vote against a federal desgned to hold webmasters accountable for having porn on their sites that might be harmful to children? I'm just staying on topic, I have not begun to unload on Thomas' dumbass.

That is not how free speech is legally analyzed, Flayglo. The first question is what compelling interest does the state have to justify restricting the speech? I'd suggest this test cannot be met on these facts. After that, if compelling interest is found, the state must still show no less restrictive means exist to satisfy the state's needs. Again, IMO, this showing cannot be made and Thomas was correct on the law.

All freedom of speech law develops around unpopular speech -- a great deal of it around porn. We have a very open society, possibly the most open on Planet Earth.

See this for example....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/138766-australia-bans-violent-ad.html

I like that about us, don't you?

 

[Madeline]

Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.

Uh, character, remember that?

Seems to me you are mighty quick to allude to someone's private life when news breaks of a leftist being an ass.

I think you'll find, Maddie, that I do not. I generally ignore stupid accusations, from either side. Unless, of course, the left are getting all hysterical..... then I might laugh at their hysteria but I don't do 'gossip' on either side.

You are being disingenuous. If these allegations made by Thomas' ex-gf are proven, they are NOT gossip....they speak to his character and fitness. You can say you don't believe her if you like, but I am not buying that either.

 

[Si modo]

Stop the presses! A man's ex is trashing him.

Extra, extra! A man likes porn!








*yawn*

 

[Madeline]

This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...

It was a Tea Bagger, Mrs. Justice Ginny Thomas, who placed this asshole back in the news cycle -- not us.

Try again, Annie.

Nice use of the pejorative again, Maddie. You're correct about her bringing it up, that was stupid. However I do not think the spinmeisters of your party are stupid. They hope for a new card to play. I just don't think this one is active either.

I'm a life-long Republican, Annie. "Active"? Ginny Thomas just urped up her bullshit last week.....how fresh does a Tea Party faux pax need to be to pass muster with you?

Don't be a hypocrite here.

 

[Flaylo]

O for fuck's sake, Flayglo. I despise Thomas and not even I would suggest he votes with his dick.

Grow up.

So why would anyone vote against a federal desgned to hold webmasters accountable for having porn on their sites that might be harmful to children? I'm just staying on topic, I have not begun to unload on Thomas' dumbass.

That is not how free speech is legally analyzed, Flayglo. The first question is what compelling interest does the state have to justify restricting the speech? I'd suggest this test cannot be met on these facts. After that, if compelling interest is found, the state must still show no less restrictive means exist to satisfy the state's needs. Again, IMO, this showing cannot be made and Thomas was correct on the law.

All freedom of speech law develops around unpopular speech -- a great deal of it around porn. We have a very open society, possibly the most open on Planet Earth.

See this for example....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/138766-australia-bans-violent-ad.html

I like that about us, don't you?

I believe that free speech is a two edged sword, for every levelheaded person out there you have about 5 David Dukes that abuse it. Here in Germany for example it is illegal and criminal to say Heil Hitler and make Third Reich salutes in public and there is no prblem with that.

 

[Madeline]

Stop the presses! A man's ex is trashing him.

Extra, extra! A man likes porn!

*yawn*

Amazes me, the pretzel shapes *some* con women turn themselves into in defense of this misogynistic asshole.

 

[California Girl]

Uh, character, remember that?

Seems to me you are mighty quick to allude to someone's private life when news breaks of a leftist being an ass.

I think you'll find, Maddie, that I do not. I generally ignore stupid accusations, from either side. Unless, of course, the left are getting all hysterical..... then I might laugh at their hysteria but I don't do 'gossip' on either side.

You are being disingenuous. If these allegations made by Thomas' ex-gf are proven, they are NOT gossip....they speak to his character and fitness. You can say you don't believe her if you like, but I am not buying that either.

Nope, just let me know when it's fact and I'll consider it. Until then, this is gossip from an ex. What I find more interesting is how people just accept whatever suits their own agenda rather than considering the source of the information, any evidence to back up that information, why that information is coming out at a particular time, etc, etc, etc.

It's not a bad thing to practice some critical thinking once in a while. I just wish more Americans demonstrated even a small ability to do so.

 

[Madeline]

So why would anyone vote against a federal desgned to hold webmasters accountable for having porn on their sites that might be harmful to children? I'm just staying on topic, I have not begun to unload on Thomas' dumbass.

That is not how free speech is legally analyzed, Flayglo. The first question is what compelling interest does the state have to justify restricting the speech? I'd suggest this test cannot be met on these facts. After that, if compelling interest is found, the state must still show no less restrictive means exist to satisfy the state's needs. Again, IMO, this showing cannot be made and Thomas was correct on the law.

All freedom of speech law develops around unpopular speech -- a great deal of it around porn. We have a very open society, possibly the most open on Planet Earth.

See this for example....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/138766-australia-bans-violent-ad.html

I like that about us, don't you?

I believe that free speech is a two edged sword, for every levelheaded person out there you have about 5 David Dukes that abuse it. Here in Germany for example it is illegal and criminal to say Heil Hitler and make Third Reich salutes in public and there is no prblem with that.

That's more or less the question I ask on the thread I linked....would the US be better served with greater restrictions on certain low-value speech? But even so, Flayglo, SCOTUS does not interpret the constitution they wish we had. They interpret the one we actually have...and Thomas was 100% right.

I suspect you would enjoy life in Scalia-ville far less than you imagine.

 

[Annie]

the irony of your own post is surely lost on you.

It surely is.

try with canards and rosa parks, e.g.

except for the fact that it's Obama and his minions using them...

 

[California Girl]

Stop the presses! A man's ex is trashing him.

Extra, extra! A man likes porn!

*yawn*

Amazes me, the pretzel shapes *some* con women turn themselves into in defense of this misogynistic asshole.

Could you please go and look up the meaning of the word 'defend', and then demonstrate where Si is actually defending anyone.

 

[Flaylo]

Stop the presses! A man's ex is trashing him.

Extra, extra! A man likes porn!








*yawn*

And when BillClinton and Gary Condit was in office the conservative press made sure to play up every tryst they both had whether alleged or lies and you believed it like the dumbass Republican you are.

 

[L.K.Eder]

It surely is.

try with canards and rosa parks, e.g.

except for the fact that it's Obama and his minions using them...

more irony from the innocent canard spreader.

to the back of the bus, rosie.

 

[The T]

Anita Hill should still apologize for her participation in the "Hi-Tech lynching" she participated in with the Democrats.

 

[Madeline]

I think you'll find, Maddie, that I do not. I generally ignore stupid accusations, from either side. Unless, of course, the left are getting all hysterical..... then I might laugh at their hysteria but I don't do 'gossip' on either side.

You are being disingenuous. If these allegations made by Thomas' ex-gf are proven, they are NOT gossip....they speak to his character and fitness. You can say you don't believe her if you like, but I am not buying that either.

Nope, just let me know when it's fact and I'll consider it. Until then, this is gossip from an ex. What I find more interesting is how people just accept whatever suits their own agenda rather than considering the source of the information, any evidence to back up that information, why that information is coming out at a particular time, etc, etc, etc.

It's not a bad thing to practice some critical thinking once in a while. I just wish more Americans demonstrated even a small ability to do so.

I despise Thomas. I am perfectly prepared to believe any hint that he worships Satan. However, I see your point. If the ex can prove the allegations, do they then become relevant?

I suspect she can, a few at least.

Face it....Thomas has the character of a rapist. His sitting on SCOTUS should light up every chick in the US.