Re-Evaluating Newt..

[JoeB131]

Which polls? Lots of different polls saying lots of different things. There's no Republican candidate at the moment. So in order for that to really gel..someone has got to come out. But here's the thing you guys should be looking at. Romney's been campaigning for a good couple of years now. He's got 25% of Republicans liking him. Running against Obama he's garnered anywhere from 41% to 47% of the general electorate. That's hardly encouraging. And I think that will go down the more that's learned about the guy.

And "the economy" is not in the shitter. It's doing better then it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Corporations are making record profits. UE is lagging..and lagging because most states are firing civil servants.

But hey, I sincerly hope that any campaign manager approaches the election in this manner. That they say "Obama failed" over and over again. Sure fire winner.

Guy, I'm probably the loudest anti-Romney voice here, and to be fair, it is because I deep down really dislike Mormonism to the point that overrides every other consideration. I can't believe that the vast majority of those who don't like Romney will probably get behind him when the time comes.

And, no, the economy is really, really, in the shitter. My company just laid off 10% of it's work force.

Yes, we have record profits on Wall Street, and those guys are going to withhold that money on hiring until after Hussein is gone. Make no mistake, he threw down the gauntlet, and they are going to punish him for it.

It's a long campaign, and a lot of things could happen. Europe could push us into a second dip. The Islamists could cut off the oil supply if the movement keeps expanding. Frankly, there isn't a lot of glimmer of hope, which is why Obama has moved on to vilifying and deflecting at this point.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yup. That makes her a brownnoser of the worst order.

No one repsects a brownnoser.

Also, He transfered from one agency (Department of Education) to another. (EEOC). She packed up her desk and followed him. Not the action of a person being harrassed. And years after leaving government, she kept hitting him up for letters of recommendation....

Sorry, no credibility, just a bitter ex-employee jealous of her betters.

Again, you confuse what you call brown-nosing with whether what she said about Thomas was true.

B]

No, dumb-ass. It's really a simple matter.

Clarance Thomas is the worst boss ever. Made her HATE going to work every day. Then one day, he gets the office together and announces he going somewhere else.

Do you...

a) Do a little happy dance in your office that you have this guy out of your life

or

b) Immediately start sucking up to him to get a transfer along with him?

If your answer was b), any claims you had that he "harrassed" you go out the window.

For this other woman, she was his ex-girlfriend who is shopping a book, and said he gossiped at home about his co-workers....

Wow. Really?

I think that's what about 99% of people are guilty of.

If she was afraid of losing her job if she complained, how does that make her a liar about Thomas' behaviour years later?

 

[Synthaholic]

Again, you confuse what you call brown-nosing with whether what she said about Thomas was true.

B]

No, dumb-ass. It's really a simple matter.

Clarance Thomas is the worst boss ever. Made her HATE going to work every day. Then one day, he gets the office together and announces he going somewhere else.

Do you...

a) Do a little happy dance in your office that you have this guy out of your life

or

b) Immediately start sucking up to him to get a transfer along with him?

If your answer was b), any claims you had that he "harrassed" you go out the window.

For this other woman, she was his ex-girlfriend who is shopping a book, and said he gossiped at home about his co-workers....

Wow. Really?

I think that's what about 99% of people are guilty of.

Since Anita couldn't get ANY of her fellow co-workers to back her up in her accusations of Thomas

Wouldn't back her up publicly. A few women backed her up privately, and were willing to come forward, but Biden rejected their testimony, because he limited testimony to working relationships, not personal ones. A big mistake.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, dumb-ass. It's really a simple matter.

Clarance Thomas is the worst boss ever. Made her HATE going to work every day. Then one day, he gets the office together and announces he going somewhere else.

Do you...

a) Do a little happy dance in your office that you have this guy out of your life

or

b) Immediately start sucking up to him to get a transfer along with him?

If your answer was b), any claims you had that he "harrassed" you go out the window.

For this other woman, she was his ex-girlfriend who is shopping a book, and said he gossiped at home about his co-workers....

Wow. Really?

I think that's what about 99% of people are guilty of.

Since Anita couldn't get ANY of her fellow co-workers to back her up in her accusations of Thomas

Wouldn't back her up publicly. A few women backed her up privately, and were willing to come forward, but Biden rejected their testimony, because he limited testimony to working relationships, not personal ones. A big mistake.

A big mistake? I have friends who would believe any cockamamie story I made up to tell them and who would go to court and tell the judge that they heard the story from me. Some I could suggest that I had told them about it years ago and they would believe I had told them and had just forgotten it. And they would testify that they had heard the story years ago.

Fortunately I am not given to making up cockamamie stories to fool my friends, most especially because I have been drafted, coerced or bribed or paid to destroy somebody. Joe has very competently already related the known history between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas and there was zero--I repeat ZERO--evidence of ANY problem related by them or by anybody who worked with them during that long relationship.

The character witnesses Anita (or whoever was setting her up) drafted were allowed to testify and were heard during that proceeding, but the testimony of those who were actually there was far more compelling and believable. And that was the informed opinion of a Democratically controlled--chaired by Joe Biden--Senate Judiciary Committee that really REALLY did not want to confirm Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court.

But there are those who so despise a conservative, especailly a successful black conservative, as well as a successful white conservative (i.e. Newt Gingrich) who will believe and repeat any lie that is said or printed about them. And such people are not interested in seeing or accepting any rebuttal.

And that is unfortunate.

 

[Sallow]

Which polls? Lots of different polls saying lots of different things. There's no Republican candidate at the moment. So in order for that to really gel..someone has got to come out. But here's the thing you guys should be looking at. Romney's been campaigning for a good couple of years now. He's got 25% of Republicans liking him. Running against Obama he's garnered anywhere from 41% to 47% of the general electorate. That's hardly encouraging. And I think that will go down the more that's learned about the guy.

And "the economy" is not in the shitter. It's doing better then it was at the beginning of Obama's term. Corporations are making record profits. UE is lagging..and lagging because most states are firing civil servants.

But hey, I sincerly hope that any campaign manager approaches the election in this manner. That they say "Obama failed" over and over again. Sure fire winner.

Guy, I'm probably the loudest anti-Romney voice here, and to be fair, it is because I deep down really dislike Mormonism to the point that overrides every other consideration. I can't believe that the vast majority of those who don't like Romney will probably get behind him when the time comes.

And, no, the economy is really, really, in the shitter. My company just laid off 10% of it's work force.

Yes, we have record profits on Wall Street, and those guys are going to withhold that money on hiring until after Hussein is gone. Make no mistake, he threw down the gauntlet, and they are going to punish him for it.

It's a long campaign, and a lot of things could happen. Europe could push us into a second dip. The Islamists could cut off the oil supply if the movement keeps expanding. Frankly, there isn't a lot of glimmer of hope, which is why Obama has moved on to vilifying and deflecting at this point.

Oh I believe you on this point. I've been saying this since Obama got elected and have been getting laughed at by both conservatives and liberals..until now. It's starting to backfire...as the OWS movement proves. And it's going to get worse. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around..and this is going to blow up in the faces of corporate types that employed this. Mark my words..memos are going to surface about this strategy.

In any case..Obama is not "vilifying" or "deflecting". He's doing something he should have done straight off the bat..and addressed the greed in the private sector.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you confuse what you call brown-nosing with whether what she said about Thomas was true.

B]

No, dumb-ass. It's really a simple matter.

Clarance Thomas is the worst boss ever. Made her HATE going to work every day. Then one day, he gets the office together and announces he going somewhere else.

Do you...

a) Do a little happy dance in your office that you have this guy out of your life

or

b) Immediately start sucking up to him to get a transfer along with him?

If your answer was b), any claims you had that he "harrassed" you go out the window.

For this other woman, she was his ex-girlfriend who is shopping a book, and said he gossiped at home about his co-workers....

Wow. Really?

I think that's what about 99% of people are guilty of.

If she was afraid of losing her job if she complained, how does that make her a liar about Thomas' behaviour years later?

You miss the point, and I am begining to think you are being intentionally obtuse.

She was a liar because she followed him from one agency to another.

That means she had no problem with his behavior, as long as she thought she could get something out of it, if there was any behavior at all.

 

[JoeB131]

And, no, the economy is really, really, in the shitter. My company just laid off 10% of it's work force.

Yes, we have record profits on Wall Street, and those guys are going to withhold that money on hiring until after Hussein is gone. Make no mistake, he threw down the gauntlet, and they are going to punish him for it.

.

Oh I believe you on this point. I've been saying this since Obama got elected and have been getting laughed at by both conservatives and liberals..until now. It's starting to backfire...as the OWS movement proves. And it's going to get worse. The dog wags the tail, not the other way around..and this is going to blow up in the faces of corporate types that employed this. Mark my words..memos are going to surface about this strategy.

In any case..Obama is not "vilifying" or "deflecting". He's doing something he should have done straight off the bat..and addressed the greed in the private sector.

I don't know if it's going to backfire on them or not. Those of us with real jobs aren't really sympathetic to a bunch of spoiled kids who are whining that they aren't going to get that $50,000 a year job right out of college.

I really do think the Corporate types aren't going to hire until he's gone because hey, why do all that work and have the government take it?

 

[Synthaholic]

Since Anita couldn't get ANY of her fellow co-workers to back her up in her accusations of Thomas

Wouldn't back her up publicly. A few women backed her up privately, and were willing to come forward, but Biden rejected their testimony, because he limited testimony to working relationships, not personal ones. A big mistake.

A big mistake? I have friends who would believe any cockamamie story I made up to tell them and who would go to court and tell the judge that they heard the story from me. Some I could suggest that I had told them about it years ago and they would believe I had told them and had just forgotten it. And they would testify that they had heard the story years ago.

Fortunately I am not given to making up cockamamie stories to fool my friends, most especially because I have been drafted, coerced or bribed or paid to destroy somebody. Joe has very competently already related the known history between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas and there was zero--I repeat ZERO--evidence of ANY problem related by them or by anybody who worked with them during that long relationship.

The character witnesses Anita (or whoever was setting her up) drafted were allowed to testify and were heard during that proceeding, but the testimony of those who were actually there was far more compelling and believable. And that was the informed opinion of a Democratically controlled--chaired by Joe Biden--Senate Judiciary Committee that really REALLY did not want to confirm Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court.

But there are those who so despise a conservative, especailly a successful black conservative, as well as a successful white conservative (i.e. Newt Gingrich) who will believe and repeat any lie that is said or printed about them. And such people are not interested in seeing or accepting any rebuttal.

And that is unfortunate.

That's a lot of words, just to say nothing.

There were other women who were willing to testify to Thomas' fascination with pornography, and his lewd comments to and about women.

Biden did not allow their testimony because he limited it to women who worked with Thomas, not those he dated or associated with away from work.

Do you understand? Just nod yes or no.

 

[Synthaholic]

No, dumb-ass. It's really a simple matter.

Clarance Thomas is the worst boss ever. Made her HATE going to work every day. Then one day, he gets the office together and announces he going somewhere else.

Do you...

a) Do a little happy dance in your office that you have this guy out of your life

or

b) Immediately start sucking up to him to get a transfer along with him?

If your answer was b), any claims you had that he "harrassed" you go out the window.

For this other woman, she was his ex-girlfriend who is shopping a book, and said he gossiped at home about his co-workers....

Wow. Really?

I think that's what about 99% of people are guilty of.

If she was afraid of losing her job if she complained, how does that make her a liar about Thomas' behaviour years later?

You miss the point, and I am begining to think you are being intentionally obtuse.

She was a liar because she followed him from one agency to another.

That means she had no problem with his behavior, as long as she thought she could get something out of it, if there was any behavior at all.

Perhaps. And perhaps she could make excuses in her head, because he was a head of a minor agency. Perhaps she did not think that behaviour was acceptable for a potential Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps, if a nun knew that the priest of a small town church was a kleptomaniac, she could overlook it, but if he was nominated to be a Bishop, she would feel compelled to say something.

I'm sure we could all come up with examples.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wouldn't back her up publicly. A few women backed her up privately, and were willing to come forward, but Biden rejected their testimony, because he limited testimony to working relationships, not personal ones. A big mistake.

A big mistake? I have friends who would believe any cockamamie story I made up to tell them and who would go to court and tell the judge that they heard the story from me. Some I could suggest that I had told them about it years ago and they would believe I had told them and had just forgotten it. And they would testify that they had heard the story years ago.

Fortunately I am not given to making up cockamamie stories to fool my friends, most especially because I have been drafted, coerced or bribed or paid to destroy somebody. Joe has very competently already related the known history between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas and there was zero--I repeat ZERO--evidence of ANY problem related by them or by anybody who worked with them during that long relationship.

The character witnesses Anita (or whoever was setting her up) drafted were allowed to testify and were heard during that proceeding, but the testimony of those who were actually there was far more compelling and believable. And that was the informed opinion of a Democratically controlled--chaired by Joe Biden--Senate Judiciary Committee that really REALLY did not want to confirm Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court.

But there are those who so despise a conservative, especailly a successful black conservative, as well as a successful white conservative (i.e. Newt Gingrich) who will believe and repeat any lie that is said or printed about them. And such people are not interested in seeing or accepting any rebuttal.

And that is unfortunate.

That's a lot of words, just to say nothing.

There were other women who were willing to testify to Thomas' fascination with pornography, and his lewd comments to and about women.

Biden did not allow their testimony because he limited it to women who worked with Thomas, not those he dated or associated with away from work.

Do you understand? Just nod yes or no.

And do you understand that witnesses deemed to be unreliable or uncredible or who can testify to only hearsay evidence, or who are suspect as to their motives, are almost ALWAYS disqualified as witnesses? And whatever Thomas did or did not do in the rest of his personal life was totally unrelated to what he did in his professional life? That Joe Biden and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had strong motive and desire to disqualify Thomas and if there was any way they could have used any of that so-called 'other' evidence to their advantage, they would have done so?

Do you understand? Just nod yes or no.

 

[Synthaholic]

Joe has done his best to avoid talking about Newtie's election FAIL.

 

[JoeB131]

[That's a lot of words, just to say nothing.

There were other women who were willing to testify to Thomas' fascination with pornography, and his lewd comments to and about women.

Biden did not allow their testimony because he limited it to women who worked with Thomas, not those he dated or associated with away from work.

Do you understand? Just nod yes or no.

So why would his behavior outside the office, be relevent to anything, anyway?

What do you consider a 'fascination" with porn? that he watched a porn movie once, in a period when you actually could get sexually explicit scenes in R Rated movies? (The standards have changed. Compare movies from the 1970s to movies today.)

Or that like any other male, he talked about sex?

I mean, I would love to know where these supposedly sterile workplaces are, frankly. I've never encountered them.

The thing was, Joe Biden was caught doing something he shouldn't have done, public opinion turned on him pretty quickly. I mean, the spectacle of Ted Kennedy questioning ANYONE on their relationships or attitudes towards women was a disgrace.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe has done his best to avoid talking about Newtie's election FAIL.

Well, I said all that really needed to be said about it a few pages back, and everyone with a brain agreed with me. Sorry you missed it.

 

[JoeB131]

Which brings us back to the politics of personal destruction that were beginning to really get wound up during the Reagan administration. The liberals so hated Reagan that they were merciless in their accusations and criticisms of him and that extended on into the Bush 41 administration. A C-span junkie in those days, during the Clinton administration, night after night I tuned in to Henry Gonzales and others in special orders in the House making accusation after accusation of both Reagan and Bush. On the Republican side was Congressman Bob whattsit (Orange County CA--I'll think of the last name in a minute) who was constantly pummeling the Clintons on Whitewater, Hillary's $100k investment bonanza, Troopergate, and other scandals of that era.

I thought all of that was pretty unbecoming and unnecessary, and I disagreed with Newt when he pushed the impeachment proceedings. I'm guessing that if he had all that to do over again he wouldn't do it, but then again I agree with the courts and the Arkansas bar who did hold Clinton accountable for obstruction of justice, perjury, and contempt of court.

History is a marvelous instructor when one can set aside partisan blinders and see it for what it is.

You know, this is a very interesting point.

I think part of the problem with the "Politics of Personal Destruction" was that it's successful. It shouldn't be.

When Thomas came up, the Senate Democrats announced they were going to "Bork and Tower' Him, in short, subject him to the brutal treatment they gave Robert Bork and John Tower. But they found they really couldn't get any traction on that, so they looked under a bunch of rocks until they found Hill.

That backfired on them, too. The American public didn't like the fact their kids Saturday morning cartoons were pre-empted for discussions about pubic hairs on coke cans and Long Dong Silver.

But in short. Discussing a in depth way in which Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision. Yawn. Pubbies on a coke can. Wow. That's interesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which brings us back to the politics of personal destruction that were beginning to really get wound up during the Reagan administration. The liberals so hated Reagan that they were merciless in their accusations and criticisms of him and that extended on into the Bush 41 administration. A C-span junkie in those days, during the Clinton administration, night after night I tuned in to Henry Gonzales and others in special orders in the House making accusation after accusation of both Reagan and Bush. On the Republican side was Congressman Bob whattsit (Orange County CA--I'll think of the last name in a minute) who was constantly pummeling the Clintons on Whitewater, Hillary's $100k investment bonanza, Troopergate, and other scandals of that era.

I thought all of that was pretty unbecoming and unnecessary, and I disagreed with Newt when he pushed the impeachment proceedings. I'm guessing that if he had all that to do over again he wouldn't do it, but then again I agree with the courts and the Arkansas bar who did hold Clinton accountable for obstruction of justice, perjury, and contempt of court.

History is a marvelous instructor when one can set aside partisan blinders and see it for what it is.

You know, this is a very interesting point.

I think part of the problem with the "Politics of Personal Destruction" was that it's successful. It shouldn't be.

When Thomas came up, the Senate Democrats announced they were going to "Bork and Tower' Him, in short, subject him to the brutal treatment they gave Robert Bork and John Tower. But they found they really couldn't get any traction on that, so they looked under a bunch of rocks until they found Hill.

That backfired on them, too. The American public didn't like the fact their kids Saturday morning cartoons were pre-empted for discussions about pubic hairs on coke cans and Long Dong Silver.

But in short. Discussing a in depth way in which Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision. Yawn. Pubbies on a coke can. Wow. That's interesting.

Yup, sex and scandal seems to evoke far more interest on these threads, as do whatever dirty laundry can be suggested, whether or not true, than anything of real substance. (And as a staunchly prolife conservative, I actually supported and continue to support Roe v Wade. I just don't support the skewed ways in which some of the courts have interpreted it. )

 

[SAT]

Sallow and Synthahol, excellent posts. Joe's imagination runs away with him, and he starts describing entire imaginary conversations as he goes along. Only the motives that would drive him count, only the circumstances he has encountered are real, and only stories told by Republicans are true.

The idea that Cain and Perry are even with Obama is simply false. ONE Rasmussen poll showed Cain even with Obama-no one else gets anything like that result-the Rasmussen poll is bullshit.

Nominate Cain, nominate Perry. Put the guy out there that best represents your union-hating, woman-hating, minority-hating, gay-bashing party, and watch America tell them to get lost.

 

[SAT]

Yes, we have record profits on Wall Street, and those guys are going to withhold that money on hiring until after Hussein is gone. Make no mistake, he threw down the gauntlet, and they are going to punish him for it.

Take note-even Republicans openly admit that Wall Street is deliberately punishing America because Wall Street is mad at being [correctly] criticized for screwing up the world's economy.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Going for 400 .....Yahhhhh..ah

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yup, sex and scandal seems to evoke far more interest on these threads, as do whatever dirty laundry can be suggested, whether or not true, than anything of real substance.

Gingrich’s positions on the issues is reason enough to reject his candidacy, having nothing to do with his personal life.

Much of it is typical rightwing nonsense, such as a balanced budget amendment and contempt for the rule of law:

Newt Gingrich on the Issues

(And as a staunchly prolife conservative, I actually supported and continue to support Roe v Wade. I just don't support the skewed ways in which some of the courts have interpreted it. )

lol – well, okay…

There’s only one ‘court’ that’s authorized to interpret the Constitution, all other courts and jurisdictions are compelled to abide its rulings.

Otherwise this makes no sense.

 

[SAT]

It's not that Thomas watched porn. It's that he brought it up to an employee, repeatedly.