Re-Evaluating Newt..

[Lumpy 1]

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

Just wondering.. are you balanced with moral judgments and how important is it?

 

[Full-Auto]

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

Just wondering.. are you balanced with moral judgments and how important is it?

 

[SAT]

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

Just wondering.. are you balanced with moral judgments and how important is it?

I'm sorry, your meaning is vague. What matters is the harassment, not the porn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

<sigh>

(poor newt…)

 

[Foxfyre]

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

And a Senate panel who most likely went out and recruited Anita Hill in the first place was able to produce zero evidence, other than her testimony alone, to support that he brought it up to anybody ever, much less repeatedly. And the evidence showed her to be so uncredible by the time it was all over, that it was a no brainer that the whole ugly scene was a set up to bash Thomas in the first place. They really REALLY didn't want to confirm him for the Supreme Court. And they utterly failed in disqualifying him in any capacity.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

Just wondering.. are you balanced with moral judgments and how important is it?

I'm sorry, your meaning is vague. What matters is the harassment, not the porn.

Okay then..

Do you apply your moral judgments to both political parties equally and does it effect your vote..?

 

[SAT]

Just wondering.. are you balanced with moral judgments and how important is it?

I'm sorry, your meaning is vague. What matters is the harassment, not the porn.

Okay then..

Do you apply your moral judgments to both political parties equally and does it effect your vote..?

Thank you for clarifying your meaning.

I will say, for the third time, it's not the porn, it's the harassment. The problem with Thomas was that he harassed a woman. It has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of porn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I will say, for the third time, it's not the porn, it's the harassment. The problem with Thomas was that he harassed a woman. It has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of porn.

Correct.

Indeed, it needn’t even be ‘porn,’ any unwanted attention is construed as sexual harassment.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Lying must just come naturally to you. The Senate Democrats never announced any such thing. I defy you to back up your bullshit.

Thomas was not, and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS.

 

[SAT]

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

And a Senate panel who most likely went out and recruited Anita Hill in the first place was able to produce zero evidence, other than her testimony alone, to support that he brought it up to anybody ever, much less repeatedly. And the evidence showed her to be so uncredible by the time it was all over, that it was a no brainer that the whole ugly scene was a set up to bash Thomas in the first place. They really REALLY didn't want to confirm him for the Supreme Court. And they utterly failed in disqualifying him in any capacity.

Yeah, harassment is often like that.

The Wikipedia link says that an FBI report leaked about Hill's problems with Thomas.

Four other women were prepared to testify about their experiences with Thomas.

They weren't called to testify.

'Strange Justice': A Book on Clarence Thomas - TIME

Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy


Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy

 

[Synthaholic]

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

AND women that he dated. He is a degenerate.

 

[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.

Lying must just come naturally to you. The Senate Democrats never announced any such thing. I defy you to back up your bullshit.

Thomas was not, and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS.

Well a Senate Judiciary Committee committed to figuratively hanging the man found him both qualified and worthy to be confirmed. And he was confirmed by a substantially Democratically controlled Senate. They found him guilty of no malfeasance, no wrong doing, and that Anita Hill's accusations to be unprovable and not credible.

So where is your proof that heis was not and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS other than through your own partisan prejudices?

Do you say Newt Gingrich is not qualified to be President of the USA too?

 

[Synthaholic]

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

And a Senate panel who most likely went out and recruited Anita Hill in the first place was able to produce zero evidence, other than her testimony alone, to support that he brought it up to anybody ever, much less repeatedly. And the evidence showed her to be so uncredible by the time it was all over, that it was a no brainer that the whole ugly scene was a set up to bash Thomas in the first place. They really REALLY didn't want to confirm him for the Supreme Court. And they utterly failed in disqualifying him in any capacity.

Yeah, harassment is often like that.

The Wikipedia link says that an FBI report leaked about Hill's problems with Thomas.

Four other women were prepared to testify about their experiences with Thomas.

They weren't called to testify.

'Strange Justice': A Book on Clarence Thomas - TIME

Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy


Anita Hill on Thomas Hearing: Defending Her Legacy

And that was due to negotiations with Arlen Specter. It was still a mistake by Biden to go along with that. Arlen must have known some things were not right with Thomas.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I will say, for the third time, it's not the porn, it's the harassment. The problem with Thomas was that he harassed a woman. It has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of porn.

Correct.

Indeed, it needn&#8217;t even be &#8216;porn,&#8217; any unwanted attention is construed as sexual harassment.

Pre-Clinton ... Liberal feminists had simply looking at a women defined as sexual harassment..that changed... just sayin..

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Lying must just come naturally to you. The Senate Democrats never announced any such thing. I defy you to back up your bullshit.

Thomas was not, and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS.

Well a Senate Judiciary Committee committed to figuratively hanging the man found him both qualified and worthy to be confirmed. And he was confirmed by a substantially Democratically controlled Senate. They found him guilty of no malfeasance, no wrong doing, and that Anita Hill's accusations to be unprovable and not credible.

So where is your proof that heis was not and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS other than through your own partisan prejudices?

Do you say Newt Gingrich is not qualified to be President of the USA too?

Get it right, and play the race card, like Thomas did: it was "a high-tech lynching".

 

[SAT]

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.

Lying must just come naturally to you. The Senate Democrats never announced any such thing. I defy you to back up your bullshit.

Thomas was not, and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS.

Well a Senate Judiciary Committee committed to figuratively hanging the man found him both qualified and worthy to be confirmed. And he was confirmed by a substantially Democratically controlled Senate. They found him guilty of no malfeasance, no wrong doing, and that Anita Hill's accusations to be unprovable and not credible.

You're getting carried away and making claims here that have nothing to do with the hearing. Their job wasn't to determine Thomas' innocence or guilt. Their job was to confirm him or not confirm him.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lying must just come naturally to you. The Senate Democrats never announced any such thing. I defy you to back up your bullshit.

Thomas was not, and is not qualified to be on SCOTUS.

Well a Senate Judiciary Committee committed to figuratively hanging the man found him both qualified and worthy to be confirmed. And he was confirmed by a substantially Democratically controlled Senate. They found him guilty of no malfeasance, no wrong doing, and that Anita Hill's accusations to be unprovable and not credible.

You're getting carried away and making claims here that have nothing to do with the hearing. Their job wasn't to determine Thomas' innocence or guilt. Their job was to confirm him or not confirm him.

Their job was to determine whether he was qualified to be Justice. But they set the confirmation hearing aside to deal with Anita Hill's allegations which most rational people to this day, as well as does Justice Thomas, believe that one or more members of the Judiciary Committee manufactured and recruited her to be the knife they intended to put into his back.

That so backfired on them they had no choice but to declare him qualified. And then the full Senate confirmed him because all the Republicans and a handful of honorable Democrats knew that he was qualified and worthy to be on the Supreme Court.

All Republican nominees have received bitter treatment from the Democratically controlled Senate, but once confirmed, the hate speech died down and they have been allowed to serve in peace. But liberals, black or white, can't stand for a black man to be conservative and escape the reservation you know. So the Left has kept up the lies, innuendo, distortions, and pure hate speech going re Thomas. From my perspective that is hateful and wrong. And I hope somebody somewhere someday will have the courage to call the Left out on its blatant racism and all that will change.

But then I do consider myself the eternal optimist too.

 

[SAT]

Well a Senate Judiciary Committee committed to figuratively hanging the man found him both qualified and worthy to be confirmed. And he was confirmed by a substantially Democratically controlled Senate. They found him guilty of no malfeasance, no wrong doing, and that Anita Hill's accusations to be unprovable and not credible.

You're getting carried away and making claims here that have nothing to do with the hearing. Their job wasn't to determine Thomas' innocence or guilt. Their job was to confirm him or not confirm him.

Their job was to determine whether he was qualified to be Justice. But they set the confirmation hearing aside to deal with Anita Hill's allegations which most rational people to this day, as well as does Justice Thomas, believe that one or more members of the Judiciary Committee manufactured and recruited her to be the knife they intended to put into his back.

That so backfired on them they had no choice but to declare him qualified. And then the full Senate confirmed him because all the Republicans and a handful of honorable Democrats knew that he was qualified and worthy to be on the Supreme Court.

All Republican nominees have received bitter treatment from the Democratically controlled Senate, but once confirmed, the hate speech died down and they have been allowed to serve in peace. But liberals, black or white, can't stand for a black man to be conservative and escape the reservation you know. So the Left has kept up the lies, innuendo, distortions, and pure hate speech going re Thomas. From my perspective that is hateful and wrong. And I hope somebody somewhere someday will have the courage to call the Left out on its blatant racism and all that will change.

But then I do consider myself the eternal optimist too.

Again, their job was not to declare Thomas guilty or not guilty, or Hill guilty or not guilty of anything. You are wildly exaggerating what happened in the Senate.

It reminds me of Rush saying that the SCOTUS had determined Sotomayor "to be a racist".

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the reason that Thomas is being treated poorly, in your view, is because he is "conservative"............then it is not a matter of racism. You are confused.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Still waiting for one of you libs to explain to me why she would volunteer to change departments to work for the worst boss ever.

Frankly, if the guy was the boss and only had one employee willing to bad mouth him, he's practically up for sainthood. Mafia Dons don't have that kind of loyalty.

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.

Yet Rassmussen calls elections closer to their results than anyone else.

The issue of polls isn't terribly relevent for the reasons I stated. I promise you, most people aren't even thinking about that right now. But some time around September of next year, when unemployment is still at 9%, they are going to have that discussion that will go something like, "This guy ain't getting the job done, maybe we should give that other guy a try."

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.

Yeah, because it wasn't like they didn't elect Bush...and Bush's dad... and Reagan.. for standing for those exact things.....oh, wait.