 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Very sorry..
|
|
|
Subject: Very sorry.. From: Proudson Date: 01 Jul 01 - 02:10 AM I really wanted to only open up the Clarence Thomas ACLU debate... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Proudson Date: 01 Jul 01 - 02:13 AM Sorry liberal group..guess you like the terms like Uncle Tom used on Supreme court justices.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Jul 01 - 02:21 AM Only when they apply......and it isn't needed to start a separate thread for every post. You now have two threads, three posts and nothing to discuss. If you have a point, make the argument in it's favor and go from there. A simple one liner is just that......a one liner. it will get only casual and smartass replies like I just gave you. If you want to start a discussion.....do so. Write up your points and give us something to debate. Free speech is not a problem here, but sillyass trolling one liners are. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Jul 01 - 02:23 AM Oh yes, and welcome, but do, please, read the FAQ, top thread on the list. It'll all make sense after that. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Proudson Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:16 AM Point taken...sorry.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Proudson Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:23 AM I assume the Clarence Thomas issue is not that big of deal to you all....I am sorry if I did anything to disrespect your thoughts or opionions... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:18 AM Hello Proudson, could you explain for me (in the UK) what the Hell you are talking about? If you outline what the Clarence Thomas issue is and your opinion on it then you may get more response - so far I don't know what you are trying to say and it could be interesting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:26 AM Well said Roger, I was wondering as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Amergin Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:34 AM same here.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: rock chick Date: 01 Jul 01 - 06:14 AM I agree, what are you on about, I like a good dicussion but need more info. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Jul 01 - 06:45 AM Looks like this is what its all about, this thread BS: another end run |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Ralphie Date: 01 Jul 01 - 06:49 AM I think we've scared him off....!! Maybe we'll never know Regards...Ralphie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Amergin Date: 01 Jul 01 - 02:27 PM That's what he was carrying on about in two seperate threads? Proudson, next time raise that issue in the thread it was stated...that way folks will have more of an idea of what you're talking about.....though I still don't have much of a clue... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Gary T Date: 01 Jul 01 - 02:57 PM I'm afraid I still don't know what issue concerns Clarence Thomas and the ACLU (which I didn't see mentioned in the thread linked above). I also don't know what this is getting at: ...guess you like the terms like Uncle Tom used on Supreme court justices... It's phrased in a manipulative and sarcastic way, which I don't care for. And while being a supreme court justice may merit a certain degree of respect, it doesn't insulate one from being considered unfit or undesirable, or from getting labeled an "Uncle Tom" or similar terms that convey people's feelings about them. So Proudson, you gonna say something, or just beat around the bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:05 PM Proudson, if you are still with us, may I suggest that a way of getting to know people here is through discussions of the one huge area in life all of us here tend to have in common-- music. You can do that in as many music threads as you like-- come on in, if you have not done that yet. And then once people know each other, the policital discussions seem to make a lot more sense. Let's give Proudson a chance like we would any other new member. I recall others who have needed some time to find out how to use a forum like this one. Not every newcomer who wanders in knows the ropes of online discussion, never mind the way this particular forum operates in technical terms... I keep thinking of my dear friend and bandmate who at the age of 72 is just getting online. Clueless, about the Net, but not about life... not a writer, but not a troll either. A musician. And we had another member posting recently who fit that same description, and was given all kinds of grief for starting multiple threads on one topic. It turned out he just had not waded through the FAQ, because reading is not his main way of learning stuff. If Proudson is really going to be a creator of problems, it will become obvious, and there's no call to be rude, assuming it. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Gary T Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:12 PM Good point, Susan. I did not intend to be rude. I did intend to be provocative, which I felt was called for after four posts that said nothing but appeared to me to be rather condescending. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Kara Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:22 PM I have forgotten how to do a blue click thing But here is an article on Clarence Thomas http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: wysiwyg Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:25 PM Yes, it is easy to get provocative when we feel "called out"... but then that's what trolling seeks, and don't we all forget not to reward it? *G* I wasn't talking specifically to you, Gary, either, I was talking to us all, including myself. *G* Actually I thought your post did a good job of conveying how someone's comments can come across when mutual understanding is not yet present, and how people are likely to react. And if Proudson's desire IS to stir up upset (as opposed to discussing in order to advance anyone's understanding), then your very articulate post will serve well to give him a heads-up about how it is likely to be received. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Kara Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:30 PM Click here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Jul 01 - 03:53 PM Kara I searched for ages to find a link and mine was dated 1997, there is so much on Clarence Thomas on the web that without something else to go on.... Gary I knew the other thread was no on exactly the same tack but I was hoping DougR could shed some light if Proudson posted to that thread Susan, Proudson was doing just fine on another couple of thread so I am not sure why he didn't explain himself on this one. Looks like he took offence for not getting any quick replies, mudcat is a 24 hour thing some of us are in bed while others are waiting for a hot debate |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:28 PM I think what Proudson may have been referring to is Clarence Thomas was invited to Hawaii to speak to some group (I'm relying on memory here folks and at my age that's risky). The head of the ACLU in Hawaii objected to his coming and referred to him as an Uncle Tom and equated him with Hitler. Proudson probably wanted to know what everyone thought about that. I'm sure you all know what I think about it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 01 Jul 01 - 04:45 PM Thanks Doug now I think I understand Whats there to discuss, some people like him some hate him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 05:31 PM Yeah. The liberals can't stand him because he is conservative. The majority of African-Americans are Democrats. There are a few, but very few conservatives. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 05:38 PM I guess I should elaborate a bit more for those not familiar with him. He is the sole Black member of our Supreme Court. His hearings for confirmation were quite contentious. One of his former assistants, who is also African-American, Anita Hill, charged him with sexual harrassment during the hearings. She charged that he regularly made sexists remarks and at one point commented that there was a pubic hair on his coca cola can, or something like that. During the hearings he was accused of renting pornographic films at his favorite video store. He was finally confirmed , of course, but the Liberals have been very critical of him as a Justice. He and Justice Scalia are probably the most conservative members of the court, though Chief Justice Reinquist and Sandra Day O'Connor (both former Arizonans by the way he brags) lean toward the conservative philosophy too. DougR |
|
Subject: Justice Clarence Thomas & Anita Hill From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM I'd thought it might have been somethig to do with this, which the Guardian (London) had a piece about a few days ago. Here are the first two paragraphs - or click on the link to see the rest.
A rightwing author who made his name undermining the reputation of a woman who accused a supreme court judge of sexual harassment says now that he was lying all along.
David Brock, whose best-selling book represented Anita Hill as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty", says that he did so to defend Justice Clarence Thomas, the conservative black judge whose Senate confirmation hearings were among the most rancorous in history.
"I demonised Democratic senators, their staffs and Hill's feminist supporters without ever interviewing any of them," Mr Brock says of his 1993 book, The Real Anita Hill.
Kevin, you had opening quote marks in a link, but not closing ones. Back to blue-clicky school with you. [grin] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:19 PM Still waiting Proudson. We're just guessing here of course. If you can explain how Thomas' civil liberties were abused, as a card carrying ACLU member, I'd be happy to discuss it. The ACLU only has one client and that is the Constitution. As to Justice Thomas, he was a poor selection to fill the shoes of Marshall. It was obvious that Marshall would be replaced by an African-American, and no one measured up to Thurgood Marshall. Marshall had been on the court for many years and no one was going to have that kind of experience obviously. However, Marshall's record of achievement on behalf of the Black community and the American people as a whole before becoming a Supreme is the stuff of legend and takes volumes to discuss. Thomas' pre-court history and achievement could be written on the head of a pin, or the top of a Coke can anyway. So Proudson.......What say you regarding the sniveling little toadie and Nabisco cookie? Conservatism enters into it not at all as the ACLU has a long record of working for the Klan and the American Nazi Party. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: CarolC Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:33 PM According to his posting history, Proudson only posts between the hours of midnight and 4:00 AM. So I guess we're just going to have to wait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: CarolC Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:37 PM (Sorry. That's midnight and 4:00 AM, Mudcat time.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 01 Jul 01 - 07:43 PM The ACLU stands up for the rights of EVERYONE. It's called justice for all. Some time ago, a good friend of mine, a black man, and I had a discussion. I asked him what he thought of Clarence Thomas being put on the high court, and he said, quote, "I'd rather see YOU on that bench." I said, quote, "Thanks a lot" he replied "That was not a compliment." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:05 PM I think you'd probably make a pretty good judge, Kendall! All the women would probably swoon over you even more than they probably do now if they saw you in one of those black robes! **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:10 PM Maybe so Doug........especially if it covered his head as well as his knees! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Jim Dixon Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:31 PM Proudson's opening salvo sounds like it might have something to do with the article called "Guess Who's Not Coming to Dinner", which appeared in the Jewish World Review, June 12, 1998. Now, I'm not prepared to step in and argue Proudson's point for him, but maybe someone will. Proudson, if you're following this, a good way to start a discussion on a controversial topic is to cite an article, available somewhere on the Internet, that gives the basic facts. If you don't know how to create a link like I did, just give the URL like this: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder061298.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 01 Jul 01 - 09:52 PM Thomas' pre-court history and achievement could be written on the head of a pin... Think you're being overly generous, 'Spaw- there'd be a lot of room left over. But you're certainly correct that this is not simply a "Liberal" Vs. "Conservative" issue- the man is no more than a mediocre jurist at best (and here I'M being generous) and is simply not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court be he right, left or center in his political outlook, without considering the numerous other shortcomings in his intercourse (no pun intended) with women, Blacks, the poor, etc. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 01 Jul 01 - 11:32 PM Gee, Greg, I'm assuming you have the credentials to make such a judgement in Justice Thomas's case. I'm not familiar with your legal background, so would you enlighten me? Thanks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:18 AM Tis all out there in print in the public record Dougie, and written in simple language even you may possibly understand- should you take the trouble to get off your self-satisfied arse, pull your thumb out, and read it. Of course, cracking wise is a lot less work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:51 AM How come GUEST,The Yank spells "arse" the good old non-American way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 02 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM dOUG, YOU MADE ME LAUGH RIGHT OUT LOUD! Thanks a lot. Spaw, do you read lips? I saw and heard Clarence Thomas during the hearings say that he had never discussed Roe v Wade, with ANYONE. Incredible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: marty D Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:44 PM Yeah, Clarence Thomas NEVER discussed ANY of the issues that were the sole reasons for his nomination, and I'm the King of Siam! Both Thomas and Hill are/were highly motivated ambitious ladder climbers. Talk about selling your souls! The book writers were just the bottom feeders. marty |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 02 Jul 01 - 03:40 PM Guest Yank: Hmmm. Yep, you would know about that wouldn't you? I think McGrath might be on to something. Justice Thomas was confirmed by the United States Senate, and he does sit on the Supreme Court. To say he is not quailfied is a bit ludicrous. If he is not, it is more an indictment of those who confirmed him, thn it is Thomas. Just because a Justice does not rule the way you wish them to, does not mean he/she is not qualified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 01 - 04:19 PM The book writers were just the bottom feeders.
Linguistic drift. Is a bottom feeder a crab wandering round on the seabed, or an arselicker? It's useful to calibrate insults, and the latter definition is a bit stronger than the former. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jul 01 - 07:38 PM Gee, Doug, one might question your "credentials" for regarding him as the reincarnation of Oliver Wendell Holmes!- especially since your opinions on these matters are ostensibly based on the maunderings of judicial "experts" end "scholars" such as Rush Limbaugh & the admitted liar, David Brock, cited above.
However, regarding Thomas' 'credentials' (which was the point at issue) folks who ARE legal scholars of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' bent and who have made such a judgement and written or commented on the issue at some length both during the confirmation hearings and since, are predominantly of the opinion that Mr. Thomas is pretty marginal as a jurist.
His major "qualification", as those plumping his nomination & confirmation freely admitted, was not any legal talent, but his "conservative ideaology" which would help offset the "liberal bias" of the court. If his major boosters were and are willing to accept this, I would think you might do so with better grace.
Just because a Justice does not rule the way you wish them to, does not mean he/she is not qualified.
Ludicrous? If you want ludicrous, your contention that "he's on the court, so he must be qualified" is a real scream. Been too long since I studied logic for me to recall the name for this classic fallacy - perhaps someone will be willing to supply it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Bill D Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:17 PM Fallacy of Association , or 'transference', I'd think |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:18 PM So, Greg, he is NOT a Supreme Court Justice? Your sarcasm is wasted on me Greg. You've tried it many time before, and if it give you pleasure, so be it. And, yes, I still think it's luducrous. Certainly nothing you said convinces me otherwise. Your other comments are not, IMO, worthy of comment. Best, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:00 PM Doug, ya don't want to play, don't serve the ball, OK? Thanks, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 03 Jul 01 - 01:47 AM You're really funny, Greg. Best, DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: JudeL Date: 03 Jul 01 - 04:31 AM Pardon the ignorance but ACLU = ? I presume from the context that the CL stands for civil liberty but can someone please tell me what this acronym actually is? I tried the blue clicky thing but I still didn't find out. And does the insult "an Uncle Tom" mean someone who discriminates against people from their own cultural heritage - & if not what does it mean? Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: CarolC Date: 03 Jul 01 - 05:15 AM ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union An Uncle Tom is a black person who is considered to have 'sold out' to the oppressive forces within the dominant 'white culture' in the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: SDShad Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:41 AM Doug, you can't seriously be arguing that making it through the Senate confirmation process equals proof of superior qualifiction as a jurist (or whatever the job), can you? Stacked up against Greg F.'s point, that being that legal scholars, both liberal and conservative (thus removing the issue of ideological bias), have weighed in on the lightness of Thomas's strength as a jurst, which you don't address, and your argument really comes across as water-thin and ideological. No sarcasm intended in saying this, but I really do hope that isn't your only point in support of Thomas. Remove the fact that it's Clarence Thomas, remove the fact that he's an ideological conservative (which, IMHO, is what made him "qualified" for nomination in the first place, that and his skin tone, not his minimal and unimpressive judicial chops), and do you really believe that Senate confirmation=proof of qualification? 'Cause I can tell you, one of our past governors here in South Dakota (and a Democrat, mind you, so you can't claim ideological bias on my part), was Jimmy Carter's ambassador to Singapore. Now the guy was a dunce, and I'm pretty sure didn't even know where Singapore was until staffers pointed it out on a map. But hey, he was confirmed by the Senate, so he must have been well-qualified. And don't even get me started on the alleged "qualifications" of the also-Senate-confirmed James Watt.... Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM I'm still curious about "bottom feeders"...
I'd have thought after the shenanigans in the wake of the elections, the standard for Supreme Court Justices can't be all that high anyway. Any more than it is for High Court Justices in England, where there have been some very rummy characters indeed.
Now please join in a chorus from Trial by Jury (since an uncalled-for note of irritation has arisen among the posts on this thread:
For he is a Judge, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM I'm still curious about "bottom feeders"...
I'd have thought after the shenanigans in the wake of the elections, the standard for Supreme Court Justices can't be all that high anyway. Any more than it is for High Court Justices in England, where there have been some very rummy characters indeed.
Now please join in a chorus from Trial by Jury (since an uncalled-for note of irritation has arisen among the posts on this thread:
For he is a Judge, |