Anita Hill

[sandyg]

Interesting observation. Where did either Dave or I come to the defense of the accuser in the Duke lacrosse team scandal (hint: I've already done the search)? Does that mean that comments such as yours, with no basis whatsoever in fact, should be labeled TCB - typical conservative behavior? BTW, did you even watch the hearings?

How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Come clean, whose side did you take in the Duke rape case? Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.

And you can come down from your high horse; "Did you even watch the hearings?", implies that you did, while I didn't, therefore you're better than me. It's irrelevant to my original point as to whether or not I watched the hearings.

Get off my internet, you big dope!

[dnf777]

TLB that the two main libs on this forum immediately come to the defense of Anita Hill, just like they came to the defense of the rape accuser in the Duke Lacrosse team case of 2006. They refuse to let facts and common sense stand in their way.

TLB = typical liberal behavior

I hope you weren't referring to me.

If so, that's a big fat lie, or you just don't know what you're talking about. I commented that Nifong is the worst of the worst, and actually use him as a poster child for a corrupted judicial system that should not be entrusted with the death penalty.

I would like to see him serve consecutive sentences coincident with the sentences those boys would have served, if convicted. Not just disbarred.

Please tell me one of us was mistaken.

[dnf777]

How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.


Get off my internet, you big dope!

First comment is a big fat lie. TCB. You bet? Sounds like you're starting to hedge a little. Perhaps a little too quick on the "send" button again?

Second comment.....its YOURS? Now do we add delusions of grandeur to the typical conservative mind-set?

LMAO.

Hey! Where do you have the right to say what you want? Show me where in the constitution is says anything about free speech?

Oh, sorry. I just had a republican senatorial candidate moment.

[road kill]

How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Come clean, whose side did you take in the Duke rape case? Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.

And you can come down from your high horse; "Did you even watch the hearings?", implies that you did, while I didn't, therefore you're better than me. It's irrelevant to my original point as to whether or not I watched the hearings.

Get off my internet, you big dope!

Cause he knows everything.
Don't believe me??

Ask him!!



RK

[sandyg]

I hope you weren't referring to me.

If so, that's a big fat lie, or you just don't know what you're talking about. I commented that Nifong is the worst of the worst, and actually use him as a poster child for a corrupted judicial system that should not be entrusted with the death penalty.

I would like to see him serve consecutive sentences coincident with the sentences those boys would have served, if convicted. Not just disbarred.

Please tell me one of us was mistaken.

I'm sure you thought Nifong was the worst of the worst, just not at the beginning of the controversy.

[sandyg]

First comment is a big fat lie. TCB. You bet? Sounds like you're starting to hedge a little. Perhaps a little too quick on the "send" button again?

Second comment.....its YOURS? Now do we add delusions of grandeur to the typical conservative mind-set?

LMAO.

Hey! Where do you have the right to say what you want? Show me where in the constitution is says anything about free speech?

Oh, sorry. I just had a republican senatorial candidate moment.

O'Donnell was being facetious when she questioned where in the constitution mentions separation of church and state. Everyone knows (except libs) that the constitution doesn't mention separation between church and state.

From Wikipedia:

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson's letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected - a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a state's official church. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[subroc]

I don't care about Anita Hill. The left wing radical extremists tried to "Bork" Thomas using Hill and failed. The lefts hate filled attacks on Thomas as well as Bork are and were unconscionable.

[luvmylabs23139]

Honestly, calling the police and the FBI for that? She just lowered herself to the level of people who call the police because Burger King gave them the wrong food at the drive thru.

[depittydawg]

I don't care about Anita Hill. The left wing radical extremists tried to "Bork" Thomas using Hill and failed. The lefts hate filled attacks on Thomas as well as Bork are and were unconscionable.

Virginia Thomas is extremely active politically, to the point of raising concerns of Judicial Ethics. The timing of her phone call in the heat of this election cycle smacks more to political manipulation than any sort of heart felt remorse or desire for reconciliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us...larence_thomas

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/11..._activism.html

[YardleyLabs]

How do you know I'm a conservative? Did you do a search?

Come clean, whose side did you take in the Duke rape case? Every other lib fell into lockstep with the accuser and I'll bet you did as well.

And you can come down from your high horse; "Did you even watch the hearings?", implies that you did, while I didn't, therefore you're better than me. It's irrelevant to my original point as to whether or not I watched the hearings.

Get off my internet, you big dope!

At the beginning of the Duke case I took no "position" because there was only a charge and a denial, without evidence of any investigation. As the investigation proceeded, it became increasingly clear that there was still no evidence. Eventually, it clearly turned into a witch hunt and I was happy to see the prosecutor disbarred and jailed (even if only for one day). If you search for my posts, you will find that. In fact, there were no posts about the incident at Duke until the case approached its end reflecting, I believe, a willingness to let the fact come out first.

With respect to my question concerning the hearings, I asked because I did and it was hard to come away feeling that either party was unsullied. The attitude that Thomas evidenced toward women was about as modern as his views on the Constitution. By today's standards his behavior would generally be viewed as condescending and inappropriate. Had he worked in the accounting firm where I worked at that time, he would have certainly been fired for his behavior. However, that does not necessarily translate to harassment. Hill's testimony seemed to fall into some of the same gray areas and none of her claims of sexual misconduct were ever substantiated. However, that does not mean that she was not mistreated.

I don't believe that Thomas should ever have been confirmed because he was and is a second or third rate constitutional scholar and jurist. He has fallen into a role of unequaled obscurity while putting forth radical re-interpretations of the law that run counter to almost everything the court had decided over the last 200 years.