| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
I was thinking about Anita HIll and Uncle Thomas last night.
How long has it been? Six or eight years back? Anita HIll said uncle Thomas referred to himself as "Long Dong Silver" and made numerous sexual advances. The issue quickly became "is his denial a lie" rather than "did he actually do these things." This was an interesting case because there WAS NO MIDDLE GROUND. One or the other was clearly lying. In the end, congress chose to believe uncle Thomas. So how many of you now believe Anita Hill? Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court.........a guy, by they way, who never says much and hardly ever writes an opinion? |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
On 18 Oct 2006 10:33:19 -0700, "salmobytes"
wrote: I was thinking about Anita HIll and Uncle Thomas last night. How long has it been? Six or eight years back? Anita HIll said uncle Thomas referred to himself as "Long Dong Silver" and made numerous sexual advances. The issue quickly became "is his denial a lie" rather than "did he actually do these things." This was an interesting case because there WAS NO MIDDLE GROUND. One or the other was clearly lying. In the end, congress chose to believe uncle Thomas. So how many of you now believe Anita Hill? Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court......... Two words: Abe Fortas (a supposed "liberal" put there by a Dem, LBJ) HTH, R a guy, by they way, who never says much and hardly ever writes an opinion? |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
"salmobytes" wrote in message oups.com... ...In the end, congress chose to believe uncle Thomas. Well, congress chose to ratify (or whatever the hell term they use) his nomination to the court. It's a mistake to believe that this necessary implies anything about belief. So how many of you now believe Anita Hill? Now? Why, has something new come up.....so to speak? Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court......... Is the judiciary somehow lacking in the qualities that exemplify the legislative and the executive? a guy, by they way, who never says much A quality most definitely in short supply in all branches of government at all levels. and hardly ever writes an opinion? Wouldn't have much to do around here, would he? :) Wolfgang anything but the facts, ma'am. |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
"salmobytes" wrote in
oups.com: Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court........ The judiciary is not any more pure than any other branch of government. Shortcomings found in one will be found in all. The Constitution sets out a pretty good framework for a robust government despite our individual shortcomings. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
"salmobytes" wrote In the end, congress chose to believe uncle Thomas. So how many of you now believe Anita Hill? i, like wolfgang, didn't realize this chesnut had been rescued from the flames. what up, bro? Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court.........a guy, by they way, who never says much and hardly ever writes an opinion? no; and he doesn't say much because his hero, the great scalia, writes the opinions and he merely concurs. gives him more time to waste. wayno |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:18:17 -0400, "Wayne Harrison"
wrote: "salmobytes" wrote In the end, congress chose to believe uncle Thomas. So how many of you now believe Anita Hill? i, like wolfgang, didn't realize this chesnut had been rescued from the flames. what up, bro? Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court.........a guy, by they way, who never says much and hardly ever writes an opinion? no; and he doesn't say much because his hero, the great scalia, writes the opinions and he merely concurs. gives him more time to waste. Uh-oh...breaking out the _highly_ specialized trolls, eh? Let me return the favor: How to you support your comment above in light of such as "Ashcroft vs. ACLU" or "Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld?"... There's actually some interesting stuff out there on Scalia and Thomas and this very subject. TC, R |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
|
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
On 18 Oct 2006 17:52:39 -0700, "Wolfgang" wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:18:17 -0400, "Wayne Harrison" wrote: "salmobytes" wrote In the end, congress chose to believe uncle Thomas. So how many of you now believe Anita Hill? i, like wolfgang, didn't realize this chesnut had been rescued from the flames. what up, bro? Is this the first time we've had a pathological liar sitting on the supreme court.........a guy, by they way, who never says much and hardly ever writes an opinion? no; and he doesn't say much because his hero, the great scalia, writes the opinions and he merely concurs. gives him more time to waste. Uh-oh...breaking out the _highly_ specialized trolls, eh? Let me return the favor: How to you support your comment above in light of such as "Ashcroft vs. ACLU" or "Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld?"... There's actually some interesting stuff out there on Scalia and Thomas and this very subject. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Change your dress and get a new girdle... ....and order a cosmo... Cheers, Dickie ....hey, maybe one of them Yankee dudes will go get ya some mixer... |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
Hell hath no fury..... |
totally OT irrelvant inflamatory troll
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter