The Klan in Congress [modified]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
caused by those who opposed his achievement of it.
Really shocking to find political opposition in DC based on sexual misconduct allegations, how dare they look into that issue! Amazing... no really, it is. Comparing this nonsense to violent forms of racism like the Clan just proves, once and for all, that he is totally unqualified for his position. "To have people just over these issues besmirch everything It's only besmirching if none of it is true.
led mike wrote:
Really shocking to find political opposition in DC based on sexual misconduct allegations, how dare they look into that issue! Amazing... no really, it is. Comparing this nonsense to violent forms of racism like the Clan just proves, once and for all, that he is totally unqualified for his position.
There were no accusations of sexual misconduct. They were allegations of sexual harassment.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
Really shocking to find political opposition in DC based on sexual misconduct allegations, how dare they look into that issue! Amazing... no really, it is. Comparing this nonsense to violent forms of racism like the Clan just proves, once and for all, that he is totally unqualified for his position.
Are you saying Clarence Thomas is unfit to be a judge? What about Greenspan? Did you read his latest book? Do you think, as a result of the book, he was unfit to be Chairman of the Fed?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Are you saying Clarence Thomas is unfit to be a judge?
No not by our definition which is politics.
I misunderstood then. Which position are you saying he's unqualified for and why? In other news, I tried to get tickets to the Zep show at the O2, but failed. :((
-
led mike wrote:
Really shocking to find political opposition in DC based on sexual misconduct allegations, how dare they look into that issue! Amazing... no really, it is. Comparing this nonsense to violent forms of racism like the Clan just proves, once and for all, that he is totally unqualified for his position.
There were no accusations of sexual misconduct. They were allegations of sexual harassment.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
I misunderstood then. Which position are you saying he's unqualified for and why? In other news, I tried to get tickets to the Zep show at the O2, but failed. :((
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
In other news, I tried to get tickets to the Zep show at the O2, but failed.
Bummer, but you didn't have very good odds from what I read.
led mike wrote:
Bummer, but you didn't have very good odds from what I read.
No, not at all. You were allowed 1 submission per houshold and on the first 2 days the server crashed from all the hits. I think something like 2 million applications were submitted and only 20,000 (I think that's right ??) places were available. Oh well. They're old farts now anyways (I'm still disappointed I'm not going) so I probably wouldn't have been seeing a classic Zep performance anyways. Besides, it's Bonzo's son, not him too... Still, I was soooo hoping to go...
-
I misunderstood then. Which position are you saying he's unqualified for and why? In other news, I tried to get tickets to the Zep show at the O2, but failed. :((
73Zeppelin wrote:
Which position are you saying he's unqualified for
A judge in the highest court in the land, should be (unqualified) but isn't, because we determine qualifications based on politics.
73Zeppelin wrote:
why?
His comment is the equivalent playing of the race card for political gain that conservatives clamor about with people like Jackson because his comparison of what happened to him versus the violence perpetrated by the Klan is ridiculous. What happened to him was based on DC politics and him specifically. It had nothing to do with hatred of black people in general. What the Klan did was based on racism, oppression and hatred of black people in general. Furthermore this thread from (D)espeir is another great example of right wing CP brotherhood hypocrisy. Here the emotional appeal to racism using this lame comparison to the Klan is perfectly fine, while just last week (D)espeir was decrying the lefts appeal to the emotional aspect of the "children" in the health care issue. :rolleyes:
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
No, he likes someone named "AmIChrisMcCall"... apparently some sort of identity crisis sufferer.
Good point. Fixed. However, I don't like people who relish in the thought of women being raped. Those people are classless degenerates and are why we have prisons.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
HA HA HA the whole time I thought you were trying to be funny, but you've seriously been spelling my username wrong this whole time! :laugh: Can you possibly embarrass yourself further? We don't have prisons to control what jokes people make about your wife. Typical fascist.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Which position are you saying he's unqualified for
A judge in the highest court in the land, should be (unqualified) but isn't, because we determine qualifications based on politics.
73Zeppelin wrote:
why?
His comment is the equivalent playing of the race card for political gain that conservatives clamor about with people like Jackson because his comparison of what happened to him versus the violence perpetrated by the Klan is ridiculous. What happened to him was based on DC politics and him specifically. It had nothing to do with hatred of black people in general. What the Klan did was based on racism, oppression and hatred of black people in general. Furthermore this thread from (D)espeir is another great example of right wing CP brotherhood hypocrisy. Here the emotional appeal to racism using this lame comparison to the Klan is perfectly fine, while just last week (D)espeir was decrying the lefts appeal to the emotional aspect of the "children" in the health care issue. :rolleyes:
led mike wrote:
His comment is the equivalent playing of the race card for political gain that conservatives clamor about with people like Jackson because his comparison of what happened to him versus the violence perpetrated by the Klan is ridiculous. What happened to him was based on DC politics and him specifically. It had nothing to do with hatred of black people in general. What the Klan did was based on racism, oppression and hatred of black people in general.
He never claimed that the attacks against him were based on racism. He recognized that the attacks were based on politics and that, though he feared attacks from the Klan when he was a child, it turned out that the only people who actually DID attack him weren't from the Klan...But the Democratic Party. The racial element in his claim (made separately) was that he believes that after other accusations did not stick, that they pursued the "black man as a sexual predator" route, as that portrayal fits old sterotypes.
led mike wrote:
Furthermore this thread from (D)espeir is another great example of right wing CP brotherhood hypocrisy. Here the emotional appeal to racism using this lame comparison to the Klan is perfectly fine, while just last week (D)espeir was decrying the lefts appeal to the emotional aspect of the "children" in the health care issue.
I did not claim that the Democratic attacks were based in racism and I don't believe that (after all, he was replacing the liberal, black and Democrat-accepted Thurgood Marshall). The point is that he feared the Klan, but those who claimed to defend blacks from the Klan were the ones that gave him a "high tech lynching". Not over the color of his skin, but over his political preference.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
HA HA HA the whole time I thought you were trying to be funny, but you've seriously been spelling my username wrong this whole time! :laugh: Can you possibly embarrass yourself further? We don't have prisons to control what jokes people make about your wife. Typical fascist.
*spit*
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
His comment is the equivalent playing of the race card for political gain that conservatives clamor about with people like Jackson because his comparison of what happened to him versus the violence perpetrated by the Klan is ridiculous. What happened to him was based on DC politics and him specifically. It had nothing to do with hatred of black people in general. What the Klan did was based on racism, oppression and hatred of black people in general.
He never claimed that the attacks against him were based on racism. He recognized that the attacks were based on politics and that, though he feared attacks from the Klan when he was a child, it turned out that the only people who actually DID attack him weren't from the Klan...But the Democratic Party. The racial element in his claim (made separately) was that he believes that after other accusations did not stick, that they pursued the "black man as a sexual predator" route, as that portrayal fits old sterotypes.
led mike wrote:
Furthermore this thread from (D)espeir is another great example of right wing CP brotherhood hypocrisy. Here the emotional appeal to racism using this lame comparison to the Klan is perfectly fine, while just last week (D)espeir was decrying the lefts appeal to the emotional aspect of the "children" in the health care issue.
I did not claim that the Democratic attacks were based in racism and I don't believe that (after all, he was replacing the liberal, black and Democrat-accepted Thurgood Marshall). The point is that he feared the Klan, but those who claimed to defend blacks from the Klan were the ones that gave him a "high tech lynching". Not over the color of his skin, but over his political preference.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I did not claim that the Democratic attacks were based in racism
Of course not! "The Klan in Congress" :zzz:
Red Stateler wrote:
The point is
... you and all your right wing fanatical brethren are very entertaining.
led mike wrote:
Of course not! "The Klan in Congress"
That was just my ironic title to hook you in. :) If race played a role, I personally only think it did to the extent that the Democratic Party wanted to maintain its political monopoly on the black vote (which it historically had) and Thomas would pose a threat to that. Despite having relevance to race, however, that is also a political motivation. I think that he is brilliant and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old, unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations made by a "Womens Studies" graduate who asked if she could follow Thomas to another department after the "harassment" supposedly occurred. And who cares if he said there was a hair on his Coke anyway?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
Of course not! "The Klan in Congress"
That was just my ironic title to hook you in. :) If race played a role, I personally only think it did to the extent that the Democratic Party wanted to maintain its political monopoly on the black vote (which it historically had) and Thomas would pose a threat to that. Despite having relevance to race, however, that is also a political motivation. I think that he is brilliant and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old, unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations made by a "Womens Studies" graduate who asked if she could follow Thomas to another department after the "harassment" supposedly occurred. And who cares if he said there was a hair on his Coke anyway?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old, unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations made by a
.... group of politically affiliated veterans called the swift boats veterans for justice? Wait in their case the unsubstantiated allegations were ZERO years old I guess. More evidence of your double standard hypocrisy. :zzz:
-
Red Stateler wrote:
and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old, unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations made by a
.... group of politically affiliated veterans called the swift boats veterans for justice? Wait in their case the unsubstantiated allegations were ZERO years old I guess. More evidence of your double standard hypocrisy. :zzz:
led mike wrote:
.... group of politically affiliated veterans called the swift boats veterans for justice? Wait in their case the unsubstantiated allegations were ZERO years old I guess. More evidence of your double standard hypocrisy.
In order for it to be hypocritical, I'd have to support the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice. You can search my history, and I'm sure you won't find any as their is simply too much ambiguity for that campaign to have my support. I know there was some contention regarding their claims, and I don't know whether or not they have been substantiated. If they were false, then I think their effort was simply wrong. I don't know about John Kerry's military record, but I do know that I find his well-documented behavior afterwards to be nothing short of appalling. But that's a horse of a different color.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
Of course not! "The Klan in Congress"
That was just my ironic title to hook you in. :) If race played a role, I personally only think it did to the extent that the Democratic Party wanted to maintain its political monopoly on the black vote (which it historically had) and Thomas would pose a threat to that. Despite having relevance to race, however, that is also a political motivation. I think that he is brilliant and didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old, unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations made by a "Womens Studies" graduate who asked if she could follow Thomas to another department after the "harassment" supposedly occurred. And who cares if he said there was a hair on his Coke anyway?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
All quotes taken from these 2 articles http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html[^] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHill%2c%20Anita&oref=slogin[^]
Red Stateler wrote:
deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old
"First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . . but wouldn't seem to take 'no' for an answer." Ellen Wells, a friend, said Hill had come to her, "deeply troubled and very depressed," with complaints about Thomas's inappropriate behavior. John Carr, a lawyer, said that Hill, in tears, confided that "her boss was making sexual advances toward her." American University law professor Joel Paul said Hill had told him in 1987 that she had left the EEOC because she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor."
Red Stateler wrote:
unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations
"Second, Hill was not the only former subordinate of Thomas's with complaints. Former EEOC employee Angela Wright described how Thomas pressured her to date him, showed up uninvited at her apartment and asked her breast size. "Clarence Thomas would say to me, 'You know you need to be dating me. . . . You're one of the finest women I have on my staff," Wright told Senate investigators. Wright's account was corroborated by Rose Jourdain, a former speechwriter who, like Wright, was dismissed by Thomas. Jourdain said Wright had complained that she was "increasingly nervous about being in his presence alone" because of comments "concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs." Another former Thomas employee, Sukari
-
All quotes taken from these 2 articles http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html[^] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHill%2c%20Anita&oref=slogin[^]
Red Stateler wrote:
deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old
"First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . . but wouldn't seem to take 'no' for an answer." Ellen Wells, a friend, said Hill had come to her, "deeply troubled and very depressed," with complaints about Thomas's inappropriate behavior. John Carr, a lawyer, said that Hill, in tears, confided that "her boss was making sexual advances toward her." American University law professor Joel Paul said Hill had told him in 1987 that she had left the EEOC because she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor."
Red Stateler wrote:
unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations
"Second, Hill was not the only former subordinate of Thomas's with complaints. Former EEOC employee Angela Wright described how Thomas pressured her to date him, showed up uninvited at her apartment and asked her breast size. "Clarence Thomas would say to me, 'You know you need to be dating me. . . . You're one of the finest women I have on my staff," Wright told Senate investigators. Wright's account was corroborated by Rose Jourdain, a former speechwriter who, like Wright, was dismissed by Thomas. Jourdain said Wright had complained that she was "increasingly nervous about being in his presence alone" because of comments "concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs." Another former Thomas employee, Sukari
Yeah, I already read that article. It was another lame attack against him with exceedingly loose corroboration. She NEVER filed a complaint and even asked him if she could follow him when he moved to a different department. Of course if you accept Anita Hill's testimony based on that rather loose corroboration, then you'd have to accept that Bill Clinton is guilty of rape (since there was a much stronger corroboration). Do you? But to put things back into perspective (as you're taking the typical politically-motivated personal attack)...The guy allegedly commented on a woman's legs. how retarded is it that it would even be an issue? :confused:
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
All quotes taken from these 2 articles http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html[^] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHill%2c%20Anita&oref=slogin[^]
Red Stateler wrote:
deserve to be dragged through the mud over 10-year-old
"First, Hill did not wait 10 years to complain about his behavior. Susan Hoerchner, a Yale Law School classmate of Hill's, described how she complained of sexual harassment while working for Thomas, saying the EEOC chairman had "repeatedly asked her out . . . but wouldn't seem to take 'no' for an answer." Ellen Wells, a friend, said Hill had come to her, "deeply troubled and very depressed," with complaints about Thomas's inappropriate behavior. John Carr, a lawyer, said that Hill, in tears, confided that "her boss was making sexual advances toward her." American University law professor Joel Paul said Hill had told him in 1987 that she had left the EEOC because she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor."
Red Stateler wrote:
unsubstantiated, he-said/she-said allegations
"Second, Hill was not the only former subordinate of Thomas's with complaints. Former EEOC employee Angela Wright described how Thomas pressured her to date him, showed up uninvited at her apartment and asked her breast size. "Clarence Thomas would say to me, 'You know you need to be dating me. . . . You're one of the finest women I have on my staff," Wright told Senate investigators. Wright's account was corroborated by Rose Jourdain, a former speechwriter who, like Wright, was dismissed by Thomas. Jourdain said Wright had complained that she was "increasingly nervous about being in his presence alone" because of comments "concerning her figure, her body, her breasts, her legs." Another former Thomas employee, Sukari
oilFactotum wrote:
"I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation." "In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions."
And how does this even address the point that she was a womens studies graduate? I konw she was a Yale law grad. Her bachelors focused on Womens Studies, which encourages women to use their sexuality as power over men. I'm not surprised that, in your consistent idiocy, that you missed that.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Yeah, I already read that article. It was another lame attack against him with exceedingly loose corroboration. She NEVER filed a complaint and even asked him if she could follow him when he moved to a different department. Of course if you accept Anita Hill's testimony based on that rather loose corroboration, then you'd have to accept that Bill Clinton is guilty of rape (since there was a much stronger corroboration). Do you? But to put things back into perspective (as you're taking the typical politically-motivated personal attack)...The guy allegedly commented on a woman's legs. how retarded is it that it would even be an issue? :confused:
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
The guy allegedly commented on a woman's legs. how retarded is it that it would even be an issue?
"when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion."
-
oilFactotum wrote:
"I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation." "In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions."
And how does this even address the point that she was a womens studies graduate? I konw she was a Yale law grad. Her bachelors focused on Womens Studies, which encourages women to use their sexuality as power over men. I'm not surprised that, in your consistent idiocy, that you missed that.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
"In efforts to assail their accusers’ credibility, detractors routinely diminish people’s professional contributions."
Red Stateler wrote:
Her bachelors focused on Womens Studies, which encourages women to use their sexuality as power over men.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The guy allegedly commented on a woman's legs. how retarded is it that it would even be an issue?
"when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion."
oilFactotum wrote:
"when attacks on the accusers’ credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers’ versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or “slights” that should be dismissed without discussion."
Yeah, I already told you that I read that article before you did. That is a preemptive attack on anybody who criticized the obvious insignificance of her charges (as though pointing out that others will make that point immediately invalidates it). Even at the time, nobody had heard of sexual harassment and didn't even know the term existed (thus highlighting the insignificance). The insignificance is further highlighted by Hill's own actions. She never filed a complaint and even eagerly followed Thomas when he switched to a new department...after he supposedly sexually harassed her. Hardly the behavior of a charge not worthy of dismissal, is it? Preemptively stating that someone will make an obvious point is a classic argumentative tactic, but it does not carry any weight whatsoever as the point to be made is...well...obvious. You, in your consistent idiocy, are unsurprisingly susceptible to that tactic. But you avoided my question. Do you believe that Bill Clinton is a rapist?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall