SC justices: Thomas’s biography ‘unseemly.’
By on Oct 15th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
SC justices: Thomas’s biography ‘unseemly.’
Supreme Court justices reportedly are aren’t thrilled with Clarence Thomas’s new biography. The NY Posts’s Cindy Adams writes, “Phrases swatted about are ‘unseemly’ and ‘breach of decorum.’ Besides unraveling his life story, he has also delved into the ways and hows of the Court. They feel it ‘irresponsible’ for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to write about The Process.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
No one ever said he had any class.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAnita Hill, in fact, tried to tell us of his character.
I wonder if he’ll whine about being the victim again?
October 15th, 2007 at 2:35 pmoh, c’mon guys this reaction to the biography is just another “high-tech lynching” about that poor victimized quota dude.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pmThomas’ Supreme Court buddies better be checking for those Coke-hairs now.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pmThomas should have been spending time researching the SCOTUS’ cases well enough so he could have asked some questions rather than writing his biography.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:39 pm>>Besides unraveling his life story, he has also delved into the ways and hows of the Court. They feel it ‘irresponsible’ for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to write about The Process.â€
I really wonder if TP would have posted this had it been Ruth Ginsberg that wrote the book.
Personally, I don’t see the problem with a little light being cast on The Process. I haven’t read the book and don’t intend to, but isn’t government secretiveness a major bug-a-boo of some on this list? I doubt there are many Clarence Thomas fans on TP, but why should he get bagged on for writing his opinions down in a book?
October 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThey feel it ‘irresponsible’ for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to write about The Process.â€
…it’s also ‘irresponsible’ to have appointed him to the SCOTUS.
Looks like ‘ol Clarence is trying to rewrite history. Too bad he isn’t even capable of writing an opinion. Thomas’ intelligence is on the same level as Insannity & Limpballs. Rhetoric, innuendo and fabrication of truth. He & Scalia would do well to go hunting with Big Dick again.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI really wonder if TP would have posted this had it been Ruth Ginsberg that wrote the book.
Your point is completely moot until she does.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pmHeh! I love how ThinkProgress in the previous thread derogates a story about the delays that hampered the initial search for kidnapped soldier Alex Jimenez because it appeared in The New York Post and THEN in the very next thread cites a column in The New York Post as if it is Gospel!
Hysterical!
October 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pmAmazing how, even on that court, Thomas manages to stand out as an unprofessional clown….
October 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pmThe New York Post and THEN in the very next thread cites a column in The New York Post as if it is Gospel!
Hysterical!
Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
You mean where we point out the schizophrenia of the post? It’s almost as hysterical, as you and your response are, little girl!
October 15th, 2007 at 2:49 pmBased on the idea that an “activist judge” is one who tries to govern and make law from the bench, Thomas is one of the biggest activist judges of all time. The right’s embrace of Thomas is simply proof that their “activist judge” argument has been a crock of bull all along. His book shows him to be an extremely bitter, hypocritical and self-loathing individual, a perfect standard-bearer for the modern conservative movement.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI haven’t read this biography, so I can’t really comment on the content. However, the gist of the NY Post article seems to be that other Justices are complaining because Thomas wrote about the “behind the scenes” of the court, I gather.
What is the SCOTUS — the Skull and Bones Society? There are secrets Americans aren’t meant to know? Does this purport to shatter the illusion that the SCOTUS is made up of professional jurists who weigh each decision very carefully, based on the constitution?
I’m no fan of either Clarence Thomas or of the NY Post. I would regard whatever words come from either one with some skepticism. However, if Thomas has revealed something that would anger Americans if true (such as politics playing a large role in SCOTUS decisions?), we should at least attempt to ascertain the truth of it.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pmPoor Clarence. He’s just getting it from all sides.
Perhaps he should have been more circumspect about the inner workings of the court, as tradition has dictated that the subject is generally off limits.
He stepped in it, but doesn’t like the stink.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:50 pmExley sez:
Not “because it appeared in the Post”, Exley, but because the story perpetuated the lie. Try to keep up.
Besides which, this story is in regards to how the biography is “unseemly”. Perhaps you can point out the exact contradiction you seem to be insinuating.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThomas should have been spending time researching the SCOTUS’ cases well enough so he could have asked some questions rather than writing his biography.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
He doesn’t need to do that. He just asks Scalila how to vote. Has he ever voted different than Scalila?
October 15th, 2007 at 2:53 pmHe is a Repukian tool for their Fascist Criminal Agenda, what the hell do expect from a pig?
Morals? Nope.
Honesty? Not gonna happen.
Rule of Law? Ha, you wish.
Lies? You betcha.
Hidden agendas? You can count on it.
Corruption? All the time.
Buck Fush
October 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pmI’m no fan of either Clarence Thomas or of the NY Post. I would regard whatever words come from either one with some skepticism. However, if Thomas has revealed something that would anger Americans if true (such as politics playing a large role in SCOTUS decisions?), we should at least attempt to ascertain the truth of it.
Comment by missmolly — October 15, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Missmolly, we agree on something, Hooray!
October 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pmI’m praying that Justice thomas’ book is a prelude to his retirement.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pmTERM LIMITS - The courts are a political as ever. I predict in the near future the country is going to need to take a hard and serious look at Term Limits in the Judiciary. Thomas (and all the Republican appointments,Scalia) all are yacking everywhere they want on FOX etc… this is unheard of in our countries’ history. The Justices have always kept a low profile for obvious reasons. Can you imagine Ruth Ginsberg going on Keith Olberman to “chat” ? The Wingnuts would go Bonkers! Everyone must agree that politics day-in-day out are being played out in the Supreme Court. Thomas is way out of line and so is Scalia and how he behaves. I for one think a 10 year limit needs to be instituted and soon.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pmPerhaps he should have been more circumspect about the inner workings of the court, as tradition has dictated that the subject is generally off limits.
Comment by RUCerious — October 15, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Traditions have gone by the wayside in the last 10 to 20 years. There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a former US President to criticize a sitting President or Administration while overseas, but these days you have Jimmy Carter castigating the Bush Admin during an interview in London. And hardly anyone even thinks it strange, in fact many applaud him.
We have become a far less decorous and genteel society, alas. Tradition counts for little to nothing any more.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pmRethugs are always complaining about social programs for the poor costing them money, but here’s a guy on the government payroll, full-time and for life, who has time to write a book. Isn’t that like double dipping?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pmThere would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a former US President to criticize a sitting President or Administration while overseas, but these days you have Jimmy Carter castigating the Bush Admin during an interview in London.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Well Kelp, since we’ve never had a President so incompetent, so corrupt, or trying so hard to destroy the constitution, there’s hardly a precendent because no other former president had so many reasons to speak out. However, anybody who considers themselve an American or a patriot should be yelling loud and clear from the highest rafters that something is terribly wrong with this President and Vice President.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pmIf this were Conservatives attacking a black, Liberal Judge, the race card would have been played by now.
Comment by TCDon — October 15, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Do you have a point or are you just babbling?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pmSee, that’s the great thing about being Clarence Thomas: if anyone criticizes him or his work, they’re just racists. So if a colleague on the Supreme Court thinks that Justice Thomas’ literary work is “unseeemly” then they’re just racist.
At least, I think that’s how it works.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIf this were Conservatives attacking a black, Liberal Judge, the race card would have been played by now. Comment by TCDon — October 15, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
That’s because Conservatives would have acted racist! Hey, we don’t mind that Thomas is black, we’re actually happy that a black person was appointed to the Court. We just don’t like the fact that he’s a self loathing hypocrite racist that loves to attack fellow blacks! But we can understand how you (as a racist) would admire those traits!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:10 pmKeltoi sez:
Yes, quaint traditions like the Rule of Law…
There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a U.S. President to take our country into war under false pretenses, and then abuse his power as Commander-in-Chief to keep us there even after the lies were uncovered. There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a U.S. President to use all means at his disposal to destroy the Constitution. There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a U.S. President to politicize the Justice Department to destroy the possibility of any future election being even remotely ‘free and fair’. There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a U.S. President to authorize torture and extraordinary rendition of people not charged with crimes, much less convicted of them. There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a U.S. President to appoint himself the sole arbiter of what is and what is not an ‘enemy combatant’, granting himself the power to strip anyone, citizen or no, of his or her habeas corpus rights.
Given the (partial) list above, I would indeed expect you to be indignant, Keltoi…but what is it you’re indignant about? Not any of the above, but Carter speaking his mind in a London interview.
What does and does not inspire your indignation speaks volumes, Keltoi.
In that, we are in total agreement. Just be sure to place the responsibility for that loss of decorum where it really belongs.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pmWell Kelp, since we’ve never had a President so incompetent, so corrupt, or trying so hard to destroy the constitution, there’s hardly a precendent because no other former president had so many reasons to speak out.
Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Not to mention that there was a time when it was unthinkable for a sitting US President and his administration to sell his policies by impugning the patriotism of any who dared disagree with him.
THERE’s a precedent for ya!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pmTraditions have gone by the wayside in the last 10 to 20 years. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Oh heavens, more of this tripe? You people are insane!
You mean the traditions of honoring our constitution and values? Like not believing in kidnapping, torture and dismissal of habeas corpus? I guess you haven’t read much about the actions of Lincoln during the civil war then?
There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a former US President to criticize a sitting President or Administration while overseas, but these days you have Jimmy Carter castigating the Bush Admin during an interview in London. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
It would have also been unthinkable for a US president to fabricate an excuse for war, attack a country based on those lies, kidnap, torture people intentionally while holding them indefinitely, and then lie about everything! So wow, how could one possibly understand why a former president might point out how the current president has soiled the reputation and dignity of the country!
And hardly anyone even thinks it strange, in fact many applaud him. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
That we torture and kidnap? You’re wrong!
We have become a far less decorous and genteel society, alas. Tradition counts for little to nothing any more.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
A decorous and genteel society doesn’t swiftboat a war hero, lie to a nation, torture and kidnap! That’s what the UNFIT GOP FASCIST HACKS like you do!
Tradition counts for nothing among you extremists - stop projecting!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pmNot to defend ol’ Coke Can, but what’s wrong with transparency about how the court works?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI notice that Neitol included the key phrase “while overseas” in his rant:
There would have been a time when it was unthinkable for a former US President to criticize a sitting President or Administration while overseas
Apparently, it makes all the difference in the world whether one is on home soil or abroad (perhaps because when they’re overseas, BushCo can’t as easily seize and extraordinarily render them to black sites).
But the “former president can’t criticize sitting president” rule has been a favorite meme for the right lately, to the point the Britt Hume was forced to recognize the error of this claim:
“Hume Corrected False Claim”
October 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm31 - RHF —– HEAR, HEAR!!!!!!
Thank you. ;o)
Your fan,
LA
October 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pmSorry. There should ahve been a link:
“Hume Corrected False Claim”
October 15th, 2007 at 3:21 pmWe have become a far less decorous and genteel society, alas. Tradition counts for little to nothing any more.
In that, we are in total agreement. Just be sure to place the responsibility for that loss of decorum where it really belongs.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 15, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Obviously, I find your assessment of Bush a bit hyperbolic, but that was not the point. Traditions are not - or at least were not - adhered to on a situational basis once upon a time. If Thomas is being criticized for breaking traditions it seems like protesting too much.
As far as loss of Decorum? There is plenty of blame to go around, neither the left or the right are innocent. How much you think one side is more to blame than the other says more about your personal political views - in my humble opinion.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWe have become a far less decorous and genteel society, alas. Tradition counts for little to nothing any more.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
A decorous and genteel society doesn’t swiftboat a war hero, lie to a nation, torture and kidnap! That’s what the UNFIT GOP FASCIST HACKS like you do!
Tradition counts for nothing among you extremists - stop projecting!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
You, who have never met me, call me a Fascist, then you say I am projecting a lack of decorum and gentility on you? Doesn’t that seem a tad ironic? Name calling IN ALL CAPITALS is precisely the type of behavior I refer to.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pmRegardless of whether the Cinday Adams column is accurate or not (That’s right…We are actually talking about a column by gossip columnist Cindy Adams), this idea that no justice has ever discussed the inner workings of the Court before is absurd…
Hasn’t anyone here read “The Brethren,” published in 1979, which covered the Supreme Court from 1969-1975.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:31 pmIf Thomas is being criticized for breaking traditions it seems like protesting too much.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Can you read Keltoi, the thread is about an article that says the other justices are complaining about the book. Do they not have a right to express their opinions since Thomas already opened the floodgate.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:34 pmYou, who have never met me, call me a Fascist, then you say I am projecting a lack of decorum and gentility on you? Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Yet, I’ve read your words, and they’re the words of a fascist.
Doesn’t that seem a tad ironic? Name calling IN ALL CAPITALS is precisely the type of behavior I refer to.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
You come here, and accuse us of having no decorum, while getting upset that your own post is exactly the sort of lack of decorum smear you wingnuts have become famous for? Then get upset because people point out your hypocrisy? Hysterical!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:35 pmRegardless of whether the Cinday Adams column is accurate or not (That’s right…We are actually talking about a column by gossip columnist Cindy Adams), this idea that no justice has ever discussed the inner workings of the Court before is absurd… Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Discussed, or wrote about it themselves in detail?
Hasn’t anyone here read “The Brethren,†published in 1979, which covered the Supreme Court from 1969-1975.
Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Which justice wrote that book? Oh right, none of them!
Yeah, that’s exactly the same!
You really do have a comprehension issue, don’t you?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pmExley, the justices are complaining about a sitting justice writing about the court. Obviously Tne Bretheren was not written by a Supreme Court Justice. What is wrong with you people?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pmKeltoi sez:
Obviously, I find your dismissal of the facts of the case a bit evasive, and yes, it’s precisely the point.
“Once upon a time”, we did not have an administration actively attempting to undermine democracy at home and create a global hegemony abroad. The time for gentility is long past.
And here we go with the false dichotomy again. Please point out where I said that the “right” are guilty, while the “left” are innocent. Failing that, keep your misleading “us and them” rhetoric to yourself.
Again, I don’t recall condemning one “side” and exonerating the other. The fact that you insist on attempting to frame the debate in these terms says quite a bit about your personal political views - in my humble opinion.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pmExley, the justices are complaining about a sitting justice writing about the court. Obviously Tne Bretheren was not written by a Supreme Court Justice. What is wrong with you people? Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Exlax is the result of having s@#$ for brains. It ends up producing s@#$ spewed out every where, and the confusion that leads him to believe he actually said something coherent!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pmAgain, I don’t recall condemning one “side†and exonerating the other. The fact that you insist on attempting to frame the debate in these terms says quite a bit about your personal political views - in my humble opinion. Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 15, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
The wingnuts always project, and frame the debate in a false world. That’s because reality has a liberal bias, so they detest reality!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:39 pmI really wonder if TP would have posted this had it been Ruth Ginsberg that wrote the book.
Ruth has more sense than that, obiviously. Can’t you people find an excuse other than “cllinton did it!”
October 15th, 2007 at 3:41 pmRHF obviously never read “The Brethren,” which ends with the justices squabbling among themselves about who was the source to the media of the inner workings of the Court.
You might want to pick up a book and read every now and then, RHF.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pmLots of books have been written about Court behavior, but none by a sitting justice..
October 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pmGeez.
Can you read Keltoi, the thread is about an article that says the other justices are complaining about the book. Do they not have a right to express their opinions since Thomas already opened the floodgate.
Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Of course they do, I never said otherwise.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pmWe have become a far less decorous and genteel society, alas. Tradition counts for little to nothing any more.
In that, we are in total agreement. Just be sure to place the responsibility for that loss of decorum where it really belongs.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 15, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
So, it is Bush’s fault, I assume? Bush and his admin are on “the right”, I believe.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm“As far as loss of Decorum? There is plenty of blame to go around, neither the left or the right are innocent.
Keltiod”
please provide examples of dems or libs smearing a 12 year old boy?
Please provide examples of dems or libs smearing a triple amputee war hero?
Please provide examples of dems or libs outing an undercover CIA agent to score politcal points against her husband?
Please provide examples of leftwing switftboaters?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pmOr, shut up.
Keltoi sez:
If the shoe fits…
Why is a face-to face meeting now necessary? Your words here spell it out clearly enough.
Oh yes…positively frightful! The United States is practicing TORTURE, but never mind that….some one typed a harsh message in ALL CAPS! The horror!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYou come here, and accuse us of having no decorum, while getting upset that your own post is exactly the sort of lack of decorum smear you wingnuts have become famous for? Then get upset because people point out your hypocrisy? Hysterical!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
I never accused anyone of anything, I made a general assessment on the state of political discourse and observed it lacked in traditional respect for the loyal opposition. I think both sides of the spectrum are guilty. I try reeaalllly hard to be respectful to people I disagree with, and often I get personal attacks in response. That is okay, it reflects more on the person doing the name calling than me.
As far as my words being the words of a Fascist, well sir, your understanding of what a Fascist is must be wildly different from my own. It is possible to be conservative without being a Nazi. If you don’t grasp that basic fact then I guess we have nothing to discuss and should drop it.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:51 pmKeltoi sez:
It’s this administration’s fault…as it is the fault of Congress for initially rubber-stamping his every whim, and then failing to stop him as he continued his campaign of fascism.
And among those people in Congress are those on the “left, just as there are those on the “right”.
In fact, Congress is (nominally) controlled by the “left”, but you don’t hear me exonerating them, do you?
In fact, if you were serious about ascertaining my views, you’d do a search of this site, to find that on multiple occasions, I have roundly condemned the “left”, for aiding and abetting this corrupt and criminal administration. But you’re not serious, are you? You’re just serious about attempting to obscure the issue with the tired “Repub vs. Dem” dichotomy. Pity it’s not working for you…
October 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pmSo, it is Bush’s fault, I assume? Bush and his admin are on “the rightâ€, I believe. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Well for the record, the illegal wiretapping, kidnapping and torture as well as destruction of habeas corpus were all Bush’s doing. As was the swiftboating of a war hero.
Although for the record, you wingnuts have been unamerican and uncivil long before this. You really should listen to the Nixon tapes sometime!
October 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pmYou might want to pick up a book and read every now and then, RHF.
Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Sure Exley, and you might want to read the paragraph at the top of the page so you understand the topic of the thread. Maybe you’re mommy can read it to you since you seem unable to understand. Or does she refuse to come down to the basement anymore?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHey! you can kiss their ass. Vote the way they want you to vote and step out of line and get b*tch slap.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pmPlease provide examples of leftwing switftboaters?
Or, shut up.
Comment by Bobwurst — October 15, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Dick Durbin comparing US soldiers to Nazis? John Kerry accusing our soldiers of terrorizing women and children? Cindy Sheehan saying the suicide bombers in Iraq are freedom fighters? Tune in to the Randy Rhodes show for 10 minutes?
We should all be condemning ALL political discourse that is based on personal attacks, not just those emanating from people we disagree with. That was the original point I was trying to make.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:14 pmI never accused anyone of anything, I made a general assessment on the state of political discourse and observed it lacked in traditional respect for the loyal opposition. I think both sides of the spectrum are guilty. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
That’s a contradiction, justifying your attack by saying you are attacking everyone. You did/do in fact accuse ‘us’ of these actions, using a typical ’smear’ rhetorical device. Take a debate/language course sometime. Your ‘frame’ is a ridiculous device, employed by the dishonest, immoral and incapable!
You are in fact are guilty! The only truth in that statement.
I try reeaalllly hard to be respectful to people I disagree with, and often I get personal attacks in response. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
That’s because you use disrespectful rhetorical smears, and because you don’t ‘curse’, you feel justified in being civil, when in fact you aren’t.
That is okay, it reflects more on the person doing the name calling than me. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Says the wingnut that name called everyone here as ‘uncivil’.
As far as my words being the words of a Fascist, well sir, your understanding of what a Fascist is must be wildly different from my own. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
That’s clear, but it’s only because you like most wingnuts don’t know what the word means.
It is possible to be conservative without being a Nazi. Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Yes, but unfortunately it’s what you people call a RINO.
If you don’t grasp that basic fact then I guess we have nothing to discuss and should drop it.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Projection… As usual.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:15 pmIf you don’t grasp that basic fact then I guess we have nothing to discuss and should drop it.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Hey Keltoi, do you have an ignore list?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:15 pmDick Durbin comparing US soldiers to Nazis? John Kerry accusing our soldiers of terrorizing women and children? Cindy Sheehan saying the suicide bombers in Iraq are freedom fighters? Tune in to the Randy Rhodes show for 10 minutes?
So far we’re only seeing one Nazi comment, whereas your side constant and inaccurately uses that. And for the record, some troops have terrorized women and children, some of them were in fact disciplined for it. But don’t let reality undermine your smear!
We should all be condemning ALL political discourse that is based on personal attacks, not just those emanating from people we disagree with. That was the original point I was trying to make.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Yet all you do is point out one side, ignoring that your side is the one that’s irresponsible. Typical smearing, dishonest wingnut.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:17 pmHey Keltoi, do you have an ignore list?
Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
No…there are some folks I just don’t respond to.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pmYet all you do is point out one side, ignoring that your side is the one that’s irresponsible. Typical smearing, dishonest wingnut.
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Pointing out right wing dirty tricks on TP would be a bit redundant, considering that is the rationale for the entire site. I have never defended Rush, in fact I have criticized him for his phony soldier comment.
Please hear me: I think American culture in general has a lack of civility and I think that is a shame. It is not the purview of any one political philosophy.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:26 pmPlease hear me: I think American culture in general has a lack of civility and I think that is a shame. It is not the purview of any one political philosophy.
Comment by Keltoi — October 15, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Well Keltoi, maybe you need to be posting on an etiquette site. Interesting you don’t have trouble with the lies and dirty tricks that come out of the right wing, you have trouble with the lack of civility around here when we talk about the lies they have started.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:36 pmOh, Shayne, I understand the topic of the thread…It is a gossip column by a New York Post columnist….The same New York Post that ThinkProgress just dismissed as unreliable in the prior thread.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:38 pmOne of the most disturbing things I think I’d ever seen when I was younger was when young black kids being escorted to school in the south–and along the route were white people, dressed nicely, like any middle class folks in the Sixties, their faces twisyed with rage, shouting insukts and throwing things. I realized that it shocked me deeply that people who just looked like Mom and Dad and the Teahans and the Biragos down the street–people who you could easily mistake for tthose good, kind, moral people–could hate so much.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pmWe all want cordial society, and I mourn its loss. But cordiality, politeness and sweet reason have always been islands of light in a sea of darkness–and most often those dark waves are the dependency of politeness on who you’re talking to.
Ask an African American who lived through the Eisenhower and Kennedy era about how polite and decorous a time it was.
Oh, Shayne, I understand the topic of the thread…It is a gossip column by a New York Post columnist….The same New York Post that ThinkProgress just dismissed as unreliable in the prior thread.
Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
And you still don’t understand the difference between a columnist and a news reporter. Your old framing tricks don’t work any more, Exlax, we are smarter than you. Facts favor the left.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:52 pmAsk an African American who lived through the Eisenhower and Kennedy era about how polite and decorous a time it was.
Comment by pbg — October 15, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
That’s why conservatives are so harmful to the country. They live in a world that never existed, a world where things were “better”, but only for people that looked and thought like them. the whole wingnut phiolosphy is based on a lie called “the good old days”. Exley and his ilk want a return to slavery, child labor, robber barons, second-class citizenship for all but white males, poll taxes, segregation, and all of the other shameful things progressives fought and died to eliminate, to make this nation into a reflection of its ideals, rather than a coverup of same. Not all conservatives are nazis, but all nazis are conservatives.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:57 pm“And you still don’t understand the difference between a columnist and a news reporter’
Heh! So, you are saying that a gossip columnist in a newspaper does not have an obligation to be factually accurate??? Heh! Well, then you just made the argument that the Cindy Adams piece is not accurate….
You really stumbled over yourself there, didn’t you?
Setting aside your rhetorical ineptitude and lapses in logic, the fact remains that ThinkProgress dismissed one article on the grounds it appeared in The New York Post and then IN THE VERY NEXT thread vouched for The New York Post’s credibility by posting an article from Cindy Adams….
It is MOST amusing to see some of you folks tying yourself in knots trying to reconcile this embarassing inconsistency on the part of TP.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pmHeh! So, you are saying that a gossip columnist in a newspaper does not have an obligation to be factually accurate??? Heh! Well, then you just made the argument that the Cindy Adams piece is not accurate…. non sequitur Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Ah, classic strawman non sequitur from the princess of illogic! Actually columnists are not held to the same journalistic standards that the newspaper is (although those are very lax under their GOP overlords the last few decades), so stating that doesn’t ‘make an argument’ that a columnist is wrong (as you so swiftboat, mentally challenged, ret*@##@ly claim), it just means that there’s no guarantee of accuracy.
You really stumbled over yourself there, didn’t you? Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
More non sequitur leaps from the kindergardener.
Setting aside your rhetorical ineptitude and lapses in logic, Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Setting aside your non sequitur and projection.
the fact remains that ThinkProgress dismissed one article on the grounds it appeared in The New York Post and then IN THE VERY NEXT thread vouched for The New York Post’s credibility by posting an article from Cindy Adams…. Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Wow, so a newspaper can’t be both accurate and inaccurate in two separate stories? Then you’ve just shot yourself in the foot for all of the bloviating you wingnuts do about specific articles! BHAAHA, poor little ExLax stubs her toe!
It is MOST amusing to see some of you folks tying yourself in knots trying to reconcile this embarassing inconsistency on the part of TP. Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Not nearly as amusing as watching you do it, while being the brash, childish little brat you always have been! Then projecting your own KNOTS onto others! Poor little loser! Where did you homeschool, Oral Roberts, or the minn. public stalls?
October 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pmLiberal racists just can’t stand the idea of a conservative black man or woman, so they go on the attack. Imagine that.
Comment by TCDon — October 15, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Projection from the racist, hatemongering wingnuts - boring…
October 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pmHeh! Look at RHF struggle and squirm…Actually, unlike TP, in arguing my position, I have have never dismissed The New York Post as unreliable and then just moments later held it up as an unassailable source of accurate information…..
Keep trying, Sport. It is a pleasure watching you struggle to defend ThinkProgress’ inconsistency.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:01 pmIn sixteen years, Thomas has sat and stewed about his confirmation hearing and finally decides to let it boil over and write a book about it. He says he’s concerned that his accomplishments on the bench will be overshadowed by Anita Hill’s testimony and those in the Democratic party who didn’t think he was qualified for the job.
In all that time, you’d think that he might have tried to distinguish himself by writing an opinion every now and then, instead of serving as Scalia’s rubber stamp. Instead, he wants to complain about the racist treatment he endured while denying that racism has put any other blacks at a serious disadvantage.
Holy shit, Clarence. A highly qualified black man did serve on the Supreme Court, was much admired and had a sterling career. You might have heard of him. You took his slot on the bench. Grab an encyclopedia and look up “Thurgood Marshall”.
And then go do something with your life besides piss and moan.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pmOh, well. What would one expect from a jerk?
October 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pm>In otherwords: Evidence, please?
Someone get bigfoot some documents from Niger provided by British Intelligence.. he needs some real solid proof before he beleives things..
October 16th, 2007 at 8:08 amExley please get your facts straight… no one was discounting the “soldiers vs. warrants ” story in the last thread simply because of the newspaper it was from.. they were discounting it for reasons such as:
the ones making the claims in the article were unable to explain why they waited to get permission to tap when the law clearly states they can tap for 72 hours BEFORE needing a warrant.
also
they were unable to explain why these warrant laws, which relate ONLY to communications that somehow involved the domestic united states, were needed for tapping phone calls IN IRAQ. I fail to see any evidence put on by anyone.. them..you.. anyone.. that calls made and received in the middle east somehow pass through united states territory on thier way to and fro. If they did, it would seem highly inefficient…
reasons such as these is why we discounted the soldier story, not because it was from the NY post…
October 16th, 2007 at 8:22 am