Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > Off Topic Stuff > General Off-Topic Stuff
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-11-2008   #76 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
What evidence, other than hearsay, did Anita Hill have?
A pubic hair on a coke can, ha, ha, ha.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008   #77 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissask View Post
We can't possibly never agree, purely out of stubbornness, Steve. ( No matter how much I may want to. ) I will leave that to the more experienced masters.


I thought you lived in TO, not BC, granola boy! You Tree huggin', duck squeezer you. If I could only round me up a baby to sacrifice, we'd be laughing

(Okay, that was off colour and I apologize....but some of these morons in my town to THIS DAY believe that crap was true....funny thing, no evidence and no missing babies....but they still think it happened. Sorry, willful ignorance is my pet peeve.)
Yes you are quite stubborn.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008   #78 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmgirl View Post
My older 2 kids and I were chatting this morning. I guess they have been looking for scholarships etc on the internet. I guess there are tonnes for kids from Northern Alberta and natives!!! Not alot for kids like mine. My soon to be nephew tried for quite a few years to get into Vet Med in Saskatoon. I guess they have to take a certain % women, kids from certain provinces and minorities. Now he is a like 98% average kid and had to wait I believe it was 3 years to get in!! Seems silly to me when kids who, just because of their color, location and gender get in and possibly have poorer grades and might not make it and this poor boy has to wait it out doing other courses in University wasting money!! My kids also mentioned how it irritated them to drive thru the reservations on our way to Wolfe Lake and see what were beautiful homes at one time destroyed! That is one thing I must say about driving thru Montana, things looked so much better there. The yards were kept and houses maintained, what we saw anyways.

Wow Riss, you are from Martensville!!! That's worse them being from Provost!!

Well we in the state have been going throgh that for years now, get over it.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008   #79 (permalink)
reposado
 
farmgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by STOGEY View Post
Well we in the state have been going throgh that for years now, get over it.
Well Stogey, I think we have likely been dealing with it up here for a long time too, just wasn't as apparant to me til I had kids that were effected by it! Maybe part of the problem is that we have all been "getting over it" for too long!!
farmgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008   #80 (permalink)
aņejo
 
mofi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now: Calgary, AB Before: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,332
The thing that gets me this days is the stupid question when you fill out an application. Are you a person of a visible minority? If you are a caucasian you say no, but seriously if you look at any of my classes at school, the caucasians are the minority.
mofi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008   #81 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmgirl View Post
Well Stogey, I think we have likely been dealing with it up here for a long time too, just wasn't as apparant to me til I had kids that were effected by it! Maybe part of the problem is that we have all been "getting over it" for too long!!

Well don't feel too bad, because that is how most of us are. If it doesn't affect us at the time then we don't even notice what is going on. Also I just heard a item on a talk show of mine saying that there is some muslim sheek up there that is calling for more rigorous prosecution of those involved in hate crimes.

However the same clerek is saying that it is quite reasonable to call for the murdering of all jewish people 18 years and older. But if you look at him the wrong way you are committing a hate crime.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008   #82 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
[quote=melliedee;1150761]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post
So there is no evidence other than hearsay; which is in fact typical in these cases and by necessity true in "he said, she said" cases specifically.

The specific acts, or "behaviors" as she called them, she accused Thomas of committing were never corroborated by anyone else, only that she expressed certain concerns about her job (not of the specific acts themselves) to some friends roughly contemporaneous with the alleged acts. quote]



Not true...



LJWorld.com / Evidence backs Anita Hill
Sorry for the long wait between posts, but another lacrosse weekend, this time in Princeton, NJ, kept me busy all this while.

While Ms. Marcus makes a spirited defense of Ms. Hill and her tale, it does nothing about corroborating the accusations made by Ms. Hill. It is precisely as I posted before, that Ms. Hill confided to several associates roughly contemporaneous to some interaction with Mr. Thomas that left her, apparently, very upset. None of the testimony cited in Ms. Marcus in any way, shape, or form can be considered evidence of malfeasance. I re-read the transcripts of the hearings, and was reminded of a few facts; that Ms. Hill initially wanted to make her allegations anonymously, even Joe Biden wouldn't let her get away with that, and that the report of her conversation with the FBI was illegally leaked by a senator or staff-member. This to remind you the lengths to which the left was willing to go to squelch the Thomas confirmation.

Rather than rebut the Marcus article point-by-point, I would like to take a different tack, that of motivation. I have no way to know what the truth is in this case, but ponder this fact, for which we need to be eternally grateful to the Clinton Administration; that women lie about sexual "behaviors" in powerful men all of the time.

President Clinton acknowledged having "caused pain in his marriage", which is his euphemism for cheating on his wife. He acknowledged having a type of sexual activity with an intern half his age in the White House; contrary to all of the then standard rules against a powerful man visiting himself upon a lower-level employee, even if the arrangement is consensual. With his history as a background, who could not think to believe the stories of Flowers, Willy, and even Broderick, among others? Using the same logic employed by Marcus when she refers to others at the EEOC and their allegations, these women must have been telling the truth about Clinton, no? Why would they lie?

Remember that the original stance of the Clinton Administration with regards Lewinsky was to paint her as a crazed stalker; that all died when the "evidence" appeared in the form of a soiled dress. Who would have believed the story of the cigar, is it any more believable that the "pubic hair" comment? While I don't know if Clinton ever acknowledged the "cigar story", I have to say Lewinsky has a lot more credibility that the former president on this one, don't you agree?

Your original assertion, that Anita Hill had evidence, does not pass the minimum requirements of such, whether or not her story is true, or even believable. What her motivations are to lie, if she did indeed do so, no one can say; but it clearly does happen in these high profile cases.
__________________

tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008   #83 (permalink)
aņejo
 
melliedee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 30,710
[quote=tmc;1151759]
Quote:
Originally Posted by melliedee View Post

Sorry for the long wait between posts, but another lacrosse weekend, this time in Princeton, NJ, kept me busy all this while.

While Ms. Marcus makes a spirited defense of Ms. Hill and her tale, it does nothing about corroborating the accusations made by Ms. Hill. It is precisely as I posted before, that Ms. Hill confided to several associates roughly contemporaneous to some interaction with Mr. Thomas that left her, apparently, very upset. None of the testimony cited in Ms. Marcus in any way, shape, or form can be considered evidence of malfeasance. I re-read the transcripts of the hearings, and was reminded of a few facts; that Ms. Hill initially wanted to make her allegations anonymously, even Joe Biden wouldn't let her get away with that, and that the report of her conversation with the FBI was illegally leaked by a senator or staff-member. This to remind you the lengths to which the left was willing to go to squelch the Thomas confirmation.

Rather than rebut the Marcus article point-by-point, I would like to take a different tack, that of motivation. I have no way to know what the truth is in this case, but ponder this fact, for which we need to be eternally grateful to the Clinton Administration; that women lie about sexual "behaviors" in powerful men all of the time.

President Clinton acknowledged having "caused pain in his marriage", which is his euphemism for cheating on his wife. He acknowledged having a type of sexual activity with an intern half his age in the White House; contrary to all of the then standard rules against a powerful man visiting himself upon a lower-level employee, even if the arrangement is consensual. With his history as a background, who could not think to believe the stories of Flowers, Willy, and even Broderick, among others? Using the same logic employed by Marcus when she refers to others at the EEOC and their allegations, these women must have been telling the truth about Clinton, no? Why would they lie?

Remember that the original stance of the Clinton Administration with regards Lewinsky was to paint her as a crazed stalker; that all died when the "evidence" appeared in the form of a soiled dress. Who would have believed the story of the cigar, is it any more believable that the "pubic hair" comment? While I don't know if Clinton ever acknowledged the "cigar story", I have to say Lewinsky has a lot more credibility that the former president on this one, don't you agree?

Your original assertion, that Anita Hill had evidence, does not pass the minimum requirements of such, whether or not her story is true, or even believable. What her motivations are to lie, if she did indeed do so, no one can say; but it clearly does happen in these high profile cases.
Why do you think these associates were not called to testify so that the corroboration could be official? Why was the the lie detector test, which Hill passed, deemed inadmissable? And you're right about details like the cigar/pubic hair. Who the heck would make that up?


So, yes. Using the logic employed by Marcus I would conclude that both Lewinsky and Hill were telling the truth. I guess she should have saved the Coke can? Or at least had a defense competent enough to call the right witnesses...
melliedee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008   #84 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
[quote=melliedee;1152036]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post

Why do you think these associates were not called to testify so that the corroboration could be official? Why was the the lie detector test, which Hill passed, deemed inadmissable? And you're right about details like the cigar/pubic hair. Who the heck would make that up?


So, yes. Using the logic employed by Marcus I would conclude that both Lewinsky and Hill were telling the truth. I guess she should have saved the Coke can? Or at least had a defense competent enough to call the right witnesses...

In most court cases lie detector results are usualy non admissable.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008   #85 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
[quote=melliedee;1152036]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post

Why do you think these associates were not called to testify so that the corroboration could be official? Why was the the lie detector test, which Hill passed, deemed inadmissable? And you're right about details like the cigar/pubic hair. Who the heck would make that up?


So, yes. Using the logic employed by Marcus I would conclude that both Lewinsky and Hill were telling the truth. I guess she should have saved the Coke can? Or at least had a defense competent enough to call the right witnesses...

You are mistaken; Hoerchner, Carr, Paul, and Wells, all mentioned by Marcus in her piece, were called, sworn in, and testified on the morning of the 13th of October. Wright and Jourdain were subpoenaed, but since Joe Biden, a Democrat, decided the hearings had to end by a specific date, he rescinded the subpoena and allowed their testimony to be read into the record, unchallenged live by those in the hearing room. A lie detector is not admissible in most courts, and specifically not the Federal system, so it is a superfluous point.

You completely missed my point about Bill Clinton and his accusers; why did you stop at Hill and Lewinsky? Shouldn't you also have to believe Willy and Broderick, based upon Clinton's past, his involvement with Lewinsky, and his penchant for lying? If that is the case, Clinton is a rapist, or, women sometimes lie about sexual encounters with powerful men. As to motivation, who can say, but clearly some people do lie in these matters, correct?
tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008   #86 (permalink)
aņejo
 
melliedee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 30,710
[quote=tmc;1152090]
Quote:
Originally Posted by melliedee View Post


You are mistaken; Hoerchner, Carr, Paul, and Wells, all mentioned by Marcus in her piece, were called, sworn in, and testified on the morning of the 13th of October. Wright and Jourdain were subpoenaed, but since Joe Biden, a Democrat, decided the hearings had to end by a specific date, he rescinded the subpoena and allowed their testimony to be read into the record, unchallenged live by those in the hearing room. A lie detector is not admissible in most courts, and specifically not the Federal system, so it is a superfluous point.

You completely missed my point about Bill Clinton and his accusers; why did you stop at Hill and Lewinsky? Shouldn't you also have to believe Willy and Broderick, based upon Clinton's past, his involvement with Lewinsky, and his penchant for lying? If that is the case, Clinton is a rapist, or, women sometimes lie about sexual encounters with powerful men. As to motivation, who can say, but clearly some people do lie in these matters, correct?
I was talking about Angela Wright, perhaps the most important witness not to testify. It's always been unclear to me why her subpeona was lifted when she seemed such an important witness. Biden maintained that Hill's team wanted her subpeona lifted, but later that was proven false. Why didn't he call her?

Of course, sometimes people lie in these situations. My defense of Hill was not meant to imply we should side with women in every case of sexual harrassment against a powerful man. I just happen to believe her, based on her testimony.
melliedee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2008   #87 (permalink)
tmc
aņejo
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 3,919
[quote=melliedee;1152113]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc View Post

I was talking about Angela Wright, perhaps the most important witness not to testify. It's always been unclear to me why her subpeona was lifted when she seemed such an important witness. Biden maintained that Hill's team wanted her subpeona lifted, but later that was proven false. Why didn't he call her?

Of course, sometimes people lie in these situations. My defense of Hill was not meant to imply we should side with women in every case of sexual harrassment against a powerful man. I just happen to believe her, based on her testimony.
I thought when you used the plural "associates" in reference to those not called to testify you were talking about more than the one person, Angela Wright.

Some suspect that Ms. Wright was concerned about a possible perjury trap and in effect asked to be excused. That seems possible, although I'm not sure the evidence for the claim. It does seem that with the patently illegal release of the original Hill FBI interview that spawned the whole situation, and the vituperative nature of the Democrat attack, they would stoop to any level to derail the nomination. I think if Biden thought it would help to have Wright there, he would have extended the hearings and forced her to testify.
tmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.