Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Oh Terry
Then, Thomas really is only a liar in your eyes, because you feel the "truth" is
on Anita's side. Therefore, because you believe he is a liar, you feel free to
call him a perjuror, despite the fact he has not been charged with it according
to what you say. Before you jump up and down, I felt Anita was telling the truth
and believed her, but that still does not give me or anyone the right to call him
a perjuror if he wasn't convicted of perjury in a court of law--liar, a
despicable person, yes, but not a perjuror. When you discuss a case, despite the
verdict, an unbiased observer (as you put it) must stay objective and try to
examine why that verdict was reached. That isn't easy, I admit, for most people
to do and it sure don't make for winning popularity contests : ). So really in
the end, what this boils down to is that you believe he is a liar and that makes
it o.k. to state he is a perjuror.
BTW, I flunked your test. The polygraph has less accuracy in detecting "truth"
(as you call it) with innocent people.
Cheers
jackief
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >Hi Terry
> >
> >Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a
> >perjuror. I am really curious??
> >
> >jackief
>
> Really, Jackie? It is obvious to any unbiased observer, which I am not. I
> have never had anything but contempt for the toady that was put in charge of
> EEO by Reagan essentially to dismantle its operation nor for the
> intellectual flyweight who was unable to express the slightest defense of
> his "natural law" philosophy.
> But that has nothing whatever to do with his guilt in the matter.
>
> When two people tell directly opposing stories, when the normal human
> frailties of forgetfulness and imagination are not a factor, one must choose
> which to believe if there is to be any judgment of truth at all. It is
> rather easy to choose which one is most likely telling the truth when one is
> willing to take a polygraph and the other is not even independent of the
> results.
>
> But that is only a small part of the story. Anita Hill had told her story
> to others long before she was called upon to tell her story in public. She
> testified unwillingly. Anita Hill had to undergo the withering attack all
> women who have suffered from the sexual libido of men who cannot control
> their urges. She was called a sexually-repressed man-hungry lesbian all at
> once by the mentally-challenged Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
> (No, Jackie, not in those words. There was that stuff coming in over the
> transom as the good senator from Wyoming liked to say.) David Brock, the
> recently canonized convert from his former rightwing hatchetman status, says
> everything is still all true. That even includes the silly story of the
> pubic hair on the homework paper of a student, though the student now says
> it was a hoax.
>
> Justice Thomas let his supporters do their work and remained silent. He
> refused to discuss anything, screaming only of another half-vast conspiracy.
> His silence speaks volumes just as it does these days in his robes on his
> throne in his kingdom. It is an obscenity this caricature sits in the seat
> of the magnificent Thurgood Marshall.
>
> Let me give you some homework, Jackie. You can do it silently. The test
> has only two questions and I will bet you or anyone else can get the answers.
>
> 1. A special prosecutor was appointed to find out which miscreants leaked
> the news of Anita Hill that led to the Thomas-Hill hearings. Did the
> honorable Democratic senators offer to take a polygraph as proposed by the
> special prosecutor so he could complete his investigation? Why or why not?
>
> 2. A coal miner in Virginia (Roger Coleman, I think) was convicted of the
> rape and murder of his sister-in-law and condemned to death. He is often
> cited as one of those most likely to be innocent. He steadfastly refused a
> lie detector test until the eve of his execution. What was the result of
> his polygraph?
>
> See how easy the test was. Bet you got all the right answers.
> Best, Terry
>
> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
