[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that we not
speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew Cunanan a
serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer it is
idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never tried and
convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath about
a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should
we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue.
How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the answers? I
congratulate you on 100%.
>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
>
>
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
