Supreme Court Justice Paid Off

[Doug S.]

BTW,

You guys keep referencing the "Tea Party" I assume you mean the grassroots movement for government fiscal responsibility, a rational immigration agenda etc.

Watch out about assuming, Ron.....you know what they mean when they say to assume makes an "A$$" out of "U" and "ME".

But, to answer your question directly, no, I did not mean the grassroots organization you referenced, I meant the radical far-right leaning wing of the current Republican party that has stripped the Republicans of legitimacy to most of us Americans with the power of critical thought (IMHO, guys, IMHO). Nobody in their right mind would consider those goofballs leftist leaning, nor insult them by insinuating any connection with the Democratic party. Since there is no formal "TEA party", yet they do represent a potent political force, they must be categorized as part of the larger political organization that claims to embrace similar concepts....ergo, my assertion that they are (and have frequently been refered to as such by all media sources of which I am aware) a fringe group affiliated with the Republican party agenda (regardless of their protestations to the contrary.....don't most admitted "TEA Party" affiliated individuals run as Republican candidates?).

Thanks in advance for not putting words in my mouth in the future :thumbsup: !

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Doug S.]

Well, since everyone seems to want to talk about financial malfeasance, lets hear from the Left (lifted from Wikipedia, without permission)

:wrongforum: , or at least wrong thread (couldn't find a emoticon for that :embarassed: ).

This is an issue for a different thread, Ron.....let's keep the discussion on topic, which is not really one of financial malfeasance, but a discussion about a Supreme Court Justice who has for 6 years failed to fill out one of the forms required for his position honestly (or, if you prefer, correctly, it really doesn't matter, he failed to report the income).

Let's not fall victim to using the same distraction technique used by Al, now.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Ron R.]

:wrongforum: , or at least wrong thread (couldn't find a emoticon for that :embarassed: ).

This is an issue for a different thread, Ron.....let's keep the discussion on topic, which is not really one of financial malfeasance, but a discussion about a Supreme Court Justice who has for 6 years failed to fill out one of the forms required for his position honestly (or, if you prefer, correctly, it really doesn't matter, he failed to report the income).

Let's not fall victim to using the same distraction technique used by Al, now.

Cheers from Doug!!

I beg to differ, Doug.

The question is of financial honesty in government (there are three branches, right?) The case of a Senator who has direct oversight of, and significant legislative input into issues of financial regulation who then reverses his stance after receiving lots of mullah from those he's suppose to be overseeing seems to be quite pertinent to the discussion. And, you'd have to admit that there is at least smoke, if not fire.

On the other hand, as far as Thomas is concerned, there is no evidence yet that his wife's dealings have influenced any of his decisions. While I don't condone what he did, I don't claim to know everything about the situation, and certainly will wait before I jump to any conclusions.

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug,

That's a great photo, your a Handsome man.

The line about the piano, I'm pretty sure it came from WWII, the Captain of the very successful submarine USS Wahoo, Mush Morton, radioed back to Pearl about a very successful patrol and Nimitz told them to return to Pearl.

Captain Morton said, but we still have some torpedos left!

Nimitz radioed back,"Come on home Mush, your picture is on the piano"

The odd things I remember, but I can't remember my neighbors names.

 

[Ron R.]

Watch out about assuming, Ron.....you know what they mean when they say to assume makes an "A$$" out of "U" and "ME".

But, to answer your question directly, no, I did not mean the grassroots organization you referenced, I meant the radical far-right leaning wing of the current Republican party that has stripped the Republicans of legitimacy to most of us Americans with the power of critical thought (IMHO, guys, IMHO). Nobody in their right mind would consider those goofballs leftist leaning, nor insult them by insinuating any connection with the Democratic party. Since there is no formal "TEA party", yet they do represent a potent political force, they must be categorized as part of the larger political organization that claims to embrace similar concepts....ergo, my assertion that they are (and have frequently been refered to as such by all media sources of which I am aware) a fringe group affiliated with the Republican party agenda (regardless of their protestations to the contrary.....don't most admitted "TEA Party" affiliated individuals run as Republican candidates?).

Thanks in advance for not putting words in my mouth in the future :thumbsup: !

Cheers from Doug!!

Well Doug,

1. I have never heard of the organization to which you refer. It seems to exist only in the fevered minds of Left Wing mouthpieces and their mindless zombies. As for stripping "the Republicans of legitimacy to most of us Americans with the power of critical thought" you seem pretty full of yourself, dismissing out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.

2. Your "..assertion that they are (and have frequently been refered to as such by all media sources of which I am aware) a fringe group affiliated with the Republican party agenda (regardless of their protestations to the contrary.....don't most admitted "TEA Party" affiliated individuals run as Republican candidates?)."

...only goes to prove that you need to either get out more or broaden your viewership.

As for how candidates qualify for a ballot, practical realities sometimes make it much easier to gain a spot by running as a declared party member. Surely you are aware that numerous 'so-called tea party' candidates have run directly again offical republican candidates on platforms in direct conflict with the republican party line. I guess you just forgot.

3. After years of medical training, I can identify an "a$$" with just one hand.

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug,

This guy has a lot of nerve talking about someone being "full of ones self"

RonR never stope talking about himself! Just in this thread about Justice Thomas, we have heard about his poor upbringing his school loans, how he cleaned toilets and now it's his medical training...........

The only thing he has not talked about is how he was a poor "black child", but the day is young.

Who is full of one's self?

 

[Doug S.]

No worries, Jim.....this is a common technique among the narcisistic population, particularly those with parnoid tendencies.

1. I really HOPE that the TEA Party "forces" the Republicans to give Palin, their apparent favorite, a shot at a run for the White House. I can only imagine what the majority of the American Public would do about that one :idea: !

2. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. I say the TEA Party looks like a Republican fringe-group, walks like a Republican as far as toeing the party line (admittedly, a right-wing lunatic fringe of the Republican party, even more "radical" than those whom they opposed when they "... ran directly again [sic] official Republican candidates), and definitely definitely "talks" like a Republican. Hard to believe they could be anything else, at least as long as there is not a viable 3rd party.

3. I don't have to be a proctologist to recognize an A$$HOLE, Ron....you're looking pretty suspicious right about now :stunned: ! There is still time to prove me wrong, though, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I don't recall where Jim said that Google said that....help me out, provide me with the post # on this thread where Jim attributes that statement to Google, please.

If you can't, then what you are attempting is a standard technique used by many a politician who knows they don't have a leg to stand on....try to confuse the oponent by introducing an extraneous issue into the debate, hoping the distraction will take the heat off the real issue and shield from discovery the possibility that you can't refute the opponent's assertion with facts.

As I understand it, it is JIM's assertion that a situation exists which can best be described as "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off". Many of the forum members have scoffed at that and made assertions to the contrary, or worse that Jim made it up. Jim simply asks that they offer some form of proof to prove him wrong (and, to his benefit, he hasn't even asked that the proof be from a non-biased source, as I would have insisted).

So, Al....I'm curious, what's the deal? Do you intend to offer any "true" proof, or do you believe that if you simply insult Jim it will serve to prove that he is wrong? That's scant proof to me, for sure!!!

Waiting.............waiting................wondering........ :idea:

Cheers from Doug!!

Jim's thread # 86

 

[Jim Craik]

Al, are you stupid or just pretending to be stupid? If you cannot help being confused, just tell me, I'll cut you some slack.

You just can not get anything right!

You said I made this whole thing up, In thread #86 I told you to google Clarence Thomas, there was lots of info. Do you Google Clarence Thomas? NO!!!

You Googled Supreme court Justice paid off, not "Clarence Thomas" like I said. Then you say there was nothing there!

Look Al if you want to grow up and have an adult conversation then fine, bring it on. You know the kind where people express their thoughts, ask question, answer questions.

But if you want to play children's games pretend you don't understand questions, refuse to answer questions, confuse the issues, then go find some children to play with. We do not have time for your games.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al, are you stupid or just pretending to be stupid?

You just can not get anything right!

You said I made this whole thing up, In thread #86 I told you to google Clarence Thomas, there was lots of info.

You then Googled Supreme court Justice paid off, not "Clarence Thomas" like I said. Then you say there was nothing there!

Look Al if you want to grow up and have an adult conversation then fine, bring it on. You know the kind where people express their thoughts, ask question, answer questions.

But if you want to play children's games pretend you don't understand questions, refuse to answer questions, confuse the issues, then go find some children to play with. We do not have time for your games.

Jim, you are an arrogant ass, I know Thomas made a mistake by not filling out the disclosure form properly. I said he was wrong. You on the other hand are not man enough to say you made a mistake by saying "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off". You intentionally used this to draw attention to something and try to make it sound worse than it was. I'm done wasting time with you. Have a good life.

 

[Jim Craik]

Arrogant, you betcha!

Guys, I'm going with stupid!

OK Al, time for recess, let the adults talk.

 

[Jim Craik]

Al, are you man enough to admit that no where near half of Obamas Appointees had tax problems?

The big difference here is that I am fairly sure my statement is correct, as are many many folk. On the other hand we all know your statement was no where near correct.

 

[Ron R.]

No worries, Jim.....this is a common technique among the narcisistic population, particularly those with parnoid tendencies.

1. I really HOPE that the TEA Party "forces" the Republicans to give Palin, their apparent favorite, a shot at a run for the White House. I can only imagine what the majority of the American Public would do about that one :idea: !

2. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. I say the TEA Party looks like a Republican fringe-group, walks like a Republican as far as toeing the party line (admittedly, a right-wing lunatic fringe of the Republican party, even more "radical" than those whom they opposed when they "... ran directly again [sic] official Republican candidates), and definitely definitely "talks" like a Republican. Hard to believe they could be anything else, at least as long as there is not a viable 3rd party.

3. I don't have to be a proctologist to recognize an A$$HOLE, Ron....you're looking pretty suspicious right about now :stunned: ! There is still time to prove me wrong, though, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Cheers from Doug!!

Doug,fficeffice" /><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
<o></o>
1. Hope that Palin doesn't get nominated for anything. She's not qualified for higher office. But then, the people will have their say. They elected Obama.
<o></o>
2. Categorize the tea party any way you'd like. No skin of my back. But you underestimate the ground level support for the ideas of limited government, decreased taxes, guaranteed equality of opportunity...not outcome, personal freedom and responsibility, and a reasonable and enforced immigration policy. These are ideas I do support…call it a pool party if it makes you feel better. Like I said, I’m no member of anything, if the Democrats would support the above ideas, I’d join them. But they seem to be the polar opposite.<o></o>
<o></o>
3. I don’t need the benefit of your doubt...doesn't really matter to me. <o></o>

 

[Ron R.]

Doug and Jim,

Don't believe me? Befriend a few of the "have nots" ..the painful truth will be obvious to ll except those who refuse to see it---"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

—Doug, from the first page of this thread.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
<o></o>
My response was only to try to open your eyes to see that not everybody is exactly as you assume them to be. You both ASSUME that anyone who disagrees with you must have been raised with some sort of privilege.<o></o>
<o></o>
Alas, I’m a failure. I guess I’m an arrogant and narcissistic one, at that.<o></o>
<o></o>
Definitely not the right stuff to join the Doug and Jim mutual appreciation association. The standards are clearly beyond my reach.

See ya at the voting booth.
<o></o>
Peace…Out <o></o>

 

[Doug S.]

Jim's thread # 86

Yeah, I went back and re-read post #86. Nothing there about Google making a statement to the effect of: "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off".

Just for grins, though, I went to Google and typed in "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off". Of the 1,420,000 "hits" that Google identified within 0.20 seconds, I couldn't find any that matched that statement, not even this thread started by Jim (although I must admit I quit looking after the first 10 pages).

However, you may have come closer than Google when you said in your post #82:

Supreme Court Justice Paid Off

You don't have any proof, you made this up to to be noticed. I'll go back to the weather.
Overcast and chilly. Better browse through the book for more guidance Jim. Adios!

It was nothing more than Jim's assertion....his language.....no more or less, just as was the title of the other thread started by a forum member with self-admitted conservative leanings. Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so again I ask, "Where was your indignation" when that other thread was originated without any proof. Do you think Pete made that up to be noticed, or was he simply asserting something he believed? I gave Pete the benefit of the doubt at that time, and I give Jim the benefit of the doubt at this time.

I, for one, don't think Mr. Thomas was paid off....there has been no assertion that he received any $$ directly from a think tank or any other consevative organization. IMHO, the "think-tank" was quite creative in the way they "approached" the issue....going in through the back door, so to speak....but then I'm reminded of the case of Tom Delay, who was just convicted of campaign finance improprieties for the way he went "in through the back door" in arranging financing for Republican candidates. Delay's efforts were successful, and that was a disappointment, but let's all hope that the conservative think-tank's "back door" efforts are less than successful (although, I must admit, Mr. Thomas is already a conservative, so the only "success" they might have is in providing him with an incentive to rule even more conservatively in the future....or, now that I think about it, perhaps the reason he has been ruling so consistently conservative for the last 6 years has now come clear. Think about it :idea: and maybe you'll be :furious: too).

On second thought, I realize it won't make any difference in your beliefs. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and your past behavior has been quite consistent (not that there's anything wrong with that, you are absolutely as entitled to your opinion as is Jim to his opinion).

I sure would like to see you offer more in the way of "proof" for your assertions, rather than ignoring the requests from Jim and others, though. It would go a long way towards developing some logical validity in your contributions to our discussions, IMHO.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Dave Lindemann]

You guys must have a lot of free time on your hands....good for you. I'm going back out to the shop to work on my car now.....be nice to each other!

This thread has reinforced the reason I don't visit the "paddock" very often.

Dave L

 

[Ron R.]

"As I understand it, it is JIM's assertion that a situation exists which can best be described as "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off". Many of the forum members have scoffed at that and made assertions to the contrary, or worse that Jim made it up. Jim simply asks that they offer some form of proof to prove him wrong (and, to his benefit, he hasn't even asked that the proof be from a non-biased source, as I would have insisted)."

Doug,

What the HE!!? Jim gets to make any kind of statement he wants, then you tell everyone that they have to prove him wrong? That's not how it works. Tell him to support his own moronic statements. If he can't, you should do it for him.

Lets say, for example, I state that so-and-so's penis is ingrown. I would think that it would be incumbant upon me to provide to the proof. But hey, if thats how things work in your world....

I think I can come up with lots of statements I'd like to see you prove wrong. Could be quite entertaining.:laugh:

 

[Doug S.]

Doug,

What the HE!!? Jim gets to make any kind of statement he wants, then you tell everyone that they have to prove him wrong? That's not how it works. Tell him to support his own moronic statements.

I have to wonder if you read Jim's original post carefully. The part about "Supreme Court Justice Paid Off" is merely the way he titled this thread, his "statement" was supported by direct quotes from a reputable major newspaper:

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says

Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

<!-- Module ends: article-header--><!-- Area starts: article-first-block --><!-- Module starts: article-byline (ArticleByline) -->January 22, 2011|By Kim Geiger, Washington Bureau<!-- Module ends: article-byline-->
<!-- Module starts: a-body-first-para (ArticleText) -->Reporting from Washington — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.
Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.

Nobody seems to be disputing this....ergo, there is no reason for Jim to be responsible for providing additional proof.

The title is simply opinion. Take a look at the original post in this thread that I have mentioned twice in this discussion, titled "B. O. Supports Mosque near ground zero":

WTF? I cannot believe how insensitive this bloke is.

Obama supports 'the right' for ground zero mosque - Yahoo! News

Again, a title that represented opinion rather than fact (keep in mind Pete is as entitled to his opinion as is Jim to his), and a link to an article in a "news" organization that provides the information that led to yet another vigorous discussion.

I have yet to see anything in that other thread to indicate that any of you who are attacking Jim with righteous indignation did the same to the originator of that other thread referenced above.

WTF??

It would be nice to see some consistency around here guys.....oh, wait, I do see the consistency, what is acceptable (for the conservatives on the forum) from a member with an admitted conservative leaning is unacceptable when the same sort of post is made by a member with admitted liberal leanings.

Where's The Fairness (or, in other words, WTF :laugh: ).

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al, are you man enough to admit that no where near half of Obamas Appointees had tax problems?

The big difference here is that I am fairly sure my statement is correct, as are many many folk. On the other hand we all know your statement was no where near correct.

What I said was "Geeez Jim, most of Obama's appointees had tax problems, that didn't outrage you then!" And yes, I would say that was an exageration. There were a few though. Your turn.

 

[Jim Craik]

Thank you Al!