|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 21, 2011 16:11:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 21, 2011 18:56:23 GMT -8
I'm going to catch flack from the left and the right, but why do you folks read this stuff? The fringe media may break a story every now and then but 90% of what they post is garbage. If there is validity to it, then the mainstream media will pick up on it.
Whether it is Faux News pimping for the right or left wing stuff like this "Clarence Thomas Gets Away With Breaking the Law; Ginny Thomas Shills for Right-Wing Interests", it is fake news designed to promote a political agenda. I just don't understand why people even read it -- much less link to it.
This kind of stuff has nothing to do with reality.
/rant
Yoda out...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 19:34:50 GMT -8
The Horror! Justice Thomas? A conservative? Who'd a thunk it! You know he's a Tom. He's even got a white wife with a J_O_B! Guess what! SHE's conservative too! The end is here! I just know it!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 21, 2011 19:53:21 GMT -8
I'm going to catch flack from the left and the right, but why do you folks read this stuff? The fringe media may break a story every now and then but 90% of what they post is garbage. If there is validity to it, then the mainstream media will pick up on it. Whether it is Faux News pimping for the right or left wing stuff like this "Clarence Thomas Gets Away With Breaking the Law; Ginny Thomas Shills for Right-Wing Interests", it is fake news designed to promote a political agenda. I just don't understand why people even read it -- much less link to it. This kind of stuff has nothing to do with reality. /rant Yoda out... LA Times mainstream enough? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 21, 2011 19:54:44 GMT -8
The Horror! Justice Thomas? A conservative? Who'd a thunk it! You know he's a Tom. He's even got a white wife with a J_O_B! Guess what! SHE's conservative too! The end is here! I just know it! A conservative that does not report income. Who'd a thunk it! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 20:01:45 GMT -8
The Horror! Justice Thomas? A conservative? Who'd a thunk it! You know he's a Tom. He's even got a white wife with a J_O_B! Guess what! SHE's conservative too! The end is here! I just know it! A conservative that does not report income. Who'd a thunk it! The nerve! It's not like he's a Demcrtic Rep from NY or the Sec Treasury or anything. I'm opening a Turbotax instruction business in DC. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 22, 2011 8:52:51 GMT -8
The Astroturf concern about the USSC of late is strictly related to the unconstitutional nature of Obamacare and the necessity for the USSC to rule accordingly. As it is said "If the law is on your side, pound on the law; if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither is on your side, pound on the table."
Clearly, the left has neither the law nor the facts on their side on Obamacare's constitutionality so they engage in character assassination. Nothing to see here.... move along...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 10:31:17 GMT -8
A conservative that does not report income. Who'd a thunk it! The nerve! It's not like he's a Demcrtic Rep from NY or the Sec Treasury or anything. I'm opening a Turbotax instruction business in DC. As if neither of them got called out for it? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 22, 2011 11:53:45 GMT -8
Thomas has been bought and paid for by the Koch brothers.
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Feb 22, 2011 13:24:53 GMT -8
"character assassination" (ppppft) PLEASE. How is the reporting of the facts "assassination"?
See AAA's post above, end of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 13:45:05 GMT -8
The Astroturf concern about the USSC of late is strictly related to the unconstitutional nature of Obamacare and the necessity for the USSC to rule accordingly. As it is said "If the law is on your side, pound on the law; if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither is on your side, pound on the table." Clearly, the left has neither the law nor the facts on their side on Obamacare's constitutionality so they engage in character assassination. Nothing to see here.... move along... So Thomas did report the money his wife earned. He just used invisable ink? |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Feb 22, 2011 14:36:32 GMT -8
The Astroturf concern about the USSC of late is strictly related to the unconstitutional nature of Obamacare and the necessity for the USSC to rule accordingly. As it is said "If the law is on your side, pound on the law; if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither is on your side, pound on the table." Clearly, the left has neither the law nor the facts on their side on Obamacare's constitutionality so they engage in character assassination. Nothing to see here.... move along... So Thomas did report the money his wife earned. He just used invisable ink? Yep. Hence, the "Nothing to see here..." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 22, 2011 16:27:14 GMT -8
Thomas amended his form. We are talking 2003 to 2007 if I remember correctly. Let's move on with something that matters. He either forgot or tried to hide something that has no consequence now that he has amended the form.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 16:46:50 GMT -8
Thomas amended his form. We are talking 2003 to 2007 if I remember correctly. Let's move on with something that matters. He either forgot or tried to hide something that has no consequence now that he has amended the form. You mean now that he was caught?  I think that her income from organizations that are advocating positions that come before him is of consequence. I find the amount of income to be of great consequence. Anyone posting here turn their nose up at her income as being inconsequential? If I had that much more in assets I might think about retiring.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 22, 2011 16:57:55 GMT -8
Thomas amended his form. We are talking 2003 to 2007 if I remember correctly. Let's move on with something that matters. He either forgot or tried to hide something that has no consequence now that he has amended the form. You mean now that he was caught? I think that her income from organizations that are advocating positions that come before him is of consequence. I find the amount of income to be of great consequence. Anyone posting here turn their nose up at her income as being inconsequential? If I had that much more in assets I might think about retiring. Well, it is out there now. What is the issue? Try to be honest, this is about how these folks will vote on ObamaKare and other issues that have little chance for survival when fully examined. Conservative Constitutional rulings are not what liberals want. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 17:03:26 GMT -8
You mean now that he was caught? I think that her income from organizations that are advocating positions that come before him is of consequence. I find the amount of income to be of great consequence. Anyone posting here turn their nose up at her income as being inconsequential? If I had that much more in assets I might think about retiring. Well, it is out there now. What is the issue? Try to be honest, this is about how these folks will vote on ObamaKare and other issues that have little chance for survival when fully examined. Conservative Constitutional rulings are not what liberals want. Conservatives did not like Brown vs. Board of Education. Conservatives do not like liberal Constitutional rulings. Liberals do not like conservative opinions. No news here. The issue is that he failed to report very significant income that his wife earned from groups that bring case before him. If a liberal Justice had not reported the same would you have wanted to bring it up? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 22, 2011 17:19:12 GMT -8
Well, it is out there now. What is the issue? Try to be honest, this is about how these folks will vote on ObamaKare and other issues that have little chance for survival when fully examined. Conservative Constitutional rulings are not what liberals want. Conservatives did not like Brown vs. Board of Education. Conservatives do not like liberal Constitutional rulings. Liberals do not like conservative opinions. No news here. The issue is that he failed to report very significant income that his wife earned from groups that bring case before him. If a liberal Justice had not reported the same would you have wanted to bring it up? Not in this type thing. It is very old news and now does not matter. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 22, 2011 17:33:11 GMT -8
>>> I think that her income from organizations that are advocating positions that come before him is of consequence.<<< Yeah, me too. Here's another example of one of those right wing nut judges hearing a case in which his wife has a position. Those right wing turds need to be impeached. Oh, wait... tinyurl.com/4mqt9rf |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 22, 2011 17:37:57 GMT -8
>>> I think that her income from organizations that are advocating positions that come before him is of consequence.<<< Yeah, me too. Here's another example of one of those right wing nut judges hearing a case in which his wife has a position. Those right wing turds need to be impeached. Oh, wait... tinyurl.com/4mqt9rfI hope you do not have to point out the distinct difference in these two sets of circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 23, 2011 9:47:50 GMT -8
I'd like to read a report on this issue from a less ideologically oriented source. You did notice the clenched red fist in the ad that appeared next to this article, didn't you? AzWm PS: Oh, yes, one more thing. Are you not aware that on AztecMesa the peferred manner of referring to the U.S. Supeme Court is SCOTUS. We have standards to maintain, after all. |
|
I think that her income from organizations that are advocating positions that come before him is of consequence. I find the amount of income to be of great consequence. Anyone posting here turn their nose up at her income as being inconsequential?
