(November 16, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(November 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Anita Hill claimed sexual harassment against him. Were her claims politically motivated? Probably.....but that doesn't mean she wasn't harassed. Just because a case is politically motivated does not mean the case does not exist or has no merit.
The left lined up lockstepp against Thomas and condemned him for his behavior. A few years later the left lined up lockstepp in support of Clinton and excused his behavior. Who are the real hypocrites?
You're missing my point. I'm not casting aspersions about the left's refusal to condemn Clinton, or your refusal to condemn Dubya, for dishonesty and potentially criminal behavior.
My point was a political one, and not about justice at all.
(November 16, 2014 at 8:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: Did simplemoss again write something of non-substance? He did!.....Why am I not surprised.
It was a pretty good point. You'd do well to answer it, rather than pretend it didn't land.
Because trust me, it did.
Explain the contradiction between claiming non-partisanship at the same time you excoriate only one party.
Or, alternatively, lose the point in the mind of the reading audience.
So when I said Bush basically lied to get us into war with Iraq I was excoriating the democrats?
I'm critical of both parties.
