LaxPower Back-Up Stick

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:55 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:40 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:00 pm Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

No attempt to address the hypocrisy. The same old same old sheepdip spin from the usual suspects. Why do you candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate black people so much? Y'all ain't even smart enough to understand sarcasm when it bites you in your ass. Have a good day gentlemen. I thought you college cumquats were a little smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:04 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:55 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:40 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:00 pm Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

No attempt to address the hypocrisy. The same old same old sheepdip spin from the usual suspects. Why do you candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate black people so much? Y'all ain't even smart enough to understand sarcasm when it bites you in your ass. Have a good day gentlemen. I thought you college cumquats were a little smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

Why?

candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:13 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:04 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:55 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:40 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:00 pm Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

No attempt to address the hypocrisy. The same old same old sheepdip spin from the usual suspects. Why do you candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate black people so much? Y'all ain't even smart enough to understand sarcasm when it bites you in your ass. Have a good day gentlemen. I thought you college cumquats were a little smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

Why?

candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate

That is an easy one... because there is a plethora of candy ass, pasty faced old and angry white liberal men on this forum.

Kinduv wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:53 am crad1eandsh00t, why are y0u s0 0bsessed with racism? y0u're 1ike the dude in hs wh0 was 0bsessed with ca11ing every0ne gay and then when he turns 40 0r whatever he d1v0rces his wife and marries a dude,

holmes435 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:28 am

Kinduv wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:53 am crad1eandsh00t, why are y0u s0 0bsessed with racism? y0u're 1ike the dude in hs wh0 was 0bsessed with ca11ing every0ne gay and then when he turns 40 0r whatever he d1v0rces his wife and marries a dude,

I'm sorry, are you having a stroke?

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:27 am I don't hate black people. You know, FTR.

I don't care for Clarence Thomas. But it's not because he's black.

You gotta get back on the meds or something, man.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:36 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:13 am

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:04 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:13 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:55 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:40 am

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:00 pm Well this "modern day liberal" believes the very strong evidence that Thomas was a serial harrasser of women in the workplace who then lied through his teeth about it, and still does. So, yeah, if he thinks I'm the problem, I'm good with that.

Why do you hate black people so much? I guess lily white liberal men are just as hateful as those white racists that marched in Charlottesville. You part of that high tech lynching as well CU? Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world of you candy ass liberal old white guys doesn't it? You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your new age progressive hate filled FLP dogma. Judge other least not you be judged yourself... who made a candy ass liberal old white guy qualified to judge any black man/women. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2nd-wom ... d=60948800 Does this also disgust you CU? What say you about these allegations of rape? Or does your hypocrisy overlook this stuff if it is someone from your own party?

You know if we pick this apart, the only guy really, really focused on race here is C&S. CU77 simply takes issue with the fact that this one guy is invested with life tenure for one of only nine seats on the Supreme Court in the face of pretty convincing evidence that he was a serial harasser of women in the workplace while they were his subordinates. CU77 states it simply, without reference to race or any other characteristic. C&S then goes off on a characteristic bizarro rant that drips of misunderstanding and frustration. Weirder and weirder.

No attempt to address the hypocrisy. The same old same old sheepdip spin from the usual suspects. Why do you candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate black people so much? Y'all ain't even smart enough to understand sarcasm when it bites you in your ass. Have a good day gentlemen. I thought you college cumquats were a little smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

Why?

candy ass pasty face old lily white liberal men hate

That is an easy one... because there is a plethora of candy ass, pasty faced old and angry white liberal men on this forum.

Perhaps. At least we all share love of lax and dogs

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

race-baiting

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

Oh boy there you go again...using those fancy words and expressions.

race-baiting

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card

Your making your point without an understanding of the context via the links I posted. Let us now respectfully discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute. I thought I had made my point clear, but you did not address it. Here is my take on this dispute. Ms Hill made her accusations against Justice Thomas. Why in the world does she then follow this degenerate creep when he moves to another job? That is it in a nutshell MD. If it makes sense to you I am more than willing to read your explanation as to why she would do so. I don't think a rational person follows a degenerate creep to his new job. That is just my own humble opinion.

If you had read the links I tied the accusations against Judge Thomas to even worse allegations against Lt. Governor Fairfax of Virginia who has kept his job in the face of "credible" accusations of rape. I will point out that all the usual suspects here, including you MD did not even find the time to consider the irony or pay any attention to what I was saying. You are all college educated successful business people. I would expect you are smart enough to understand where I was going. Nope, didn't happen, old cradle went on a racist rampage. Educate me here MD. Why does Lt. Governor Fairfax still have a job? Educate me even more. Why is it that no one on this forum seems to care about it?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:20 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:01 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am

DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?

This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.

But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.

Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.

MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.

I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.

This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!

BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.

SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.

What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.

Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.

Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card

Your making your point without an understanding of the context via the links I posted. Let us now respectfully discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute. I thought I had made my point clear, but you did not address it. Here is my take on this dispute. Ms Hill made her accusations against Justice Thomas. Why in the world does she then follow this degenerate creep when he moves to another job? That is it in a nutshell MD. If it makes sense to you I am more than willing to read your explanation as to why she would do so. I don't think a rational person follows a degenerate creep to his new job. That is just my own humble opinion.

If you had read the links I tied the accusations against Judge Thomas to even worse allegations against Lt. Governor Fairfax of Virginia who has kept his job in the face of "credible" accusations of rape. I will point out that all the usual suspects here, including you MD did not even find the time to consider the irony or pay any attention to what I was saying. You are all college educated successful business people. I would expect you are smart enough to understand where I was going. Nope, didn't happen, old cradle went on a racist rampage. Educate me here MD. Why does Lt. Governor Fairfax still have a job? Educate me even more. Why is it that no one on this forum seems to care about it?

whining again about "education" cradle?
Why do you think it matters whether you went to college or not in these discussions?

I don't have any issue with you wanting to debate with others the merits of Hill vs Thomas situation, nor you wanting to bring up the VA Lt. Gov case.

No issue at all. I'm not particularly interested in that debate...been there done that.

But yeah, the 'racist rampage' was way, way out of bounds.