Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (35189)	2/23/1999 5:45:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't live in the past; I had no opinion on Clarence Thomas in the past other than I thought he was not even close to being the best choice for the bench out of all the possibilities. I thought the Republican's used he out of tokenism and set it up to be maximumly absurd replacing a former and first Black justice who did everything to advance the cause of civil rights with a Black justice that seems to hate his own race. At the time; I didn't know what to make of the Anita Hill charges; I didn't like the whole thing then, but I didn't realize the full implications of it all till the Clinton get-even effort by the Republican's. I thought and think that Clarence Thomas is bad for the country. Bork would have been better IMO; at least he was qualified and not just a rubber stamp of Scalia. Not that I like Bork; I'm shocked to hear him speak his partisan positions, but he still probably would have been a good and qualified justice. I thought they screwed Bork far more than they screwed Thomas. Since Thomas was such an obvious token to the Republican's; trying to embarrass Dem's by forcing them to come out against a Black man when they fight so hard to help minorities in this country; that aspect of it sicked me of the Republican's. Why would I want to help the Republican's on something as pathetic as that? You seem to miss the point; I see this all as politics and I'm not going to support the side I'm against on policy; that is the goal the other side wants to score with; getting me to vote against my best interests using whatever crazy logic to get me to do it. I want fall for it. Thomas just added to an already clear verdict in my mind that the Republican party is substantially anti-Black. They use tokenism and hold up the rare examples of Black involvement in their Party, but vote substantially and consistently against civil rights interests.