Quote (thesnipa @ May 4 2023 12:03pm)

i'm not speaking about an apples to pears comparison where you can break down context. i'm saying if we had the ability to just take out CT and his buddy, and instantly and seamlessly implant Soros-RGB you'd lose your mind.

same context, buys a house for RGB's mom, pays for schooling and vacations for RGB's nephew, pays for vacations for RGB and her husband. you'd not bother at all to find an actual quid quo pro, you'd not bother to determine if RGB can be swayed. you'd on the face of it lose your mind, and we both know it.

Quote (Goomshill @ May 4 2023 12:22pm)

They dont need to be apples to apples. The Sotomayor example is worse for her. She personally profited. She heard a case for the company that paid her. Two elements missing in the Thomas case- and no, charity for a poor kid isn't the same as pocketing millions. How many years of Thomas's salary did Sotomayor get from those book deals?

Nobody should be assuming malicious intent without any evidence of wrongdoing. Its not a no-show job. Its not a known briber paying millions to a crackhead. Its not a kleptocrat protected by the US state department. This kind of dot-connecting conspiracy theorizing in absence of any evidence is absolutely nuts. Assume the worst about Thomas, whats the accusation? Whats the quid pro quo? They don't even have that narrative, let alone evidence to support it. You can't just kick up a cloud of dirt and hope some of it sticks, with journalists on fishing expeditions so fruitless they were interviewing high school friends of some kid. Its another high tech lynching courtesy of democrats led by Joe Biden.

Quote (Goomshill @ May 4 2023 05:51am)

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus
Propublica once again tries to go knives out for Thomas

It turns out that justice thomas and his wife have been taking care of their grandnephew out of the goodness of their hearts after his dad was imprisoned for drug crimes. Like the fresh prince of bel air, the kid was taken out of the crime infested public school system and brought to high society where he attended expensive boarding schools and flew around with the thomases on harlan crow's trips. So instead of just winding up as one more statistic, justice thomas helped raise the kid up and sent him to private school when the public schools were too underachieving and dangerous, and harlan crow and another thomas friend helped defray the tuition costs. Thomas reported one of the donations when required, but only allowed them on condition they went directly to the kid's education trust instead of to the thomases, and didn't disclose other payments that weren't required to be disclosed under the reporting requirements (not a direct family member).
Propublica then sent a journalist to interview former schoolmates to dig into the personal life of some underage private kid and created a detailed report of his entire life. So now we know that Mark Martin, age 6 in 1998 when the thomases became his legal guardian, was raised by the thomases until 2011 in virginia, attended randolph-macon academy in 2010, then attended hidden lake academy for his junior year, went on trips to the caribbean, st petersburg and the baltics, got to cruise on a billionaire's yacht and ride jet skis. Instead of slinging crack and getting shot at.


Quid pro quo. Where the fuck is the quid pro quo in these storylines? Joe Biden received millions of dollars in bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch. Joe Biden turned around and withheld US foreign aid to force Ukraine to sack the investigator digging into that oligarch. Clear, direct quid pro quo. We know how the money changed hands, we know it was exorbitant amount of funds pocketed directly. We know it was an overt bribe, we know Joe Biden acted upon it and corrupted our entire foreign policy in a way that wound up leading us into a destructive war and potentially world war 3.
Justice Thomas sheltered a fatherless child. His friends helped pay to send him to boarding school so he could have a good life. Thomas didn't pocket a dime. Nobody had anything to ask of him, nor is there any allegation that anyone did.
So in one case, we see justice thomas having the moral character to look after a young child when his dad is imprisoned.
In the other case, we see a crackhead dropout getting paid millions for a no-show job so his dad can wield the state department to help a kleptocrat get away with his crimes.

And they had to dig into the personal life of a child and post it to everyone in the world, to get their scoop
I'm all for the first amendment but there's a point at which it might be reasonable to pass laws about journalists violating the privacy of children

Quote (thesnipa @ May 4 2023 12:39pm)

max dodge amazonka goes wooooooo

Quote (Goomshill @ May 4 2023 01:24pm)

desynced so hard I already answered your point in the post you replied to
you're shooting fireballs where I used to be when I'm already on top of you

Quote (thesnipa @ May 4 2023 01:29pm)

yes/no, replace the two people with soros/rgb and you're fine with it?

lie to me daddy.

Quote (Goomshill @ May 4 2023 01:38pm)

I'm getting some deja vu here. Was it with you or someone else on PARD in a thread in the last month or so where I pointed out how silly it is to engage in hypotheticals with zero stakes where anyone can make any claim about 'what they would say', when we have perfectly good examples right in front of us. Whatever thread that was, I said they could dig into my post history and find examples. Well, here we've already got a case where conservatives are targeting Sotomayor by holding her to the same standard liberals are trying to use to attack Thomas. And the Sotomayor example is clearly more damaging. Comparing "fostering a child for 15 years and sparing him a ghetto life" to "pocketing millions from a company who's case she ruled on at scotus". The whole no-standards-like-double-standards line.

In that other thread I was saying it would be very pointless to engage in hypotheticals because it so masturbatory, doesn't require two people. I'd say going after Thomas is wrong, you ask whether I'd say the same thing about a liberal justice, I'd say yes I'd say the same thing if it was soros/rgb, you'd say no I wouldn't, I'd say hey there's a reason why the senate explicitly bans 'impugning motives' because no constructive conversation can ever come from denying someone's claim about their own personal beliefs and interests. And all that requires only one person talking to a wall.

Quote (Ghot @ May 4 2023 01:55pm)

^Goonshill


Good point.


But... where exactly is Goom's Hill located? :)