Brock Challenged by FNC (David Brock Exposed By Good Interview)

Media Research Center ^ | March 19, 2002

[SpringheelJack]

Go to oyez.nwu.edu

It has texts of majority and minority opinions, judicial case histories, etc. If you are interested in the U.S. Supreme Court, it's really a superb site.

[USAF vet]

That is a fantastic site. Thanks.

[uncbob]

The Troll comment aside, thank you for enlightening me. That was (almost) the first civil response I had since coming here tonight.

So how come if you read all these people and supposedly are such an authority on Thomas that you had to be enlightened. I would have thought you would have known all about the facts of Thomas's decisions and written opinions.

[StriperSniper]

Kudos to Asman

Imagine - Fox News Sunday, Hume, Snow, and Asman with dashole for the whole hour.

[SpringheelJack]

You may not be a troll, but you have yet to establish any credibility. You blindly condemned Judge Thomas's actions on the Court, even though it is obvious you had never bothered to read any of his materials - just like a DU hack. Too bad you couldn't show Thomas the same consideration that you bragged you showed Ivins.

Most Freepers don't wildly regurgitate Democratic propaganda, and since you're doing all of this on your first day of registering, you raise a lot of red flags. In other words, we've seen guys like you before. I really do hope you are what you say you are, but past experience with first-day ranters suggests the opposite.

[Fred Mertz]

What does Gary Aldrich have to say about Brock's interviews and writings?

[PJ-Comix]

Interesting that USAF Vet (who joined FR today) defends self-admitted liar David Brock and castigates Judge Thomas about whom has has offered not one whit of SOLID evidence as proof to support his critique. Obviously this newbie (Immigrant from DU?) hasn't yet learned you need to have your FACTS straight on the FR before you start flaming away.

[uncbob]

Most Freepers don't wildly regurgitate Democratic propaganda, and since you're doing all of this on your first day of registering, you raise a lot of red flags. In other words, we've seen guys like you before. I really do hope you are what you say you are, but past experience with first-day ranters suggests the opposite.

You have him nailed properly especially his comments about Thomas they are nothing but repeats as you say from the left wing press. If he is as well read as he states then he would have read the columns by conservatives that adequately refuted those statements about Thomas's work on the court

[agrace]

I saw the last half of the Asman interview live, it was great, especially after seeing Brock touting his book all over the known universe. Thanks for posting the whole transcript! :)

[USAF vet]

Never said I was "an authority on Thomas." I look at Thomas and Hill the same way as I'd break up a fight between my kids and I had to figure out who and what started it. It stunk, and I believe the smell comes from Thomas. Yes, there is no hard evidence, but sometimes there's no hard evidence when I sort out my kids' disagreements either. As for enlightenment, you'd have to agree that no one could expect to know everything, no matter how much they read. After tonight, I'll change my position about Thomas now from "completely ineffectual" to "largely ineffectual".

Sorry if I offended anyone here who may have particularly delicate sensibilities regarding Justice Thomas. I'm not looking for a fight, but if somebody insults me, I'm not going to walk away either.

BTW, FWIW, AFC (ret.)

[Leto]

Gee a newby member today, thanks for the great insight. Anita and the Liberial (RAT) smear squad lied their butts off, but that is par for the course with the rats.

BTW turkey, while Thomas doesn't ask questions from the bench, he does write opinions. His opinions are uniformly brillant.

[USAF vet]

Ranting? I was attacked and fought back. You yourself accused me of being a troll. As you may have noticed, I don't believe in toeing the party line, just for the sake of toeing the party line. I said from the beginning that I'm not a fan of Thomas. You've moved me from that position, somewhat, but I still need to be convinced. But it's late here on the east coast, so I'll be leaving now. I appreciate your references though.

[P-Marlowe]

I believe that if you actually spent some time reading what Thomas has written you will find that he is the second smartest Justice on the Court.

Unlike the other Justices on the Court, who all think they are the samrtest person in the world, Thomas has the humility to recognize genius when he sees it. He sees it in Justice Scalia. That is why he tends to defer to him. But Thomas is the most independent Justice on the court.

Now go read his opinions and then read his speeches. If you can name a single justice, other than Scalia, who is more intelligent or more consistently conservative, then we will accept your opinion. In the meantime don't just sit around and lazily repeat the liberal spin doctor propoganda. It won't work here.

[PJ-Comix]

Never said I was "an authority on Thomas."

It sure didn't stop you from spouting unproven assertions about him.

Yes, there is no hard evidence, but sometimes there's no hard evidence when I sort out my kids' disagreements either.

Translation: "I'm ignorant about the facts about Thomas so I will just throw out the incredibly lame excuse about sorting out the disagreements of kids."

After tonight, I'll change my position about Thomas now from "completely ineffectual" to "largely ineffectual".

How big of you. And again you take a position with no proof.

I'm not looking for a fight, but if somebody insults me, I'm not going to walk away either.

Your self-admitted ignorance was pointed out. Instead of whining about it being an insult why don't you get your facts together? Or better yet, don't make a statement without being able to back it up with FACTS.

[uncbob]

Don't have sensibilities regarding THomas . I just know when someone is parroting left wing articles about Thomas's work on the court as I have read them also . But I have also read the rebutals and you came on here making very positive statements about his performance as if your were an authority and then it was shown you weren't

Plus you now say well he is only LARGELY ineffective rather than now that I see there are facts I was unaware I will have to delve further into the matter.

And you talking about breaking up a fight between youyr kids is the typical Liberal " A pox on both their house argument" that usually occurs from the leftwing anchors on TV after the leftwing attacks somebody and they have the AUDACITY to fight back

[P-Marlowe]

I was attacked and fought back.

Wrong. You attacked. Your arguments were weak and essentially nothing but fluff from DU and the liberal spin doctors. You just happened to meet your match here.

Note to lurkers: Don't try this at home. Liberal cliches don't work here. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[PJ-Comix]

Ranting? I was attacked and fought back.

Why were you attacked? For spouting an opinion on a subject about which you admitted you had few facts. Instead of whining about being attacked, why don't you seek the FACTS?

You yourself accused me of being a troll.

Let's see. Your FIRST DAY on the FR you come in here spouting the typical leftist tripe. Sorry, you raise all the red flags of being a troll.

I said from the beginning that I'm not a fan of Thomas.

And you also said you lacked the facts to back up this assertion other than some vapid comment about breaking kids' fights.

You've moved me from that position, somewhat, but I still need to be convinced.

You can look the facts up on the Net. But what amazes me is how you come in to this forum with your guns blasting and yet you admit you lacked the facts to back up your loud stand.

[mrustow]

Exactly! And when they did have him on, they always required that he be accompanied by a socialist "chaperon" to contradict him, something no socialist writer ever had to put up with. Brock complained quite a bit about this at the time. (I believe I saw his complaints in the paperback edition of The Real Anita Hill.)

[PJ-Comix]

Wrong. You attacked. Your arguments were weak and essentially nothing but fluff from DU and the liberal spin doctors. You just happened to meet your match here.

I'm still chuckling about how he claims that Thomas must have been wrong based on nothing much except his experience of breaking up kids' fights. Hmmm....I remember chickens clucking loudly in the morning outside my bedroom window when I was a kid. Based on this experience perhaps I should attempt to make a statement on European foreign policy in the 1990s.

[P-Marlowe]

When I was a young freeper, I had occasion to post some really stupid comments and within a few seconds I was soundly corrected by many intelligent freepers. I have had to apologize for my stupidity in public and later withdraw my stupid comments.

I've learned that it is best to engage one's mind before pushing the post reply button. It also helps to know a little about a subject before giving an opinion.

Perhaps our newby will learn something from this?