walpurgisborn wrote:Thinking instead that it might be Thurgood Marshall
Rob does use living people (Leonard Nimoy, Sammy Hagar), but seems to prefer to use dead people where possible. So I'll agree with Marshall over Thomas.
walpurgisborn wrote:Thinking instead that it might be Thurgood Marshall
atalex wrote:Decorus wrote:You mean Clarence Thomas the guy who is facing disbarment over ethics violations?
To my knowledge, Thomas is not facing disbarment or any other penalty. A quirk of the law places the Supreme Court above the judicial body that monitors and punishes ethical transgressions by judges, and the only way to remove a Justice is through impeachment. Given the current make up of the U.S. Senate, I feel confident in saying that if Clarence Thomas (the most conservative member of the Court) were convicted of murdering orphans in a coke-fueled spree killing, the Republicans would filibuster any attempt to impeach him in favor of letting him rule on opinions from the comfort of his prison cell.



Saladman wrote:Does anyone, even with serious disagreements with Clarence Thomas, really think he's not an intelligent man? The two categories, conservative and intelligent, aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you're so proud to make what's not just a partisan shot on a non-political board, but a cheap, stupid partisan shot.
I am curious what angle Rob's pursuing by choosing him. Any Justice is likely to have his detractors. I wonder whether Thomas was a somewhat random choice, or deliberate. I'm somewhat open to the Thurgood Marshall idea, except I think the tie weights it towards Thomas.
Saladman wrote:Does anyone, even with serious disagreements with Clarence Thomas, really think he's not an intelligent man? The two categories, conservative and intelligent, aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you're so proud to make what's not just a partisan shot on a non-political board, but a cheap, stupid partisan shot.
I am curious what angle Rob's pursuing by choosing him. Any Justice is likely to have his detractors. I wonder whether Thomas was a somewhat random choice, or deliberate. I'm somewhat open to the Thurgood Marshall idea, except I think the tie weights it towards Thomas.
atteSmythe wrote:Yeah, Marie's being waaaay too heavy-handed here. I think she's going to have to quickly come to terms with the idea that if Parson's going to be her tool, he's not going to be her puppet.

karln wrote:Dr Pepper wrote:8. I can't place the man in the suit but i have a nagging feeling he's a cartoon character and one that would not be normally be cast as an intellectual.
I don't know why it would be him, but it looks to me very much like Peter Dickinson as he appeared in the movie 'Flight of Dragons': http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/images/0197/VolDesDragons07.jpg
Earlier in the movie he appeared in a brown suit that I think looked somewhat like the one in the comic, but annoyingly I can't find any images online of him in that outfit.
FWIW the character was a scientist from the 1980s with in interest in fairy tales, and in the movie he worked out scientific explanations for the dragons' powers of flight and fire-breathing.


Dr Pepper wrote:Maggie?
You got some splainin' to do!

multilis wrote:
If one of the casters/warlords was Bill Clinton, would you feel the same? (Other political side also accused of form of intentional misleading)
multilis wrote:If in real life you assume people are stupid/evil or good/intelligent based only on partisan or religious/athiest type reasons, that seems a form of strong prejudice similar to hating someone because they have black skin. Eg Clinton and Bush both had iraq bombed for WMD, Bush and Obama have so far done many very similar things in their presidency, yet people have judge them extremely differently even when each side does nearly same action
multilis wrote:Bush/Obmaa examples: afghan war - (compare mass protests "about oil"), nuke reduction treaties, no child left behind/Medicare, drones in pakistan, military tribunals, Guantanamo bay, having supposedly conflicting ties to halliburton/warren buffet... yet each partisan political side only sees guy on other side as "evil" or "stupid".
EarwaxRock wrote:Has there been any indication so far that time works any differently in the MK (like, say, Narnia)?

walpurgisborn wrote:And this is again a cae of false equivalence. Obama didn't start a war in Afghanistan, a better option would be to argue that he started a war in Libya. Bush didn't engage in any nuclear reduction treaties of note, and nearly caused issues with the Russian Federation by pushing to create a missile shield in former Soviet nations. The use of military tribunals and the failed closing of Gitmo are directly related to Congressional actions which have tied the President's hand, and finally, the difference between Halliburton and Warren Buffet is Warren Buffet never laid faulty electrical work which killed US soldiers, nor held a rape victim hostage, lost collected evidence of her assualt, and then tried to hide behind a contract when she sued. OTOH, I don't think Bush really had any strong ties to Halliburton in the first place, I believe that was entirely Dick Cheney. And I definitely don't believe that man was stupid....
Saladman wrote:Does anyone, even with serious disagreements with Clarence Thomas, really think he's not an intelligent man? The two categories, conservative and intelligent, aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure why you're so proud to make what's not just a partisan shot on a non-political board, but a cheap, stupid partisan shot.
Brucester wrote:Much as I enjoy this webcomic, I would very much like to see Parson go through that portal in the very near future.
Pretty please.
rkyeun wrote:Roses are red.
Violets are blue.

zilfallon wrote:Brucester wrote:Much as I enjoy this webcomic, I would very much like to see Parson go through that portal in the very near future.
Pretty please.
Well it isn't going to happen in near future. Because we'll see Maggie explaining stuff, Isaac insisting on keeping Parson there, Parson and Marie trying to get out and hit the portal, and some loads of action in Spacerock + some text updates about some people's inner thoughts in MK and in Spacerock (probably ossomer being emo, at least once)
Freemage wrote:He's also notorious for being Scalia's muppet--if there's a 7/2 split, it's almost always Scalia and Thomas on the "2" side. That makes him a very odd choice for the Pro-Free Will faction.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faced down some of his harshest critics yesterday, telling the nation's largest organization of black lawyers that he will not succumb to pressure to alter his conservative legal views even if it means being branded a traitor to his race.
In an address before the National Bar Association, the court's lone African-American justice said he will not succumb to pressure to "follow the prescription assigned to blacks" and that those who expect him to think a certain way simply because of his race are denying his "humanity" and want him to be "an intellectual slave."
Thomas' appearance marked the first time he has so squarely confronted his critics and demonstrated his continued resolve to take on his detractors even in the face of criticism that often takes on a scathing, personal tone.
In a powerful, emotional speech, Thomas appealed for greater tolerance of differing views among black Americans and said he felt deep pain at being the target of condemnation and rejection by members of his own race.
He said he had not come to defend his views, "but rather to assert my right to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as if I were an intellectual slave because I'm black."


Ansan Gotti wrote:All I can say is, there better be a panel next page with a random 'mancer walking up and saying, "Hey, that's the warlord we were warned about," and then Isaac saying, "This is not the warlord you're looking for." POOF.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests