General Discussion

xajj4791

(84 posts)

97. Actually, it is not.

Tue Jul 10, 2018, 06:12 PM

Jul 2018

It is a really good place to go and learn general information with links to the data so you can choose what information you want to delve deeper into. I would say that watching Fox News would be the least insightful way to learn.

Just because Wikipedia got bad press years ago for some dodgy people making edits to their own information or intentionally putting in wrong information does not invalidate the medium. When was the last time you were on Wikipedia and noticed something wrong? It is far more likely you just like to dog on them and act like "someone in the know" or that is hip like it is the greatest thing in the intellectual community.

In reality, Wikipedia is free and did a fantastic job of putting information out there for people to learn about without advertising and without fees. Argue that to all the kids who did not grow up with parents able to afford a copy of Britannica or that did not live close enough to a library to do their research that way.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can anyone explain how Clarence Thomas got confirmed? [View all] oberliner Jul 2018 OP

We had a lot more red state Democrats back then RandySF Jul 2018 #1

Senate confirmation elleng Jul 2018 #2

And part of that is because Biden and the committee FAILED to call for the testimony pnwmom Jul 2018 #7

That is the real story still_one Jul 2018 #26

More witnesses wouldn't have mattered jberryhill Jul 2018 #76

History has shown that in cases like this corroboration is extremely important. And the two women pnwmom Jul 2018 #82

Everyone who participated in that vote knew there were two additional witnesses jberryhill Jul 2018 #90

I disagree. I think they didn't want the American people to know, because then there would have been pnwmom Jul 2018 #92

Bingo! tonyt53 Jul 2018 #101

Wikipedia is the least insightful way to learn oberliner Jul 2018 #16

"Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica" EX500rider Jul 2018 #87

accuracy and insight are two different things jberryhill Jul 2018 #89

Actually, it is not. xajj4791 Jul 2018 #97

Note that most of the Dems confirming were from the South bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #49

Even more bizarre, he didn't have the usual judicial experience. unblock Jul 2018 #3

Times were different then DFW Jul 2018 #4

yes - agreed NewJeffCT Jul 2018 #29

different times back then. he should probably be impeached along with Gorsuch and the new guy JI7 Jul 2018 #5

Thank you! arthritisR_US Jul 2018 #10

The Bork vote happened during the same time period and he was not confirmed oberliner Jul 2018 #17

Hard to say exactly NewJeffCT Jul 2018 #32

there's another reason to impeach gorsuch tomp Jul 2018 #84

When Anita Hill accused him, he portrayed himself as a black man who was being lynched, pnwmom Jul 2018 #6

Anita Hill, you mean. n/t Dave Starsky Jul 2018 #13

Hah! Yes. n/t pnwmom Jul 2018 #69

Anita Thomas? oberliner Jul 2018 #18

LOL. I fixed that, thanks. n/t pnwmom Jul 2018 #70

Don't forget David Brock's role Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2018 #38

Thanks for the awful reminder. Brock... appalachiablue Jul 2018 #64

Isn't this guy a Dem operative now?? disillusioned73 Jul 2018 #68

He was one of the Republican smearers, who will live in infamy. Unfortunately, pnwmom Jul 2018 #71

Yep. Infamy! He was working with Ann Coulter. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2018 #93

I vaguely remember back then too Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2018 #86

Yes, it was People bdjhawk Jul 2018 #104

IKR? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2018 #107

Joe Biden Raine Jul 2018 #8

That was awful... Mike Nelson Jul 2018 #9

he is too old to run anyway AlexSFCA Jul 2018 #12

Because one side was pushing hard to advance their ideological agenda... JHB Jul 2018 #11

Thank you for sharing that oberliner Jul 2018 #20

Bork was the face of the Saturday Night Massacre... JHB Jul 2018 #47

Because white men didn't want to be seen believing a black woman. WhiskeyGrinder Jul 2018 #14

Why not vote against him on ideological grounds? oberliner Jul 2018 #21

It's almost as if misogynoir is a thing. WhiskeyGrinder Jul 2018 #34

Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall oberliner Jul 2018 #40

That was a huge factor in his nomination, IMO bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #46

The "high tech lynching" comment made no sense, spooky3 Jul 2018 #53

He was referring to the Committee members bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #58

I know he was, but think about it... spooky3 Jul 2018 #60

Agree, she was the injured party, the attacks were brutal bigbrother05 Jul 2018 #65

And got to damage millions of Americans over the years spooky3 Jul 2018 #67

Back then ideological grounds was not considered a reason to reject a nominee Yupster Jul 2018 #48

While Republicans of today might do that treestar Jul 2018 #99

52-48. Orsino Jul 2018 #15

Looking it up on Wikipedia is not particularly useful oberliner Jul 2018 #22

If you're asking why eleven Dems would vote yes... Orsino Jul 2018 #25

I don't believe that for a second. Kingofalldems Jul 2018 #28

Less useful than asking for objective information on DU? LanternWaste Jul 2018 #59

Exactly. Can't fool everyone. Kingofalldems Jul 2018 #81

You're not going to like the answer. Baitball Blogger Jul 2018 #19

Biden voted against his confirmation oberliner Jul 2018 #23

This was a huge problem back then. Worse than now. We had go-along Democrats Baitball Blogger Jul 2018 #24

Interestingly (and disturbingly) Murkowski was a YES vote as well oberliner Jul 2018 #27

That was Lisa's father, Frank. TexasTowelie Jul 2018 #35

Yep oberliner Jul 2018 #39

If it's important to be fair... Orsino Jul 2018 #30

So, we were a party with no vision. Baitball Blogger Jul 2018 #31

Or the Senate was still a "deliberative body"... Orsino Jul 2018 #33

But he STOPPED the two women from corroborating Anita's story. pnwmom Jul 2018 #73

"Polls showed that twice as many Americans supported as opposed Judge Thomas" is one reason. More Hoyt Jul 2018 #36

In 1987, the Democrats were able to block Bork from being confirmed oberliner Jul 2018 #42

Bork wasn't the first black man who would ever have been appointed. pnwmom Jul 2018 #74

This was right after Bork and EOE was big WhiteTara Jul 2018 #37

Because Anita Hill wasn't white... Blue_Tires Jul 2018 #41

I think the anita hill thing acted as a diversion Mosby Jul 2018 #43

Interesting insights oberliner Jul 2018 #45

Some of the stuff done with Bork was unseemly exboyfil Jul 2018 #52

Even after we found out his porn nickname is "Long Dong Silver" Greybnk48 Jul 2018 #44

Because the Republicans played it beautifully. MicaelS Jul 2018 #50

The race issue was a canard. imo saidsimplesimon Jul 2018 #54

Agree nt spooky3 Jul 2018 #56

Of course they believed a man over a woman. MicaelS Jul 2018 #66

Because he was black and the Democrats did not want a white man to replace the great Thurgood kimbutgar Jul 2018 #51

Coupled with the panel's refusal to take sex discrimination spooky3 Jul 2018 #55

It was a simpler time. Ahhh! n/t dogknob Jul 2018 #57

I watched a lot of the hearings on Thomas and Hill. leftyladyfrommo Jul 2018 #61

Beats the shit out of me. greatauntoftriplets Jul 2018 #62

Ask Joe Biden. vsrazdem Jul 2018 #63

For starters, no one believed Anita Hill. But he shouldn't have been confirmed. Vinca Jul 2018 #72

No one? Every woman I know believed her. But there wasn't a single woman on the panel. nt pnwmom Jul 2018 #75

That's what I meant. If you weren't on the panel it didn't matter much, did it? Vinca Jul 2018 #77

Sexual harassment wasn't taken nearly as seriously as now DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #78

Are you kidding? We have a sexual harasser as President. spooky3 Jul 2018 #98

Irrelevent, he'd be foreced to withdraw DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #100

No. Nt spooky3 Jul 2018 #102

He wouldn't have except for no_hypocrisy Jul 2018 #79

We didn't fight as hard as we could have. I think Uncle Joe has some responsibility for that. gibraltar72 Jul 2018 #80

Bush I heaven05 Jul 2018 #83

I'm sure you were around then. Tell us your recollection. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Jul 2018 #85

Long Dong Silver. sarcasmo Jul 2018 #88

Being a misogynist was perfectly acceptable in those days lunatica Jul 2018 #91

He was confirmed, in part, because of Southern Democrats. Tatiana Jul 2018 #94

It went pretty much like this EffieBlack Jul 2018 #105

Well you knew it was over when he dropped the "high tech lynching" phrase. Tatiana Jul 2018 #106

Misogyny is what got him confirmed. SummerSnow Jul 2018 #95

You guys are rediculous! xajj4791 Jul 2018 #96

Weak kneed democrats demosincebirth Jul 2018 #103