This message was self-deleted by its author

[CTyankee]

This message was self-deleted by its author (CTyankee) on Sun Apr 21, 2019, 06:31 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[samnsara]

1. actually i had never heard that saying until just now..

...so im thinking its forgotten.

[CTyankee]

3. I think you'll hear it pretty soon...I wouldn't be surprised...

If you want an interesting history of this remark, you can research it. I think it foretold things to come...

[Honeycombe8]

23. Why are YOU associating what someone else said with Biden? What is your purpose?

Please explain.

Since Biden didn't say that, or approve it...it has nothing to do with Biden. So why are YOU associating it with Biden?

I see you support Kamala Harris. Is Harris responsible for what some political hack said about Anita Hill back in the day?

[cwydro]

37. My question also.

Smh.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Fair question... if Joe said it, show where he said it, otherwise, completely unfair to bring it up.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ucrdem]

72. Biden did NOT say this. David Brock said it in a 1993 book 2 years later. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Did he say it himself, or attribute it to Biden?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ucrdem]

112. Brock wrote it in 1993 book called "The Real Anita Hill" defending Clarence Thomas.

The Real Anita Hill is a controversial 1993 book written by David Brock in which the author claimed to reveal the "true motives" of Anita Hill, who had accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation hearings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill

[CTyankee]

222. And I referenced the book's origins in a RW rag in my OP. Go back and read what I wrote.

[ucrdem]

255. But the "disgraceful lie" is yours alone.

Brock never attributed his quote to Biden and if he had, you should have posted a link and quotation. But he did not.

[DownriverDem]

26. It won't work

Nothing in Biden's past compares with trump. Foreign leaders are begging him to run. He can beat trump. He won't take trump's crap. trump does not want to run against Biden. trump needs Pennsylvania. Biden can win Pennsylvania. He was born and raised in Pennsylvania. Biden has a close relationship with blue collar workers. They will support him because they know how much trump has screwed him. I would love to see Biden run with a strong progressive Dem woman (Harris?). She would then be positioned to become the first woman President! (remember we have not had a woman VP yet either)

[Chin music]

232. +1

[rzemanfl]

45. Bookmarking. n/t

[Autumn]

6. You'll hear it a lot after Biden announces. The one thing you can count on Republicans

is that they are hypocrites.

[still_one]

43. They will be doing it against every Democratic candidate they think can get the nomination.

[Lefta Dissenter]

256. Exactly.

Harrumph.

[enough]

18. Believe me, it is not forgotten by those who live through that time. NT

[Honeycombe8]

24. Why? Biden didn't say that. It has nothing to do with him, any more than w/Kamala Harris.

Why would you associate it with any candidate who didn't say it or approve it?

[DownriverDem]

28. We need Biden

These are not normal times. Folks are begging him to run.

[Eliot Rosewater]

50. Then why in the FUCK is it being posted here AT ALL

Oh my FUCKING GOD what is GOING ON HERE

[cwydro]

40. He didn't say it.

Sad someone would post this here.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. And FUCKING REFUSE to take it down or admit they are WRONG

Where can liberals go?

[cwydro]

67. We'll see a lot more of this.

Very sad.

[CTyankee]

96. SAD?!!! I clearly said in my post that it wasn't true, didn't I?

Please READ OPs before you post. I would request to you that you extend the same courtesy to me that you would expect from me or any others on DU.

thank you in advance.

[cwydro]

132. Oh, I read it.

Pretty transparent.

Very clear indeed.

[CTyankee]

136. And CLEVER too, don't you think? How well I hid my true intentions...ah it's the working of a

brilliantly EVIL mind but YOU were able to see through my post and see what I was REALLY up to! You know how truly evil I am, a scourge upon the DU community!

After 15 years on DU I have at last been UNMASKED!

You are truly brilliant, cwydro!!!

[cwydro]

145. Hit a nerve CT?

No, not so clever...as others have pointed out.

[CTyankee]

150. Again, brilliant, just brilliant...

[cwydro]

158. I've noted this.

It actually surprised me, didn’t expect it from you.

But, I imagine there’ll be more such surprises to come from other unexpected sources.

But now I no longer will consider you an unexpected source.

Kamala, huh? Riigghht.

[pangaia]

252. You are WRONG about CTYankee.

I do not feel she should have posted it but, in now way was there malicious intent.

[Cha]

205. Please Put it In the Headline. That would

be the honorable way to post it.

Otherwise it's just click bait, and the perception that you're trying to smear VP Joe Biden.

[CTyankee]

206. I don't know about "honorable" as I did not write anything remotely dishonorable.

I'm fine with rewriting my headline.

[Cha]

210. Yeah..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=78961

[Demsrule86]

262. Take it down.

[mahina]

259. +1

[Demsrule86]

261. Biden didn't say it...just another hit post.

[louis c]

2. Oh, I expect the Repules to lie about Biden and Kamala...

...I am pulling for a Biden-Harris ticket, so they may use that line against both of them.

What's your point? that Republicans will play dirty?

[CTyankee]

4. Yes, and we had better be prepared for this one...just sayin'...

[louis c]

9. We've got to be prepared for more than that...

...don't think Kamala won't be answering Willie Brown questions if she is nominated or on the ticket.

It has been my experience that the General Election for President gets a bit nasty, and I expect this one to set records.

[CTyankee]

12. I think Kamala's staff know what is in store for them.

Often time we're like Lucy explaining that the rain falls up and Charlie Brown trying desperately to rebut her, to no avail.

[Eliot Rosewater]

62. Why is this UNTRUE statement still on DU , why havent you REMOVED it yet

[CTyankee]

68. Read my post again. I say it isn't true right in the OP. My question is will the GOP bring it up

as if it IS true (since they lie about everything anyway).

I lived thru this thing. As I say in my OP, and I will repeat, Biden NEVER said it, never, never, never. Brock did and has since renounced his former views and left the Republican party. That won't stop the repukes from repeating it as if it IS true, so as to dim our prospects with women voters.

Gosh, I wish folks would READ my post better. You would see what I meant. (sigh)

[LongtimeAZDem]

69. You posted an inflammitory headline, and then covered yourself in the post.

[CTyankee]

71. Yes, it was inflammatory at the time and will be again if we are not prepared to deal with it!

Damnit, this makes me mad! If we can't deal with warnings that this shit can happen, then we are not preparing ourselves for a very nasty campaign indeed.

geez, this is unreal...

[LongtimeAZDem]

94. Your concern is noted

[Tipperary]

147. You would think if she wanted to say it was a rw talking point (which it is) -

That she would have put that in the headline, not in the text. But no, as others have mentioned, I do NOT think that was the intention.

[LongtimeAZDem]

149. I agree with you, and all we are doing at this now is kicking it for her, which I think is the point

[CTyankee]

227. Well, you are wrong. I said it would be used by the RW right in my post.

And you are making up "my intention." You need to stop saying things that are not true because I never said them and the proof is in my actual words. Right there.

[pangaia]

253. CT, I KNOW you would not post his in bad faith, and have said so here.

But, I wish you had not posted it, even with the explanation that it is not true.
No reason to.
It just ads another little spec that web crawlers can find.

Other than that, I miss your art 'lectures.'
How ya doin'?

[CTyankee]

273. I'm good. Feeling great after getting a gastroenterologist to diagnose my health issue.

My book, Immutable Truth: Essays on Art, will be published soon. Waiting for my editor daughter to finish it up (she has done two sections already).

Hope you are great, despite the pall of this president over us every day. I hope for the best, tho, even if we have to prepare for the worst.

[Lazy Daisy]

5. They won't need to dig it up

It's never really gotten buried. Our job is to make sure it's attached to it's proper owner, David Brock.

[CTyankee]

8. Better yet, Brock could come forward and tell what happened.

But there's no telling what lies will be spun from this remark. It's there and they will use it...

[Lazy Daisy]

13. If it becomes a news piece

I'm sure there are news outlets that will bring Brock into it. Not Fox of course, but all the others.

[CTyankee]

14. Of course the Fox viewers, who refuse to watch other shows, won't hear the whole story or it

will be buried.

[Lazy Daisy]

42. It'll be tied to us anyway around it

If not attached to Biden it will be "see, Dems are anti-woman". Brock is a Democratic operative.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't

[MrsCoffee]

76. Yeah, I'm really concerned that Fox Viewers are going to view the Dems as anti-woman.

You have got to be kidding me, lol.

None of the Fox viewing mouth breathers give any shits about the actual habitual abuser-in-chief, but they are suddenly gonna grow concern and think that Democrats are anti-woman?

I just don't get where you guys come up with this stuff.

[Lazy Daisy]

180. Not particularly concerned with Fox viewers myself

Just making a general observation. Believe it or not, there are a whole lot of people out there that aren't Fox, CNN or MSNBC viewers that will get twisted news. All it takes is for those so called mouth breathers to start.

There's a whole lot of people out there that do give a shit about "abuser-in-chief" and would be concerned over this bit of misinformation.

As for your "you guys" classification.... you mean people that live in a world, where politics isn't 24/7? Just about everyone of my friends are apolitical. They don't give it a second thought until election day. They only get the information they are fed.

[Cattledog]

7. They will try and smear whoever the candidate is.

It won't work when Trump preaches from the gospel of "Debbie does Dallas."

[JI7]

10. probably not since it might help him win over some of the white male Trump supporters

the ones who are not doing so well economically and vote on their bigotry. Biden being a straight white man is more acceptable than a minority or female. and something like that would make them more comfortable voting for Biden.

[CTyankee]

16. that's just perverse enough to be true, sadly...

[TCJ70]

11. And they'll call him a socialist...n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. It serves no good purpose to trot out old discredited Republican dirt to ask if they will use it

They will use anything they can, fact or fiction, with no regard to which is which. And I don't think it helps our side to help publicize the Search terms for them.

[CTyankee]

17. This is a Democratic discussion board and I think we have to be prepared for it.

You can bet the repukes are...

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I think Biden can be a strong candidate, but not the "silver bullet" soome make him out to be

Biden has many strengths but also some weaknesses. In the abstract, his term as VP casts him in a positive light for many. The weaknesses will come into focus once he is a candidate, especially if he wins the nomination. I respect those who support Biden because of his record of public service, and because of his known qualities as a fighter. I am more dubious of the argument that Biden is the safest bet for Democrats to nominate in order to defeat Trump.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. VERY dubious!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[George II]

184. No doubt the "weaknesses" - real and created, will begin to come into focus....

....even before he becomes a candidate, that's how it went with Mayor Pete, Beto, Harris, and even Warren.

I've been holding off as "undecided" for now, but most likely once he becomes a candidate I'll be supporting him. At least he won't be dismissed any longer as not being the "front runner".

[DeeDeeNY]

20. Also the old plagiarism charges

https://www.businessinsider.com/plagiarism-scandal-joe-biden-first-presidential-run-1988-2019-3

[CTyankee]

21. I can't access your link, but you are absolutely correct. I faintly remember the plagiarism

stuff but I don't think it will be too terrible. The Anita Hill thing will be flung at feminists who support Biden and who may not be old enough to remember what that issue was all about. We must be prepared!

[Honeycombe8]

22. I don't recall that. Just looked it up. That has nothing to do with Biden.

Why would you even mention that? Biden didn't say that.

What's your deal, here? Why would you associate that with Biden?

[Eliot Rosewater]

63. NOPE nothing yet it is STILL BEING DISCUSSED HERE FREELY AS IF JOE SAID IT

I want this REMOVED now or fuck this, there is NO POINT to do this anymore

[CTyankee]

230. "As if"??? There is no "as if." You need to stop this, it is obviously unsettling you...

[McKim]

25. Instead of Anticipating a Response from Attackers.

Instead of anticipating an attack and thinking up a response, Biden should talk about what he can do for struggling Americans. Don’t let them set the debate!!!!!

[Iggo]

27. They won't have to. We'll do it for them.

It's like we're trying to lose.

[BlueFlorida]

29. The Biden that people remember is Obama's VP

All that is old news. Biden has apologized for the Hill-Thomas fiasco.

It will have no effect on Biden.

[Demit]

36. Actually, what he said was "I am sorry if she felt she didn't get a fair hearing."

[BlueFlorida]

49. Here is an actual quote from Biden

“Anita Hill was vilified when she came forward by a lot of my colleagues, character assassination. I wish I could’ve done more to prevent those questions, the way they asked them,” he told NBC. “It takes enormous courage for a woman to come forward.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886484/joe-biden-anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford

“To this day, I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to get her the kind of hearing she deserved, given the courage she showed by reaching out to us."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-to-this-day-i-regret-i-couldnt-come-up-with-a-way-to-get-her-the-kind-of-hearing-she-deserved/2019/03/26/961ab43c-5028-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.b864225ffdb3

[Demit]

64. Said Biden: "The message I've delivered before is I am so sorry if she believes that."

When he appeared at Glamour's Women of the Year summit in November 2017 he was asked: “Professor Hill has said herself that she expected a fair process and did not feel that she had one. Given your leadership on these kinds of issues, do you have any message to her now?” Said Biden: “The message I’ve delivered before is I am so sorry if she believes that.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-woman-just-asked-joe-biden-if-he-wouldve-handled-anita-hill-differently_n_5a09f7b1e4b0bc648a0d18f6


More important than anything is how Anita Hill characterized his handling of the hearing and his subsequent apology:
“He also doesn’t understand that it wasn’t just that I felt it was not fair,” Hill said. “It was that women were looking to the Senate Judiciary Committee and his leadership to really open the way to have these kinds of hearings. They should have been using best practices to show leadership on this issue on behalf of women’s equality. And they did just the opposite.”
Hill also said that she does not feel Biden has taken “responsibility for” victimization she experienced as a result of the hearing.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anita-hill-joe-biden-apology_n_5a15a8c4e4b09650540ec7b6


Here is an excellent article that gives the background on how Biden conducted the hearing. It's an extended interview with five Democratic lawmakers who were there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/anita-hill-and-her-1991-congressional-defenders-to-joe-biden-you-were-part-of-the-problem/2017/11/21/2303ba8a-ce69-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?utm_term=.3f624963131d

[BannonsLiver]

109. Yeah

I know how badly you want that to stick but it’s unlikely it will. Litigated over and over again and most voters will care more about his policies in the now rather than whether or not Anita Hill will ever be satisfied with Biden’s apologies.

It’s old, tired news just like it was the last thousand times it’s been resurrected.

[Autumn]

113. He could have given her the kind of hearing she deserved. Biden was in charge of overseeing

how Anita Hill's testimony was presented to the senator's before they decided to confirm Thomas. He refused to bring in additional witnesses who could have confirmed her claims to the hearings. Has he ever explained that?


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/27/18262482/joe-biden-anita-hill-2020-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh

[BlueFlorida]

133. Flogging a dead horse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse

[Autumn]

143. You post that he regrets he couldn't give her the hearing she deserved.

I post the link and excerpt from your own article with the section you ignored showing he was in charge and could have easily given her the hearing she deserved but he chose not to and that's flogging a dead horse?

[BlueFlorida]

167. The short answer is yes.

Move on. Next?

[Autumn]

168. I take it you're not here for the conversation.

Oh well.

[Demit]

170. Basically, they're all only going to go lalalalala can't hear you.

They don't want to confront the shaky judgment he has shown in the past.

[George II]

182. What's to "hear"? The only wayback machine I'm aware of is on the internet. EVERY ONE...

...of our candidates have said/done things that can be characterized as "shaky judgment".

I'm more concerned about what our candidates have done recently with respect to legislating and governing. I think Biden's eight years as VP and overall 35 years of leadership in the Senate overshadows even the Anita Hill episode, especially considering that he's apologized a number of times.

[Demit]

201. Yes, you should look into his record in the Senate, definitely.

That's where Biden's actions "with respect to legislating" are there for all to see. Like the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, which made credit card companies like MBNA happy, and people with crushing debt their indentured servants for life.

Did you know that MBNA was Biden’s largest contributor for much of his time in the Senate, while also employing his son Hunter as an executive? Maybe not, if you're only concerned with what he's done recently. But he's certainly been a great friend to the financial services industry throughout his long career.

[George II]

207. MBNA was prohibited from contributing to his campaigns, surely you realize that....

And along those lines, based on STATE laws (not Federal) Delaware is a haven for financial companies. That means that they employ thousands of people, who individually contributed to political campaigns - that's maintenance, housekeeping, clerical, accounting, etc. Yes, collectively the "industry" supported him.

So, MBNA was NOT Biden’s "largest contributor", but employees of MBNA might have been.

I sure wish people would familiarize themselves with campaign finance laws before they try to bash our candidates, ANY of our candidates, with respect to their financial supporters.

[Demit]

243. "Employees" being top executives at MBNA, giving $1000 each, the maximum allowed, in

the primary then the general election. I doubt any members of the maintenance and housekeeping staff were giving that.

Biden was long known as the senator from MBNA. He got a lot of scrutiny regarding his aggressive support for the bankruptcy bill back in 2008 when he became Obama's VP pick and he's going to get a lot now. The pain that that legislation caused so many middle and working class families is very real and not at all in the distant past. Biden is vulnerable on this.

This is not "bashing." These are cold hard facts.

[George II]

248. So what was the aggregate contributions from MBNA, any guesses? Biden was only "long known as....

...the Senator from MBNA" only by those who wish to think that and criticize him.

BTW, if it's only speculation or exaggeration, yes, it IS "bashing".

[BlueFlorida]

175. Actually, I'm not going to participate

in Biden-bashing. I know the devotees of the messianic one are worried and are pushing an agenda of making Biden look bad over dead stories.

I want no part of it.

[Autumn]

176. How is his factual, truthful history bashing?

The difference is I posted facts. The fact's that are easily verified on Biden's history, and actions and his actual words. I posted the link and excerpt from your own article with the section you ignored showing he was in charge and could have easily given her the hearing she deserved but he chose not to do so

You toss out "devotees" "messianic one" "Biden bashing". Got news for you, when Biden announces this is not a dead story.

[BlueFlorida]

177. It is cherry-picking one statement out of context

Any reader can see what is being done.

[Autumn]

178. Glad to see that you admit you did that. Which is why I posted more facts that came

from your posted article. So there's really nothing more to say.

[ehrnst]

231. "So there's really nothing more to say."

I guess this line of discussion is getting uncomfortable?

[George II]

183. What amazes me is that this is starting already. I speculated that it wouldn't start until....

....a day or two before his announcement.

[mcar]

191. Which means BS's actions and statements from 35-40 years ago

should get legitimate scrutiny, right?

[Autumn]

226. I don't know where you've been but his action, his "essay" and other actions and votes, past

and present, his honeymoon his houses and just about anything else are big topics of discussion in this forum.

[ehrnst]

228. At least they have more than a passing interest in facts...

[George II]

215. What will we see next?

[George II]

181. That was what, almost 30 years ago. He's addressed it a number of times and MOST people....

....are willing to move on.

What's next? I knew stuff like this would happen once Biden's announcement became imminent.

[hlthe2b]

30. Umm, it was clearly former RWer and Clinton attacker, David Brock who said it...

Biden said nothing of the kind. He failed to handle the Thomas hearings as he should have and thus failed Anita Hill, but to smear him with this? No. I will not stand by silently and allow that to happen.

Why would you think any of us would?

[Honeycombe8]

32. Yes, the OP won't respond to question why HE is falsely associating that w/Biden.

I've asked him twice to explain why he is associating something said by someone with any candidate who had nothing to do with it.

He is not responding. That speaks volumes.

He is a Harris supporter.

[CTyankee]

119. OK,I've done a lot of explaining here but folks aren't listening or not liking what they hear.

Here is my "volume," Honeycomb8. Biden never said that statement but at the time it got FALSELY somehow attributed to him. It was that guy Brock who confessed and completely cleared Joe of this statement.

Now, I gave links to reference why I brought this whole thing up. It seems folks here want to plug their ears and not hear about it. But I predict this thing will rise like a zombie. Falsehoods often do and when they do their rebuttals often don't get the attention they should.

Be prepared, fellow Dems! It is better to be prepared and have it not happen than the other way around. Don't you agree?

[lapucelle]

129. That statement was NEVER attributed to Joe Biden. Do you have a link?

David Brock: In a book trashing Hill’s reputation, the conservative operative famously called her “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty,” a phrase that speaks for itself. Nearly a decade later, Brock, who went on to found the left-wing watchdog group Media Matters, apologized for the statement in his book, Blinded by the Right, admitting that he published “virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation” he could find in order to discredit her, and even coordinated with the Thomas camp in that effort.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/anita-hill-sexism

Anita Hill 'hit man' recants
The whole country, glued to the television, seemed to divide into right and left or male and female asking: Who was the victim and who was the liar? Was Thomas subject to "a high-tech lynching"? Was Hill the target of a White House smear campaign? Thomas won confirmation by a bare two votes, but the case never really closed. It was argued in kitchens and in print.

In the aftermath, writer David Brock became the chief partisan of the right, building up his reputation by tearing down Hill as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." In his vitriolic book, "The Real Anita Hill," the writer stripped the clothes off her character, describing her as incompetent, unstable, even kinky.

Now the "Honk if You Believe Anita" bumper stickers are gone. Justice Thomas is on the court, with mud clinging to the hem of his robe. Professor Hill is at Brandeis, the reluctant Rosa Parks of harassment. And David Brock has recanted.

"A little bit nutty and a little bit slutty"? This recovering hit man confesses in an upcoming Talk magazine article and in a new book that he was on a search-and-destroy-Anita mission.

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Anita-Hill-hit-man-recants-2904817.php

And last week the mystery took another turn, thanks to former American Spectator character assassin David Brock, the man designated by the right to destroy Hill's reputation and scrub Thomas'. Brock confesses in a Talk magazine excerpt of his new book, Blinded by the Right, that he had printed "virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation" he could to make Hill seem "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/anita-hill-sexism

[Tipperary]

151. I doubt you will get an answer.

Crickets.

[CTyankee]

234. HA! See post 34, buddy. that was fast, wasn't it?

[Demsrule86]

263. Your opinion said the statement was attributed to Biden. This is not true

Edit it or take it down.

[cwydro]

160. I think the OP is a she. (Not that it matters)

Personally, I don’t necessarily believe what a poster’s preference is just by what they have elected to choose here.

Know what I mean? Truly doubt some of the preferences shown here.

Some may think they’re playing chess, but it’s more like checkers lol.

[CTyankee]

70. No, we wouldn't. But that doesn't matter to Trump and his party. They lie about us all the time.

why do you think they would stop at this if they have the truth thrust upon them? When has truth meant ANYTHING to these scum? And why am I being blamed here on a Democratic website for sounding the alarm?

[hlthe2b]

73. There are endless lies they could create to attack any of our candidates...

Why do you land on this one? I'm sure they can create enough on their own without us offering up the options. I'm trying to understand, but honestly, I'm baffled...

[CTyankee]

75. Because I lived through it in real time. And because women, and women of color particularly, are

among the strongest Democratic base in our party. Anita Hill was a woman of color. If biden is our candidate the repukes could see this as an opportunity to undermine our strongest base.

I hope you will read the history of this to understand why it is important to be wary of it and not be surprised if it happens to be raised as an issue...

[hlthe2b]

79. So did I. I don't think so little of our African American base to think they would be bamboozled

by RW lies unless we propagate them however unintentionally. I don't NEED to read about it. I lived it too.

Biden has history and some of his past positions are baggage. But he's evolved. Some will think that sufficient, some will not. But to even suggest that statement was linked to Biden is just offensive as hell. I don't understand. I really don't. And I am trying to.

[CTyankee]

87. No, I don't think our AA base will be bamboozled at all...but that won't stop them from thinking

that they can.

All I am saying is "Let's be prepared so we can hit them with everything we've got. Most importantly, the TRUTH."

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I didn't say that, George Santayana did.

[hlthe2b]

90. Did you somehow miss my sigline (for more than a decade)?

I guess they don't show up in this forum, but to quote it back to me is rather ironic.

[ramblin_dave]

31. Where did you get the idea that this remark came from Biden?

This remark came from David Brock...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/anita-hill-sexism

David Brock: In a book trashing Hill’s reputation, the conservative operative famously called her “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty,” a phrase that speaks for itself. Nearly a decade later, Brock, who went on to found the left-wing watchdog group Media Matters, apologized for the statement in his book, Blinded by the Right, admitting that he published “virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation” he could find in order to discredit her, and even coordinated with the Thomas camp in that effort.

[Honeycombe8]

33. The OP won't respond to questions asking him to explain his false statement.

He won't respond to questions asking him to explain why he falsely states that statement has anything to do with Biden...or any other candidate.

[CTyankee]

235. well, it looks like you were wrong again. I'm stiill here and actively correcting folks to what I

actually said. Fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

[CTyankee]

77. Please read my OP again. I said that it was Brock and was FALSELY attributed to Biden...

[ramblin_dave]

83. What evidence is there that this has been attributed to Biden?

You seem to be claiming something that is not true.

[CTyankee]

88. Google is your friend. AND I didn't say something that is not true, goddamit! Read my OP, please.

Which is something good to do before responding inaccurately to someone's post. Really it is.

[ramblin_dave]

99. I did google it and found nothing

I found no claims that this nutty and slutty phrase has been attributed to Biden.

[CTyankee]

103. Yes, and you won't either because it isn't true but at the time it was used to harm him and came

to be associated with his hearing. Biden himself has spoken about this: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886484/joe-biden-anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford

It is better to be well informed in advance about this issue as it will return, I have no doubt, given what the GOP has become.

There are some articles you can read on google. I encourage you to read them in advance.

[lapucelle]

118. Nobody attributed that statement to Biden.

You are the only person I have ever heard to have (in any way) associated that remark with Joe Biden.

[CTyankee]

125. OK,you didn't. At the time, I did, which is why Brock made his statement in the first place.

Honestly, if you read the links I provided above you would see what I am talking about!

I don't make this stuff up!

To save you the effort I am providing this for you so you don't have to look it up: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886484/joe-biden-anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford

[lapucelle]

134. Nobody thought Joe Biden said it, and your "link" doesn't connect the quote with Joe Biden.

Hill had to face testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was an “erotomaniac” and lies about her in the press. The American Spectator called her “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”

[CTyankee]

171. Exactly! The American Spectator (Brock) made that statement!

This is what I have been saying all along.

But for some reason folks don't want to understand and I'm curious as to why. What the hell did I do wrong except quote the spectator?

you know what? I am going to chalk this up to anxiety about 2020. The benefit of doubt because this is DU where I have been posting for 15 years. People are nervous and jumpy and I understand that, I truly do (I am going to start meditating just as I did in the old days when I thought W was a monster...)

[Skya Rhen]

34. Would you kindly consider self-deleting this post? I believe this would be the right thing to do

given that the crude statement was made by Brock, never Biden (factually proven). I feel that you do not wish to falsely smear Biden so a deletion would help in showing that this is not your intent.

Nowhere, on the internet, is this statement associated with Biden, other than here - please put out this fire before it catches.

[Mister Ed]

39. Thank you.

For such a wise and civil suggestion in the midst of heated argument. Welcome to DU! We need more like you.

[ucrdem]

102. Thank you.

Well put.

[CTyankee]

108. I have provided this link https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886484/joe-biden-anita

This is what I am talking about. He shouldn't have to say this, IMO.

[TwilightZone]

140. That link doesn't say what you claim it does.

It clearly indicates that the source of the quote was the American Spectator.

You have yet to substantiate your claim that the quote was ever falsely attributed to Biden. If you cannot do so, I suggest you self-delete your OP.

[CTyankee]

141. Yes, the American Spectator by Brock. That is the SECOND time I have had to say this in this

thread. It was falsely associated with Biden.

The horse you are beating died a while back. Didn't you notice?

[BannonsLiver]

120. I think the point was for the fire to catch

[Pachamama]

35. "They" can dig up anything they want on Biden - because for everything they do, there are 100x times

....worse about Trump and there are also a million great things about Biden with nothing great about Trump....

I am still all in for a Harris/Biden or Biden/Harris ticket and know how great that will be for our Country.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

44. I certainly have not forgotten what happened to Anita Hill, and it's one of the reasons I think

Biden shouldn't be the nominee. Not only because of what he did, but because those actions make him a weaker candidate.

[artislife]

54. Can you imagine the

reaction from those who are too young to have lived through it, seeing the questions that woman had to go through? Anita Hill. I was young and impressionable during this time. It taught me it is better to shut up and put up. What a sad thing.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

59. "I was young and impressionable during this time. It taught me it is better to shut up and put up."

I hear that.

[Demsrule86]

264. It was38 year ago. I don't give a damn. He is the only reason there was a hearing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. He didn't say that. Why associate it with him?

I agree that he didn't handle the matter very well, and will no doubt have to explain himself, but he never used that phrase. That came from David Brock's book trashing Hill, never from Biden.

[CTyankee]

189. I SAID that, damnit!I said it in the original post! When is enough enough?

I have always liked you and your posts, VO, so I want to tell you my feelings about this. Frankly, I am surprised, but shouldn't be, that once this all got started there might be a massive pile-on. It's crazy. If you need convincing, just go back and read what I said. I said it was Brock. I referenced his book and provided a link. The media has said just what I said and I gave links that proved what I was saying was accurate. What more am I expected to do?

Now there are dark mutterings about what I "really" meant (once my accusers were faced with proof they were wrong). As if I had an ulterior motive! Where does that come from? I have to wonder why. Now, after all these years on DU, I have been turned into a "concern troll." There is a HISTORY here of my conduct on this website.

Sorry to unload this on you. I am just hoping you will see the injustice in all this.

Thank you, VO.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

192. Sorry! Mea culpa.

I didn't intend to suggest an ulterior motive, and I didn't read your OP carefully enough. That's my fault. The thread title seemed to suggest it was Biden, and if that was an error I didn't want it to stand. My very bad.

[CTyankee]

196. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make you feel bad.

I guess I should have phrased my OP differently and heralded by saying in caps "I don't subscribe to this theory!"

The RW is ruining our political system in this country. It is as depressing as it is deplorable. I find myself getting scared of these people. I thought Bush was bad! He was, but I don't think he was crazy. Trump acts crazy more and more. And more and more republicans are apologists for him.

I hope we can stop him before it is too late for us all...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

197. I didn't intend to make YOU feel bad!

It is crazy and depressing but I have a lot of hope that he and his minions will be gone after 2020. Maybe even sooner.

[Demsrule86]

265. Why did you even post it?

A fair number will read the post and think Biden did say it but he has nothing to do with it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

47. "Pukes" won't have to; supporters of at least one candidate happily post Brock's bile here regularly

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. I dont believe for a second any actual Kamala Harris supporters would spread this LIE

I am so close to being out of here

[betsuni]

162. Yes. Republicans aren't the ones dismissing Brock's support for Democrats

because of his past as a Republican (implying the lies and hit jobs he did for Republicans were the same as Correct the Record, which of course isn't true), using him as evidence that both parties are the same.

[peggysue2]

48. I honestly don't remember this phrase but . . .

I'd say the whole Anita Hill situation is more likely to come up during the primary as opposed to the general. I mean think about it: what sort of argument would the Groper-in-Chief (grab 'em by the pussy) have against Joe Biden? Trump has been accused by a horde of women of sexual assault and his words on tape speak for themselves. He has no respect for women, particularly strong women. With the exception of Ivanka, of course. But even with his daughter his mannerisms are creepy.

That being said, whoever our nominee is has to be prepared for a very nasty campaign. Because Donald Trump is nasty and petty and vindictive. His enablers and supporters will follow the pied piper.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. why are you LEAVING THIS UNTRUE STATEMENT HERE

[LongtimeAZDem]

60. Indeed

[MineralMan]

66. There's the question of the day.

Republicans won't have to dig up the dirt. Democrats who support other candidates will gleefully do that for them.

Even if the dirt isn't even true, it will get posted here by someone or another.

[LakeArenal]

245. x 1000

[ucrdem]

58. Biden did NOT say this. David Brock, then a conservative, said it in a 1993 book:

The Real Anita Hill is a controversial 1993 book written by David Brock in which the author claimed to reveal the "true motives" of Anita Hill, who had accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his 1991 confirmation hearings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill

[Eliot Rosewater]

61. And yet it is STILL on Democratic Underground...WHAT THE FUCK what the GOD DAMN FUCK

[ucrdem]

74. A self-delete would put the matter to rest. nt

[CTyankee]

81. Do you think my self deleting this post will stop the RW from digging into this old, untrue story?

REALLY?

[ucrdem]

82. This is not RW underground, and yes, I think you should delete your post. nt

[CTyankee]

89. It will make you feel better but it will not change the truth. Surely you know that...

[ucrdem]

91. The truth is that you showed your hand but not the one you intended us to see. nt

[CTyankee]

93. don't make stuff up, ucrdem. I've been a loyal member of this community for 15 years.

I'm trying to get us all up to speed before the 2020 campaign. Isn't that what we are all trying to do?

[ucrdem]

95. I'm reading your OP. It it gives a wrong impression, delete it. nt

[CTyankee]

97. Is it not clear in my OP? If it is clear in the OP then I have no reason to delete it...

[ucrdem]

98. Crystal clear. Which is why you should have deleted it at the first objection. nt

[CTyankee]

100. ????

OK, "delete it even if I did say that Biden DID NOT SAY IT."

That makes no sense.

[ucrdem]

104. Leaving it up after all this casts a very bad light on your intentions.

I can't say it more clearly than that.

[CTyankee]

115. OK, don't. But if something you posted on DU got misconstrued or outright lied about wouldn't

you be upset enough to even TRY to set the record straight? And why do I have to somehow prove my bona fides when all I did was say the truth?

[ucrdem]

138. I would listen to my friends. Your OP is offensive. nt

[CTyankee]

225. Nonsense. It is in no way offensive. I know you are trying to construe it differently (I wish I knew

why) but it simply isn't true. I am not an offensive person.

[Cha]

237. CT finally changed it.. Finally.

"If Biden is our candidate, will pukes dig up the DISGRACEFUL LIE that he supposedly said"

[SMC22307]

250. She still gets it wrong. Biden NEVER "supposedly said" the remark.

It's always been attributed to sleazeball David Brock.

[Cha]

251. Thanks.

[MineralMan]

65. They won't have to. Supporters of other Democratic candidates will be happy

to do it. Those Democratic supporters of others will gleefully dig up any negative thing they can find and trumpet it loudly.

The Republicans won't have to do anything. Then, when a nominee is finally selected, they'll just look at the opposition research generated by the candidates who didn't win the nomination. All the dirt they need will be right there for the taking.

Why we do this to ourselves, I will never understand.

But, hey, thanks for bringing something about Joe Biden up today. Good job! Congratulations to you!

[CTyankee]

80. OK, it was just a warning from someone who has, sadly, learned from the past and doesn't want

to see it relived in the future.

And BTW, the repukes didn't "wait" to see me bring it up. they already have...which is why I posted this...see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/27/18262482/joe-biden-anita-hill-2020-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh

and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/us/politics/anita-hill-testimony-clarence-thomas.html

Getting me to delete this post because you don't like it to see it here will not stop the RW (or the general media) from bringing it up.

[MineralMan]

86. I don't care whether you delete it or not. I didn't request that you do so.

The Right Wing, though, doesn't need to bring it up. You already did, even though it's false. Great job! Good luck to your candidate. Really.

You are not the only one who remembers the past. Not by any means. I have an excellent memory, myself.

There's no need for you to delete your post. In fact, it's probably better if it stays so people can find it. It's instructive.

[cwydro]

124. We shouldn't have to see RW talking points here.

Your concern is noted.

[lapucelle]

135. That link you keep touting doesn't associate Biden with that quote.

Hill had to face testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was an “erotomaniac” and lies about her in the press. The American Spectator called her “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”

[CTyankee]

137. yes, it was Brock in the American Spectator. So I am right.

honestly, don't you think you are wasting your time on this...or beating a dead horse...

[LakeArenal]

84. I guess for sure the Repugs will bring it up

since it seems to come up here repeatedly.

[CTyankee]

92. and what they don't bring up, they'll make up, for sure.

[MustLoveBeagles]

85. Joe Biden didn't handle the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings very well, but

Joe Biden didn't handle the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings very well, but he wasn't alone in that. This is old news and I don't see it hurting him in the primaries or the general if he's our nominee. Just my opinion.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

110. I can tell you it hurts Joe with my momz... she'll never forget the way he put Anita Hill on trial.

Saw some clips recently... it was pretty bad.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[BannonsLiver]

116. Well it doesn't hurt him with most women

“Nationally, Biden is also the top selection of female Democrats, with 34 percent saying he is their first choice for the nomination, according to Morning Consult, even as 47 percent of women said they had heard a lot about the stories surrounding him touching women.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/the-run/articles/2019-04-15/joe-bidens-early-polling-lead-is-powered-by-women%3fcontext=amp

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. That's good... have to hope that holds up when the Rethugz do what Rethugz do.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[MustLoveBeagles]

224. I wasn't too happy with him either at that time

I was 19 when the hearings happened and I remember feeling very disappointed in him and the others on the panel. I believed her(still do) and thought she got a raw deal. People make mistakes, sometimes very big ones. That said, I think he's learned from this and probably wishes he had done things differently. He subsequent record on women's issues seems to indicate that he has.

[George II]

185. Yes, it's almost 30 years ago. I wonder how digging up "dirt" about some of our candidates....

....from decades ago will be accepted, or it is only Biden who is fair game.

[CentralMass]

101. Biden did not say it and it should not be associated with him

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[CTyankee]

105. I agree completely. It should NOT.

[SFnomad]

106. "pukes" won't have to bring it up. It's clear by this OP that Democrats will do it for them n/t

[CTyankee]

111. Well, thanks a lot!! I have been a very loyal Democrat on this website for 15 years and I don't take

kindly to such statements. I wrote this post in good faith as a warning that we should expect a false attack by the GOP on this very issue if Biden is our candidate. What you posted is really uncalled for. and it makes me sad. I have made many friends here at DU and I value them very highly.

[SFnomad]

117. The OP is out of line, sorry that gives you a sad.

The quote you're trying to hang around Biden's neck was not said by him, but was written by Brock, who was a Conservative wingnut at the time.

[CTyankee]

121. Id like to know what you would feel and how you would respond if something like this happened

to you? You'd be sad and try to set the record straight, right? That is ALL I am trying to do and I won't give up!

[SFnomad]

126. You defending this OP isn't working ... sorry

All it's doing is trying to hang an inflammatory right wingnut quote around Biden's neck. It's something you'd expect of Republicans, not one of our own. But go ahead, keep the circular firing squad up. I'm sure someone will benefit from it ... but I can't see how any Democrats will.

Off to the trash with this OP ... it's where it belongs.

[BannonsLiver]

114. What a bizarre, poorly thought out OP.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

You have embarrassed yourself.

Epic fail.

[LongtimeAZDem]

123. +∞

[Tipperary]

154. Wish I could recommend your post.

Well said.

[OilemFirchen]

122. What about Senator Harris?

What will we do when they bring up that "one time at band camp"?

[CTyankee]

127. I believe in her. If something comes up that I find believable (that betrays my trust) I will

reconsider my choice. I truly don't know at this point. But I will endeavor to find out.

[SMC22307]

195. You *do* understand what right-wing attacks will come at her?

How they believe she rose through the ranks? The are going to RELENTLESS on that issue... better brush up on how you're going to handle it.

[CTyankee]

198. And that is exactly what I was saying about Biden until it got totally distorted beyond belief.

Iam worried sick over this. But one reason I am supporting her is because trump is afraid of her. She is a former prosecutor who won't put up with any shit. He knows that. He doesn't know much but he knows that, in a kind of feral way. He smells terror coming from her if he dares try to pull any bullshit on her.

I have a son who is a prosecutor with the Brooklyn DA's office. I know from prosecutors!

[SMC22307]

202. Nonsense. Drumpf doesn't fear Kamala or Biden or any other Dem candidate.

People really need to stop saying that.

[CTyankee]

204. If he were afraid of her, we would have already heard from him, don't you think?

He always has a little name he uses to denigrate politicians that challenge him. Pocahontas, Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, crooked Hillary. I can't recall an epithet for Mueller but I guess he has one or maybe he's just a bit afraid of him, too (I would be).

[Mike Nelson]

130. I don't recall Biden saying that...

… but that doesn't mean Republicans won't say he did.

[EveHammond13]

131. we don't let them pick our candidate just like we don't let them pick Speaker

[CTyankee]

142. I agree.

[Polly Hennessey]

139. I don't remember it.

[Tipperary]

144. Wowee. Been busy all day and came in to see this. Just unreal.

I think I can guess who you plan to vote for...

[CTyankee]

146. Yes, and I love Pete and hope he is Harris's running mate and one day our President!

My reasoning is based on my belief that it is high time, or past time, that we had a qualified woman for president. But ditto an openly gay man. And this will happen if we all hold tight to our beliefs and our values. We're going to get a lot of crap thrown at us so let's all be prepared!

[Tipperary]

148. I really did not expect to be dodging this "shit," as you call it, in here.

But your rationale is fascinating.

[CTyankee]

153. I still like Pete...

[BannonsLiver]

152. So, earlier

You said your reasoning was to warn people this might come up with Biden (even though he never said it, or anything like it. Ever.) But now you’re saying it’s because you want a female president?

Ah, yes, I think I get the intent of the OP now.

[CTyankee]

156. AH, you have seen through my evil plot!

and all this time I thought nobody saw my preference at the bottom of the page clearly saying that I supported Harris. You are brilliant for figuring it out!

[BannonsLiver]

157. I've seen through the point of your op

Which was originally crafted under some lame pretext of “warning us” and now it’s apparently solely about your preference for a female nominee. Which makes it just another smear.

[CTyankee]

159. OK, why don't we just wait and see, all right?

If your candidate wins, I'll drink a toast to you (I don't drink alcohol but I'll drink a glass of ginger ale in your honor).

[Tipperary]

161. Or an "openly gay man," which seems to be the same in the op's mind. I am gay; it is not.

The op has had his/her ass handed to her/him, but seems dug in...as another person pointed out - I suppose for the kicks (pun intended). I will be trashing this thread now.

[CTyankee]

164. Gee I'll have to check...yup, my ass is still there...bye now.

[Gothmog]

163. Biden would be running against trump-who would care???

[CTyankee]

165. These concerns were raised online. I think the rationale is that women voters are by and large

supporting the Dem ticket now and might be deterred if they "knew" about the Hill controversy from long ago. The repugs will stoop to anything and if Biden is the candidate they'll go there. Sure, it's a double standard but what else is new when it comes to republicans...

[Gothmog]

257. I strongly disagree

This would NOT be an issue in the general election (assuming that quote is accurate)

[corbettkroehler]

166. I Object To A Related Issue

The Sanders haters on this board will accuse me of criticizing the former Vice President because I support Bernie. There's nothing I can do except to promise that my opinion on this issue predates my even KNOWING of Bernie's existence, which was in 2007 when he addressed a gathering of the Blue Green Alliance, an initiative of the Sierra Club.

My objection with Biden is that he COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE WORKED MUCH HARDER to block the confirmation of Justice Thomas. While Thomas is not as bad as the unscrupulous and unethical, now deceased, Scalia, he's close. He has been a HORRIBLE associate of the Supreme Court.

I don't know how, in good conscience, Biden could have voted in favor of confirmation. Had I been a senator, the decision would have been easy.

[CTyankee]

169. You know, I don't understand any of these haters on DU, maybe esp. Bernie. I voted for him

in my CT primary in the last election and my husband asked me why and I said, to send a message about the direction our party should be taking. So I truly don't get the hate. I am sorry you have to endure it; it's not right.

I understand why folks are defending Biden. I was trying to defend him, too. He did NOT say those things about Anita Hill and the real culprit has confessed to saying it in a RW rag. All these things were in my OP and yet some folks got downright nasty in accusing me of what I did NOT do. Maybe folks need to chill for a while....

[Tipperary]

172. Well, I think you have made a few today.

Bad choice of op, as someone else pointed out. No idea what your intention was (though I have a good idea). I am not buying your rationale, nor are the majority of responses here. I have seen duers take responsibility for posting something in error, or in drunkenness, dopedness, all kinds of reasons...most take their lumps and own up to it.

You have done yourself no favors here. Nor have you done your “choice” any favors either. Wonder what she would have to say? Hmm, one can only imagine, but I would think not approval. However, I am doubtful that is your real choice. I think otherwise.

This thread was like a train wreck, hard to look away. But now it is trashed. Wish you luck in your future endeavors.

[CTyankee]

174. You still wish to carry this on? I do not but I think I have defended what I have said quite well.

Why on earth should I "own up" to something I didn't say?

Ah, well, people get a little excited when politics start heating up. I get that. but this went beyond that. And you are truly off base when you bring Kamala Harris into this...that is not OK and you know it.

Vaya con dios.

[Kahuna7]

173. Thanks for your concern.

[CTyankee]

179. Oh, don't worry. I've seen this type of thing in schoolyards lots of times...once it gets started

all the other kids want to be cool too...

[jalan48]

186. He actually said this?

[Kahuna7]

187. No. He didn't. Read up thread. David Brock reportedly said it...

I don't know why the OP would even posit such a thing.

[jalan48]

188. The same David Brock that worked for Hillary's campaign?

[Kahuna7]

193. What does Hillary and Brock for that matter have to do with Biden??

I don't get it.

[jalan48]

194. I don't either. Why would he be knocking Biden if he's helping Democrats?

[MustLoveBeagles]

208. He said this in 1993 when he was still a rightwing shill

It was a quote from his book The Real Anita Hill. He has since denounced the book and apologized to Anita Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

[jalan48]

211. Thanks. I didn't know this about Brock.

[CTyankee]

190. I didn't. Don't say things that aren't true. I brought Brock into this early on in my post. I gave a

history I lived and remembered.

[Cha]

213. I asked her to put it in the Headline

that it wasn't Biden who said it.. and dispel the perception she was trying to smear Joe Biden.. but.. No.

[SFnomad]

221. There really is no way to salvage this OP ... at this point ... even with the changes being made

This poster has gone on and on defending the indefensible, when it comes to this thread. It really should have just been deleted 200 posts ago.

It would be like creating a thread ....
If Harris is our candidate, will pukes dig up the rumors that she got her political start on her back with Willie Brown?

There would be no honor in a thread like that, either.

[Cha]

236. She has now change it.. not because I politiely

asked her to.. another poster finally talked her into it.

"If Biden is our candidate, will pukes dig up the DISGRACEFUL LIE that he supposedly said"

[SFnomad]

246. Yeah, I saw it was changed ... what I don't get is, I don't know of anyone (other than this OP)

That has ever said Biden was the source of that quote. It's all very disingenuous to me ... and it looks like either a right wing hit job or just another in a long line of BS smears.

[CTyankee]

220. Oh but I DID say it. Re-read my original post, Kahuna. IT IS VERY CLEAR.

[highplainsdem]

199. So you're inventing RW attack ads against Biden using words he didn't say, that were said by someone

who was then a RW hit man?

Strange...

[SMC22307]

200. Your opening sentence is poorly written.

You should have mentioned Brock in your Subject line rather than Biden. The way you have it written makes it look like Biden said it, and he didn't. And you know people don't sweat the details.

What do I think? I think you should re-write your OP or delete it entirely.

[CTyankee]

203. I don't usually write poorly (am publishing a book on art this spring, in fact) but this is what you

get when writing quickly and expecting your audience has knowledge of what you are writing about. I realize now that some folks here don't remember the whole Anita Hill thing and it is old history. You would think that if they were that concerned they would check what I wrote with historical fact first. Google is a godsend. You can check stuff all day long.

I will not rewrite at this point (what I said was true). And I will not delete it. People will lose interest eventually and it will fade away.

But the more disturbing thing in all this is what I wrote in a response just a little while ago. To paraphrase, this has all the earmarks of schoolyard bullying, with other kids being cool and joining in. I hate to think of DU that way but that is exactly what happened here. And I was that kid who finally said she wouldn't be bullied. I am 79 years old. Some kid.

[SMC22307]

209. I'm old enough to remember -- with disgust -- the hearings.

I watched them. I'd wager, based on the fact that DU trends older, that very few of us need Google to fact-check this issue.

You've managed to alienate a number of DUers with your post. DUers not just supporting Biden, but Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders, et al. But keep doubling-down, many of us are seeing the "art history quiz lady" in an entirely different light. It has nothing to do with bullying. It's disappointing.

[Pathwalker]

214. I agree with you. Very disappointing.

Don't need google to refresh my memory either.

[SMC22307]

217. Thanks. This is gonna be...

a lonnnnnng primary season, eh?

[CTyankee]

218. I have modified my original post. See for yourself.

Oh, and I am not just a "quiz lady." I am publishing a book on European art from the 13th century (Italian Byzantine Era) thru Early Italian Renaissance, the Mannerist era, the Baroque era, through the 19th century's Neoclassic Period and Evolution of Romanticism, to the 20th century's Modern Idiom, 45 essays in all. All of these essays were published here on DU over a 3 year period.

[SMC22307]

240. You're still pushing a falsehood. Biden NEVER "supposedly said" those things.

[CTyankee]

242. No I am not. I never said it. I said Brock spread that lie and then repented.

If you keep saying that I lied, I will correct you. Every day if I have to.

[SMC22307]

247. Your updated subject line says it... you typed it, did you not?

Biden NEVER "supposedly said" the ugly remark. Brock did. Your writing is not clear -- are you trying to say that Brock accused Biden of saying it?

I hope you have a good book editor.

[Skya Rhen]

212. Even DU posters who prefer others are standing up for Joe

so you are an epic failure.

I wonder how you should deal with your neighbors when they dig up in your past and start saying that you are cuckoo. I feel that you should be prepared - just sayin’...

[CTyankee]

219. well, welcome to DU, newcomer.

I think it is YOU who needs to be prepared, for your choice of language is unfortunate and ugly. I think you should apologize to me for being so rude.

[Skya Rhen]

229. Just saying that you should be prepared. I am only

offering the same type of helpful advice that was in your OP. Why are you offended?

By the way, thanks for your warm welcome. I plan on sticking around until Joe is elected President.

In an effort to ensure that this happens, smear mongers like yourself, will be countered by me and other like-minded DU members.

So you are wasting your time...

[CTyankee]

233. I have never been called a "smear monger" in my life and I will defend what I said now.

I am defending it because it is true. Brock spread a total LIE about Biden. I didn't even know about his book but it appears he has confessed it all and repented. THIS WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN MY POST.

I do not know why you keep callling me out like this. What is true, is true. No amount of your twisting will make it different.

[Skya Rhen]

238. I'm done with you - am on to helping Joe get elected - important stuff

You are not worth it...

[betsuni]

244. "Brock spread a total LIE about Biden."

But Brock never said Biden said it. The quote has always been attributed to Brock describing Hill in his own words. He lied about Hill but not about Biden (as far as the quote goes).

[Cha]

249. ye gods! Thanks

betsuni!

[CTyankee]

268. Yes, I said that. Go back and read what I wrote.

[BannonsLiver]

254. +1000000

That is the beginning of the end of it. The pretzel logic in the OP is bizarre and the edit is actually worse than the original version. The entire thing is just vile.

[BannonsLiver]

258. David Brock never said Biden used that phrase.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Where are you getting this nonsense? It’s bananas.

[CTyankee]

270. I was warning that this kind of malice existed once and will exist again.

I hope I am wrong but I fear I am not.

[ucrdem]

216. R*****k fail.

Epic.

[robbedvoter]

223. who cares what words he used? He gave GOP control of the process

Not just stick and stones. I was a casual observer - watching TV in my gym. Had no clear notion of the states. Saw what they did to her. Woke me up politically. I'll never forget Biden, or any of the other bros. The Kavanaugh sequel only freshened up my memories. He's dead last on my list (of people I'd actually vote if last resort)

[Cha]

239. Mahalo for finally changing the headline..

to let it be known in said headline, that it was not VP Biden who said that.

[SMC22307]

241. Read it again. Biden NEVER "supposedly said" the Brock remark.

[Demsrule86]

260. Brock said that.

[CTyankee]

271. Go back and read my OP. I clearly said that.

My history is correct. I am correct. You are being misled by certain people on this thread. Why they are doing this, I do not know and will not waste my time trying to find out. But truth is truth and the truth is I clearly said that Brock said it. I even offered links from Google.

So, don't believe me. Google this, please, if only to see where I am coming from.

[quickesst]

266. I'm only curious about....

... the reasoning behind the capitalization of "disgraceful lie" when highlighting it was completely unnecessary.

[CTyankee]

269. As emphasis that it was a lie and a disgraceful one.

Is there a problem with capitalization for emphasis?

[betsuni]

272. What lie?