"Clarance Thomas was not stable" - Former girlfriend

eeyore1954 said:
Lying under oath in a sexual harrasment case is what Clinton did. That is a lot more than lying about sex. Whether it was worthy of impeachment I probably would say no but it is a big deal.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a sexual harassment case.
 
I'll bet Clarence is real happy his wife decided to call Ms. Hill. Surely he wanted this argument to begin again...it makes everyone involved seem so, well, adult.
 
WildCat said:
It's actually irrelevant that she was 22 instead of 21, we have the CEO hitting on the lowliest employee.

I think in most corporations that would be seen as sexual harrassment, grounds for a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just correcting the two embellishments; 21 years old and she was an intern. But I suppose these embellishments make the story more salacious.
 
WildCat said:
It's not a tu quoque because I'm not turning it against the accuser, I'm pointing out that the argument made isn't the source of anger over Clarence Thomas.

People are upset at Thomas because he is conservative, not because someone accused him of sexual harrassment.

The sexual harrassment charge is a red herring.
Click to expand...
You've done exactly what you set out to do, change the subject, deflect the criticism. Well done "skeptic". :rolleyes:

Edit - and made a complaint without any evidence.

You must be so proud.
 
Last edited:
This country has some serious hangups with sex. I'm sure Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton have a more healthy attitude toward sex, than say... Kenneth Starr ... or Anita Hill.

I'll take a serial fornicator over an asexual freak like Jerry Brown every day of the week.
 
Lurker said:
Sure. Just correcting the two embellishments; 21 years old and she was an intern. But I suppose these embellishments make the story more salacious.
Click to expand...
I wasn't embellishing, just going on memories over a decade old Lurker.

It's hardly a material difference.
 
DavidJames said:
You've done exactly what you set out to do, change the subject, deflect the criticism. Well done "skeptic". :rolleyes:

Edit - and made a complaint without any evidence.

You must be so proud.
Click to expand...
Did you read the OP? The evidence is right there, I'll bold the parts which support my contention:
Tricky said:
Who is the worst judge on the bench today? I think Clarence Thomas would get my vote. I thought Anita Hill's testimony against him was very credible, but the latest revelations from an ex-girlfriend make it pretty clear that the picture Anita Hill painted was pretty accurate.


Oh yeah, I know it's not a crime, but it certainly shows his dishonesty during his testimony when the Republicans smeared Anita Hill for, what is now quite apparent, telling the truth, as verified by McEwen.


But even if he weren't such a liar, Clarence is still an awful judge.


All this paints a picture of an angry, vengeful man who is determined to punish the liberals who "turned against him". Perhaps he has turned his life around. He has apparently quit drinking, but he still shows an unwillingness to listen to arguments and an unbending will to vote on the conservative side, regardless of the issue or the evidence.
Click to expand...
 
NoScotsman said:
Out of curiosity, what kind of case was it? I tend to avoid these Amanda Knox/Natalee Holloway media circuses...
Click to expand...

Originally? Vince Foster's death and Whitewater real estate investments.

Yeah, somehow that makes it ok to ask about extramarital affairs during sworn testimony.
 
tyr_13 said:
Originally? Vince Foster's death and Whitewater real estate investments.

Yeah, somehow that makes it ok to ask about extramarital affairs during sworn testimony.
Click to expand...

Thanks...it's all coming back to me now...

Nothing like a Constitutional crisis over a molehill...
 
NoScotsman said:
Thanks...it's all coming back to me now...

Nothing like a Constitutional crisis over a molehill...
Click to expand...
It was a witch hunt for sure, but Clinton didn't do anyone but Republicans any favors by being an idiot when questioned.

Damn now I've contributed to the derail.
 
Last edited:
Yet, Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP...and not as a political foil, but because now no Republican, apparently, ever has to worry about bad private behavior...even when preaching family values an high levels of ethics and morality. Just look at David Vitter or Newt Gingrich. Clinton, ultimately, should not be excused not because his false testimony was so bad but because he's given every scum-bag out there (including many a Democrat) a free pass on the private life...although, I suspect that the old adage (being found with a dead woman or a live boy) holds true and would still probably end a career.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Yet, Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP...and not as a political foil, but because now no Republican, apparently, ever has to worry about bad private behavior...even when preaching family values an high levels of ethics and morality. Just look at David Vitter or Newt Gingrich. Clinton, ultimately, should not be excused not because his false testimony was so bad but because he's given every scum-bag out there (including many a Democrat) a free pass on the private life...although, I suspect that the old adage (being found with a dead woman or a live boy) holds true and would still probably end a career.
Click to expand...

True all they do is look like horrible hypocrites, but hey they are clearly that already so what is the big deal?
 
NoScotsman said:
Out of curiosity, what kind of case was it? I tend to avoid these Amanda Knox/Natalee Holloway media circuses...
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
It wasn't a sexual harassment case.
Click to expand...
It was a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment and suggested that maybe such a person shouldn't be making decisions that could affect women's rights, which I regard as legitimate criticism. She never had him charged with a crime and indeed it may have never been discussed in the media had Thomas never been nominated.

What the Thomas team did was to try to destroy her credibility and her reputation, and they did a pretty good job of it. There are still a lot of people who think she was "lying for liberals". Indeed it is probably because of the treatment that McEwen did not come forth at the time. I can see the headlines from the right wing: "Spurned girlfriend slanders brave Afro-American jurist!" "Jumping on the hate bandwagon!"

Now it is true that she is publishing a memoir years after the events, a bit late to take advantage of the press bump it would have had if had been timely. True Virginia Thomas may have inadvertently given her a sales boost, but this doesn't have the ring of crass opportunism which has been a staple of partisans on both aisles.

What it means is that Anita Hill, in all probability, didn't lie at all. Clarence Thomas lied. Lied and slandered. And got what he wanted. And now his wife wants an apology from Anita Hill without Clarence offering one? Porn doesn't disgust me, but Clarence and Virginia Thomas do.
 
This McEwen strikes me as a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.

Clarence Thomas is one of the most well-qualified jurists to ever grace the bench. He also presided over El Rushbo's second or third wedding ceremony.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, deserved impeachment. He lied to the American people when he started that war over in Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction.
 
Cain said:
This McEwen strikes me as a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.

Clarence Thomas is one of the most well-qualified jurists to ever grace the bench. He also presided over El Rushbo's second or third wedding ceremony.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, deserved impeachment. He lied to the American people when he started that war over in Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Click to expand...
LOL. You had me going for a minute.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom