# Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn



## Chris (Oct 26, 2010)

(CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.

Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.

Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Do you also read the National Enquirer?


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Do you also read the National Enquirer?



Do you make it you fucked up obsession to deny everything and Republicans and dumbass conservatives? If you're against misogynists and men who defame women why are you defending Clarence Thomas?  Fucking idiot.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

I &#9829; this thread.  Let's have another "high tech lynching" and impeach his ass.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I &#9829; this thread.  Let's have another "high tech lynching" and impeach his ass.



The dipshit loves porn.


Clarence Thomas - Conservapedia

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."[7] Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the First Amendment to regulate indecency on cable television. 

*Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors.* The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.


Like you and your George Soros gossip.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.



Its gossip only when its about conservatives dipshits and Tea Bastards but if its the left its believable, just fuck off and knock off the fake objective shit. he does apparently support pornography based on his SCOTUS votes on the issue, thats not gossip.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.
> ...



Bless your heart, you don't know the difference between gossip and fact. I know understand you better. That's helpful.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.
> ...



CG is just in denial against anything thats anti to Tea Bastards and conservative. She calls me a misogynist and this defends Clarence "pubic hairs in the Coke can" Thomas.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Do you also read the National Enquirer?
> ...



Jeeez, you are one dumb fuck, Fail. I didn't defend anyone. I just don't form opinions based on gossip. I prefer facts. This is a possible explanation of why you are stupid and I am not. You cannot differentiate between the two.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I &#9829; this thread.  Let's have another "high tech lynching" and impeach his ass.
> ...



O for fuck's sake, Flayglo.  I despise Thomas and not even I would suggest he votes with his dick.

Grow up.


----------



## Annie (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

1. drinking heavily and watching porn
2. ??????????
3. SCOTUS justice


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You are a misogynist, I call you one because you are. And you have no concept of the difference between dismissing a 'source' and 'defending' the subject. You dumb.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



the irony of your own post is surely lost on you.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.



Uh, character, remember that?

Seems to me you are mighty quick to allude to someone's private life when news breaks of a leftist being an ass.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.
> ...



Thomas does not "support porn" as a Justice, Flayglo.  He supports *freedom of speech*.  

And his decisions were correct.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




So why would anyone vote against a federal desgned to hold webmasters accountable for having porn on their sites that might be harmful to children? I'm just staying on topic, I have not begun to unload on Thomas' dumbass.


----------



## Annie (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



It surely is.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It was a Tea Bagger, Mrs. Justice Ginny Thomas, who placed this asshole back in the news cycle -- not us.  

Try again, Annie.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.
> ...



I think you'll find, Maddie, that I do not. I generally ignore stupid accusations, from either side. Unless, of course, the left are getting all hysterical..... then I might laugh at their hysteria but I don't do 'gossip' on either side.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I disagree that his decisions were correct. I don't see a reason why that woman would lie.


----------



## Annie (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Nice use of the pejorative again, Maddie. You're correct about her bringing it up, that was stupid. However I do not think the spinmeisters of your party are stupid. They hope for a new card to play. I just don't think this one is active either.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



try with canards and rosa parks, e.g.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...




damn, are you in for some soulsearching.

maybe when you are less of an immature  loudmouth brat. in several decades.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



That is not how free speech is legally analyzed, Flayglo.  The first question is what compelling interest does the state have to justify restricting the speech?  I'd suggest this test cannot be met on these facts.  After that, if compelling interest is found, the state must still show no less restrictive means exist to satisfy the state's needs.  Again, IMO, this showing cannot be made and Thomas was correct on the law.

All freedom of speech law develops around unpopular speech -- a great deal of it around porn.  We have a very open society, possibly the most open on Planet Earth.

See this for example....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/138766-australia-bans-violent-ad.html

I like that about us, don't you?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You are being disingenuous.  If these allegations made by Thomas' ex-gf are proven, they are NOT gossip....they speak to his character and fitness.  You can say you don't believe her if you like, but I am not buying that either.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.

Extra, extra!  A man likes porn!








*yawn*


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



I'm a life-long Republican, Annie.  "Active"?  Ginny Thomas just urped up her bullshit last week.....how fresh does a Tea Party faux pax need to be to pass muster with you?

Don't be a hypocrite here.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I believe that free speech is a two edged sword, for every levelheaded person out there you have about 5 David Dukes that abuse it. Here in Germany for example it is illegal and criminal to say Heil Hitler and make Third Reich salutes in public and there is no prblem with that.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.
> 
> Extra, extra!  A man likes porn!
> 
> *yawn*



Amazes me, the pretzel shapes *some* con women turn themselves into in defense of this misogynistic asshole.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Nope, just let me know when it's fact and I'll consider it. Until then, this is gossip from an ex. What I find more interesting is how people just accept whatever suits their own agenda rather than considering the source of the information, any evidence to back up that information, why that information is coming out at a particular time, etc, etc, etc. 

It's not a bad thing to practice some critical thinking once in a while. I just wish more Americans demonstrated even a small ability to do so.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



That's more or less the question I ask on the thread I linked....would the US be better served with greater restrictions on certain low-value speech?  But even so, Flayglo, SCOTUS does not interpret the constitution they wish we had.  They interpret the one we actually have...and Thomas was 100% right.

I suspect you would enjoy life in Scalia-ville far less than you imagine.


----------



## Annie (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



except for the fact that it's Obama and his minions using them...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.
> ...



Could you please go and look up the meaning of the word 'defend', and then demonstrate where Si is actually defending anyone.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.
> 
> Extra, extra!  A man likes porn!
> 
> ...



And when BillClinton and Gary Condit was in office the conservative press made sure to play up every tryst they both had whether alleged or lies and you believed it like the dumbass Republican you are.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



more irony from the innocent canard spreader.

to the back of the bus, rosie.


----------



## The T (Oct 26, 2010)

Anita Hill should still apologize for her participation in the "Hi-Tech lynching" she participated in with the Democrats.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I despise Thomas.  I am perfectly prepared to believe any hint that he worships Satan.  However, I see your point.  If the ex can prove the allegations, do they then become relevant?

I suspect she can, a few at least.

Face it....Thomas has the character of a rapist.  His sitting on SCOTUS should light up every chick in the US.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.
> ...


It amazes me what the insane call defense.

For the slow, I will expand on my post.  An ex-girlfriend is trashing a public figure.  The amount of credibility I put on that source being an objective source is less than the amount of calves liver I eat in a year.  And, whenever exes trashing the significant other become worthy of attention anywhere other than some grocery store gossip rag, I ridicule it.

And, I have no idea how many men you know, but one liking porn doesn't surprise me in the least.

As I said...major yawn.  Get back to me when there is substance.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The T said:


> Anita Hill should still apologize for her participation in the "Hi-Tech lynching" she participated in with the Democrats.



De-lus-ion-al, The T.  Pretty clearly, Professor Hill spoke the naked truth.  Add lying to all of Thomas' other fine qualities.


----------



## Annie (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Whatever you say.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.
> ...


Really?  You knew me then?  And you knew what I believed?

Interesting.

Tell me more about myself because apparently I am uninformed about my life and my beliefs.  I must warn you, though; I am a subject matter expert in my life and my views.


----------



## The T (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Anita Hill should still apologize for her participation in the "Hi-Tech lynching" she participated in with the Democrats.
> ...


 
I recommend "_The Real Anita Hill"..._


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Don't talk your race card bullshit and not look at the way your own party plays that shit like this for instance

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZO-yllS9So[/ame]


Republicans have been saying that same shit continuously because they're mad blacks will not vote for a party they rightfully see insensitive to them.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Let's review the allegations, shall we?

* Raging alcoholic

* Porn addict -- in case you are wondering, "liking porn" is far different from an *addiction*  to it.

* Dry drunk who "bullied" his son.  If that means abuse, even emotional abuse, that's a serious matter.  Unless suddenly kids' well-being and behaving lawfully no longer matter.

*  Anger issues

*  Obsessive behavior

Now, if you want to say "I do not believe her", fine by me.  But saying that *even if*  these allegations are true, you still don't care seems the height of hypocrisy.

BTW, the ex-gf has a new book about Thomas coming out (what a surprise).  I doubt she or her publisher would dare to defame a SCOTUS Justice without ironclad proof, but hey, I admit -- I hope every fucking word of her allegations about Thomas is "Dear Diaried" by him.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Stop the presses!  A man's ex is trashing him.
> ...



You have proof that Si believed the accusations against Clinton and Condit? Please provide it. Thanks.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The T said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Loser, The T.  He did it.

Deal.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



How ironic.  I certainly did....they form the basis of my nearly-pathological hatred of both Clintons.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Well, well, well. Color me Shocked Pink. Ex girl-friend has 'written' a book about Thomas.... I wonder if the left will see why we should be skeptical about this crap or will they continue blindly down the path of 'why would she say it if it weren't true'? Cuz the answer to that question would be ......MONEY!


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



She's an administrative law judge, CG.  I am almost positive she earns more than Thomas does....and in any event, so what if she makes money off her book?   If these are provable facts, then they are.

Whaca gonna do then?


----------



## The T (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
Riiiight....


----------



## The T (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


 
So what? Are we supposed to belive her because of position? Pay? Even Presidents have been caught_. Lying._


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The T said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Can I take it from your pathetic attempt to deny reality that* if * you were satisfied Thomas harrassed Hill, you'd have to agree he is not fit to sit on SCOTUS?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

> The T wrote:
> 
> So what? Are we supposed to belive her because of position? Pay? Even Presidents have been caught. Lying



No, genius.  You are supposed to believe she has enough money not to try on defamation of a Supreme Court Justice to make some, and that no publisher would touch her book unless she has *proof* of what she alleges.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




Do you have prrof that Thomas' ex gf is lying? Please provide it. Thanks.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

I &#9829; this thread.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Oh, good grief. 


She made the claims, sweetie. It is for her to prove them. 

What a fucking painfully stupid person you are.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Well, CG, Annie and Si...if the ex-gf's claims are proven, do you agree Thomas lacks the character to sit on SCOTUS or not?

Guess what I think.


----------



## The T (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


 
As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2010)

The T said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Anita took and passed a polygraph.  Thomas was too afraid to even take one. 

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



In your opinion. But opinions are not fact, nor are allegations.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The T said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/137901-anita-hill-wont-refudiate-the-pube-on-the-coke-can.html


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Perception is everything, CG.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I cannot believe you are a Hill denier, CG.

Shame, shame, shame.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



No, evidentially *wishful thinking*  is everything.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> 
> Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.
> 
> Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com


This is hardly "new" news, which is why a *LOT* of people couldn't understand why Anita Hill's claims were disregarded, the way they were.​


> *October 3, 2007*​
> "Thomas dismisses these claims as the workings of a mob -- in pinstripes instead of white robes -- seeking to "keep the black man in his place." *He may have convinced himself of this. The record suggests otherwise.*"


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.....you mean, like....if someone suggested Thomas was (_secretly_) a Muslim??

​


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Mr. Shaman said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



CG is not a birther, Mr. Shaman.

Paint with a smaller brush, please.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Where did I even comment about 'even if' these allegations are true?  

That's right, nowhere.

Yet, you seem to hallucinate some view of mine.

You are crazy, though.

I consider the validity of sources before I react.  It's a waste of my energy to get in some sort of self righteous emotional tizzy over 'even ifs'.  Others seem to need that, though.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



IF they are proven, fine. Until they are proven, I'm not prepared to take word of some ex-gf.... I guess I was just educated to trust facts and distrust gossip. 

You misunderstand me completely. I'm not defending Thomas. I'm just asking why I am supposed to take the word of an ex-gf. It me, this has absolutely no value until is proved. I'm just anal like that - People are innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. 

Personally, I'm more interested in the ability of some people to take any old shit at face value... so long as it fits their political view. And you could provide them with 100% solid fact to disprove it and they'll still believe it. Fucking idiots.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I freely admit my bias.  I &#9829; this thread, and I hopehopehope she has him on tape with his fingerprints on the cassette.  I despise Thomas.

That said, you have evaded my query:  after the allegations are proven, if they are, what will be your POV on Thomas?

Despicable but good enough -- or -- despicable and impeachable?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


I don't give a damn *what* she is. What I was responding-to was her *sentiment*.

I'll pick my own "brushes"; _Thank You_ very-much. I've _managed_, so far.​


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...



Tsk, tsk.  Such petulance in a knee-jerk liberal.


----------



## Douger (Oct 26, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eVQtnkWJg0[/ame]


----------



## topspin (Oct 26, 2010)

OMG he's male, bet he has balls too!!!


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:

....

McEwen, a former prosecutor and administrative law judge who has written her own memoir *and is seeking a publisher*, ....

"I suppose I would call it [watching pornography] a fetish or a hobby," she said of Thomas. "It was something that was very important to him, something that he talked about." ....

... she said, adding that he "drank to excess" when they first met and might have been a "raving alcoholic" at that time. When he gave up alcohol, she said, he became "angry, short-tempered, asexual" and obsessive with ambition and what she called* "weird things," such as long runs in the dark before dawn.*

....​[Emphasis added] Those are just some excerpts.

So, an ex-administrative law judge is in a position to diagnose alcoholism?  This ex girlfriend never said porn addiction, and if she did, again, she is qualified to make such a diagnosis?  No.  I know plenty of recovering alcoholics and plenty of them are quirte balanced individuals.  Apparently Thomas has over 30 years of sobriety.

And, I almost spit my coffee out when I read the part about Thomas doing 'weird things' such as running before dawn.  LMFAO!  Around here, because of the heat and crazy commute times, there are tons of runners, walkers, and bikers out pre-dawn and late at night.  Plenty.  LOL.  Gold's opens at 5 AM.  It's packed at that hour...and, ZOMG!, it's dark!  People are exercizing when it's dark?  Burn the witches.

The reactions here are just surreal.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I don't have an opinion on Thomas. 

I MAY form an opinion on Thomas IF I read any facts.... FACTS.... that sway me one way or another.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:
> 
> ....
> 
> ...



Meh, fair enough...she has no publisher yet.  It would still be odd as fuck for any lawyer to defame a sitting SCOTUS  Justice without proof.

As for alcoholism and porn addiction, if you truely feel only professionals can make these diagnosises, you dun know any.  At least not well.

A five year old can spot an alcoholic who is still drinking.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:
> 
> ....
> 
> ...



Well, that clarifies it a whole hell of a lot to me. She's a publicity whore hoping to score a publisher by trashing the guy. 

Stick a fork in the discussion, it's over. The smart people win. This is bullshit.


----------



## topspin (Oct 26, 2010)

yup jogging is wierd to this generation of fat fuckers. LOFL


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:
> ...


Oh, I know several recovering alcoholics quite well.  And, I have a hell of a lot of experience with alcoholism.  But, this isn't about me, Madeline.

And Thomas has over 30 years of sobriety, according to even an ex girlfriend.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:
> ...



Pretty funny, huh?

Somehow I have a visual of a large-mouthed bass, right now.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)

To my fellow Conservatives.  It's the year 2010!  Watching porno is not a big deal.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MceFVpJ-Gyc[/ame]

I say that it's not even a big deal if POTUS had gay sex on crack in the back of a limo


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Hang 'em on our trophy wall, modo.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:
> ...



*More* wishful thinking, CG?

If she said it on "Larry King Line" and it was *not*  true and could *not*  be proven to be true, she's a self-destructive fool about to learn to enjoy life as a homeless woman.  

You seem to be confused about evidence, CG.  If she has "bad motives" but "good evidence" the facts are nonetheless as she alleges.....her avarice does not render the allegations irrelevant nor the proof of them inadmissable.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I am just amazed at you two.  Such flawed, twisted logic to defend a man who is clearly a vicious misogynist, all because you *think* he is conservative.

Neither one of you are being honest here.

Shame, shame, shame.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...





Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Can't......







stop..........









laughing!


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Holy shit, Maddie. That is breathtakingly stupid. People lie on interviews all the time. I honestly cannot believe that you said that. 

As TPS might say....


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



The fact of the matter is that you know fuck all about what I think of Thomas.

Your idea that those who analyze information is equivalent to defense is freaky bizarre.

Seriously.




Idiot.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Uh huh.  So you have nothing, Si?

I thought not.

Lemme see if I can make this any clearer.  "Shoot the messenger" does not work on evidence.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 26, 2010)

nobody cares.........


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

skookerasbil said:


> nobody cares.........



You couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



If I was a conservative I could salute Hitler, dress up as a SS Waffen and be a misogynist and si dodo and and California Brat would give me a pass.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Uh huh.  So you have nothing, Si?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> Lemme see if I can make this any clearer.  "Shoot the messenger" does not work on evidence.


Whenever gossip is actually evidence, I'm sure that I will need to recalibrate the thermometer in hell.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)




----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Apparently.  Dishonest, both of them.  Makes me wonder what today's chicks are coming to.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> 
> Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.
> 
> Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com



So?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



There you have it!  LMAO.  Flaylo and Madeline in agreement about honesty.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)




----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This reactionaries in this thread are fun.  I can't think anyone has actually read the piece, either.  (Well, given the demonstrated lack of comprehension and seeing things that aren't there of some, I suppose I can imagine the insanity.)  From the piece:
> ...



bullshit. there are plenty of functional alcoholics who live in their own private hell, and no one knows that they're drunks.

true story


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Damn, the stupid is thick in this thread.

Good stuff.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh.  So you have nothing, Si?
> ...



You could be right, Si.  Mebbe this broad has *nothing* to back up her allegations and this will end up as a "he said she said".  If so, I'd agree...we have to deeply discount her statements because she likely has an axe (or two) to grind.

HOWEVER, if she can back up her claims....with *evidence*...different ballgame.  I find it incredible (as in unbelievable, not fucking likely) that she'd speak on air without such evidence, and I hope like hell she has some.

But it is not logical or honest for you to announce that you *plan*  to disregard evidence (tapes, letters, testimony of other witnesses, etc.) because this broad has a bias problem, and doing so makes you look kinda sorta s-t-u-p-i-d.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



"Today's chicks" have developed the skill of critical thinking, applying logic and questioning sources. We don't call gossip 'evidence', we call it gossip. We don't accept blindly the words of anyone - we question, research and draw our own conclusions.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



O give me a fucking break, CG.  Where is the "critical thinking" involved in panting like Pavlov's dogs to defend Thomas?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


"... and is seeking a publisher".





> ....  But it is not logical or honest for you to announce that you *plan*  to disregard evidence (tapes, letters, testimony of other witnesses, etc.) because this broad has a bias problem, and doing so makes you look kinda sorta s-t-u-p-i-d.


As I haven't announced anything of the sort, it appears that you are hallucinating again.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Little word, big meaning - If. 

Maddie, it is fact that people say shit that is not true all the time. They do it for money, they do it for their five minutes of fame, they do it because they have an ax to grind, but they do it. They are rarely sued for it. But, it happens time and again with celebrities, politicians and sports personalities. It's sad, but it is true.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


And, whenever an analysis of information is equivalent to a defense of a person, hell will have frozen over.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Oh purleeeeeze, could you stop whining about 'defending'. I am NOT defending jack shit. I am questioning the source of the information. What am I supposed to do? Accept it because it suit you? 

If you would question more, and accept less, you may stop making an ass of yourself. I have given up any hope of Fail&Go ever seeing past his own stupidity, but you Maddie... I still have hope for you.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I honestly don't think they understand it, modo. Which tells me one thing.... they don't have the ability to think critically about anything.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Two chicks that act like the grown version of Prussian Blue aren't examples of critical thinking women.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


It tells me a lot more than that one thing.  It's scary stupid.


----------



## The T (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


 
*YEP*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0[/ame]


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



That you have to take our gender into account says more about your misogynistic little ass than it does about our ability to apply some critical thinking to the subject.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You mentioned you gender you piece of shit by speaking of "Todays chicks" and I corrected your dumbass because you and si dod are not great examples of "todays chicks" speak for yourselves.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...


Yeah....how could we possibly overlook the _obvious_.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...


Unfortunately for me and my ability to respond to you, even Google translator doesn't translate or even recognize Stupid.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Clarence Thomas should have the name, BILL CLINTON and been President then, he would be excused and praised for all this..

Now how funny is this FOLKS, the lefties are attacking a BLACK conservative for this stuff.

First Juan Williams, now Thomas.

SEE A PATTERN HERE?


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 26, 2010)

Anita Hill wasn't the only woman to come forward with allegations against Clarence Thomas. 

It is not difficult to believe these stories about the man when you start looking at ALL of them together. He was a sexist pig...we've all known them and most of us have had to deal with them at work or in social situations. 

As for this woman and her book...we'd have never heard about it if Virginia Thomas hadn't made her bizarre phone call to Anita Hill.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



you are raiding a closet, stealing the beautiful clothes and putting them on.

those clothes have to fit, and have to be yours to begin with.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



You are the one pointing with a huge sign to this broad's motives in order to discount her allegations.  You don't even slow down long enough to pause and conjecture *what if they are true?*  Neither you nor Si wants to touch that question with a ten foot pole.

I am pointing out, the woman is a l-a-w-y-e-r.  An administrative law judge, and if she cannot back up her claims, she is the craziest, stupidest one on Planet Earth.  

It is possible, I suppose, that she nutured hatred for Thomas like a viper to her breast for twenty plus years so she could play "gotcha" if ever Thomas' wife acted the fool...but COMMON FUCKING SENSE strongly suggests, that ain't what has happened here.  And if you looked at this without bias, you'd admit the same.

Most people do not willing destroy themselves to embarrass an ex from twenty years' ago.  Fewer still of these are successful professionals with much to lose.

Odds are, she spoke the TRUTH.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You're whining again, LK. Grow up.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 26, 2010)

Seawytch said:


> Anita Hill wasn't the only woman to come forward with allegations against Clarence Thomas.
> 
> It is not difficult to believe these stories about the man when you start looking at ALL of them together. He was a sexist pig...we've all known them and most of us have had to deal with them at work or in social situations.
> 
> As for this woman and her book...we'd have never heard about it if Virginia Thomas hadn't made her bizarre phone call to Anita Hill.



Correct. Add in Thomas probably lied to Congress. What he could have done was ridicule them on the grounds of privacy invasion..which probably would have helped others in politics as well.

And I have a big problem with judges like Thomas who see no problem with conflict of interest issues. He's failed to recuse himself in cases that clearly put him at odds with making unbiased decisions. Add in his wife his the head of a political group that could very well find itself in the Supreme Court. Scalia has done the same thing multiple times.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



i am giving you sage advice, so you can learn to be a less obnoxious and more mature human being.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



"Gossip" would be if she claimed Thomas had a fetish for food sex.  Utterly irrelevant to his public life, salacious and clearly none of any of our fucking business.  "Who cares?" territory.

Allegations of alcoholism, child abuse, porn addiction, etc. are RELEVANT to Thomas' public life...especially since this episode in it began in a rejection by the US Senate of the proposition that a sexual harrasser is unqualified to sit on SCOTUS.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I don't deal in 'what if' scenarios. I deal with the facts I have to hand. I don't care whether she loves or hates the man, I have no interest in her opinions or emotions or what she has to say.... unless she can back it up. 

She will not destroy herself, even if the allegations were able to be proved false.  Once an accusation has been made, there are always some who will believe it - no matter what evidence comes to light afterwards. This happens time and again with famous people. Most of what is written about celebrities has a grain of truth and a ton of bullshit. How does one find the grain in all that bullshit? 

You accept what she says because it suits you to believe it. I don't because I have no opinion of Thomas to start with.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



yeah, lawyers NEVER lie on TV. especially if they're trying to sell a book.
even if she's telling the truth, so what? he's an alcoholic in recovery that used to like porn. big fucking deal. any 5 year old can spot her as an alcoholic-she decided to leave him when he stopped drinking. 


gimme a fucking break.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Anita Hill wasn't the only woman to come forward with allegations against Clarence Thomas.
> ...


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Trust you to applaud someone who writes "... Thomas probably lied..." Key word: PROBABLY. No fucking evidence, but let's hang him anyway. 

It's beyond me how anyone can applaud "probably". It seems pretty fucking stupid to me.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Del, only a self-destructive lawyer would tee up against a sitting Justice like this without anything to back up her claims.  As for whether character is relevant, if you dun think so, I cannot make you.

Tis to me, but then I freely admit, I despise this fucker and have for decades.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



OK, you want so badly for me to comment on a what if.  Will do, even though I already have.

The allegation that Thomas does weird stuff because he is ambitious and runs in the dark is insane.  I'm sorry, but that allegation makes me 'weird', too. So, my opinion on it is irrelevant

IF he is a drunk, he has >30 years sobriety, according to the one alleging it, so I find my care detector isn't sensitive enough to register a reading.

She said he likes porn and had a habit of watching it.  Again, my care detector isn't sensitive enough to register a reading.

She said he 'bullied' his son.  I have no idea what that means, but I can throw you a bone and feed you a gratuitious 'ZOMG, burn the witch!'

Whew.  Now that's settled.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Odds are, Maddie wouldn't know the TRUTH if it introduced itself, with a business card and references.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Anita Hill wasn't the only woman to come forward with allegations against Clarence Thomas.
> ...




His excuse for why Hill brought up the allegations is a typical one that sexist fucktards use against women, that is, they accuse the woman of being mad and vindictive because of some bad performance rating. I've seen that one in the Army numerous times and the ones who make that claim are normally those who have engaged in improper relationships and sexual harassment looking for a means to cover their ass. Where are the copies of these poor performance evaluations?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Hey genius, the conflict of interest claims are entirely factual.  They are matters of public record.  The Roberts' Court has set new lows in ethics on this question.....it should disturb *any* citizen.

Even a Pavlovian conservative.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



and being an alcoholic speaks to character how, exactly? enlighten me, if you please.

i think you overestimate the power of a sitting justice and the likelihood that thomas gives a rat's ass what this woman says by orders of magnitude.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> ....  any 5 year old can spot her as an alcoholic-she decided to leave him when he stopped drinking.
> 
> ...


Interessant, n'est pas?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Ironic that CG and Si need Flayglo to explain sexual harrassment to them.  Life must be fine among the fairies in unicorn-ville, where they both seem to dwell.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 26, 2010)

And Bill Clinton was a notorious sexual assaulter of women.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



^^^^ What if I agreed with modo? That would be sensible.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 26, 2010)

You fucks are pathetic.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



You dun think a severe drug abuse history bears on fitness for a seat on our highest court?

Color me *stupified* here.

As for Thomas bitchslapping this broad....if nothing happens, it is because he knows she is telling the TRUTH.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



On the day that I need Fail to 'splain anything to me, hell really will freeze over. The subject of the thread is some stupid allegations of an ex gf.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> You fucks are pathetic.



Thankies for your erudite and incisive commentary.  Please remember to put the legos back in the box before you leave.

O, and fuck you too.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Poor, poor Madeline.  Hallucinating comments I have made on sexual harassment, here.

I have never mentioned sexual harassment or Anita Hill in any of my posts in this thread until you told us about your hallucination.  

But, I am pleased to see that you and Flaylo are like-minded.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Bullshit.  She might be impeachable, but her allegations are very serious.

You cons have the most *amazingly*  elastic standards for the character and fitness of your own sort.....is there ANYTHING Thomas could have done you'd object to?  If she claimed he tortured doggies, would you excuse that as well?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



No, it would be because it's the TRUTH... It will be because it's a matter of 'he said, she said" and no one can prove jack shit on either side. 

You know, there are a lot of Americans that believe that Sarah Palin claimed she could see Russia from her house. Why? Because Tina Fey made a joke. See how stupid shit becomes fact for some people? That happens.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Really?  In what area of evidence is that the case - no comment is an admission to allegations - 'Counselor'?


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I would want to see the EVIDENCE Maddie. That's what intelligent people do. They want proof.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

To add to what i said earlier. the other scenario could be that Hill was given bad performance ratings after she rebuffed his sexual advances, I've seen that one too. This is what he wrote about Hill in his book

"On Sunday morning, courtesy of Newsday, I met for the first time an Anita Hill who bore little resemblance to the woman who had worked for me at EEOC and the Education Department. *Somewhere along the line, she had been transformed into a conservative, devoutly religious Reagan-administration employee. In fact, she was a left-winger* who'd never expressed any religious sentiments whatsoever during the time I'd known her, and the only reason why she'd held a job in the Reagan administration was because I'd given it to her."

maybe the perve has a fetish for young, attractive "leftwinger" black women. What does being a leftwinger half to do with anything as if rightwinger women don't bring complaints of sexual harassment. Then the perve brags about his power, she only got a job because of him, sounds like somebody is mad because he didn't get the booty.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You two are creeping me out.  I burned *both*  Clintons when the Gennifer Flowers allegations hit the press.....I am nobody's Pavlovian partisan hack.

Shame on you both.

Shame, shame, shame.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Oh my God a man looked at porn and drank alcohol in his younger days!!!  The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boooooooooooooooosh!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

LOL, Another Faux outrage for the lefties.

Too bad Thomas didn't come from the KENNEDY CLAN. then none of this would be a bother and he would of been ELECTED over and over and over again.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Here are some serious allegations, too:

Madeline posts drunk.  Madeline eats babies for breakfast and she prefers maple syrup to Log Cabiin on them.

That's some serious shit.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Imagine just for a moment if these allegation had been made about, oh let's say Bill Clinton. You know the wingers would be apoplectic right about now. Right wing hypocrisy is nothing new...Neither are sexist pigs.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I have no quibble with that.  I won't even fault you if you *hope* these allegations are unprovable as much as I *hope* they are.  But pretending they are not serious is utter bullshittery.

If Thomas is guilty as charged you should be just as ready to roast him as I am, CG.  There should not be one ethical standard for cons and another for libs, and you goddamned well know it.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> You dun think a severe drug abuse history bears on fitness for a seat on our highest court?
> 
> Color me *stupified* here.
> 
> As for Thomas bitchslapping this broad....if nothing happens, it is because he knows she is telling the TRUTH.



Right, you libs are so concerned about past "drug abuse history".  You elected a fuckin cokehead as President.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



In my opinion, the congress really screwed the pooch on that one. While Hill's testimony was compelling, it really wasn't enough to stop the confirmation. Had they included this as part of a larger story, that Thomas is pretty lightweight and rote when it comes to deciding court cases, that his behavior with colleagues is pretty questionable (which they probably would have needed more witnesses for), that he shows bias..then..that would have raised serious issues. And this is what gets me angry about these processes. The onus is to find the best person for the job..not score political points.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Seawytch said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Clinton is a sexual predator and his wife aided and abetted him.  Both are criminals who go unindicted because they are too powerful to indict.

Both are evil.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > You dun think a severe drug abuse history bears on fitness for a seat on our highest court?
> ...


Libs didn't elect George Bush...the Supreme Court did. Oh look, we've come full circle


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



i think an *alleged* history of alcoholism combined with decades of recovery absolutely bears on fitness for a seat on the court. just not the way you seem to.

 it' interesting that you seem to think that addiction is some kind of moral issue, and that you deliberately choose to substitute the word *drug* for *alcohol*. i'll grant that alcohol is a drug, but there have been no allegations that i'm aware of that thomas abused *drugs* in the commonly accepted sense of the word.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



We're partisan hacks! Cool. I wonder who we're partisan for? 

Can't be the GOP, cuz I'm not a Republican. 

Can't be the Dems, cuz I'm not a Democrat. 

Must be Independent hacks!


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> *Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn*



I had no idea that he was human.


----------



## Seawytch (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



And the right wing was ready to impeach him over a consensual blow job, but give Thomas a pass.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > You dun think a severe drug abuse history bears on fitness for a seat on our highest court?
> ...



I did not know about Obama's drug use when I voted for him, and I can distinguish between a coke user and a severe alcoholic.  Plus, I set the bar for character and fitness at its very highest for Justices on SCOTUS.  

For one thing, those are lifetime appointments.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > *Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn*
> ...



speciest!


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > *Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn*
> ...



Alleged human.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Bullshit.  She might be impeachable, but her allegations are very serious.
> 
> You cons have the most *amazingly*  elastic standards for the character and fitness of your own sort.....is there ANYTHING Thomas could have done you'd object to?  If she claimed he tortured doggies, would you excuse that as well?



LOL, you're doing exactly what Rush says liberals do all the time.  You get all concerned about the "seriousness" of the allegations, rather than look at the actual evidence.

When libs are accused of anything, you could care less about the "seriousness" of the allegations and all you care about is what evidence there is.


----------



## Flaylo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


A far right leaning hack.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Seawytch said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Seawytch, Clinton used Alabama state troopers to coerce Flowers into a sexual relationship she did not want, when she was a single mom working for state government and making less than $20,000 a year. The facts surrounding the "liasion" with Paula Jones are almost as egregious.

If all that had been alleged was a BJ from an intern I wouldn't be so fucking angry.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > *Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn*
> ...


Go figure, huh?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.  She might be impeachable, but her allegations are very serious.
> ...



This is a big fat "lose".  I am all over sexual harrassment like white on rice, no matter who does it.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Seawytch said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



you idiots are going to give up this little lie someday.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Well, it's not as if we didn't know this from the Hearings with Anita Hill and all.   We got what we got.   Let's not be surprised NOW.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


I'm laughing more about the disorganized thoughts demonstrated by Madeline.  Clintons? Huh?  I thought the topic was some ex girlfriend of Thomas and her allegations about him, like his doing 'weird' shit, like running early in the morning.

Shame on me.  Shame, shame, SHAME!.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I am too. When the allegations are proved to be fact. Difference is, I don't get hysterical over 'he said, she said'.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > ....  any 5 year old can spot her as an alcoholic-she decided to leave him when he stopped drinking.
> ...



active alcoholics do tend to seek out the company of people who drink like they do.

just sayin'


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I'm enthusiastic, CG.  I said so from my first post to this thread.  I own my bias.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


Yup.  And when one in a relationship starts recovery and the other doesn't, the relationship rarely survives.

Just sayin', too.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



You might be able to spend half an hour high on coke with a child and they not know.  But drunk off your ass, no.

Kids notice the slurred speech, falling down coordination issues and boozy smell.  There is no hiding alcoholism whilst drinking from those who spend time with you face to face.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



if you think every alcoholic is a falling down drunk, you know very little about alcoholism.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Do you understand what del just said?  Seriously, do you?


----------



## Claudette (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




Thats the rub Maddie. Without proof its just a he said, she said. 

Why is she bringing this up now?? 

Even if it were proveable does anyone seriously think that a sitting judge on the SCOTUS would be removed because he likes porn and was a drinker?? 

Seriously doubt he would be the first and only Judge  belonging to that august body that liked porn and booze.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Clarence Thomas should have the name, BILL CLINTON and been President then, he would be excused and praised for all this..
> 
> Now how funny is this FOLKS, the lefties are attacking a BLACK conservative for this stuff.
> 
> ...



This is not the Crazy Cat Lady Conspiracy Forum And Support Group, Stephanie.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Clarence Thomas should have the name, BILL CLINTON and been President then, he would be excused and praised for all this..
> ...



Oh Madie, take a deep breath.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Clarence Thomas should have the name, BILL CLINTON and been President then, he would be excused and praised for all this..
> ...


Now there is some funny unintended irony.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> 
> Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.
> 
> Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com



I thought liberals were in favor of letting people do what they want?  Apparently they are only in favor of letting liberals do what liberals want.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Del, the expression "sober as a judge" exists for a reason.  If alcoholism ain't a character issue, then it's a fitness one.  Mebbe if Thomas "had been in recovery for decades" when he was appointed, I'd agree.  But if the ex-gfs allegations are true, he'd quit drinking just months before.

Not enough time, IMO.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Every *severe*  alcoholic is a falling down drunk.  Usually daily.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 26, 2010)

Sober as a Judge?

wtf?

Too bad you all don't require all that for your Congresscritters and Presidents.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


You know little about alcoholism, then.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Claudette said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Well now, this is a fascinating question IMO.  We have never impeached a Justice in this country.  There's some interest in trying to remove Roberts for the Citizens United decision, but if his opinion is even marginally defensible on the law, personally I dun think it can be done.

Thomas is a different kettle of fish.  Lying under oath during his confirmation hearings, past illegal acts, questionable fitness....he might could be vulnerable.

Still, it is most likely no more than whistling in the dark.  Fun to think about, but unlikely to ever happen.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Sotomayor swore during confirmation there was an individual right to own guns. And then in McDonald said there wasn't.
There are absolutely no, zero, grounds to impeach Thomas.  The whole thread is worthless.  Thomas will serve for life and unless someone has evidence that he is taking bribes or embezzling he will stay there.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



You cannot tell when someone is drunk?  Give me a break.  I have seen just about every flavor of alcoholism known to mankind, up close and personal...and if it is severe and active, it does not take a trained eye to spot.

More bullshittery from the cowardly cons who cannot condemn craven crap from other cons.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



You are almost certainly right, The Rabbi.  My guess is, even if he blatantly, provably lied under oath during confirmation, this will go nowhere.

You can thank Si and CG and the others in the who-cares crowd for that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2010)

Thomas apparently was a sick man over those obssessions.  Those who dismiss fact as gossip better check their critical thinking bone.  Give him credit he did stop.  Understand the people talking about him may have ulterior motives.

Facts are inconvenient truth.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Well, that's not quite what I said.  But, I'm pretty sure most are used to your lack of reading comprehension by now.  



> ....
> 
> 
> More bullshittery from the cowardly cons who cannot condemn craven crap from other cons.


No matter how badly you want it, I condemn no one based on gossip.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



And no matter how badly *you* want it, I will not bless your obvious efforts to deny these allegations merely because they interfere with your hero worship of all things and people conservative.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thomas apparently was a sick man over those obssessions.  Those who dismiss fact as gossip better check their critical thinking bone.  Give him credit he did stop.  Understand the people talking about him may have ulterior motives.
> 
> Facts are inconvenient truth.




Did Clarence Thomas leave any stains on intern's blue dresses?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Oct 26, 2010)

Annie said:


> This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...



Except it was Thomas who opened up this can of worms.  Just last week he and his wife were demanding an apology from Anita Hill.  It's absolutely no surprise that this has come out now.  Hill was almost certainly telling the truth about Thomas.  Now he's opened the door, I'd be surprised if you don't see more accusations.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Wow, more scary stupid from you.

First of all, when I have no evidence of anything other than allegations, I don't deny or confirm any allegations.  Not having adequate information to make a decision on a topic is not denying much of anything because...denying something....would...require...making...a...decision.

Christ Almighty, is that dumbed down enough for you?

Secondly, as I said before, you know absolutely fuck all about my opinion of Thomas.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> There are absolutely no, zero, grounds to impeach Thomas.  The whole thread is worthless.  Thomas will serve for life and unless someone has evidence that he is taking bribes or embezzling he will stay there.



This is absolutely correct. Although, in the future, I would like to see it put into law that a judge MUST recuse themselves when there are conflict of interests issues.

That would serve the nation well. Many seem incapable of doing so.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)

It's OK for Thomas to watch porn and it's OK for Obama to have sex with men.


----------



## Moon (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I wonder if you realize the importance that one word has in this whole fantasy of yours.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Sallow said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > There are absolutely no, zero, grounds to impeach Thomas.  The whole thread is worthless.  Thomas will serve for life and unless someone has evidence that he is taking bribes or embezzling he will stay there.
> ...



No shit.  If a small claims court judge cannot sit on a case she has a personal stake in, neither should a SCOTUS Justice.  The ethics rules should get more stringent, not less, as they move up in the food chain.


----------



## strollingbones (Oct 26, 2010)

right when i thought you couldnt post anything stupider.....you shock me...cf


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Moon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I do Moon, but the heart wants what the heart wants, yanno?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's OK for Thomas to watch porn and it's OK for Obama to have sex with men.



I am amazed someone like you doesn't have a "keeper", Frank.


----------



## strollingbones (Oct 26, 2010)

o and many people are functioning alcoholics....i drank heavily for years...never missed a day of work...if you ask my son...he will tell you ...he only saw me drinking maybe 3 times in his life...i would stop on the way home from work...buy a individual oj...pour part of it out in the parking lot and fill it with vodka....had a nice buzz by the time i got home...

people are very adapt at covering addictions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2010)

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas apparently was a sick man over those obssessions.  Those who dismiss fact as gossip better check their critical thinking bone.  Give him credit he did stop.  Understand the people talking about him may have ulterior motives.
> ...



Did you brush your teeth this morning, which is as relevant as your latest comment above.

Let's stick to the subject.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's OK for Thomas to watch porn and it's OK for Obama to have sex with men.



It's a double reach-around!  And who said Obama wasn't capable??


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I'm all ears.  Enlighten us.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)

While Thomas was watching porn Obama was having gay sex on crack in the back of a limo with Larry Sinclair.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

strollingbones said:


> o and many people are functioning alcoholics....i drank heavily for years...never missed a day of work...if you ask my son...he will tell you ...he only saw me drinking maybe 3 times in his life...i would stop on the way home from work...buy a individual oj...pour part of it out in the parking lot and fill it with vodka....had a nice buzz by the time i got home...
> 
> people are very adapt at covering addictions.



I agree, bones.  However, I would not call your situation "severe alcoholism".


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Curious.  Do you EVER actually think or do you just hystericaly emote here?

Because if the latter, you might find more satisfaction from a Dr. Phil or Oprah forum.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> While Thomas was watching porn Obama was having gay sex on crack in the back of a limo with Larry Sinclair.



Ill bet no one can prove he didn't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > It's OK for Thomas to watch porn and it's OK for Obama to have sex with men.
> ...



I had a keeper once, I ate her with fave beans and a big Amarone


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > While Thomas was watching porn Obama was having gay sex on crack in the back of a limo with Larry Sinclair.
> ...



Larry Sinclair said so, so it must be true


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Moon said:
> ...



Nah.  Thinking is beyond her. She just posts words as the voices tell her.

Doesn't she claim to be a lawyer or something?  Hmm...


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> While Thomas was watching porn Obama was having gay sex on crack in the back of a limo with Larry Sinclair.



Frank, does your Mommy know you skipped school today?  Shouldn't you be working on your diaroma for social studies?


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



she gave no time frame that i saw as to when she dated him, just that it was for several years prior to his nomination, so that's really not germane, and even if he had quit "just months before", he'd still quit and apparently has remained sober since then. 

if you'd like me to, i'd be happy to provide links to sitting judges, past and present, libral and conservative, who have run afoul of the law due to their drinking, so i'm afraid you'll have to ply that *sober as a judge* canard elsewhere.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > While Thomas was watching porn Obama was having gay sex on crack in the back of a limo with Larry Sinclair.
> ...



So when you can't refute the charge you engage in ad hominems?


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



bullshit. you really need to educate yourself before you look even more foolish.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Hey, The Rabbi.....when I need advice on posting styles I will let you know.  I think people who rely on soft, mushy "I don't want to know" thinking are defective.

We are not alike, thank God.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 26, 2010)

10% unemployment
Economy in the shitter
Dollar crashing
Southern border wide open

And I should care about this obvious smear campaign because....?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



You have your opinion, I have mine.  I assume we both "earned" ours.  

I know I did.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> 10% unemployment
> Economy in the shitter
> Dollar crashing
> Southern border wide open
> ...



Mebbe you are fond of a female somewhere in the US and object to having a sexual harrasser pontificate on her rights?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> 10% unemployment
> Economy in the shitter
> Dollar crashing
> Southern border wide open
> ...



It distracts attention from the coming electoral disaster for the Democrats.

I saw today that one Dem Rep from Alabama now claims he voted for McCain in the 2008 election.  How pathetic is that?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > 10% unemployment
> ...



He did.  That's why he voted against Clinton.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


At this point, I don't think it's possible for her to look more foolish.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > While Thomas was watching porn Obama was having gay sex on crack in the back of a limo with Larry Sinclair.
> ...



It's the year 2010, if POTUS can't have gay sex on crack in the back of a limo, then maybe "Hope" and "Change" really are "just words"


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Post of the day!


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

you may know drunk, but you don't know shit about alcoholism.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > 10% unemployment
> ...


Uh, what? Could you re-word this please?


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > This would fit in nicely with the Democrats in Meltdown thread. Recycling their old canards. When the violent rhetoric fails, the race card fails, then the Blame Bush card fails, time to take out the visions of Rosa Parks and kicking the Republicans to the back of the ... then images of race wars with Hispanics to 'punish your enemies,' now bring back Clarence Thomas and maybe if we kick him around some more...
> ...



i must have missed the part where thomas himself called for an apology.

i thought it was just his wife. gotta link?


----------



## Moon (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



So facts be damned, you just want your pound of flesh?  What a very immature way of looking at things.  You might want to rethink that strategy if you ever want to be taken seriously.


----------



## Samson (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



He should go on national television to apologize for staining an intern's dress while pleasuring her with a cigar......

oh.

right.....its been done already.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Samson said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



I thought he went on national television to deny he had done any such thing?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



I'm looking.  It appears you're right.  So that's my error.  I'm old school on marriage, so I tend to view both parties as responsible on things.  The whole "becoming one flesh" thing.

In which case it's Justice Thomas's wife that opened the can of worms and brought this back out.  I really wish I understood why.  Most folks had moved on past this, not to mention the stuff that came out after he'd been confirmed pretty much proved that Hill's accusations were spot on and Thomas was covered by the GOP.  No good was going to come of dredging this back up.


----------



## hjmick (Oct 26, 2010)

He likes porn.

Wow.

What an outrage.

Oh my, whatever shall we do?


----------



## gautama (Oct 26, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Do you also read the National Enquirer?
> ...





Flayjoby, Do you ever read the idiotic and garbled gibberish you post ??????

And then to have your colleague, the other Obamarrhoidal LIEBturd *IDIOT*, Rattle MarcATL actually compliment you for your pathetic unreadable trash is utterly priceless !!!!!

Just thought I'd give you a heads up.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Yep. 

A 'falling down drunk' is not necessarily an alcoholic and an alcoholic is very, very rarely a falling down drunk.


----------



## beowolfe (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I &#9829; this thread.  Let's have another "high tech lynching" and impeach his ass.



The senate was crazy to fall for that hyperbole in the first place.  You had a black woman accusing a black man of sexual harrassment.  How can any rational person construe that as a 'lynching' is beyond me.  Thomas played on the fears of a senate full of white men and he won.  The nation has been the worse for it ever since.


----------



## hjmick (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



You know very little about alcoholism.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Oct 26, 2010)

Oh wow - a former lover comes out of the woodwork and makes claims against the other?
Man!!! Has this ever happened before??? 
I am shocked...shocked I tell you.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



CG, this is bullshit.  A severely alcoholic person will drink until they pass out or the booze is all gone.  I agree binge drinking does not make anyone an alcoholic (though it could) and that few alcoholics are this bad.

But some are....like the lady I used to work with, who slept under her desk every afternoon.  Most times, after throwing up on herself.


----------



## beowolfe (Oct 26, 2010)

The really sick part of this is that his wife knows he's like this.  And she called Anita Hill asking for an apology.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Oh wow - a former lover comes out of the woodwork and makes claims against the other?
> Man!!! Has this ever happened before???
> I am shocked...shocked I tell you.



I am just pleased.

I &#9829; this thread.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



O, yes I do.....but to explain more, I'd have to tell family tales I'd rather not.  I don't like drunks, and never have.  

I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



That's one example. It is not standard. 'Falling down drunk's are more likely to be binge drinkers. Binge drinkers drink to excess but do not drink every day. 

Most severe alcoholics are not binge drinkers. They are addicted to alcohol to the point that they cannot function without it. That doesn't mean they are drunk all the time, it means they drink every day.


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 26, 2010)

Hell know no bounds like a scorned woman!

The best question to ask, "Where is the proof?"


And who isn't a porn addict? I would be more worried if he didn't watch porn!


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Would you like to feel all the Justices are fair and will judge each case on the facts and the law?  So would I....but I know at least one Justice has a hate on for women.  I have resented that man's presence on the SCOTUS for decades now, and if you care about the rights of women, you might be concerned as well.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



I am pretty sure you are right, del.  I don't think Justice Thomas has spoken publically about this.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Moon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Moon said:
> ...



My glee aside, I'd be alarmed if these same allegations were lodged against one of the liberal Justices....assuming we have any.  I might take a "wait and see" attitude, but declare they don't matter *even if*  true?

Nope.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



High functioning =/= severe.


----------



## beowolfe (Oct 26, 2010)

He should be impeached for lying at his confirmation hearing.  And so should all others where there is proof they lied during confirmation hearings.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> He should be impeached for lying at his confirmation hearing.  And so should all others where there is proof they lied during confirmation hearings.



Guess who Thomas reported to at the EEOC during most of the time he harrassed Professor Hill?

Joe Biden.


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Oh wow - a former lover comes out of the woodwork and makes claims against the other?
> ...



You're a Racist!!!


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



your ignorance is becoming painful. i can tell you unequivocally that a high functioning alcoholic is no less *severe* than a falling down one.

just stop now


----------



## California Girl (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > He should be impeached for lying at his confirmation hearing.  And so should all others where there is proof they lied during confirmation hearings.
> ...



Joe Biden was never the head of the EEOC.  Thomas never harassed Hill.  The whole idea of a strong, successful assertive woman like Hill being harassed is absurd.

Don't take this the wrong way, but have you been drinking?  Your posts are increasingly removed from reality.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



Well, fuck.  I could have sworn Biden had been Thomas' supervisor but my Google Fu fails me.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Actually Michelle Obama was his supervisor.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Well, that took far longer than it should have.  EEOC belongs to DOL, and in 1991, DOL's Head was Lynn Martin.  Never heard of her before.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Just to end your blithering nonsense on this alone, you really need to stop posting your ignorance on the topic of alcoholism.  FYI, a high functioning alcoholic is no less/more critical than a falling down drunk.  You're embarrassing yourself.





Madeline said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Good to see that you own up to your bias and that you own up to your hysterics.

Yet, you still think what you post has relevance.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > He should be impeached for lying at his confirmation hearing.  And so should all others where there is proof they lied during confirmation hearings.
> ...



yea and if I recall ala her eeoc position, when given a choice Anita decided to stay with Clarance....hummmmm..


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



She worked under him twice.  Before she accepted the position he'd supervise a second time, she sought and received assurances from Thomas that he would not repeat his misconduct.  Thomas broke these promises.

We aren't talking about "hostile workplace" here, yanno.  This was the real deal -- quid pro quo sexual harrassment.  Nothing did more to end that evil in American workplaces  than Professor Hill's testimony against Thomas.  She is a heroine of mine, and for good reason.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



If it has zero relevance to you Si, stop reading and replying to my posts.  A simple solution even you should be able to grasp.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 26, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.



I totally agree.  The FBI background check would have revealed some of it.  And if it did; save your "cover up" BS....there would be zero chance Bush Sr. would have kept him as the nominee for AJ of SCOUS unless he was squeaky clean.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

candycorn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Gossip.... at least to me..... isn't worth the effort to read, yet alone discuss. If stupid people want to indulge in gossip, that's fine.
> ...



Thomas was a black conservative who was a tad extreme in his POVs.  To Bush Sr., he was The Second Coming.  I doubt Bush would have reconsidered his appointment for anything short of a dead body.

Your criticism only makes sense if the FBI had interviewed Professor Hill or the ex-gf when it conducted its background check on Thomas.  It has never even been suggested that they did.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



and here you are suggesting they didn't when you don't know jackshit about it one way or the other. 

and if you think sexual harassment in the workplace is dead, you need to get out more.


----------



## Toro (Oct 26, 2010)

Clarence Thomas drank heavily and watched porn?  

Who doesn't?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


And pass up a gold mine of opportunities of pointing out the irrationality of your posts?  Not on your life.  You are the mother lode.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 26, 2010)

Toro said:


> Clarence Thomas drank heavily and watched porn?
> 
> Who doesn't?



dude!!!!....


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I can speak from personal experience:  Professor Hill's testimony did have a positive impact.  I'm happy to go into lengthy detail, but no, I am not suggesting no sexual harrassment occurs these days...just that it (hopefully) occurs less often and victims (hopefully) suffer in silence less often.




> According to the statistical results, the number of compalines increased during 1996-2000 FY in contrast to the previous period. In 1990, the number of sexual harassment charge receipts filed with the EEOC was 2,217 (3,6%) while in 2000 FY there were about 5, 332 (6,7%). This figures suggests that organisaitons had to paid a lot of money for those who filed suits. It is explained by the fact that the employer is responsible for sexual harassment by its supervisory personnelregardless of whether the specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer, and regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of their occurrence (Sexual Harassment at Work, 2005).



Sexual Harassment in the Work Environment | Health For You

You do not have to agree that Hill deserves any credit for this, but to me, she is a heroine.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



shes a heroine IF she was straight with us. We don't really know and never will.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

> Trajan wrote:
> 
> shes a heroine IF she was straight with us. We don't really know and never will.



Eyewitness testimony is not proof?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2010)

How many people who have been convicted on such were later released because the testimony was recanted or turned over?


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Trajan wrote:
> >
> > shes a heroine IF she was straight with us. We don't really know and never will.
> 
> ...



some corroboration would be nice. 

eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.


ask the fbi


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 26, 2010)

Clarence...  I wonder?  I have heard it said before that every time you hear a bell ring, a Supreme Court Justice gets his robe.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > Trajan wrote:
> ...



She was not identifying Thomas in a line up, del.  If you happen to believe she was impeached by that shithead Specter, okay....but Hill was certainly speaking about the correct malfeasor.

IMO, she was 100% believable then and the more we came to know later, the more surrounding circumstances reinforce that what she testified to was truthful.  I'll agree some sort of corroboration would be handy, but in my case, it is not necessary.  I'm fully convinced.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



shocker


----------



## Trajan (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Trajan wrote:
> >
> > shes a heroine IF she was straight with us. We don't really know and never will.
> 
> ...



*sigh* testimony to what? exactly? that she was at some point upset? none of of us know exactly what went down between the 2 of them. I am inclined to believe something did,  only because she would have to be pathologically unbalanced to open that box after all those years. 

But then again we don't know what made her upset,  then, she followed him to another agency and continued to speak with him and contact him etc etc after the alleged issues, so as I said, we'll never know.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > Trajan wrote:
> ...



Her testimony was specific, Trajan.  Repeated demands that she see him socially/sexually, which she not only refused but asked him to stop making.  Repeated convos about porn, that she asked him to stop.  The coke can with a pubic hair on it he gave her and then watched as she was disgusted.  Etc.

Hill did not get up and testify to some vague "he makes me uncomfy" thingie.  

I suspect we are different ages.  In 1991 I was 38 years old and had only been a lawyer a few years.  The Thomas confirmation hearings made a huge impact on me, and I watched darned near the whole process.


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> 
> Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.
> 
> Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com



Do you just say something bad about a black Public Figure? Why surely you must be a racist!!!


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> ...



Well played, Charles Main!


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 26, 2010)

just a little Cynicism on my part!


----------



## shintao (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.



See what happens when you deny a man his drink & porn? More men are ruined by christian morals than anything a women could do to him............


----------



## shintao (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



What bothers me about these women, is they never bring it up or do anything about it while they hold the job or whatever, they wait years as he rubs his cock under their nose, much to their own self-delight I suppose, AND then when it is over, or at the ultimate time in a mans life and public exposure they come the fuck out of the closet. Someone should put  a gun to their heads and pull the.................the shades down.

I don't think she lied, I think she "conveniently" told the truth. And that being the case, it didn't bother her at the time enough to make an issue out of it. That being the case, she should have kept her damned mouth shut.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

shintao said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Many people agree with you, shintao.  I don't.  It was not uncommon in the 1980's and thereabouts for a professional woman with ambition to suffer though a bout of sexual harrassment in silence......things are different now, and it's unfair to judge Hill's conduct by new and improved standards.

I think it is likely it never got so bad she felt physically threatened, so she kept shoving him away and sucked it up.  When they parted company, I doubt she had plans to ever repeat what had happened to anyone.  But then Bush tapped Thomas for the SCOTUS -- that was an eventuality she could not have foreseen.

IMO, Hill knew before she testified she was about to be spit-roasted and she only did it to try and keep a man she knew to be unfit from taking the bench.  It was patriotic and brave and risky as hell.  Nearly paid off, too.  No other Justice has ever been confirmed on a slimmer margin.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> 
> Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.
> 
> Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com



Right.  Idiot.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Gunny said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> ...



Care to explain who you are calling an idiot, and why?  Or just passing through?


----------



## Chris (Oct 28, 2010)

shintao said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.
> ...



No beer and no TV make Homer go crazy.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chris!  Waltzing in after the mud fight, eh?  Have you read this whole thread?

*Some* people dun wanna believe Thomas is a bad guy.

Color me *stupified*.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> LOL, Another Faux outrage for the lefties.
> 
> Too bad Thomas didn't come from the KENNEDY CLAN. then none of this would be a bother and he would of been ELECTED over and over and over again.



No doubt about it; theres a double standard on the left; when "our guys do it" it's okay.

I just refuse to believe the rumors when it is said that he is so hateful of women, a binge drinker, bullies his son, and is so deep into porn could hold a job for that long in the first place at the EEOC and; in the second place, pass an FBI background check, and then in the third place, work in a place surrounded by lawyers for one, media for another, and activists for a third and have kept his nose squeaky clean since what, 1989?  The precise year escapes me.  

Where was this GF for the last 21 years?  Had she not heard?  

I describe myself as 51% democrat; on this I think the left is out to lunch.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, Another Faux outrage for the lefties.
> ...



It's not just the left that do 'double standards'. It is, apparently, acceptable whenever the person involved is of the same political persuasion. When it is someone you disagree with, then that person is the devil incarnate. 

Personally, unless someone has something more than 'he said, she said".... like actual evidence... I'm disinclined to comment on it. It's just gossip. That opinion - or the lack of an opinion - apparently means I'm defending Thomas.... if you're very stupid.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, *then* you are being stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 28, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.
> ...



Not necessarily, Charles_Main.  Those who point out bad things about fauxreactionary wannabees are not automatically liberals, but those chastised will call their chastisers liberals automatically and give away their game.  So the calling the Justice out by Chris is not racism, unless you can point specific points of racism in Chris.  I don't think you can.  

We see the same defense by racists.  To call out certain behavior, racism for example, is necessary, correct, proper, right.  bigrebnc is a perfect example.  He will say those who call him out are racist.  Such a weak argument by him, isn't it, and we all know it.

Rush and other known reactionaries sound utterly stupid every time they do it.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, *then* you are being stupid.



I choose not to believe either 'side', because I don't have any hard evidence either way. Polygraphs are not admissible in court for a reason - that reason is that people can cheat it. You go ahead and believe gossip if that is your desire. I shall wait - as I always do - for hard evidence. In the absence of that, I have no opinion on it.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, *then* you are being stupid.
> ...




That is not what you have done and you know it.  You have instead said words to the effect of *I don't believe Professor Hill * and *I don't believe Thomas' ex gf*  and then also said words to the effect of *they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.*

Here's what words to the effect of *I don't know* really look like:

*I was too young to remember the Thomas hearings, but I have read about them and the allegations do disturb me.  I would be much more comfy with Thomas as a Justice if I knew that they were not true.*

Some version of the above indicates you made an effort to look into the matter, but lacked the evidence to reach a conclusion -- so you have kept An Open Mind.

Surely you can see the difference?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


That's not at all what CaliG said.  The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing.  At all.  Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Just for the crack of it, Maddie, why don't you go ahead and find those statements that you quote me as saying. 

Shall I wait?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Another trite insult.  How sad, how boring, how predictable.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



CG, I am tired.  Re-read the thread and if you still can't get what I am saying, lemme know.  I am more'n happy to assist you, but I want to see some effort on your part here as well.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Weird shit, huh, mo chara? The more I read of Maddie's shit, the more I understand why I don't understand what she says.... It's not me missing her point - it is her lack of point! 

Will Maddie ever learn to comprehend or are we fighting a lost cause?

Will she ever stop listening to the voices in her head?

Turn in next week for another exciting episode. 

*Episode as in a mental breakdown type episode, not a forthcoming installment of a fascinating series.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



OK.  Then you don't have voices in your head telling you what others' views are and you just lie about others' positions.

Either way, it makes you have no credibility whatsoever.  Or you are incredibly stupid.  You wouldn't know honesty if it was a train barreling toward you on the tracks.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Maddie. I don't give a shit whether you are tired. You quoted me as saying things that I categorically did not say. I dislike being misrepresented. My words are my living. You lied about me. I find that offensive. That you now decide that you can't be bothered to prove what you said is spineless. Back it up, apologize for being wrong, or admit you lied deliberately. Any of these is sufficient.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I try, but she may be intractable.  Perhaps you can break through.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I gave my opinion of your posts on this thread.  As it really is my opinion, I did not lie.  I am very sorry if you are distressed, but I am doing you no favors by pretending you have not been behaving like a partisan hack these past few days and as a friend, I spoke the harsh, unvarnished truth.

If you need a cuddle, I'm here.  If you need a yes man, look elsewhere....I am sure you can find one or two.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


Lying about what others write is not an opinion.  It's just lies.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Trite ad hominems, from you both.   You should have to return your college degrees as you are behaving like an embarrassment to whichever colleges graduated either of you.  

This is not debate; it is silly putty.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



No Maddie, you did not give an opinion. You put quote marks around words and attributed those words to me. I did not say those words. Therefore, you lied, you misrepresented or you were wrong. Any of these is fine. Just have the courage to say it. 

I have deliberately not taken either 'side' - because I don't have enough facts to know who is or is not telling the truth. You choose to form an opinion based on gossip. That is fine. I personally wouldn't, but clearly I have higher standards of evidence than you do. 

But, you have stated that I am defending Thomas. I am not defending jack shit. I am asking for hard evidence, not gossip. Clear enough for you? 

Now, address the point. Did I, or did I not, say what you claim I said?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Correct.  There is no debate to be had when one party cannot comprehend the written (or spoken) word and when the one party consistently lies and when that one party admits to just emoting rather than using any rational thought.  Right - that's not debate.

As so many point this out to you and you still lie about others' views, one must conclude that you enjoy being viewed as insane and/or dishonest.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



The quotation marks?  That's your heartburn? You really think no one -- not even you -- can see I was not reciting your posts chapter and verse?  I think it's as plain as fucking day I was paraphrasing you and comparing it to what a REAL undecided person would have said.

Fine, if it makes you less weepy, I'll alter the punctuation.....but this is just more silly bullshittery on your part.  When I quote you or anyone else, it looks like this:



> CG wrote in part:
> 
> Now, address the point.



Every fucking time.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



CG doesn't have heartburn nor is she weepy.  You, however, are insane and dishonest.  You earn it every time.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Happy now?  The dastardly quotation marks are all gone.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

> Si modo wrote:
> 
> CG doesn't have heartburn nor is she weepy. You, however, are insane and dishonest. You earn it every time.



HTF do you know how CG feels, Si?  ESP?

You are irrelevant to this convo -- it has substance.  Go find another pissing match to play in.  

The adults are talking.


----------



## California Girl (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



No, I'm not. You remove the quotes but still claim I have in some what made a judgement as to who is telling the truth. I have not. It is not my fault that you cannot comprehend my posts. Other people seem to be able to. I must therefore conclude, by the evidence provided by you, that you lack the intellectual capacity to respond to what I write. You prefer to respond to what I did not write. I'll try to bear that in mind.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > Si modo wrote:
> >
> > CG doesn't have heartburn nor is she weepy. You, however, are insane and dishonest. You earn it every time.
> 
> ...


It looks like you are suffering from some sort of authoritarian delusions as well.

*I* post where *I* choose.  

Idiot.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Well, this is progess...in millimeters, but still.  Yes, I do claim that you judged the women to be bad liars with evidence missing they "should" have had and anyway, who cares even if what they said is true.

You understand me completely on this point.

The rational thing to do next is to re-read what you wrote on this thread 
o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e-l-y and see whether or not you agree I have a valid point here.  Lemme know when that's done, and I'll be more'n happy to discuss further.

Here's a clue:  Saying *I don't need to re-read it, or reflect on it, because I discard your criticism as invalid since if it were true my feelings would get hurt* will not be a valid reply to this post.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > Si modo wrote:
> ...



Littering is not posting, Si.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


What part of her, or my, saying I have no opinion whatsoever in this matter because I have NOTHING on which to base that opinion is so confusing to you, exactly?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Theres no question that there is plenty of hypocricy to go around in politics.  I was simply responding to the Kennedy barb.  

I'm with you; Zero evidence comes readily to mind of any impropriety on Clearance Thomas's part.  We have two women spaced something like 20 years apart making allegations.  

I will say this, however, that the charges Ms. Hill made were so specific, so ridiculous, and so "out there" that for the second woman to not be able to cite similiarly lurid episodes sounds very shaky.  I mean a man who doesn't respect women who work with him or know him doesn't clean up his act when he is off the clock (with his girl friend) then become some sort of monster at work talking about body parts and pornography.  If anything, the woman who now has come forward should be relating more salacious details.  Maybe she will in the future.  

To me, that is evidence that anything that happened back then has been blown out of proportion.   I suppose time will tell.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 28, 2010)

candycorn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



But, but, but...Thomas would run before the sun came up!!!!!!  That's some weird shit.  Obviously he is weird.


----------



## Samson (Oct 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Indeed, a stain on a dress, and a lurid story involving a cigar would make it all less wierd.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

I drink and watch porn while I post at USMB.


----------



## Samson (Oct 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I drink and watch porn while I post at USMB.



You felt we didn't already know?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I drink and watch porn while I post at USMB.
> ...



It's the drink that made me to say it.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Eyewitness testimony is not proof?
> ...






> Her testimony was specific, Trajan.  Repeated demands that she see him socially/sexually, which she not only refused but asked him to stop making.  Repeated convos about porn, that she asked him to stop.  The coke can with a pubic hair on it he gave her and then watched as she was disgusted.  Etc.




her testimony was specific _hearsay_ maddy. when she had the chance to get away from him ( which frankly she could have done at any time she wished by quitting) she didn't, she followed him to another agency, she didn't have to, she had a job.........

something doesn't square with that. 





> Hill did not get up and testify to some vague "he makes me uncomfy" thingie.
> 
> I suspect we are different ages.  In 1991 I was 38 years old and had only been a lawyer a few years.  The Thomas confirmation hearings made a huge impact on me, and I watched darned near the whole process.



I was familiar with the process and was keeping track too, frankly, your experience doesn't trump my experience, (you have 5 years on me, not a yardstick that precludes my understanding due to immaturity etc. ), we just feel differently. 

When it comes to something like this it takes way more than what she had to offer, the proof was a burden on her, it may sound unfair but there it is and that is the way it has to be.

Even after making a complaint about him, she still as I said went with him and continued to correspond with him and again, that to me smells of a jaded or jilted lover,  not someone  driven to horrid distraction by stupid porno-jokes and  innuendo etc. 

As I said, I think something happened between them, was it enough to derail his appointment? from what I have seen and heard, no.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Such is my point.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Trajan, if I listen to you speak to a third person and then repeat that convo under oath, that is hearsay (usually; there are exceptions).  But if I speak with you and the later recite *our*  convo under oath, that is *direct, eyewitness testimony*.

Professor Hill's testimony cannot be called "hearsay".

I do apologize for assuming you were in your early 30's.  Must be that youthful figure of yours!


----------

