Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[The T]

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

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

Oh, good grief.


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

What a fucking painfully stupid person you are.

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

 

[Sarah G]

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

Oh, good grief.


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

What a fucking painfully stupid person you are.

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

 

[California Girl]

Oh, good grief.


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

What a fucking painfully stupid person you are.

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

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

 

[Madeline]

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

Oh, good grief.


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

What a fucking painfully stupid person you are.

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

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

 

[Sarah G]

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

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

Perception is everything, CG.

 

[Madeline]

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

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

I cannot believe you are a Hill denier, CG.

Shame, shame, shame.

 

[Madeline]

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

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

Perception is everything, CG.

No, evidentially wishful thinking is everything.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

(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]

As Anita Hill has yet to prove her assertions.

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

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

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

​

 

[Madeline]

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

That dirty old fart was guilty alright.

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

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

​

CG is not a birther, Mr. Shaman.

Paint with a smaller brush, please.

 

[Si modo]

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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!

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?

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]

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!

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?

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.

I freely admit my bias. I ♥ 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]

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

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

​

CG is not a birther, Mr. Shaman.

Paint with a smaller brush, please.

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]

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

​

CG is not a birther, Mr. Shaman.

Paint with a smaller brush, please.

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.​

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

 

[Douger]

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

 

[topspin]

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

 

[Si modo]

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]

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?

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.

I freely admit my bias. I ♥ 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?

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]

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.

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.

The reactions here are just surreal.

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.