Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[Lonestar_logic]

(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]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[del]

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.

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]

Damn, the stupid is thick in this thread.

Good stuff.

 

[Madeline]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

"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]

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.

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

"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.

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

 

[Si modo]

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.

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.

....

"... 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]

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.

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.

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]

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

"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.

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

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

 

[California Girl]

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

"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.

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

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]

"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.

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

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

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]

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.

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

"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.

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

 

[Si modo]

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

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

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.

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

 

[The T]

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

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.

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.

*YEP*

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

 

[California Girl]

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

"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.

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

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]

"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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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

"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.

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

 

[Si modo]

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

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.

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.

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