Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[Soggy in NOLA]

And Bill Clinton was a notorious sexual assaulter of women.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You fucks are pathetic.

 

[Madeline]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[Flaylo]

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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

Boooooooooooooooosh!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stephanie]

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.