Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[Si modo]

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.

 

[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?

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[del]

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.

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]

^^^^ 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.

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]

Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

I had no idea that he was human.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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.

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

 

[Madeline]

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.

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]

Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

I had no idea that he was human.

speciest!

 

[California Girl]

Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

I had no idea that he was human.

Alleged human.

 

[theHawk]

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]

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.

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!

A far right leaning hack.

 

[Madeline]

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.

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.

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

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]

Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

I had no idea that he was human.

Go figure, huh?

 

[Madeline]

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.

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

 

[Stephanie]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[bodecea]

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]

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.

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!

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]

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.

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

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

 

[del]

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

...

Interessant, n'est pas?

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

just sayin'