• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

The latter. It just sounds better that way, RightNYC.
 
Chappy said:
Wow, Gore and Clinton were accused of sexual advances, so it's okay for Thomas? Really? Everybody does it? Is that your excuse for Thomas?
Click to expand...




Actually Everybody DOES NOT DO IT.

This is the Main Point many Progressives simply cannot fathom. You see they truly are comfortable with those who do , and this includes guys like Larry Craig, and Jimmy Swaggert .

They reserve their deep Hate for those they KNOW will never be caught in any compromising situation.

In the 1988/99 Bill Clinton/ Monica escapade the Feminists rallied because Her Highness - Hillary the First, Queen of the Enlightened had to be preserved. It didn't matter that She lied thru her teeth on the 3 Motning shows in short order. She had to be kept viable to save the Brave New World that was headed our way.
 
Chappy said:
This thread is about Thomas and his alleged abuse of women in his office, not Clinton, not Gore. Maybe if you stayed on topic we could actually advance the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

The issue is that you are just hopping on board without thinking about it first. Or, if you did think about it, you aren't really thinking that long.
 
Chappy said:
This thread is about Thomas and his alleged abuse of women in his office, not Clinton, not Gore. Maybe if you stayed on topic we could actually advance the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

I know this is awfully complex, but I wasn't actually arguing anything about what Clinton or Gore did or didn't do. I was using those situations (and your own words) as examples to highlight your blatant hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Chappy said:
This thread is about Thomas and his alleged abuse of women in his office, not Clinton, not Gore. Maybe if you stayed on topic we could actually advance the issue at hand.
Click to expand...



The only thing You are interested in advancing is a Firewall to ward off the probable Shellacking coming in 10 days. If you can rehash History because of a renewed interest based on Mrs. Thomas contacting Anita Hall - Swell - I'll mention the Man from Hope and the lovely crew he was entwined with from adolescence and those who preserved his Horny ass since his Oxford days.
 
Chappy said:
The thread is not about me. It's about Thomas and his alleged abuse.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.


" and his alleged abuse."

A very good observation. Note, "alleged."

OP: "The truth will out!"-Not because we may find out the truth, but because you already knew the truth.

Earlier: "If you're a Justice Thomas supporter, you have to be sick at heart over this. It is now clear that Anita Hill was telling the truth and he was an abuser."

Later, but still earlier: "The hypocrisy was entirely Thomas'.

This story is about justice finally served. Thomas is discredited."
 
Chappy said:
The thread is not about me. It's about Thomas and his alleged abuse.

“He was obsessed with porn.” — Lillian McEwen​
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought the case was closed, not merely alleged. This is what you said.

You made it about you when you made it personal pertaining to others who find this woman's word suspicious. If you're going to cry about the worms which wriggle out of the can, don't open it.
 
By every witness we know he certainly knew it when he saw it.
 
Chappy said:
The thread is not about me. It's about Thomas and his alleged abuse.

“He was obsessed with porn.” — Lillian McEwen​
Click to expand...

Even your edit makes it worse.

"Trust me, guys. It's not about me. I'm just reporting the news. By the way...HE'S OBSESSED WITH PORN! I mean nothing when I say, HE WAS OBSESSED WITH PORN."
 
Chappy said:
By every witness we know he certainly knew it when he saw it.
Click to expand...

And those witnesses against Clinton and Gore? Still waiting to hear why you think they weren't credible.
 
Fiddytree said:
Even your edit makes it worse.

"Trust me, guys. It's not about me. I'm just reporting the news. By the way...HE'S OBSESSED WITH PORN! I mean nothing when I say, HE WAS OBSESSED WITH PORN."
Click to expand...



This is the usual Liberal BS where they expect perfection from those Maintaining any standards at all , but could not care less about an avalanche of debauchery all around them. Now He/She(??) might be an anti Porn Zealot like the late Andrea Dworkin , but I tend to doubt that.
 
Chappy said:
The thread is not about me. It's about Thomas and his alleged abuse.
Click to expand...

And I've offered several reasons to take this woman's claims with a brick of salt.

“He was obsessed with porn.” — Lillian McEwen​
Click to expand...

Let's pretend this is true - what exactly do you think this would prove? Is being "obsessed with porn" a bad thing? Is it against the law? Or is it just another pathetic attempt to smear everyone to the right of Steny Hoyer? Why do I get the feeling that someone with liberal sensibilities would not normally object to a person being interested in pornography, and would in fact cast derision on "regressive rethuglicans" who criticize pornography?

(As an aside, this reminds me of a funny story I heard about Justice Marshall. A few years after Potter Stewart came up with his "I know it when I see it" obscenity test, the court was hearing another obscenity case. The SC has a special theater room where the justices can go watch videos that are relevant to their cases. Now, Justice Marshall was a pretty big dude with a booming voice, while Justice Brennan was a smaller, more nebbish kind of guy. Brennan is walking down the hall to go to his office when Marshall, smoking a cigar, comes from behind and puts an arm around him. With a big grin on his face, Marshall tells Brennan "come on, let's go see if we know it when we see it" and steers him into the projector room to watch the video.)
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Don't be foolish. When women accused Gore or Clinton of sexual misconduct, that's because they're liars and crooks just trying to smear the good names of those upstanding gentlemen. When someone accuses Thomas of [whatever this is], that's because hes a BIG BAD BLACK RAPIST WHO DESERVES IT.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the reverse is kinda interesting too. You know as well as I, some of those who accept Clinton/Gore as rapists and sexual predators(or whatever) are quick to claim this woman lacks credibility.

In this case, it's too late to really do anything about it, so I am not going to get all bent out of shape about this.
 
Chappy said:
Focus, dude, focus. Thomas. Not Gore. Not Clinton.

“What size are your breasts?” — Clarence Thomas​
Click to expand...

Yeah, and you were focused like a frickin' medical laser in posts 3, 6, 11, 16, etc. Funny how "focus" is suddenly paramount when your own blazing hypocrisy has been laid totally bare.
 
Redress said:
To be fair, the reverse is kinda interesting too. You know as well as I, some of those who accept Clinton/Gore as rapists and sexual predators(or whatever) are quick to claim this woman lacks credibility.
Click to expand...

If they were in the thread, I'd be quite happy to call them out, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Professor Hill submitted herself voluntarily to a polygraph and the experienced examiner said she passed. Ginny Thomas doesn't deserve anything at all until she drags Clarence in to have a polygraph by a reputable operator. When all of us can compare apples to apples, then doubt Professor Hill. Without attempt of proof by the Thomases, it's just stooopid to believe anything the Thomases assert.

Regards from Rosie
 
RosieS said:
Professor Hill submitted herself voluntarily to a polygraph and the experienced examiner said she passed. Ginny Thomas doesn't deserve anything at all until she drags Clarence in to have a polygraph by a reputable operator. When all of us can compare apples to apples, then doubt Professor Hill. Without attempt of proof by the Thomases, it's just stooopid to believe anything the Thomases assert.

Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


This is just whining from the liberal establishment that the first black Justice was conservative....hahahahahahahaha!


j-mac
 
RosieS said:
Professor Hill submitted herself voluntarily to a polygraph and the experienced examiner said she passed. Ginny Thomas doesn't deserve anything at all until she drags Clarence in to have a polygraph by a reputable operator. When all of us can compare apples to apples, then doubt Professor Hill. Without attempt of proof by the Thomases, it's just stooopid to believe anything the Thomases assert.

Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...

I can tell you from experience a polygraph means little. There is a reason they are not acceptable in criminal court.

Anyone who is calm and relaxed will pass 90% of the time. Anyone who is very nervous will fail. They are not the end all be all even if useful.
 
RosieS said:
Professor Hill submitted herself voluntarily to a polygraph and the experienced examiner said she passed. Ginny Thomas doesn't deserve anything at all until she drags Clarence in to have a polygraph by a reputable operator. When all of us can compare apples to apples, then doubt Professor Hill. Without attempt of proof by the Thomases, it's just stooopid to believe anything the Thomases assert.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, here in the United States (and in logic), if you accuse someone, the burden is on you to prove it, not on the accused to disprove it.

Now, if you decide that for you, the liberal is always more credible than the conservative, then that's your choice -- but that has nothing to do with logic or fairness.
 
Chappy said:
If you're a Justice Thomas supporter, you have to be sick at heart over this. It is now clear that Anita Hill was telling the truth and he was an abuser.
Click to expand...
When I first read this I thought it was sarcasm until I saw who wrote it.
 
mpg said:
When I first read this I thought it was sarcasm until I saw who wrote it.
Click to expand...



In some eyes Anita Hill is Peter Zenger/Thoreau/Clarence Darrow all rolled up into one pivotal Idealist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom