Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[California Girl]

I choose not to believe either 'side', because I don't have any hard evidence either way. Polygraphs are not admissible in court for a reason - that reason is that people can cheat it. You go ahead and believe gossip if that is your desire. I shall wait - as I always do - for hard evidence. In the absence of that, I have no opinion on it.

That is not what you have done and you know it. You have instead said words to the effect of I don't believe Professor Hill and I don't believe Thomas' ex gf and then also said words to the effect of they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what words to the effect of I don't know really look like:

I was too young to remember the Thomas hearings, but I have read about them and the allegations do disturb me. I would be much more comfy with Thomas as a Justice if I knew that they were not true.

Some version of the above indicates you made an effort to look into the matter, but lacked the evidence to reach a conclusion -- so you have kept An Open Mind.

Surely you can see the difference?

Happy now? The dastardly quotation marks are all gone.

No, I'm not. You remove the quotes but still claim I have in some what made a judgement as to who is telling the truth. I have not. It is not my fault that you cannot comprehend my posts. Other people seem to be able to. I must therefore conclude, by the evidence provided by you, that you lack the intellectual capacity to respond to what I write. You prefer to respond to what I did not write. I'll try to bear that in mind.

 

[Si modo]

Si modo wrote:

CG doesn't have heartburn nor is she weepy. You, however, are insane and dishonest. You earn it every time.

HTF do you know how CG feels, Si? ESP?

You are irrelevant to this convo -- it has substance. Go find another pissing match to play in.

The adults are talking.

It looks like you are suffering from some sort of authoritarian delusions as well.

I post where I choose.

Idiot.

 

[Madeline]

That is not what you have done and you know it. You have instead said words to the effect of I don't believe Professor Hill and I don't believe Thomas' ex gf and then also said words to the effect of they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what words to the effect of I don't know really look like:

I was too young to remember the Thomas hearings, but I have read about them and the allegations do disturb me. I would be much more comfy with Thomas as a Justice if I knew that they were not true.

Some version of the above indicates you made an effort to look into the matter, but lacked the evidence to reach a conclusion -- so you have kept An Open Mind.

Surely you can see the difference?

Happy now? The dastardly quotation marks are all gone.

No, I'm not. You remove the quotes but still claim I have in some what made a judgement as to who is telling the truth. I have not. It is not my fault that you cannot comprehend my posts. Other people seem to be able to. I must therefore conclude, by the evidence provided by you, that you lack the intellectual capacity to respond to what I write. You prefer to respond to what I did not write. I'll try to bear that in mind.

Well, this is progess...in millimeters, but still. Yes, I do claim that you judged the women to be bad liars with evidence missing they "should" have had and anyway, who cares even if what they said is true.

You understand me completely on this point.

The rational thing to do next is to re-read what you wrote on this thread
o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e-l-y and see whether or not you agree I have a valid point here. Lemme know when that's done, and I'll be more'n happy to discuss further.

Here's a clue: Saying I don't need to re-read it, or reflect on it, because I discard your criticism as invalid since if it were true my feelings would get hurt will not be a valid reply to this post.

 

[Madeline]

Si modo wrote:

CG doesn't have heartburn nor is she weepy. You, however, are insane and dishonest. You earn it every time.

HTF do you know how CG feels, Si? ESP?

You are irrelevant to this convo -- it has substance. Go find another pissing match to play in.

The adults are talking.

It looks like you are suffering from some sort of authoritarian delusions as well.

I post where I choose.

Idiot.

Littering is not posting, Si.

 

[Si modo]

Happy now? The dastardly quotation marks are all gone.

No, I'm not. You remove the quotes but still claim I have in some what made a judgement as to who is telling the truth. I have not. It is not my fault that you cannot comprehend my posts. Other people seem to be able to. I must therefore conclude, by the evidence provided by you, that you lack the intellectual capacity to respond to what I write. You prefer to respond to what I did not write. I'll try to bear that in mind.

Well, this is progess...in millimeters, but still. Yes, I do claim that you judged the women to be bad liars with evidence missing they "should" have had and anyway, who cares even if what they said is true.

You understand me completely on this point.

The rational thing to do next is to re-read what you wrote on this thread
o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e-l-y and see whether or not you agree I have a valid point here. Lemme know when that's done, and I'll be more'n happy to discuss further.

Here's a clue: Saying I don't need to re-read it, or reflect on it, because I discard your criticism as invalid since if it were true my feelings would get hurt will not be a valid reply to this post.

What part of her, or my, saying I have no opinion whatsoever in this matter because I have NOTHING on which to base that opinion is so confusing to you, exactly?

 

[candycorn]

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.

No doubt about it; theres a double standard on the left; when "our guys do it" it's okay.

I just refuse to believe the rumors when it is said that he is so hateful of women, a binge drinker, bullies his son, and is so deep into porn could hold a job for that long in the first place at the EEOC and; in the second place, pass an FBI background check, and then in the third place, work in a place surrounded by lawyers for one, media for another, and activists for a third and have kept his nose squeaky clean since what, 1989? The precise year escapes me.

Where was this GF for the last 21 years? Had she not heard?

I describe myself as 51% democrat; on this I think the left is out to lunch.

It's not just the left that do 'double standards'. It is, apparently, acceptable whenever the person involved is of the same political persuasion. When it is someone you disagree with, then that person is the devil incarnate.

Personally, unless someone has something more than 'he said, she said".... like actual evidence... I'm disinclined to comment on it. It's just gossip. That opinion - or the lack of an opinion - apparently means I'm defending Thomas.... if you're very stupid.

Theres no question that there is plenty of hypocricy to go around in politics. I was simply responding to the Kennedy barb.

I'm with you; Zero evidence comes readily to mind of any impropriety on Clearance Thomas's part. We have two women spaced something like 20 years apart making allegations.

I will say this, however, that the charges Ms. Hill made were so specific, so ridiculous, and so "out there" that for the second woman to not be able to cite similiarly lurid episodes sounds very shaky. I mean a man who doesn't respect women who work with him or know him doesn't clean up his act when he is off the clock (with his girl friend) then become some sort of monster at work talking about body parts and pornography. If anything, the woman who now has come forward should be relating more salacious details. Maybe she will in the future.

To me, that is evidence that anything that happened back then has been blown out of proportion. I suppose time will tell.

 

[Si modo]

No doubt about it; theres a double standard on the left; when "our guys do it" it's okay.

I just refuse to believe the rumors when it is said that he is so hateful of women, a binge drinker, bullies his son, and is so deep into porn could hold a job for that long in the first place at the EEOC and; in the second place, pass an FBI background check, and then in the third place, work in a place surrounded by lawyers for one, media for another, and activists for a third and have kept his nose squeaky clean since what, 1989? The precise year escapes me.

Where was this GF for the last 21 years? Had she not heard?

I describe myself as 51% democrat; on this I think the left is out to lunch.

It's not just the left that do 'double standards'. It is, apparently, acceptable whenever the person involved is of the same political persuasion. When it is someone you disagree with, then that person is the devil incarnate.

Personally, unless someone has something more than 'he said, she said".... like actual evidence... I'm disinclined to comment on it. It's just gossip. That opinion - or the lack of an opinion - apparently means I'm defending Thomas.... if you're very stupid.

Theres no question that there is plenty of hypocricy to go around in politics. I was simply responding to the Kennedy barb.

I'm with you; Zero evidence comes readily to mind of any impropriety on Clearance Thomas's part. We have two women spaced something like 20 years apart making allegations.

I will say this, however, that the charges Ms. Hill made were so specific, so ridiculous, and so "out there" that for the second woman to not be able to cite similiarly lurid episodes sounds very shaky. I mean a man who doesn't respect women who work with him or know him doesn't clean up his act when he is off the clock (with his girl friend) then become some sort of monster at work talking about body parts and pornography. If anything, the woman who now has come forward should be relating more salacious details. Maybe she will in the future.

To me, that is evidence that anything that happened back then has been blown out of proportion. I suppose time will tell.

But, but, but...Thomas would run before the sun came up!!!!!! That's some weird shit. Obviously he is weird.

 

[Samson]

It's not just the left that do 'double standards'. It is, apparently, acceptable whenever the person involved is of the same political persuasion. When it is someone you disagree with, then that person is the devil incarnate.

Personally, unless someone has something more than 'he said, she said".... like actual evidence... I'm disinclined to comment on it. It's just gossip. That opinion - or the lack of an opinion - apparently means I'm defending Thomas.... if you're very stupid.

Theres no question that there is plenty of hypocricy to go around in politics. I was simply responding to the Kennedy barb.

I'm with you; Zero evidence comes readily to mind of any impropriety on Clearance Thomas's part. We have two women spaced something like 20 years apart making allegations.

I will say this, however, that the charges Ms. Hill made were so specific, so ridiculous, and so "out there" that for the second woman to not be able to cite similiarly lurid episodes sounds very shaky. I mean a man who doesn't respect women who work with him or know him doesn't clean up his act when he is off the clock (with his girl friend) then become some sort of monster at work talking about body parts and pornography. If anything, the woman who now has come forward should be relating more salacious details. Maybe she will in the future.

To me, that is evidence that anything that happened back then has been blown out of proportion. I suppose time will tell.

But, but, but...Thomas would run before the sun came up!!!!!! That's some weird shit. Obviously he is weird.

Indeed, a stain on a dress, and a lurid story involving a cigar would make it all less wierd.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I drink and watch porn while I post at USMB.

 

[Samson]

I drink and watch porn while I post at USMB.

You felt we didn't already know?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I drink and watch porn while I post at USMB.

You felt we didn't already know?

It's the drink that made me to say it.

 

[Trajan]

Eyewitness testimony is not proof?

*sigh* testimony to what? exactly? that she was at some point upset? none of of us know exactly what went down between the 2 of them. I am inclined to believe something did, only because she would have to be pathologically unbalanced to open that box after all those years.

But then again we don't know what made her upset, then, she followed him to another agency and continued to speak with him and contact him etc etc after the alleged issues, so as I said, we'll never know.

Her testimony was specific, Trajan. Repeated demands that she see him socially/sexually, which she not only refused but asked him to stop making. Repeated convos about porn, that she asked him to stop. The coke can with a pubic hair on it he gave her and then watched as she was disgusted. Etc.

her testimony was specific hearsay maddy. when she had the chance to get away from him ( which frankly she could have done at any time she wished by quitting) she didn't, she followed him to another agency, she didn't have to, she had a job.........

something doesn't square with that.

Hill did not get up and testify to some vague "he makes me uncomfy" thingie.

I suspect we are different ages. In 1991 I was 38 years old and had only been a lawyer a few years. The Thomas confirmation hearings made a huge impact on me, and I watched darned near the whole process.

I was familiar with the process and was keeping track too, frankly, your experience doesn't trump my experience, (you have 5 years on me, not a yardstick that precludes my understanding due to immaturity etc. ), we just feel differently.

When it comes to something like this it takes way more than what she had to offer, the proof was a burden on her, it may sound unfair but there it is and that is the way it has to be.

Even after making a complaint about him, she still as I said went with him and continued to correspond with him and again, that to me smells of a jaded or jilted lover, not someone driven to horrid distraction by stupid porno-jokes and innuendo etc.

As I said, I think something happened between them, was it enough to derail his appointment? from what I have seen and heard, no.

 

[candycorn]

Theres no question that there is plenty of hypocricy to go around in politics. I was simply responding to the Kennedy barb.

I'm with you; Zero evidence comes readily to mind of any impropriety on Clearance Thomas's part. We have two women spaced something like 20 years apart making allegations.

I will say this, however, that the charges Ms. Hill made were so specific, so ridiculous, and so "out there" that for the second woman to not be able to cite similiarly lurid episodes sounds very shaky. I mean a man who doesn't respect women who work with him or know him doesn't clean up his act when he is off the clock (with his girl friend) then become some sort of monster at work talking about body parts and pornography. If anything, the woman who now has come forward should be relating more salacious details. Maybe she will in the future.

To me, that is evidence that anything that happened back then has been blown out of proportion. I suppose time will tell.

But, but, but...Thomas would run before the sun came up!!!!!! That's some weird shit. Obviously he is weird.

Indeed, a stain on a dress, and a lurid story involving a cigar would make it all less wierd.

Such is my point.

 

[Madeline]

Eyewitness testimony is not proof?

*sigh* testimony to what? exactly? that she was at some point upset? none of of us know exactly what went down between the 2 of them. I am inclined to believe something did, only because she would have to be pathologically unbalanced to open that box after all those years.

But then again we don't know what made her upset, then, she followed him to another agency and continued to speak with him and contact him etc etc after the alleged issues, so as I said, we'll never know.

Her testimony was specific, Trajan. Repeated demands that she see him socially/sexually, which she not only refused but asked him to stop making. Repeated convos about porn, that she asked him to stop. The coke can with a pubic hair on it he gave her and then watched as she was disgusted. Etc.

her testimony was specific hearsay maddy. when she had the chance to get away from him ( which frankly she could have done at any time she wished by quitting) she didn't, she followed him to another agency, she didn't have to, she had a job.........

something doesn't square with that.

Hill did not get up and testify to some vague "he makes me uncomfy" thingie.

I suspect we are different ages. In 1991 I was 38 years old and had only been a lawyer a few years. The Thomas confirmation hearings made a huge impact on me, and I watched darned near the whole process.

I was familiar with the process and was keeping track too, frankly, your experience doesn't trump my experience, (you have 5 years on me, not a yardstick that precludes my understanding due to immaturity etc. ), we just feel differently.

When it comes to something like this it takes way more than what she had to offer, the proof was a burden on her, it may sound unfair but there it is and that is the way it has to be.

Even after making a complaint about him, she still as I said went with him and continued to correspond with him and again, that to me smells of a jaded or jilted lover, not someone driven to horrid distraction by stupid porno-jokes and innuendo etc.

As I said, I think something happened between them, was it enough to derail his appointment? from what I have seen and heard, no.

Trajan, if I listen to you speak to a third person and then repeat that convo under oath, that is hearsay (usually; there are exceptions). But if I speak with you and the later recite our convo under oath, that is direct, eyewitness testimony.

Professor Hill's testimony cannot be called "hearsay".

I do apologize for assuming you were in your early 30's. Must be that youthful figure of yours!