Clarence Thomas drank heavily, watched porn

[JakeStarkey]

(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

Do you just say something bad about a black Public Figure? Why surely you must be a racist!!!

Not necessarily, Charles_Main. Those who point out bad things about fauxreactionary wannabees are not automatically liberals, but those chastised will call their chastisers liberals automatically and give away their game. So the calling the Justice out by Chris is not racism, unless you can point specific points of racism in Chris. I don't think you can.

We see the same defense by racists. To call out certain behavior, racism for example, is necessary, correct, proper, right. bigrebnc is a perfect example. He will say those who call him out are racist. Such a weak argument by him, isn't it, and we all know it.

Rush and other known reactionaries sound utterly stupid every time they do it.

 

[California Girl]

Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, then you are being stupid.

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.

 

[Madeline]

Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, then you are being stupid.

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?

 

[Si modo]

Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, then you are being stupid.

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 "I don't believe Professor Hill" and "I don't believe Thomas' ex gf" and said they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

That's not at all what CaliG said. The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing. At all. Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.

 

[California Girl]

Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, then you are being stupid.

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 "I don't believe Professor Hill" and "I don't believe Thomas' ex gf" and said they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

Just for the crack of it, Maddie, why don't you go ahead and find those statements that you quote me as saying.

Shall I wait?

 

[Madeline]

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 "I don't believe Professor Hill" and "I don't believe Thomas' ex gf" and said they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

That's not at all what CaliG said. The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing. At all. Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.

Another trite insult. How sad, how boring, how predictable.

 

[Madeline]

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 "I don't believe Professor Hill" and "I don't believe Thomas' ex gf" and said they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

Just for the crack of it, Maddie, why don't you go ahead and find those statements that you quote me as saying.

Shall I wait?

CG, I am tired. Re-read the thread and if you still can't get what I am saying, lemme know. I am more'n happy to assist you, but I want to see some effort on your part here as well.

 

[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 "I don't believe Professor Hill" and "I don't believe Thomas' ex gf" and said they both had bad motives for speaking out, even if what they claimed was true.

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

That's not at all what CaliG said. The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing. At all. Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.

Weird shit, huh, mo chara? The more I read of Maddie's shit, the more I understand why I don't understand what she says.... It's not me missing her point - it is her lack of point!

Will Maddie ever learn to comprehend or are we fighting a lost cause?

Will she ever stop listening to the voices in her head?

Turn in next week for another exciting episode.

*Episode as in a mental breakdown type episode, not a forthcoming installment of a fascinating series.

 

[Si modo]

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

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

That's not at all what CaliG said. The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing. At all. Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.

Another trite insult. How sad, how boring, how predictable.

OK. Then you don't have voices in your head telling you what others' views are and you just lie about others' positions.

Either way, it makes you have no credibility whatsoever. Or you are incredibly stupid. You wouldn't know honesty if it was a train barreling toward you on the tracks.

 

[California Girl]

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

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

Just for the crack of it, Maddie, why don't you go ahead and find those statements that you quote me as saying.

Shall I wait?

CG, I am tired. Re-read the thread and if you still can't get what I am saying, lemme know. I am more'n happy to assist you, but I want to see some effort on your part here as well.

Maddie. I don't give a shit whether you are tired. You quoted me as saying things that I categorically did not say. I dislike being misrepresented. My words are my living. You lied about me. I find that offensive. That you now decide that you can't be bothered to prove what you said is spineless. Back it up, apologize for being wrong, or admit you lied deliberately. Any of these is sufficient.

 

[Si modo]

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

Here's what "I don't know" really looks 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?

That's not at all what CaliG said. The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing. At all. Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.

Weird shit, huh, mo chara? The more I read of Maddie's shit, the more I understand why I don't understand what she says.... It's not me missing her point - it is her lack of point!

Will Maddie ever learn to comprehend or are we fighting a lost cause?

Will she ever stop listening to the voices in her head?

Turn in next week for another exciting episode.

*Episode as in a mental breakdown type episode, not a forthcoming installment of a fascinating series.

I try, but she may be intractable. Perhaps you can break through.

 

[Madeline]

Just for the crack of it, Maddie, why don't you go ahead and find those statements that you quote me as saying.

Shall I wait?

CG, I am tired. Re-read the thread and if you still can't get what I am saying, lemme know. I am more'n happy to assist you, but I want to see some effort on your part here as well.

Maddie. I don't give a shit whether you are tired. You quoted me as saying things that I categorically did not say. I dislike being misrepresented. My words are my living. You lied about me. I find that offensive. That you now decide that you can't be bothered to prove what you said is spineless. Back it up, apologize for being wrong, or admit you lied deliberately. Any of these is sufficient.

I gave my opinion of your posts on this thread. As it really is my opinion, I did not lie. I am very sorry if you are distressed, but I am doing you no favors by pretending you have not been behaving like a partisan hack these past few days and as a friend, I spoke the harsh, unvarnished truth.

If you need a cuddle, I'm here. If you need a yes man, look elsewhere....I am sure you can find one or two.

 

[Si modo]

CG, I am tired. Re-read the thread and if you still can't get what I am saying, lemme know. I am more'n happy to assist you, but I want to see some effort on your part here as well.

Maddie. I don't give a shit whether you are tired. You quoted me as saying things that I categorically did not say. I dislike being misrepresented. My words are my living. You lied about me. I find that offensive. That you now decide that you can't be bothered to prove what you said is spineless. Back it up, apologize for being wrong, or admit you lied deliberately. Any of these is sufficient.

I gave my opinion of your posts on this thread. As it really is my opinion, I did not lie. I am very sorry if you are distressed, but I am doing you no favors by pretending you have not been behaving like a partisan hack these past few days and as a friend, I spoke the harsh, unvarnished truth.

If you need a cuddle, I'm here. If you need a yes man, look elsewhere....I am sure you can find one or two.

Lying about what others write is not an opinion. It's just lies.

 

[Madeline]

That's not at all what CaliG said. The voices may tell you that's what CaliG believes, but she explicitly stated that she believes nothing. At all. Because she has nothing on which to base an opinion in this matter.

Stop listening to the voices in your head and read and actually comprehend what others write.

Weird shit, huh, mo chara? The more I read of Maddie's shit, the more I understand why I don't understand what she says.... It's not me missing her point - it is her lack of point!

Will Maddie ever learn to comprehend or are we fighting a lost cause?

Will she ever stop listening to the voices in her head?

Turn in next week for another exciting episode.

*Episode as in a mental breakdown type episode, not a forthcoming installment of a fascinating series.

I try, but she may be intractable. Perhaps you can break through.

Trite ad hominems, from you both. You should have to return your college degrees as you are behaving like an embarrassment to whichever colleges graduated either of you.

This is not debate; it is silly putty.

 

[California Girl]

CG, I am tired. Re-read the thread and if you still can't get what I am saying, lemme know. I am more'n happy to assist you, but I want to see some effort on your part here as well.

Maddie. I don't give a shit whether you are tired. You quoted me as saying things that I categorically did not say. I dislike being misrepresented. My words are my living. You lied about me. I find that offensive. That you now decide that you can't be bothered to prove what you said is spineless. Back it up, apologize for being wrong, or admit you lied deliberately. Any of these is sufficient.

I gave my opinion of your posts on this thread. As it really is my opinion, I did not lie. I am very sorry if you are distressed, but I am doing you no favors by pretending you have not been behaving like a partisan hack these past few days and as a friend, I spoke the harsh, unvarnished truth.

If you need a cuddle, I'm here. If you need a yes man, look elsewhere....I am sure you can find one or two.

No Maddie, you did not give an opinion. You put quote marks around words and attributed those words to me. I did not say those words. Therefore, you lied, you misrepresented or you were wrong. Any of these is fine. Just have the courage to say it.

I have deliberately not taken either 'side' - because I don't have enough facts to know who is or is not telling the truth. You choose to form an opinion based on gossip. That is fine. I personally wouldn't, but clearly I have higher standards of evidence than you do.

But, you have stated that I am defending Thomas. I am not defending jack shit. I am asking for hard evidence, not gossip. Clear enough for you?

Now, address the point. Did I, or did I not, say what you claim I said?

 

[Si modo]

Weird shit, huh, mo chara? The more I read of Maddie's shit, the more I understand why I don't understand what she says.... It's not me missing her point - it is her lack of point!

Will Maddie ever learn to comprehend or are we fighting a lost cause?

Will she ever stop listening to the voices in her head?

Turn in next week for another exciting episode.

*Episode as in a mental breakdown type episode, not a forthcoming installment of a fascinating series.

I try, but she may be intractable. Perhaps you can break through.

Trite ad hominems, from you both. You should have to return your college degrees as you are behaving like an embarrassment to whichever colleges graduated either of you.

This is not debate; it is silly putty.

Correct. There is no debate to be had when one party cannot comprehend the written (or spoken) word and when the one party consistently lies and when that one party admits to just emoting rather than using any rational thought. Right - that's not debate.

As so many point this out to you and you still lie about others' views, one must conclude that you enjoy being viewed as insane and/or dishonest.

 

[Madeline]

Maddie. I don't give a shit whether you are tired. You quoted me as saying things that I categorically did not say. I dislike being misrepresented. My words are my living. You lied about me. I find that offensive. That you now decide that you can't be bothered to prove what you said is spineless. Back it up, apologize for being wrong, or admit you lied deliberately. Any of these is sufficient.

I gave my opinion of your posts on this thread. As it really is my opinion, I did not lie. I am very sorry if you are distressed, but I am doing you no favors by pretending you have not been behaving like a partisan hack these past few days and as a friend, I spoke the harsh, unvarnished truth.

If you need a cuddle, I'm here. If you need a yes man, look elsewhere....I am sure you can find one or two.

No Maddie, you did not give an opinion. You put quote marks around words and attributed those words to me. I did not say those words. Therefore, you lied, you misrepresented or you were wrong. Any of these is fine. Just have the courage to say it.

I have deliberately not taken either 'side' - because I don't have enough facts to know who is or is not telling the truth. You choose to form an opinion based on gossip. That is fine. I personally wouldn't, but clearly I have higher standards of evidence than you do.

But, you have stated that I am defending Thomas. I am not defending jack shit. I am asking for hard evidence, not gossip. Clear enough for you?

Now, address the point. Did I, or did I not, say what you claim I said?

The quotation marks? That's your heartburn? You really think no one -- not even you -- can see I was not reciting your posts chapter and verse? I think it's as plain as fucking day I was paraphrasing you and comparing it to what a REAL undecided person would have said.

Fine, if it makes you less weepy, I'll alter the punctuation.....but this is just more silly bullshittery on your part. When I quote you or anyone else, it looks like this:

CG wrote in part:

Now, address the point.

Every fucking time.

 

[Si modo]

I gave my opinion of your posts on this thread. As it really is my opinion, I did not lie. I am very sorry if you are distressed, but I am doing you no favors by pretending you have not been behaving like a partisan hack these past few days and as a friend, I spoke the harsh, unvarnished truth.

If you need a cuddle, I'm here. If you need a yes man, look elsewhere....I am sure you can find one or two.

No Maddie, you did not give an opinion. You put quote marks around words and attributed those words to me. I did not say those words. Therefore, you lied, you misrepresented or you were wrong. Any of these is fine. Just have the courage to say it.

I have deliberately not taken either 'side' - because I don't have enough facts to know who is or is not telling the truth. You choose to form an opinion based on gossip. That is fine. I personally wouldn't, but clearly I have higher standards of evidence than you do.

But, you have stated that I am defending Thomas. I am not defending jack shit. I am asking for hard evidence, not gossip. Clear enough for you?

Now, address the point. Did I, or did I not, say what you claim I said?

The quotation marks? That's your heartburn? You really think no one -- not even you -- can see I was not reciting your posts chapter and verse? I think it's as plain as fucking day I was paraphrasing you and comparing it to what a REAL undecided person would have said.

Fine, if it makes you less weepy, I'll alter the punctuation.....but this is just more silly bullshittery on your part. When I quote you or anyone else, it looks like this:

CG wrote in part:

Now, address the point.

Every fucking time.

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

 

[Madeline]

Yes, when believing one or the other is required and you chose the one whose story does not hang together, who has not passed a polygraph, who has been said by others to have engaged in the same behavior....and the reason you do so is because life would be so much simpler if you could pretend that everyone you "think" shares your politics is a Good Guy, then you are being stupid.

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.

 

[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.