Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_quietguy, Oct 20, 2010.
Which one do you think told the truth?
Anita Hill for sure. One thing seldom discussed was that Hill was a protégé of Robert Bork, a very right-wing justice. She had almost nothing to gain by speaking out and much to lose.
And today we have Clarence Thomas's Tea Party whack job wife ask for an apology. Fuck off.
Yeah, that was really offensive of Virginia Thomas! Asking for an apology is like some rapist wanting an apology from his victim because she turned him into the police and ruined his life. Just goes to show she is clueless!
Does Virginia Thomas have a book coming out or was she drunk dialing?
and CT should be impeached for his involvement with the US COC
Exactly. She had nothing to gain at all.
Easy Answer for many reasons ANITA HILL . hate to see that poor woman victimized all over again !!!
ABSOLUTELY he should be !
Who was long dong slivers?
CT was telling the truth. C'mon. Have you seen Anita? No way would any dude touch that.
Anita Hill. Remember: she didn't volunteer the information. She was sought out and interviewed after he was offered up as a potential justice. I wish one of those politicians had stood up to him when he claimed the questioning was a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks". His questioning was no more intensive than others of our times. I only wish he WAS an "uppity black"! That would have been a real asset to this court, which is in the pocket of our corporate overlords. In what way does he consider himself "uppity"? Maybe Anita could call up Virginia and gently recommend that CT publicly apologize for lying under questioning and calling Anita a liar.
I'd rather have her than Clarence, she's attractive, he's just scary!
Back to the subject and truth. There may be truth from both sides.
When somebody shows up at a confirmation hearing, having had years to complain about alleged improprieties I have doubts . She was used by Democrats, and obviously made a few deals from her story (like writing a book & speaking engagements). Could have been partially accurate, it could have been completely accurate. That doesn't mean I feel Clarence Thomas was a saint, I have doubts with him as well.
Since what was said to have happened had happened yrs. earlier and she'd never said anything, there will always be lingering doubts in the minds of some people.
You thought you were being cute. But,
What were you saying about which dudes would be wanting to touch what?
I guess tedbted chooses his girls based on their willingness to spit or swallow? :biggrin1:
For anyone who watched those hearings to not acknowledge that Anita Hill would rather have been ANYWHERE in the universe than in front of the US Congress talking about pubic hairs and office shenanigans on a continual worldwide television feed, is indicative of either complete insincerity or complete ignorance.
I watched the hearings all of them. The greatest ignorance here is displayed by you.
I believe Anita Hill because she gave very detailed descriptions of his behavior. Her testimony was clear and consistent despite being questioned by one senator after another for several days. She really held up well under all that scrutiny and pressure.
Clarence Thomas on the other hand denied everything without even acknowledging any specific allegations by Anita Hill. He even admitted he did not know what she said about him since he did not attend or watch any hearings where Anita Hill was present. (Apparently, his wife told him what Ms. Hill said in the hearings.)
His responses came across to me as complete denial.