Anita Hill Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
diamond said:


I think damaging your family is the very worse thing a person can do, paticularly, the leader of the free world.

That Bill Clinton has stated since leaving office that he sees his impeachment as a "badge of honor" doesn't bode well for a "repentant" person as you claim he is.

I do appreciate some of the humanitarian work Clinton has done since leaving office.

I do feel that he his quite cognizant of how he hopes his public perception appears which is sad, and since you I've read some of your posts and recognize "Christian" leanings in them, this verse reminds me of Bill Clinton:

Matt 16:26:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Am I condeming Bill Clinton? No.
Am I concerned about him a bit? Yes, but only a little, I have my own house to keep in order.

Cheers-

dbs

That's still his outer life. The state of his heart and soul have nothing to do with his family. Clearly his family has forgiven him and moved on. His life with his wife and daughter is still in tact, so I see no "demise" in that area. We can interpret what he means by calling his impeachment a "badge of honor" all day long, but I fail to see how that could lead to a conclusion of him being non-repentant. Clinton said he's repentant, and every action I've seen since then has backed it up. I don't know the state of his heart either, so I don't want to try and comment further. The Bible verse you quoted could be applied to any of us who have been blessed in life (and I would say that's pretty much all of us) and still manage to fuck it up (which we all do at some point) None of us are in position to cast judgement (not saying you are specifically, but many have) Bottom Line: Clinton had an affair, Clinton was wrong. Clinton apologized to his family, who forgave him and by his account to God, who forgives anyone who asks. His faults and secrets have been exposed and dealt with. He's a much freer man, than those of us in our self-righteous Christian club who are still hiding our dark secrets behind a mask of morality.
 
And I'd just like to point out how once again, the thread has become exclusively about Clinton. :|
 
diamond said:
Actually it segued into hypocrisy, and polictical agendas springled with religiosity.

dbs

That didn't happen until Clinton was brought up. After that, everybody here was merely trying to point out that this case had nothing to do with the Lewinsky scandal. Harassment and perjury are apples and oranges; neither applies to the other here, so the Clinton debate never should have been brought up in the first place.
 
U2isthebest said:





Clinton had an affair, Clinton was wrong.


Clinton had an affair,

Point is Clinton had many affairs.

He claimed to be repentant in 1992, that is where a lot of people of faith have problems.

As most understand, Repent means to turn away..but he kept coming back.
His outer (public/professional) life and inner (family/own soul) both suffered due to these behaviors:

Womanizing, lying, interfering with due process of the law which he fought.

These private/public actions hurt his family and public performance, and when it began to unravel he was forced into repenting again- there is a difference in repenting the one who is caught, and is *forced* to repent because of public shame vs. a person who does so privately because he doesn't feel right with God.

Clinton was caught publicly and tried to smear Monica in the process-and was caught at that too.

The jury as to why Hilary has stuck with him, many believe it's for polictical power, time will tell.

In short, Clarence is no Bill Clinton.

Clarence has proved himself over time.

The Left is full of hyporisy for attempting to castigate Clarence while giving a real harrasser a free ride.

dbs
 
Last edited:
diamond said:





Point is Clinton had many affairs.

He claimed to be repentant in 1992, that is where a lot of people of faith have problems.

As most understand, Repent means to turn away..but he kept coming back.
His outer (public/professional) life and inner (family/own soul) both suffered due to these behaviors:

Womanizing, lying, interfering with due process of the law which he fought.

These private/public actions hurt his family and public performance, and when it began to unravel he was forced into repenting again- there is a difference in repenting the one who is caught, and is *forced* to repent because of public shame vs. a person who does so because he doesn't feel right with God. Clinton was caught publicly and tried to smear monica in the process.

The jury as to why Hilary has stuck with him, many believe it's for polictical power, time will tell.

In short, Clarence was no Bill Clinton and has proved himself over time.

dbs

The only affairs that can be confirmed are the ones Clinton and the woman involved BOTH admitted to. Also, I don't care how many times someone fucks up if they admit it. Repent actually means to "re-think" from it's original translations. It's not this steely, down-on-my-knees- never do it again guilt trip we've turned it into in order to keep people humble and low. Since we're quoting The Bible here, what about the story of the woman caught in adultery. She was caught in bed with a man and dragged in front of all those in the temple to be stoned to death. She didn't come repenting because she felt guilty, she was about to be killed and she was begging for mercy. Jesus didn't care, he forgave her before she asked (and we have no record saying she ever outright asked) and told the self-righteous, judgemental assholes, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Those standing back tsk-ing their judgements at her were probably doing the same thing she was, or something else. Hence the reason they dropped their stones and left. Yes, she was told to "go and sin no more", but Jesus was not foolish enough to believe she would never struggle with that sin or any other again. If that was the case, than we would all stop any sin or imperfect behavior the minute we become Believers. The mere desire to try even if if someone messes up everyday is all that counts for me, and ultimately all that counts for God.
 
anitram said:
And I'd just like to point out how once again, the thread has become exclusively about Clinton. :|
Agreed. It's gone three pages now without the actual thread topic being discussed at all. If one can't defend Justice Thomas or critique Anita Hill without turning it into a thread about Bill Clinton, that doesn't say much for the merits of those arguments.
 
U2isthebest said:


someone fucks up .

manage to fuck it up..

Do we really need the profanity in your posts? Why are you angry?

I'm not wanting to come across as a saint, for goodness sakes there are other words a person can choose.

Affairs/harrassing women-both are bad, and don't need to be proven if a person is truly repentant last time I checked.

I think Jesus knew the whole story of the adultress, her accusers and did tell her in the end to sin no more. Many lessons can be taken from that biblical story.

And as a believer yes one changes his or her heart, stops sinning paticularly a sin you were caught in.

But say a porn star who accepts Christ one day, claims he's repentant stops filming and sleeping around, then decides to cheat on his income tax, isn't truly repentant now is he,-that I hope we can agree on.

best,

dbs
 
Last edited:
diamond said:




Do we really need the profanity in your posts? Why are you angry?

I'm not wanting to come across as a saint, for goodness sakes there are other words a person can choose.

Affairs/harrassing women-both are bad, and don't need to be proven if a person is truly repentant last time I checked.

I think Jesus knew the whole story of the adultress, her accusers and did tell her in the end to sin no more. Many lessons can be taken from that biblical story.

And as a believer yes one changes his or her heart, stops sinning paticularly a sin you were caught in.

But say a porn star who accepts Christ one day, claims he's repentant stops filming and sleeping around, then cheats on his income tax, isn't truly repentant-that I hope we can agree on .

best,

dbs

I'm not even continuing a debate with someone who's biggest problem is the language I choose to express myself in. Let's end it here. I'm a Christian, you're a Christian. You're Conservative. I'm Liberal. We will probably never agree on anything other than the base point of Christianity. I'm perfectly convinced of my own opinions, and they're no more right or wrong than yours.
 
yolland said:

Agreed. It's gone three pages now without the actual thread topic being discussed at all. If one can't defend Justice Thomas or critique Anita Hill without turning it into a thread about Bill Clinton, that doesn't say much for the merits of those arguments.

Thank you-and thanks anitram. What court of law was Bill Clinton convicted of sexual harassment in? To compare the Anita Hill situation with Monica is laughable-and again I don't condone Clinton's behavior.
 
They were both accused of harrasment.
One was convicted on charges stemming from an earlier allegations.
What's laughable is the hyporisy from the Left and the back flips of logic to justify their positions-even to this day.

dbs
 
diamond said:

Affairs/harrassing women-both are bad, and don't need to be proven if a person is truly repentant last time I checked.

Affairs (slash) harassment? What's with the slash? Harassment is illegal-affairs are not. And they have nothing to do with each other. Affairs are consensual, harassment is not.

Is that how Justice Thomas is showing he's repentant, by saying such lovely things about Anita Hill? Or is that necessary somehow to prove his innocence-by saying those things about her? How about just saying again that he didn't do it and leave it at that?
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
No you just don't want to understand what I'm saying

No, I believe that you think that I don't understand you, or that I don't want to understand you, or you may think that I think that my views are superior to yours, none of these assesments are correct.

dbs
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
What court of law was Bill Clinton convicted of sexual harassment in?

Er, wha'? :huh:

Considering you're the one that is assuming Thomas was guilty, that's a mighty odd question to ask.

My own view is that Thomas was targetted by the pro-abortion on demand brigade because they couldn't stand the idea of a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court. That's just a personal opinion, mind.

What is certainly objectively true is that the "evidence" against him didn't persuade the Congress, and what is also true is that there are big question marks over the reliability of the "evidence" against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Supreme_Court_appointment

"However, statements by Anita Hill that were deemed by some to be contradictory; the fact that she had followed him from the DOE to the EEOC after the alleged harassment had begun; assertions that she had, in fact, accused a man other than Thomas of the alleged harassment; additional testimony for Thomas by former female associates; all weakened the credibility of Hill's allegations. In the end, the Committee did not find sufficient evidence to corroborate Anita Hill's claim."
 
U2isthebest said:


Let's see, Clinton was not impeached by the Senate, thereby not losing his presidency. He left office with a 65% approval rating, higher than any president since World War II ended. He's continued to do good work throughout the world through CGI and is still loved and esteemed by many Americans as one of our best presidents. How does that equal "demise" to you, other than your own personal dislike of him?

Wrong...Clinton was impeached. PERIOD. Impeachment means brought up on charges for trial in the Senate.

The trial meant nothing more than it was determined to have not been a serious enough charge to warrent removal.

The charges he was impeached for was LYING UNDER OATH in a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT case. One in which multiple women were demonstrating a pattern of him using his position to get sexual favors from subordinates.

So do not turn it into breaking his marriage vows. He LIED in a court of law. He was impeached. He had his license to practice law revoked (a fair punishment) because of his lying under oath.

---------------------------------------------------------

And Clarence Thomas, has not one other person in his entire career coming forward to say he was a harrasser.

Seems strange to me.
 
I am curious how many people, besides me, were alive and gave a shit during the Thomas hearings?

I remember my african american professor screaming at the top of her lungs that she was a liar. How could she be doing this to another african american. She believed Anita was making it up to increase her ability to make $$$$. Very interesting. At the time I defended Anita in class. Today, I am still thinking that I do not believe it was harassment.

Dunno....things change.
 
i was alive but oblivious to CT and AH. it seemed to me, at the time, that it wasn't harassment. but i have no earthly idea.

but we're getting past this issue and into Clinton bashing. there's little question that Thomas is an unremarkable judge, and if you're left wing, he's on the wrong side of the issues (which is fine -- the Right breathes fire at RBG). there's also little question that what Clinton was impeached for was hardly "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the whole thing was, yes, a right wing plot, and we can also argue that asking about someone's sex life is a perjury trap.

is Clinton a sleaze? obviously.

was impeachment at all appropriate or worthy of anyone's time? obviously not.
 
I never cared about the Anita Hill mess, nor do I today. It's completely unnecessary in coming to conclude that Clarence Thomas is, at best, a mediocre justice. And that's irrespective of the fact that if you look at him as Thurgood's replacement, he was an awful one. Some of his judgments are just highly suspect and more than the other justices, he seems to approach them with a chip on his shoulder. The entire tone of his book, from what's been published anyway, sounds the same way. A man who is bitter, and angry, at undefined masses who were against him, and so on. It's a whiny autobiography from an unremarkable justice who, 50 years from now, won't be remembered for much apart from his staunch attitudes and how they've affected his decisions. Contrast that to former justices like Marshall, or especially Earl Warren and their legacies.
 
phillyfan26 said:


I was nine months old. :ohmy:
I was 36

and remember it quite well


it got a lot of T V coverage
and it seemed everyone was weighing in with an opinion
 
Last edited:
I was in college also, but that year was studying in India where the story wasn't much reported, so I remember little of it. I do remember going to the US consulate to watch a kind of monthly roundup of clips from major American news stories on ABC that month, which featured Orrin Hatch asking Thomas "Is it true that you said 'There's a pubic hair in my Coke'?" at which the audience, which was almost entirely composed of Indian men, convulsed in hysterical giggles. Whether this was because they were utterly shocked at the presence of such coarse language in televised federal proceedings, or wildly amused by the absurd idea that those slutty American women are actually capable of feeling harassed, I'm not sure.

At any rate, I don't remember enough about it to have an informed opinion. While I admire Clarence Thomas for having had the determination and talent to come very far from some very tough beginnings, I've never been impressed by the SCOTUS opinions of his I've read, and was pretty much mindblown by his comments on Brown v. Board of Education during the recent hearings on school desegregation in Seattle and St. Louis (i.e., that the only thing wrong with pre-Brown segregated schools was that the segregation was de jure rather than de facto, a claim that would've had Marshall--whose work Thomas benefited from tremendously--rolling in his grave).
 
diamond said:


Most Americans would disagree with you paticularily African Americans.

I can distinguish between the 2 cases and have, pointed out the differences, and how they can also relate.

He and Condo Rice are 2 of the most respected Afrcan Americans by African Americans in our country not withstanding your snarky remarks.

dbs

Oh, were you at the last meeting of the African American Community? Because usually it's only us black folk there. . .and I don't recall us all deciding that we deeply respect Clarence Thomas. . .

At any rate, this particular African American doesn't deeply respect Clarence Thomas. I'd be curious to know how you were able to divine the opinions of all the others African Americans in the country.
 
Back
Top Bottom