Anita Hill Part 2 - Page 3

MrsSpringsteen · 10-03-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yolland

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.

diamond · 10-03-2007, 05:07 PM

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

BVS · 10-03-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond
Actually it segued into hypocrisy, and polictical agendas springled with religiosity.

Somethings you are very familiar with...

MrsSpringsteen · 10-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond

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 · 10-03-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond

What's laughable is the hyporisy from the Left and the back flips of logic to justify their positions-even to this day.

What's really laughable is you talking about hypocrisy and back flips of logic in FYM.

diamond · 10-03-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

What's really laughable is you talking about hypocrisy and back flips of logic in FYM.

I don't think we really understand each other.

dbs

MrsSpringsteen · 10-03-2007, 05:17 PM

No you just don't want to understand what I'm saying

BVS · 10-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond

I don't think we really understand each other.

dbs

No, I just don't think you understand.

phanan · 10-03-2007, 05:23 PM

Ugh.

diamond · 10-03-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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

financeguy · 10-03-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
What court of law was Bill Clinton convicted of sexual harassment in?

Er, wha'?

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/Clarenc...rt_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."

Dreadsox · 10-03-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by U2isthebest

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.

Dreadsox · 10-03-2007, 07:34 PM

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.

Irvine511 · 10-03-2007, 07:43 PM

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.

BVS · 10-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am curious how many people, besides me, were alive and gave a shit during the Thomas hearings?

I was a freshman in HS, I remember it very well and followed quite intensely...

anitram · 10-03-2007, 08:06 PM

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 · 10-03-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am curious how many people, besides me, were alive and gave a shit during the Thomas hearings?

I was nine months old.

deep · 10-03-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26

I was nine months old.

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

yolland · 10-03-2007, 08:37 PM

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).

maycocksean · 10-03-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diamond

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.

10-03-2007, 05:07 PM	#42
diamond ONE love, blood, life Join Date: May 2002 Location: Tempe, Az USA Posts: 12,856 Local Time: 07:22 AM	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 __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-03-2007, 05:17 PM	#47
MrsSpringsteen Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Thank you for your service Bono Posts: 28,999 Local Time: 09:22 AM	No you just don't want to understand what I'm saying

10-03-2007, 05:23 PM	#49
phanan Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: in the darkness on the edge of town Posts: 26,347 Local Time: 09:22 AM	Ugh.

10-03-2007, 07:34 PM	#53
Dreadsox ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,885 Local Time: 09:22 AM	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.

10-03-2007, 07:43 PM	#54
Irvine511 Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the West Coast Posts: 34,456 Local Time: 10:22 AM	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.

10-03-2007, 08:06 PM	#56
anitram Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: NY Posts: 18,918 Local Time: 10:22 AM	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.

10-03-2007, 08:37 PM	#59
yolland Forum Moderator Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 7,471 Local Time: 03:22 PM	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).