T1B

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/po ... ml?_r=1&hp

"I'm extending an olive branch to you, Anita. Now apologize to me, bitch!"

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” she said. “That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”

The thought processes of the modern conservative never cease to amaze me.

Yes, she certainly is foolish to expect an apology from a cunt who attempted to sabotage her husband's career.

^^^^^^With lies about porn and pubes.

Talk about mindsets.

mvscal wrote:Yes, she certainly is foolish to expect an apology from a cunt who attempted to sabotage her husband's career.

Yeah, 19 years later? What the light just happened to come on? What a cunt.

I guess she got tired of waiting. Why is she the cunt?

What's with your purse swinging here anyway? You act like a 15 year old girl.

Leaving aside the fact that the message was left at 7:30 a.m., I was actually surprised that a modern conservative would be that civil.

Of course, Dems took their eye off the ball on the Thomas hearings. They should have focused on his qualifications, or more correctly, lack thereof.

mvscal wrote:I guess she got tired of waiting. Why is she the cunt?

What's with your purse swinging here anyway? You act like a naive, unintelligent, 15 year old girl that wouldn't recognize common sense if it fucked you in the ass.

FTFY-NC

Yeah, I'm sure Clarence was thrilled to hear his wife brought this all back into the news. You retards fucking astound me.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Of course, Dems took their eye off the ball on the Thomas hearings. They should have focused on his qualifications, or more correctly, lack thereof.

EASILY the most qualified member of the SCOTUS.

He's the only one that does his job on a consistent basis, and upholds the rights of the People. Doesn't try to "legislate from the bench." Doesn't JSC up the Constitution.

In such dark times of the fed taking over and trampling the Laws of the Land with impunity, Justice Thomas has been an American hero. If we had 8 more like him, we'd be in much better shape today.

mvscal wrote: What's with your purse swinging here anyway? You act like a 15 year old girl.

Screwey just wants to make sure he's beyond Diego's age preference.

88 wrote:Terry, you have to be on crack. How can you read the words written by Clarence Thomas over the years and then suggest that he was not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice? You may not agree with him. But sheeit. What more does the man need to do to prove to you that he is qualified to serve?

Considering that no less a conservative icon than William Buckley pronounced himself, at the time, "disappointed" in Thomas' nomination, I'd say I'm in pretty good company. And while I'm not a huge fan of Robert Bork, I think he was dead on when he described Thomas and fellow Poppy Bush-nominee David Souter as "stealth candidates."

During Thomas' confirmation hearings, before anyone had heard of Anita Hill, he was asked at one point about what he considered important Constitutional law decisions that had come down since he graduated from law school. I would consider that a softball question for a Supreme Court nominee. Thomas named only one decision: Roe v. Wade. Imho, that answer suggests either: (a) a compete and total failure of preparation; (b) a fundamental lack of intellectual curiosity; (c) a single-minded obsession with Roe; or (d) some combination of two or more of the above. Not ideal qualities for a Supreme Court Justice, in any event.

Thomas was not nominated because he was the best-qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court, even on the conservative side. Rather, he was nominated solely because he was a young (43 at the time), black, conservative, sitting judge (for one year prior to his nomination) who had never written a single word on abortion. In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.

Maybe there's a case to be made, especially for people inclined to agree with his positions, that he has grown into the position. But in 1991, he wasn't qualified.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.

Why not just come right out and call him an Uncle Tom? You know you want to.

In any event, that's what you libtarded douchebuckets got when you started flapping your dicksuckers about "the black seat" on the court.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.

Why not just come right out and call him an Uncle Tom?

An Uncle Tom married to a mudshark, right?

Goober McTuber wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.

Why not just come right out and call him an Uncle Tom?

An Uncle Tom married to a mudshark, right?

That just proves his Uncle Tomosity. He'll do anything to gain acceptance.

--Liberal Douche

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.

Why not just come right out and call him an Uncle Tom? You know you want to.

In any event, that's what you libtarded douchebuckets got when you started flapping your dicksuckers about "the black seat" on the court.

Wasn't that supposed to be "the back seat"?

Thomas and his wife are both lunatics. What's interesting in her bizarre phone message is the phrase "..of why you did what you did with my husband."

With her husband? Of course it would seem she means to her husband, but as we've noticed, these panting Christer right wing nutjobs seem to have a real problem with basic grammar. Hill properly thought it a witless prank and called the FBI on the crazy bitch.

As a justice Thomas is a disgrace, fuming in a bitter vindictive stew for what--twenty years now!--never speaking, but merely trailing along like a dutiful dog of the pompous Scalia--voting with him every time.

And the fact of his being an obvious beneficiary of affirmative action--and then completely presuming to oppose it is the height of hypocrisy--but that's standard for the conservative justices.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:[In essence, he was the ultimate affirmative action hire. Ironic, then, that he so bitterly opposes affirmative action.

Are you this stupid, Terry? Check this man's upbringing as a child before you start spouting off about affirmative action. He's the poster child for someone who never made excuses.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: And while I'm not a huge fan of Robert Bork, I think he was dead on when he described David Souter as a "stealth candidate."

KAGAN was not nominated because She was the best-qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court, even on the Leftist side. Rather, She was nominated solely because She was a Female Leftist, sitting judge who had written pages and pages on abortion.

And the female hispanic appointee was selected because she was most qualified?

When the lefties miss, it causes a lot more harm to this country than a conservative appointment does.


FTFM/Y

The Seer wrote:And the female hispanic appointee was selected because she was most qualified?

You can make a better case for her than you ever could have made for Thomas. Thomas and Souter were part of a strategy by Bush 41 to try to sneak a few ideologues past Democrats. They failed with Souter, they succeeded with Thomas.

MV rushing to defend a man of color...hell hath frozen over.

mvscal wrote:Yes, she certainly is foolish to expect an apology from a cunt who attempted to sabotage her husband's career.

So you were there and you know she's lying?

It is abundantly clear that it was a political hatchet job to anyone with at least two or three functional neurons. Evidently you would be excluded under that criteria.

If it actually happened or she really gave a fuck, it would have come out before his confirmation hearing.

mvscal wrote:It is abundantly clear that it was a political hatchet job to anyone with at least two or three functional neurons.

So you're saying she invited the derision just because she disagreed with the silverback politically? You're saying she made it all up and Clarence Thomas did none of the offending acts in question?

Bizzarofelice wrote: You're saying she made it all up and Clarence Thomas did none of the offending acts in question?

Yes, I thought that was clear enough. I apologize for forgetting to account for your crippling intellectual limitations.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: You're saying she made it all up and Clarence Thomas did none of the offending acts in question?

Yes

how do you know this?

No one bought into her story at the time. Pretty simple.

Did I stutter? What part of the timing of her allegations were you struggling to comprehend? I'd like to help you, but my patience and interest is limited.

Just out of curiosity is there any particular reason that you find Anita Hill credible?

mvscal wrote:Did I stutter? What part of the timing of her allegations were you struggling to comprehend? I'd like to help you, but my patience and interest is limited.

So you do not know whether she was sexually assaulted or was put between keeping her job and pleasing the arousals of Clarence Thomas.

You make all of these statements about what happened and the character of the woman, yet you only have heresay to believe and make wild accusations accordingly.

Stay classy.

Hasn't she forgiven her yet? Not much of a Christian, eh?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yes, she certainly is foolish to expect an apology from a cunt who attempted to sabotage her husband's career.

So you were there and you know she's lying?

This position is as retarded as people who said "we weren't there, we don't know what happened" in the Chris Brown/Rihanna beatdown case.

OCmike wrote: This position is as retarded as people who said "we weren't there, we don't know what happened" in the Chris Brown/Rihanna beatdown case.

Yeah, except Rihanna had, you know, bruises on her face and shit.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

OCmike wrote: This position is as retarded as people who said "we weren't there, we don't know what happened" in the Chris Brown/Rihanna beatdown case.

Yeah, except Rihanna had, you know, bruises on her face and shit.

you made OCMike look retarded.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

OCmike wrote: This position is as retarded as people who said "we weren't there, we don't know what happened" in the Chris Brown/Rihanna beatdown case.

Yeah, except Rihanna had, you know, bruises on her face and shit.

you made OCMike look retarded.

You, on the other hand, required no assistance in earning that label for yourself.

my logic is perfectly sound. review, if you must. you will certainly find that I acted logically and without drama.

y'all got emotional and defended the honor of the silverback gorilla as if he were your own daughter.

Bizzarofelice wrote:So you do not know whether she was sexually assaulted

She never alleged that she was sexually assaulted, idiot. Check back in when you think that you have a faint inkling that you might know what the fuck you're talking about.

I'm here to help.

I'm no fan of Clarence Thomas, and agree with the assertion made by others in this thread that he waits for Scalia to speak and says "ditto". But I found the entire Anita Hill debacle to be a disgusting, poorly-executed attempt at political assassination. It was a bunch of unfounded, unproveable heresay and reeked of a setup by the NAACP. Had elements of the left not bothered with their botched hatchet-job, Thomas was so far right on many of his views that had they stuck to criticizing his resume and public statements, he likely would have gone the way of Harriet Miers.

And no, I didn't need to be in the room during every Hill/Thomas conversation to come to that conclusion.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:So you do not know whether she was sexually assaulted

She never alleged that she was sexually assaulted, idiot. Check back in when you think that you have a faint inkling that you might know what the fuck you're talking about.

I'm here to help.

Here's the Cliff's notes:

"Hill charged that Thomas harassed her with inappropriate discussion of sexual acts and pornographic films after she rebuffed his invitations to date him."

Yes, charges which suddenly appeared when it became clear that his nomination was about to sail through the judiciary committee. The timing was purely coincidental no doubt.

No, the charges were made when appropriate.

She had no problem accepting his job recommendations, but there's a big difference between an AA prof at...Oral Roberts university?... ...and a lifetime slot on the Supreme Court.

Why should anyone be considered for such a position if they are in fact a flat out Christer? Seriously, this is the issue. This is why he's such a complete disgrace as a supreme court judge. Because it directly informs his toxic politics (along with his wife's). Or what?

Wake up!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06782.html

Lillian McEwen, a retired administrative law judge who said she dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, told The Washington Post: "The Clarence I know was certainly capable of not only doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then."

Yep, nothing more than a political hatchet job.

Nice job, fuckstains. Blame the victim.