View Full Version : Clarence Thomas on 60 Min.
Wabash
10-01-2007, 11:45 AM
He was nothing short of eloquent last night! A genuinely nice person. Intelligent and well spoken. I would like to have him as a friend...
Wabash
10-01-2007, 11:48 AM
Thomas is a fine example of a Rags to Riches story and being somebody. I'm sure he makes a good amount of money, but more then money, he is rich in Life's Wisdom.
His Gramps was a true beacon of light and strength. He knows what it is to be poor, and knows that Jackson and Rangle are charletons! He described his critics as just silly and petty. Every couple of minutes, my wife and I were going..........YES!
We both thoroughly enjoyed it.....a "real" person being interviewed!
issac the dragon
10-01-2007, 11:51 AM
Gee Wabash. I missed you. Imagine that. You add spice to my otherwise boring life. :sun
Wabash
10-01-2007, 12:00 PM
Gee Wabash. I missed you. Imagine that. You add spice to my otherwise boring life. :sun
Haaaaaa! The Spice Guy huh?
When did this forum open back up?...I checked yesterday and got the off line msg. and no notice via email..
Wabash
10-01-2007, 12:16 PM
Justice Thomas is on Rush's show right now....
issac the dragon
10-01-2007, 12:17 PM
I wasn't notified either. But hey, emails don't always go through. Even when they said they did.
Wabash
10-01-2007, 01:37 PM
I wasn't notified either. But hey, emails don't always go through. Even when they said they did.
I found it from last week, buried in tons of spam mail and I missed it...
The Q
10-01-2007, 01:38 PM
I was SPAM!?
:cry
Wabby, you're a paid member now. Go check out the other forums.
We have nifty new smilies too. Like "osama": :osama
:lmao
ADQ
Rockin Rodney
10-01-2007, 01:46 PM
I was SPAM!?
:cry
Wabby, you're a paid member now. Go check out the other forums.
We have nifty new smilies too. Like "osama": :osama
:lmao
ADQ
Target practice?? Hit the Bean Pole! The Castro Avatar may be the last time wee see him standing, with any luck!:castro:devil
Wabash
10-01-2007, 02:00 PM
I was SPAM!?
:cry
Wabby, you're a paid member now. Go check out the other forums.
We have nifty new smilies too. Like "osama": :osama
:lmao
ADQ
You aren't Spam Q...but I get a lot of it and you were surrounded!:wink
crazierthanever
10-02-2007, 10:59 AM
He was nothing short of eloquent last night! A genuinely nice person. Intelligent and well spoken. I would like to have him as a friend...
I sincerely have to disagree with you Wabash. I thought Justice Thomas came off as a cry baby. Those mean awful liberals hurt him. After all, he got his - why should he help any other African Americans up the ladder? And that bad old Anita Hill wasn't a very good employee, now was she? Fantastic! A sitting Supreme Court Justice shilling his book on tv. Charming. Simply charming.
I sincerely have to disagree with you Wabash. I thought Justice Thomas came off as a cry baby. Those mean awful liberals hurt him. After all, he got his - why should he help any other African Americans up the ladder? And that bad old Anita Hill wasn't a very good employee, now was she? Fantastic! A sitting Supreme Court Justice shilling his book on tv. Charming. Simply charming.
It must not have bothered you when Justice Breyer did the same then?:hotdog
Thomas in no way came off as a cry baby in my opinion? He isn't as eloquent as other Justices, but he spoke well IMO.
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 11:15 AM
Anita Hill, now she's well spoken 'n she tells the truth too.
:kurtz
crazierthanever
10-02-2007, 11:26 AM
It must not have bothered you when Justice Breyer did the same then?:hotdog
Thomas in no way came off as a cry baby in my opinion? He isn't as eloquent as other Justices, but he spoke well IMO.
I've never personally seen Justice Breyer whine, no. I don't believe any member of the highest court of the land serves his office well by going on talk shows. Eloquent and Clarence Thomas have no business being mentioned in the same sentence, imo.
I've never personally seen Justice Breyer whine, no. I don't believe any member of the highest court of the land serves his office well by going on talk shows. Eloquent and Clarence Thomas have no business being mentioned in the same sentence, imo.
Not Breyer whining, shilling his book on tv. And as I said, in no way is he eloquent.
Wabash
10-02-2007, 12:17 PM
He was nothing short of eloquent! A genuinely nice person. Intelligent and well spoken. I would like to have him as a friend...
Thomas is a fine example of a Rags to Riches story and being somebody. I'm sure he makes a good amount of money, but more then money, he is rich in Life's Wisdom.
His Gramps was a true beacon of light and strength. He knows what it is to be poor, and knows that Jackson and Rangle are charletons! He described his critics as just silly and petty.
He was on the Limbaugh show yesterday for nearly 2 hours...again..eloquent!
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 12:19 PM
He was nothing short of eloquent! A genuinely nice person. Intelligent and well spoken. I would like to have him as a friend...
Thomas is a fine example of a Rags to Riches story and being somebody. I'm sure he makes a good amount of money, but more then money, he is rich in Life's Wisdom.
His Gramps was a true beacon of light and strength. He knows what it is to be poor, and knows that Jackson and Rangle are charletons! He described his critics as just silly and petty.
He was on the Limbaugh show yesterday for nearly 2 hours...again..eloquent!
Yeah, well, he probably did try the Oh Baby, you're cute 'n pretty line on Anita, but it didn't work! :lmao
Good to see ya, Wabash!!!!
:cheers
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 12:26 PM
Thomas pretty obviously lied about Anita Hill, that's one reason it's difficult to take him seriously.
According to Jeffrey Toobin, Thomas' views are downright radical. He goes far beyond conservative.
crazierthanever
10-02-2007, 01:06 PM
And then there's the issue of who paid for the book and what that means to Justice Thomas' future rulings on the U.S. Supreme Court as mentioned in the following article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/clarence-thomas-rupert-m_b_66702.html
The long-awaited publication of Clarence Thomas's memoir, My Grandfather's Son, out Monday, makes you wonder: how come none of the presidential candidates have said a word about the Supreme Court in any of their debates? Three sitting justices are expected to resign in the next four years--and they're all on the liberal side: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The publication facts behind Thomas's book ought to be discussed by all the candidates: he received an advance of $1.5 million in 2003 from HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. If you thought the Court dealt with any issues of relevance to Murdoch, you might call it a conflict of interest for Thomas to accept that payment--far more than any sitting justice ever received from any single source. At least you might mention the fabled "appearance of impropriety." You might call the $1.5 million a thank-you gift from Murdoch for services rendered. You might even wonder if it might be a subtle suggestion to other justices who will be ruling on Murdoch-related issues in the future.
Of course Thomas could avoid that "appearance of impropriety" by recusing himself for the rest of his career from any case raising issues concerning Murdoch, Fox, the First Amendment, copyright law, libel, or any other issues in media or communications law. That would give him a lot of time off....
Thomas pretty obviously lied about Anita Hill, that's one reason it's difficult to take him seriously.
According to Jeffrey Toobin, Thomas' views are downright radical. He goes far beyond conservative.
Who is it pretty obvious to? I have seen nothing to prove her claims were accurate. Nor have I seen any proof that they were inaccurate, but that is not his job. It is obvious your judgement is clouded.
As a side note, is it pretty obvious that the same allegations made against former President Clinton are OBVIOUSLY true? In your opinion, I'm sure they all lied. But as I said, he doesn't have to prove they are inaccurate. All he has to do is cast doubt on them.
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 01:18 PM
Oh, Clinton did what Monica was coerced to say he did as did Clarence do what Anita said he did. Lack of evidence in a crime doesn't make it disappear, it just clouds the issue which in these cases was abuse of power.
Oh, Clinton did what Monica was coerced to say he did as did Clarence do what Anita said he did. Lack of evidence in a crime doesn't make it disappear, it just clouds the issue which in these cases was abuse of power.
As you said, there is no evidence. Cloudy or not, it becomes a non-issue if they can't prove it.
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 01:26 PM
As you said, there is no evidence. Cloudy or not, it becomes a non-issue if they can't prove it.
Abuse of power will always be an issue!
Believe me, this is something one just knows, legal evidence or not. :lol
However for sake of the argument I know what you mean 'n agree, I like legal evidence myself.
Believe me, this is something one just knows, legal evidence or not. :lol
:theman
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 02:06 PM
Who is it pretty obvious to? I have seen nothing to prove her claims were accurate. Nor have I seen any proof that they were inaccurate, but that is not his job. It is obvious your judgement is clouded.
As a side note, is it pretty obvious that the same allegations made against former President Clinton are OBVIOUSLY true? In your opinion, I'm sure they all lied. But as I said, he doesn't have to prove they are inaccurate. All he has to do is cast doubt on them.
You've jumped to a conclusion before I had a chance to respond to your question. Now you're gonna have to take it back....
According to Jeffery Toobin, the preponderance of the evidence is on Hill's side.
As to the allegations about Clinton, you'll have to be more specific. Some of the accusations are true, others are false.
Rockin Rodney
10-02-2007, 03:31 PM
I've never personally seen Justice Breyer whine, no. I don't believe any member of the highest court of the land serves his office well by going on talk shows. Eloquent and Clarence Thomas have no business being mentioned in the same sentence, imo.
It was your PROGRESSIVE Media from 60 minutes that did the Interwiew, and the MAN has real courage and he came up tough and made something of himself? Whats your claim to fame other than Leftist crybaby for the girly-boy brigade?
The puke on that Court is Commie Ginsburg, Hillarys main squeeze when Reno's busy! She cast the tie Vote that might take YOUR land form you some day Jr?:mw:mw:sheep:mw:mw
Rockin Rodney
10-02-2007, 03:36 PM
Thomas pretty obviously lied about Anita Hill, that's one reason it's difficult to take him seriously.
According to Jeffrey Toobin, Thomas' views are downright radical. He goes far beyond conservative.
You have proof of the OBVIOUS lie beyond your usual sources like Move On. MSNBC, or Yellow Dog? If he LIED why is he on the bench? I think you don't like the fact he is Black, similar to your feelings towards Ms Rice, right airhead?:mw
According to Jeffery Toobin, the preponderance of the evidence is on Hill's side.
Right. She followed him to his next job. That tells me all I need to know about her accusations. Would you follow someone who harrassed you to their next job? Nuff said.:hotdog
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 04:04 PM
:lmao
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:33 PM
Right. She followed him to his next job. That tells me all I need to know about her accusations. Would you follow someone who harrassed you to their next job? Nuff said.:hotdog
No, it doesn't tell you all you need to know. It tells you all you want to know.
No, it doesn't tell you all you need to know. It tells you all you want to know.
So you are ducking the question?
Tell me please as I have always wanted to know this. Why, oh why, would she follow him to his next job if in fact, his sexual harrasment bothered her? That IS ALL anyone needs to know. I'm not a big fan of Thomas, but false claims drive me NUTS.
I'm sure he said or did something, I am not arguing that fact. What my problem is, is that it didn't bother her then, but during the confirmation process, she somehow became all high and mighty? IMO she saw $$$$$$. Just like Kobe's victim. She saw $$$$$. I am not arguing that nothing happened, I am almost sure it did in both cases, but why oh why didn't it bother her then, but it did during the confirmation process?
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 04:41 PM
So you are ducking the question?
Tell me please as I have always wanted to know this. Why, oh why, would she follow him to his next job if in fact, his sexual harrasment bothered her? That IS ALL anyone needs to know. I'm not a big fan of Thomas, but false claims drive me NUTS.
I'm sure he said or did something, I am not arguing that fact. What my problem is, is that it didn't bother her then, but during the confirmation process, she somehow became all high and mighty? IMO she saw $$$$$$. Just like Kobe's victim. She saw $$$$$. I am not arguing that nothing happened, I am almost sure it did in both cases, but why oh why didn't bother her then, but it did during the confirmation process.
Coz the United States deserves the BEST justices!
Coz the United States deserves the BEST justices!
But, not Presidents?
Come on...that's the best you can come up with? I was hoping for more from ya Kurtz?
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I'd be interested to know the source of your statement that she "followed" Thomas to another job. Apparently, he did hire her twice. Is that the same as following him?
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:46 PM
So you are ducking the question?
Tell me please as I have always wanted to know this. Why, oh why, would she follow him to his next job if in fact, his sexual harrasment bothered her? That IS ALL anyone needs to know. I'm not a big fan of Thomas, but false claims drive me NUTS.
I'm sure he said or did something, I am not arguing that fact. What my problem is, is that it didn't bother her then, but during the confirmation process, she somehow became all high and mighty? IMO she saw $$$$$$. Just like Kobe's victim. She saw $$$$$. I am not arguing that nothing happened, I am almost sure it did in both cases, but why oh why didn't it bother her then, but it did during the confirmation process?
I thought the question was rhetorical, actually.
I assume she went to the next job because it offered her a great opportunity, and she hoped she could handle him.
Have you ever been harassed by an employer or supervisor? It's not an uncommon feeling, that if you just manage things right you can handle someone's inappropriate behavior.
She came forward during the confirmation process under duress, as I recall. Therefore, the idea that she was high and mighty is bogus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I'd be interested to know the source of your statement that she "followed" Thomas to another job. Apparently, he did hire her twice. Is that the same as following him?
YES. WHY WOULD YOU APPLY FOR THAT JOB AFTER THE SO CALLED INCIDENT?
Is that clear enough for you. You keep posting without content. Which I should be used to by now, but it still gets on my nerves.
I assume she went to the next job because it offered her a great opportunity, and she hoped she could handle him.
Thats ridiculous. If it bothered her as much as she still claims it does, she would find another job.
This sounds exactly like the defense of the woman who killed her husband while he was sleeping. Battered woman syndrome. She thought she could handle him, she thought she could handle him, etc, etc, etc.....SNAP. No I guess she couldn't.
I hate excuses like that. Have some integrity and courage and GET ANOTHER JOB!
But we know, there was no unwanted harrasment, because she went with him. So again this is a non issue.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:53 PM
YES. WHY WOULD YOU APPLY FOR THAT JOB AFTER THE SO CALLED INCIDENT?
Is that clear enough for you. You keep posting without content. Which I should be used to by now, but it still gets on my nerves.
You might apply for the job, if you thought that you could handle the abuse and it presented a great opportunity. I am speaking as a female, and as a human, and females have pretty much all experienced some mild form of sexual harassment, and working people have pretty much all experienced some form of harassment from a supervisor. You think you can handle it.
You don't seem to understand that these jobs are not managing the KMart, and you could always go down the road to the WalMart.
I post with content. I don't understand your complaint at all. You can't just sling out complaints and act like you've said something of value. :(
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:55 PM
Thats ridiculous. If it bothered her as much as she still claims it does, she would find another job.
This sounds exactly like the defense of the woman who killed her husband while he was sleeping. Battered woman syndrome. She thought she could handle him, she thought she could handle him, etc, etc, etc.....SNAP. No I guess she couldn't.
I hate excuses like that. Have some integrity and courage and GET ANOTHER JOB!
But we know, there was no unwanted harrasment, because she went with him. So again this is a non issue.
No, it's not ridiculous at all. You seem to lack either experience or empathy. Maybe both.
Please note, she did not seek the publicity of the Senate hearings. That makes your argument bogus.
You might apply for the job, if you thought that you could handle the abuse and it presented a great opportunity. I am speaking as a female, and as a human, and females have pretty much all experienced some mild form of sexual harassment, and working people have pretty much all experienced some form of harassment from a supervisor. You think you can handle it.
You don't seem to understand that these jobs are not managing the KMart, and you could always go down the road to the WalMart.
I post with content. I don't understand your complaint at all. You can't just sling out complaints and act like you've said something of value. :(
See previous post.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:58 PM
See previous post.
I did. So what?
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 04:59 PM
For once, address the information I've given you, instead of repeating your thoughts over and over.
For once, address the information I've given you, instead of repeating your thoughts over and over.
Darlin, if that ain't the pot callin the kettle black!:lol:lol:lol
I already addressed the information in the previous post, which you chose to skip. Do try and keep up.
If you keep posting the same mindless rants and drivel with no content, without addressing the information, I'm going to keep puting it in front of you until you do. You never give information, you give opinion and snide remarks, so it is quite difficult to respond to the "information" you give. Opinions are great, you believe her, I don't. Great good for you and me.
Kurtz
10-02-2007, 05:07 PM
clholloway[/B]20;140897]So you are ducking the question?
Tell me please as I have always wanted to know this. Why, oh why, would she follow him to his next job if in fact, his sexual harrasment bothered her? That IS ALL anyone needs to know. I'm not a big fan of Thomas, but false claims drive me NUTS.
I'm sure he said or did something, I am not arguing that fact. What my problem is, is that it didn't bother her then, but during the confirmation process, she somehow became all high and mighty? IMO she saw $$$$$$. Just like Kobe's victim. She saw $$$$$. I am not arguing that nothing happened, I am almost sure it did in both cases, but why oh why didn't it bother her then, but it did during the confirmation process?
:kurtz
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 05:09 PM
Darlin, if that ain't the pot callin the kettle black!:lol:lol:lol
I already addressed the information in the previous post, which you chose to skip. Do try and keep up.
If you keep posting the same mindless rants and drivel with no content, without addressing the information, I'm going to keep puting it in front of you until you do. You never give information, you give opinion and snide remarks, so it is quite difficult to respond to the "information" you give. Opinions are great, you believe her, I don't. Great good for you and me.
Oh, good, you're going to patronize me now! Gag.
I've not repeated the same thoughts, I've given you information that you previously lacked. You keep ignoring it.
Please give a single example of a rant or drivel. You can't just keep slinging adjectives around that don't apply to my posts.
I give a great deal of information-how can you tell such a lie as to say that I don't give information?
Please, tell me your version of how Anita Hill came to testify before the Senate. How did that come to pass? I'm waiting.
issac the dragon
10-02-2007, 05:16 PM
I'd like to interject a couple of thoughts/questions here.
If all the women who have been subjected to some form of sexual harrassment at the work place lined up shoulder to shoulder, how many times would we cross the US border to border?
Why don't all the women who were abused sexually as children sue the sucker?
Cookie Parker
10-02-2007, 05:24 PM
I'd like to interject a couple of thoughts/questions here.
If all the women who have been subjected to some form of sexual harrassment at the work place lined up shoulder to shoulder, how many times would we cross the US border to border?
Why don't all the women who were abused sexually as children sue the sucker?
Generally, it' s a power issue..they threaten to destroy your career as Thomas did .... you really fear that...until one day you say...oh yeah? Fear this and kick em in the groin...LOL!!!
No, seriously...you just have to understand all the power involved in it..it's intimidating..especially if you have a family to support..and not many corporations are tolerant of a woman who turns in a man....so you have that to contend with as well..then you're branded a "trouble maker" when you try to get a reference for your next job...it's the good old boys' network all the way...
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 05:36 PM
A power issue, yes. Like I said, most people, male and female have been subjected to some form of harassment by an employer at some point in their careers.
BTW, if Hill was such a mediocre employee, why did Thomas hire her twice?
Why does Thomas keep saying that Hill was let go from her previous job, when that is not the case?
Why does Thomas try to make Hill out to be "not the sort of person she portrays herself to be" [paraphrased]? Surely it smacks anybody up the side of the head what he's up to by making such a comment-it was okay to talk to her about porn, because she wasn't a goody two-shoes.
BTW, this is an interesting link. Notice this:
During the latter part of my time at the Department of Education, the social pressures and any conversation of his offensive behavior ended. I began both to believe and hope that our working relationship could be a proper, cordial, and professional one.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710020001?f=h_latest
That surely clears up the question of why she went back to work for him.
For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn't go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that some day I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn't go out with him.
Been there. Anybody else?
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.