Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2010, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,516,181 times
Reputation: 21679

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
After reading the story, I think Virginia Thomas is a whack-job. After all these years, she has the balls to call Anita Hill and ask for an apology and an explanation? Who does she think she is?
She is a prominent Tea Partier and married to one of the worst Supreme Court justices in U.S. history.

I'd say that she had "kook" written all over her before she picked up the phone and decided to leave Anita Hill some creepy voicemail
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2010, 09:26 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,926,416 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?! View Post
If some wingnut called me with a weird request I'd do as Hill did, contact the FBI....
I don't know that an apology request from a wife who has been publically humiliated falls into the "weird" category. Women never forget and rarely let go of this kind of humiliation. Perhaps she really thought that after nearly 20 years they could speak as adults and Mrs. Thomas could get closure. Guess Anita wasn't willing to give her that.

Hill didn't bother to call the FBI when she claims she was being sexually harrassed, only upon questioning when it became evident that Thomas might become a SCOTUS appointee. I'd think the sexual arrassment would call for more immediate contacting of authorites than a voicemail asking for an apology.

Just sayin.............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,326,022 times
Reputation: 15291
Attention all "Progressives":

The correct buzzword for those scary tea party nuts is "teaps." Please use this in all future references to faux news reated stories and to posts from wingnuts. Someone has to put an end to the mean-spirited name-calling by all those dittoheads.

Hoping for change,

Y
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,844,197 times
Reputation: 1438
Smearing Anita Hill: A Writer Confesses - TIME

Brock, who has forged a second career as a recovering conservative, makes one admission that implicates Thomas. Brock says he used information that came indirectly from Thomas to force a retraction from a woman named Kaye Savage, who had come forward in support of Hill. Brock threatened to publicize vicious charges made by her ex-husband in a sealed child-custody dispute.

...
A book titled Strange Justice, by reporters Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, had just come out — and it used on-the-record interviews to argue persuasively that Thomas had indeed subjected a number of women to frequent sexually explicit remarks about porno videos. Savage, a black mid-level aide in the Reagan Administration, told both the authors and the Judiciary Committee (although she wasn't called to testify publicly) that when she went to Thomas' apartment in the early 1980s, the place was littered with graphic photos of nude women. When Savage met Brock, she says, he let her know he could ruin her. "He knew all this personal stuff," she says. "He wanted me to take back what I had said. I couldn't — it was true — but I was intimidated, and so I faxed him something innocuous. I was scared."


Thomas lied. Republicans handling his nomination knew he was lying because they were in possession of evidence that supported Hill's claims. It may not have been sexual harassment, but Republican Senators suppressed evidence that Thomas was lying.





Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,326,022 times
Reputation: 15291
Yawn. Nine year old smear job on Clarence Thomas.

From Mr. Smith, yet...

They're crawling out from under rocks.

What's next? Monica saying she was actually engaged in espionage-based glossolalia?

"The russians are listenin', Monica darlin. You're mah cinderella. Sing 'bibbity bobbity boo' just once more..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,844,197 times
Reputation: 1438
[Nat-International] John Danforth - Bad Choice for U.N. Ambassador

In his cathartic book, Resurrection: The Confirmation of Clarence Thomas, Danforth wrote he was "ashamed" by his unchecked emotions and the methods he used to discredit Professor Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Aware of Hills' charges, Danforth didn't tell the senators, instead trying to force a vote before the Senate had been able to hear Hill's accusations. He also threatened to refuse to support a civil rights bill if moderate Democrats opposed Thomas. "In my years in the Senate," wrote Danforth, "I had never witnessed an explosion of uncontrolled anger like mine." Danforth admitted, "I completely lost my temper in a table-pounding, shouting, red-in-the-face profane rage." Even Sen. Strom Thurmond was shocked. "You are a minister," Thurmond told Danforth. "You shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain." Aside from Danforth's irascibility, the book reveals his poor judgment in supporting a paranoid and unstable future Supreme Court justice who thought people were out to kill him long before Hill came forward with her allegations. Danforth characterizes Thomas in a state of hysterical withdrawal, nearly catatonic, clenched in a fetal position, hyperventilating and sobbing convulsively. Frightening allegations about one of the judges who sits on the highest court in the land, albeit silently, during oral arguments. Danforth asserts disingenuously, "Clarence did not want to be nominated to the Supreme Court," a claim belied by Thomas' own frequent statements to the contrary. Danforth also admits using questionable methods to tarnish Hill's credibility, with conduct so unprincipled that some of his own staff threatened to quit. Rob McDonald, Danforth's top aide, thought Danforth "had to win at any cost." "Ms. Hill was outspoken and argumentative," wrote Danforth. "In Clarence's words, 'She was certainly not a Republican. She was not part of the Reagan team.'" Indeed, Clarence had campaigned for Reagan in 1984. Often referred to as "Saint Jack," Danforth describes praying with Thomas and playing "Onward Christian Soldiers" for him just before Thomas' final defense in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "And when Clarence left my office for the Caucus Room," Danforth wrote, "it was not as a martyr with his eyes fixed on heaven. It was as a warrior doing battle for the Lord." Most alarming, Danforth expressed a fear several times that Thomas's denials might subject him to perjury charges and possible impeachment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 11:01 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,318,165 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Yawn. Nine year old smear job on Clarence Thomas.

From Mr. Smith, yet...

They're crawling out from under rocks.

What's next? Monica saying she was actually engaged in espionage-based glossolalia?

"The russians are listenin', Monica darlin. You're mah cinderella. Sing 'bibbity bobbity boo' just once more..."
I do not find this funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 11:31 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,017,267 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
[Nat-International] John Danforth - Bad Choice for U.N. Ambassador

In his cathartic book, Resurrection: The Confirmation of Clarence Thomas, Danforth wrote he was "ashamed" by his unchecked emotions and the methods he used to discredit Professor Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Aware of Hills' charges, Danforth didn't tell the senators, instead trying to force a vote before the Senate had been able to hear Hill's accusations. He also threatened to refuse to support a civil rights bill if moderate Democrats opposed Thomas. "In my years in the Senate," wrote Danforth, "I had never witnessed an explosion of uncontrolled anger like mine." Danforth admitted, "I completely lost my temper in a table-pounding, shouting, red-in-the-face profane rage." Even Sen. Strom Thurmond was shocked. "You are a minister," Thurmond told Danforth. "You shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain." Aside from Danforth's irascibility, the book reveals his poor judgment in supporting a paranoid and unstable future Supreme Court justice who thought people were out to kill him long before Hill came forward with her allegations. Danforth characterizes Thomas in a state of hysterical withdrawal, nearly catatonic, clenched in a fetal position, hyperventilating and sobbing convulsively. Frightening allegations about one of the judges who sits on the highest court in the land, albeit silently, during oral arguments. Danforth asserts disingenuously, "Clarence did not want to be nominated to the Supreme Court," a claim belied by Thomas' own frequent statements to the contrary. Danforth also admits using questionable methods to tarnish Hill's credibility, with conduct so unprincipled that some of his own staff threatened to quit. Rob McDonald, Danforth's top aide, thought Danforth "had to win at any cost." "Ms. Hill was outspoken and argumentative," wrote Danforth. "In Clarence's words, 'She was certainly not a Republican. She was not part of the Reagan team.'" Indeed, Clarence had campaigned for Reagan in 1984. Often referred to as "Saint Jack," Danforth describes praying with Thomas and playing "Onward Christian Soldiers" for him just before Thomas' final defense in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "And when Clarence left my office for the Caucus Room," Danforth wrote, "it was not as a martyr with his eyes fixed on heaven. It was as a warrior doing battle for the Lord." Most alarming, Danforth expressed a fear several times that Thomas's denials might subject him to perjury charges and possible impeachment.
The above mentioned is the very reason I am against life time appointments of Supreme Court Judges.....maybe in an earlier time and place when one did not live past the age of 40, but not today.

Sorry, but Strom wasn't shocked by anything,
considering his own skeletons
Strom Thurmond's family confirms paternity claim - CNN

Pathetic bunch, the whole lot of them

He who casts the first stone.... usually lives in a cave
with porn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2010, 11:54 PM
 
Location: Chicago
15,586 posts, read 27,606,786 times
Reputation: 1761
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
"Virginia Thomas calls Anita Hill, asks for an apology?"

As my grandmother would say, "That's mighty white of her."
You still can't defend this comment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 12:19 AM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,017,267 times
Reputation: 2521
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
"Virginia Thomas calls Anita Hill, asks for an apology?"

As my grandmother would say, "That's mighty white of her."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
You still can't defend this comment.
Oh yes he can

"That's mighty white of you" is a scathing response to a situation in which someone is condescendingly attempting to portray their own actions as incredibly generous and worthy of gratitude, when the reality of the situation is just the opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top