• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

Chappy said:
Yes, you're predictable. Just like the lawyer you are. We all love you lawyers for your predictability. This is just a case to be argued for you; you could care less about the beating hearts of the women Thomas has victimized in his career. Heaven forbid you address the substance of the accusation. No! Your sole goal is just to strip this woman of her credibility, her dignity. Thanks for that. Be proud of yourself.
Click to expand...

Anyone who would wait 19 years to expose a monster, doesn't have any credibility, or dignity. In fact, if Thomas is a bad as you're making out, Mcewen's reluctance to come forth is almost criminal. Only a dirt bag would sit on valuable information that long.
 
apdst said:
Anyone who would wait 19 years to expose a monster, doesn't have any credibility, or dignity. In fact, if Thomas is a bad as you're making out, Mcewen's reluctance to come forth is almost criminal. Only a dirt bag would sit on valuable information that long.
Click to expand...


There could be an explanation and it might surpass all thoughts of Idealism & altuism - it might even be indicitive of one of the driving forces of our Nature, and in our associatrions and relationships with others and our either large or Small egos

Drum Roll Please >>>>>>>>>> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Chappy said:
Yes, you're predictable. Just like the lawyer you are. We all love you lawyers for your predictability. This is just a case to be argued for you; you could care less about the beating hearts of the women Thomas has victimized in his career. Heaven forbid you address the substance of the accusation. No! Your sole goal is just to strip this woman of her credibility, her dignity. Thanks for that. Be proud of yourself.
Click to expand...

you believe this because you are a far lefty who hates Thomas.

that she waited 19 years is damning

that is why in the law we have a thing called the statute of limitations

mainly because witnesses and evidence tend to become corrupted with age

most of the victims you whine about are myths
 
Chappy said:
Let's cut the crap and the ****ing games.

Lillian McEwen says Clarence Thomas had a thing for pornography and soliciting women working in his office. This aligns precisely with the 1991 testimony of Anita Hill.

You challenge Lillian McEwen motivations in coming forward at this time.

I don't.

There are enough women in this country who know all too well how these things happen and resent it.

People forget that these alleged incidents occurred when Thomas and Hill both worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, precisely the government institution charged with protecting women from such injurious employment environments.

The hypocrisy was entirely Thomas'.

This story is about justice finally served. Thomas is discredited.
Click to expand...

you'd think the whining bitch would have come forward when the Thomas hearings were going on--if he was that bad she should have spoken up before he was confirmed

it appears her only interest is $$$$$$ not justice which makes her a whore.
 
RosieS said:
Professor Hill submitted herself voluntarily to a polygraph and the experienced examiner said she passed. Ginny Thomas doesn't deserve anything at all until she drags Clarence in to have a polygraph by a reputable operator. When all of us can compare apples to apples, then doubt Professor Hill. Without attempt of proof by the Thomases, it's just stooopid to believe anything the Thomases assert.

Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...

anitia hill also was an attorney who specialized in TItle VII and yet she claimed she didn't know she had been harassed.

she was so ignorant that after this alleged harassment took place and CT was no longer her boss she invited him to dinner

yeah I believe her, I really do
 
Chappy said:
If you're a Justice Thomas supporter, you have to be sick at heart over this. It is now clear that Anita Hill was telling the truth and he was an abuser.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm not a supporter of Justice Thomas...and I'm sick at the heart over how gullible you are for peddling such a dubious story, and the juvenile way you attempt to defend it.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought it obvious that sex scandals carry with them the issue that accusations are sometimes carrying more sting than the follow-up on the proof.
 
Chappy:
what happened to "innocent till proven guilty in a court of law", Or do we now just go by what one person says?
 
With or without this specific story, was it really any doubt that Clarence Thomas is a major poon hound? So is Clinton. So is every man in a position of significant power.

I'm not losing any sleep over it.
 
Once again we see the liberal thugs shoveling s**t and wanting us all to wallow in it. None of them want to talk about the issues because they can't defend their policies over the last two years of corruption.
 
19-years on and they're still trying to lynch Clarence.

.
 
zimmer said:
19-years on and they're still trying to lynch Clarence.
Click to expand...

:roll: Yeah, right. I suppose "they" made Virginia Thomas call up Anita Hill demanding an apology? The fact is Clarence Thomas brought this on himself, and he's lucky he has right-wing support to mindlessly defend him.
 
Guy Incognito said:
:roll: Yeah, right. I suppose "they" made Virginia Thomas call up Anita Hill demanding an apology? The fact is Clarence Thomas brought this on himself, and he's lucky he has right-wing support to mindlessly defend him.
Click to expand...


Kind of like how the left defends Hugo Black right?


j-mac
 
Guy Incognito said:
:roll: Yeah, right. I suppose "they" made Virginia Thomas call up Anita Hill demanding an apology? The fact is Clarence Thomas brought this on himself, and he's lucky he has right-wing support to mindlessly defend him.
Click to expand...

What does Virginia Thomas's call to Anita Hill have to do with Lillian McEwen? That's the "this" in this thread. McEwen has a book to push no matter what Virginia Thomas did.

I didn't realize that pointing out how McEwen's story has various quite dubious elements about it was "mindless defense." Seems to me that the "mindlessness" is in dismissing all of that just so you can get a dig in about "mindless defense."

I take it from this, then, that you find McEwen credible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
digsbe said:
This is bogus and she is just calling attention to her manuscript and to defame someone she is in political opposition with.
Click to expand...

how in the world do you KNOW that? answer: you don't.

what are her politics, btw?
 
liblady said:
how in the world do you KNOW that? answer: you don't.

what are her politics, btw?
Click to expand...

Considering you rarely read the stories at the links you post yourself, I guess it's too much to ask that you do so for those others post.

Still, McEwen, a Democrat, acknowledges growing increasingly irritated with Thomas's conservative jurisprudence and his penchant for casting himself as a victim in the Hill controversy.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
Considering you rarely read the stories at the links you post yourself, I guess it's too much to ask that you do so for those others post.
Click to expand...

i read the link. and i don't know where you come up with the crap that i rarely read what i post. in fact, that is a lie, so that makes you a liar, doesn't it?
 
liblady said:
i read the link. and i don't know where you come up with the crap that i rarely read what i post. in fact, that is a lie, so that makes you a liar, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Mostly because often, when you post a story, the actual text of the story contradicts what you say it says.

Example off the top of my head: the story about black kids not being eligible to run for class president.

And if you read the link, then you should have known what McEwen's politics are. Yet, you didn't, and you were indignant that others claimed to.
 
Conventional wisdom IS that Ginsburg will be the next to step down from the High Court. If so during the next 2 years little will change, and there are some huge decisions coming. It is imperative to some that another vacancy open, and while Kennedy might seem the most likely Republican appointee to go - Thomas because of pure emotionalism might be cornered into something that he regrets saying one day later ...... and from simple saturation bombing be forced out.

Just a thought Folks, These Bastards Play for keeps and They need the High Court to maintain all the Crap they intend to send our way.
 
Harshaw said:
Mostly because often, when you post a story, the actual text of the story contradicts what you say it says.

Example off the top of my head: the story about black kids not being eligible to run for class president.

And if you read the link, then you should have known what McEwen's politics are. Yet, you didn't, and you were indignant that others claimed to.
Click to expand...

you'll have to do much better than that......and also provide many examples, because you claimed i rarely read my links. also, i don't recall participating much, if at all, in that thread.

now, please point me to the section of the article that discusses the lady's politics. she might be a dem, but i see nothing in that article that indicates she is "in opposition" as dig put it.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
you'll have to do much better than that......and also provide many examples, because you claimed i rarely read my links. also, i don't recall participating much, if at all, in that thread.
Click to expand...

Participating in that thread? You started it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ident-not-if-youre-black-one-miss-school.html


now, please point me to the section of the article that discusses the lady's politics. she might be a dem, but i see nothing in that article that indicates she is "in opposition" as dig put it.
Click to expand...

I quoted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom