• 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

 
scourge99 said:
Assuming this is true, WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE?

I don't care if angelina jolie is having a baby much less if Clarence Thomas is a philanderer.
Click to expand...

You should care if Justice Thomas is a perjurer, though. It's your civic duty.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You should care if Justice Thomas is a perjurer, though. It's your civic duty.
Click to expand...

You keep saying he's a "perjurer."

Your only possible argument is that by denying Anita Hill's claims, he lied under oath.

Thus, you have nothing. And you dare call others partisan hacks.

At least with Clinton, that he lied under oath is not in doubt. The only question there is whether or not the lies were material.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
You keep saying he's a "perjurer."

Your only possible argument is that by denying Anita Hill's claims, he lied under oath.

Thus, you have nothing. And you dare call others partisan hacks.

At least with Clinton, that he lied under oath is not in doubt. The only question there is whether or not the lies were material.
Click to expand...

Bah! Just because it is difficult to prove that Thomas perjured himself doesn't mean he deserves to get away with it. The partisan hackery comes into play when right-wingers ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and hide behind the slim shadow of a doubt that Thomas didn't lie under oath. And the hypocrisy comes in whenever the same right-wingers apply a higher standard to the likes of Clinton and Gore. To an honest, objective observer, all the evidence indicates that Thomas lied under oath, and there is at least enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Anybody who says otherwise is a hack of the highest magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Bah! Just because it is difficult to prove that Thomas perjured himself doesn't mean he deserves to get away with it. The partisan hackery comes into play when right-wingers ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and hide behind the slim shadow of a doubt that Thomas didn't lie under oath. And the hypocrisy comes in whenever the same right-wingers apply a higher standard to the likes of Clinton and Gore. To an honest, objective observer, all the evidence indicates that Thomas lied under oath, and there is at least enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Anybody who says otherwise is a hack of the highest magnitude.
Click to expand...

The bravado is all very well, but fact is, you're completely convinced of his guilt based on extremely shaky evidence ("objective observer," indeed :ROFL). And, as I keep pointing out, you have the nerve to call others partisan hacks . . .

What "higher standard"? As I said, Clinton's lying under oath isn't in doubt. He did. And also I already said that impeaching him for it was stupid.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Bah! Just because it is difficult to prove that Thomas perjured himself doesn't mean he deserves to get away with it. The partisan hackery comes into play when right-wingers ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and hide behind the slim shadow of a doubt that Thomas didn't lie under oath. And the hypocrisy comes in whenever the same right-wingers apply a higher standard to the likes of Clinton and Gore. To an honest, objective observer, all the evidence indicates that Thomas lied under oath, and there is at least enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Anybody who says otherwise is a hack of the highest magnitude.
Click to expand...
McEwen didn't even corroborate Hill's testimony. McEwen merely accused Thomas of being a heterosexual. Even if McEwen's assertions are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they're nothing.
 
mpg said:
McEwen didn't even corroborate Hill's testimony. McEwen merely accused Thomas of being a heterosexual. Even if McEwen's assertions are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they're nothing.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you're mistaken. McEwen does corroborate many elements of Hill's account, particularly the predilection for porn. It's not like it's a huge game changer, Anita Hill already passed a lie detector test and Thomas refused to take a lie detector test at all. So it's just another bit of evidence in the mountain of evidence against Thomas.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Ah, but you're mistaken. McEwen does corroborate many elements of Hill's account, particularly the predilection for porn. It's not like it's a huge game changer, Anita Hill already passed a lie detector test and Thomas refused to take a lie detector test at all. So it's just another bit of evidence in the mountain of evidence against Thomas.
Click to expand...
Where is this mountain of evidence that you speak of? Why wasn't it posted in this thread? This can't be part of it because this is nothing. This isn't even a grain of sand, and that's assuming that it's true, a huge assumption.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Ah, but you're mistaken. McEwen does corroborate many elements of Hill's account, particularly the predilection for porn. It's not like it's a huge game changer, Anita Hill already passed a lie detector test and Thomas refused to take a lie detector test at all. So it's just another bit of evidence in the mountain of evidence against Thomas.
Click to expand...
A lie detector test is not evidence, and is not admissable in court. Please quit misrepresenting fact and pretending it is so.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
A lie detector test is not evidence, and is not admissable in court. Please quit misrepresenting fact and pretending it is so.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be admissible evidence to be evidence from the perspective of common sense. Are you interested in the truth or are you interested in protecting Clarence Thomas at all costs?
 
Guy Incognito said:
It doesn't have to be admissible evidence to be evidence from the perspective of common sense. Are you interested in the truth or are you interested in protecting Clarence Thomas at all costs?
Click to expand...

common sense

you don't wait 19 years to bring this forward

common sense

you write a book and then spew this sort of crap it is because you want to sell the book
 
Guy Incognito said:
It doesn't have to be admissible evidence to be evidence from the perspective of common sense. Are you interested in the truth or are you interested in protecting Clarence Thomas at all costs?
Click to expand...

Yeah. You're the one who's yammering about "perjury," and now you're not worried about "admissible evidence."
 
TurtleDude said:
common sense

you don't wait 19 years to bring this forward

common sense

you write a book and then spew this sort of crap it is because you want to sell the book
Click to expand...

Especially when it's the ONLY thing anyone would be slightest bit interested in ABOUT you.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It doesn't have to be admissible evidence to be evidence from the perspective of common sense. Are you interested in the truth or are you interested in protecting Clarence Thomas at all costs?
Click to expand...
"Evidence from the perspective of common sense"?

Do you often makeup new phrases and pretend they mean something?

Evidence from the perspective of common sense also said the world was flat, back in the day.

Here, why not just use actual...evidence? Wouldn't that be just a novel idea?
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
"Evidence from the perspective of common sense"?

Do you often makeup new phrases and pretend they mean something?

Evidence from the perspective of common sense also said the world was flat, back in the day.

Here, why not just use actual...evidence? Wouldn't that be just a novel idea?
Click to expand...

That's absurd. All evidence says the world is round, you can even see ships going over the horizon that confirm this fact. It's simple common sense. It's not something I made up. Common sense has different standards for evidence than a court. Lie detecters are not admissible in court, but they are admissible in the court of common sense. If you care about the truth, and you aren't a right wing hack trying to defend Thomas for partisan reasons, then it is obvious to you that Thomas's denial of Anita Hill's story, coupled with his refusal to take a lie detecter test, and Hill's passing a lie detecter test adds up to a mountain of evidence for any fair observer. But what use is it saying this in a room for of right wing hacks? Seems like you guys invent your own reality to suit whatever's the whim of the day.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's absurd. All evidence says the world is round, you can even see ships going over the horizon that confirm this fact. It's simple common sense. It's not something I made up. Common sense has different standards for evidence than a court. Lie detecters are not admissible in court, but they are admissible in the court of common sense. If you care about the truth, and you aren't a right wing hack trying to defend Thomas for partisan reasons, then it is obvious to you that Thomas's denial of Anita Hill's story, coupled with his refusal to take a lie detecter test, and Hill's passing a lie detecter test adds up to a mountain of evidence for any fair observer. But what use is it saying this in a room for of right wing hacks? Seems like you guys invent your own reality to suit whatever's the whim of the day.
Click to expand...

common sense tells me the woman is a whore who is pushing this stupidity in order to make money, not to right any "wrongs"

she knew when he was being confirmed and kept her mouth shut. She is contemptible
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's absurd. All evidence says the world is round, you can even see ships going over the horizon that confirm this fact. It's simple common sense.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Columbus's detractors. It's kinda why I specified "back in the day"; and also proved you're just making **** up. Common sense hasn't alwas been "right".

Common sense has different standards for evidence than a court. Lie detecters are not admissible in court, but they are admissible in the court of common sense.
Click to expand...
bull****. You're making bull**** up again.
If you care about the truth, and you aren't a right wing hack trying to defend Thomas for partisan reasons, then it is obvious to you that Thomas's denial of Anita Hill's story, coupled with his refusal to take a lie detecter test, and Hill's passing a lie detecter test adds up to a mountain of evidence for any fair observer. But what use is it saying this in a room for of right wing hacks? Seems like you guys invent your own reality to suit whatever's the whim of the day.
Click to expand...
"If you don't agree with me and what I think is the truth, you're a bad man! a bad right-wing man! waaah!" Sorry, doesn't work on me, you need better logic than that to persuade anyone.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Tell that to Columbus's detractors. It's kinda why I specified "back in the day"; and also proved you're just making **** up. Common sense hasn't alwas been "right".
Click to expand...

Please don't go down this road. For one thing, it's a myth that people thought the earth was flat in Columbus's day. It has been well known since the Classical Greeks that the Earth is round.

You're right that common sense isn't always right. That's why we have tirals. And as i've always said, Clarence Thomas should stand trial.

DarkWizard12 said:
bull****. You're making bull**** up again.
Click to expand...

You should read the forum rules.
 
TurtleDude said:
common sense tells me the woman is a whore who is pushing this stupidity in order to make money, not to right any "wrongs"
Click to expand...

It's like all those Star Trek actors who AREN'T Shatner or Nimoy. Sure, they write books, appear on talk shows, etc. Does anyone give a rat's ass what they have to say other than ripping on Shatner? Nope.

That's exactly what this lady is about. No one could give a crap about her unless she weighs in on Thomas. So, SURPRISE! What do you think she's going to say?
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
It's like all those Star Trek actors who AREN'T Shatner or Nimoy. Sure, they write books, appear on talk shows, etc. Does anyone give a rat's ass what they have to say other than ripping on Shatner? Nope.

That's exactly what this lady is about. No one could give a crap about her unless she weighs in on Thomas. So, SURPRISE! What do you think she's going to say?
Click to expand...

good points. the woman is a parasite
 
Guy Incognito said:
Please don't go down this road. For one thing, it's a myth that people thought the earth was flat in Columbus's day. It has been well known since the Classical Greeks that the Earth is round.

You're right that common sense isn't always right. That's why we have tirals. And as i've always said, Clarence Thomas should stand trial.

God what idiotc blather

you want to smear the man with a trial for what?

GIve it a rest-we get the fact that you hate conservative justices and you are out for vengeance

maybe he ought to sue you for slander? sure you might not be legally liable but I bet he can afford (or get some) really top flight attorneys from the Federalist Society-say Peter Keisler who is a superstar for free and paper you to death with motions, depositions, request for admissions etc

your rants are certainly as legitimate examples of defamation as this woman's claims are of "perjury"


You should read the forum rules.
Click to expand...

God what idiotc blather

you want to smear the man with a trial for what?

GIve it a rest-we get the fact that you hate conservative justices and you are out for vengeance

maybe he ought to sue you for slander? sure you might not be legally liable but I bet he can afford (or get some) really top flight attorneys from the Federalist Society-say Peter Keisler who is a superstar for free and paper you to death with motions, depositions, request for admissions etc

your rants are certainly as legitimate examples of defamation as this woman's claims are of "perjury"

BTW whining about the rules-lame
 
TurtleDude said:
God what idiotc blather
Click to expand...

Right back at ya, TD. The only thing idiotic is mindlessly supporting a perjurer in the highest court in the land, and hiding behind technicalities like the of admissibility of a lie detecter to cover it.

Why doesn't Clarence Thomas sue me for slander? Well for one thing there's that little matter that truth is always a defense to defamation. There is at least a prima facie that Thomas committed perjury. If you're interested in truth, then you should want to see a full investigation. If you're interested in protecting a partisan Justice because you're a right wing hack, then be content to sit on your hands and ignore facts. Guess that's what you're best at, TD.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Right back at ya, TD. The only thing idiotic is mindlessly supporting a perjurer in the highest court in the land, and hiding behind technicalities like the of admissibility of a lie detecter to cover it.

Why doesn't Clarence Thomas sue me for slander? Well for one thing there's that little matter that truth is always a defense to defamation. There is at least a prima facie that Thomas committed perjury. If you're interested in truth, then you should want to see a full investigation. If you're interested in protecting a partisan Justice because you're a right wing hack, then be content to sit on your hands and ignore facts. Guess that's what you're best at, TD.
Click to expand...
1) you don't appear to have the education in the law to actually define perjury

2) you don't have the ability to create enough probable cause to merit an indictment for it

3) insulting me proves you have lost the argument

4) you appear rather bitter-making a mountain over some greedy twit's molehill to try to impeach someone over stuff that has long expired in terms of legitimate inquiry is pathetic
 
Clarence Thomas was head of the EEOC, precisely the organization that should protect women from the kinds of abuse that Thomas alleged committed according to Anita Hill and other witnesses. Unlike Clinton, Thomas denied all under oath. It now seems abundantly clear Thomas broke that oath.
 
Chappy said:
Clarence Thomas was head of the EEOC, precisely the organization that should protect women from the kinds of abuse that Thomas alleged committed according to Anita Hill and other witnesses. Unlike Clinton, Thomas denied all under oath. It now seems abundantly clear Thomas broke that oath.
Click to expand...

Clinton didn't deny that he ****ed Monica, under oath? I believe he did, actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom