Suspicious Timing !


It's unusual that comments are made about a movie not yet seen, but knowing the agenda of HBO, i'm pretty sure of the direction this movie will be taking. 24 years later and Clarence Thomas still has to defend himself against unproven allegations. However a new generation of millenniums must be indoctrinated to liberal lies before the coming elections.
However when Eileen Wellstone, Juanita Broadderick, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward, Paula Corbin, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher and Kathleen Willey fire the same accusations at Bill Clinton, they were relegated to tramp status by the press. It would seem that after seducing an intern in the Oval Office, one would suspect these allegations to lean toward the truth. However as we all know, Bill Clinton is still treated with rock star status, sexual harassment be damned.
I won't watch this movie because it will not be filmed with an objective point of view, nor with any deep concern about women's struggle against sexual harassment on the part of HBO, only an agenda of political activism.

reply

Oh, lordy . . . We've got a live one. Get the net!

reply

Liberal response. When you have no argument, deny ! Why the scoff Goff ? It would be nice to hear a reasonable retort. Specifically what did I say that's not true ? There wasn't 17 women ? Monica was lying ? Can you give me one reason, that makes sense why a movie of this escapade hasn't been made into a movie in a town that lives for this ?

reply

"Oh, lordy . . . We've got a live one. Get the net!"


Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Typical of a liberal. I can't refute you, so I'll insult you.

reply

Typical of a liberal. What the hell does that mean? Frankly, as a liberal, I am fed up with insulting comments from what I assume is a braindead conservative.

reply

I agree with your assessment completely. I doubt if the conservative view will get a fair shake here. I'm thinking of the Scandal episode where a policeman shot a youth, and there was a question of justification. Of course at the end, the policeman was a total psycho. So, would Kerry Washington appear in this movie if it was objective? I have a feeling not.

And, I wonder why a juicy movie about Bill Clinton's affairs has never been made. Sex, power, right up Hollywood's alley. It's a sure winner. What happened? Rest assured if George Bush had been the perpetrator, you would have seen such movies up the wazoo.

reply

And, I wonder why a juicy movie about Bill Clinton's affairs has never been made.



Did you miss "PRIMARY COLORS"?

reply

Always been a mystery to me.... you would think a sitting president getting a BJ in The Oval Office is the kind of idea Hollywood thrives on. I'm pretty sure had Reagan or the Bush's had done so, it certainly would have been.

reply

First of all, you obviously missed the question bijoux asked, teabag. Second, whether you want to admit it or not, pretty much every president from Harding to Clinton, with the exception of Carter, had a mistress or two and the wives basically looked the other way. Clinton happened to get caught. I'm sure that wasn't the first BJ in the oval office. What you teabags conveniently forget is that had that come up when Clinton was running for president, things would've likely been quite different. Interesting how those women making claims all came out after the fact.

The fact you criticize a film without watching it is another indicator you have zero credibility.

reply

Liberal lies? Derp. Regardless your of contention, Thomas has been a ridiculous excuse for a Supreme Court justice. If the two witnesses who were called and then not allowed to testified had testified then we wouldn't be stuck with a justice who doesn't fully participate in the SC proceedings. Joe Biden is partly to blame.

reply

And regardless of your opinion, I maintain what I said. Your opinions of Justice Thomas only reflect that you disagree with his conservative stance on the issues. I won't get into my opinions of Ruth Bader Ginsberg who reflects her memories of the 1940's in her writings when reaching her judgements or Sonia Sotomayor who was chosen based upon her overwhelming qualifications of being a female hispanic. I live in Connecticut and her vote to completely abolish a Fire Department test because there were no minorities in the top then positions was a travesty. In regards to Anita Hill, my further opinion is this...
Anita Hill claimed to have been harassed by Clarence Thomas when she worked for him at the Department of Education in the fall of 1981. She then followed Clarence Thomas into the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in 1982, despite having a tenured appointment at the Department of Education. Many wondered why Hill would follow her sup- posed harasser to another job with him. Had you been in Clarence Thomas's position, my argument to protect you would have been this .... victims do not follow their accusers around from job to job after an allegation has been made. Thank you.

reply

Good reply but of course you can't expect these useful idiots to think rationally, just being commie saps who buy whatever crap their masters tell them to buy, incapable of intelligent, independent thought; they'll buy the "Confirmation" lies either because it fits their agenda or because they were told to do so or told it does. No wonder today's "college" "students" want censorship: they can't handle the truth! It will be interesting to see if the threatened lawsuit of this film takes place:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/confirmation-bias-2.php
Hopefully the slander/libel will be made to suffer significantly.

reply

johnnypepper, you are being far too rational for these liberal ideologues!

reply

excellent reply but what you seem to forget is nothing you say will ever been taken seriously by the liberals who are the most close minded people on earth. they continue to believe lies or at least use the lie to further their agenda. even when something is proven to be a lie they will continue to use that very same lie in arguments. if it sounds good and backs up what they are thinking then they don't care if it is true or not.
There was a really good story that proves this theory beyond a reasonable doubt in the American Thinker. I forget the story but it was written by a gay person and it exposed as a big lie a story about this gay guy who was killed. they used this murder to enact a law and made umpteen movies and had umpteen protest using this lie. the lie was that Gay Bashing was one of the most prevalent things out there and that they were in fear of their life in "normal" bars. and then come to find out this guy was killed by his Gay lover and they were all tweaked out on Meth at the time. they still use this story to further their agenda and still have groups that were formed that collect money using this story as part of their whole story of why they exist. they don't care (Liberals) if it's true or not ! they have been other examples ,like when they found out another story was a hoax they would still stick by the lie because they said it reflects realty so it is OK.
Liberalism is a Mental disorder and they usually grow out of it once they grow up and start to face reality.


here is a link to that story i mentioned i just found it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/04/the_true_legacy_of_matthew_shepard.html

reply

I never thought it would change opinions, but I thought it best to point out some truths for the a younger generation who's ideas of American history are formed by Oliver Stone movies. Thank you - JP

reply

LOL and scalia didn't make twisted originalist arguments to favor his politics? And Sotomayor is extremely qualified, but clearly you have an issue with women in power.

reply

👍👍👍 (daen)

reply

The guy didn't speak for over a decade. Do you understand that? A Supreme Court justice, a person who an impact important decisions and laws, couldn't even open his mouth to make a comment or ask a question, Why is that, could it be that for that time he couldn't even be bothered to appear to care about his job?

reply

@johnnypepper you are making some very ill advised observations about the history.

About the case since you didn't see the movie according to your comments:
1. Anita Hill did explain under oath and on public television that she thought that he (Thomas) "got the point about her disinterest in her romantically and sexually".

2. When she was asked why did she follow him to the EEOC after he had already been out of line allegedly with her at the DE, she explained that it was a poor decision.

3. One that she at the time did not realize would turn out to be a poor one. One that she cannot explain as she's not a psychology expert.

When questioned about why did she call him 11 times she did explain to the committee that it was to discuss professional matters.

4. I recall this case vividly. I was one of those who were glued to the tv set, well actually not by choice really, as there was nothing else on during the days of this investigation.

5. Clarence Thomas was very vocal and stern during his questioning sessions. To spend the last 20+ years on the SCOTUS without asking a single question until just recently! Really!? Regardless of whether her harassed Hill or not, do you still think he's the best fit judge to the highest court in our nation?

6. Clarence Thomas played the race card almost immediately when the investigation was opened. That right there and then put the whole matter on thin ice or eggshells or whatever you want to call it.

7. Unlike a president, a SCOTUS judge is in for life! If we pick a bad president we can break up with that bad president after 4 years or impeach him/her even. With a SCOTUS judge, you don't get to choose a different one after 4 years.

8. Do you think we, the people or as a nation, got an opportunity to truly evaluate this man to determine whether he was fit for the job of top judge in the land?

9. If he was more interested in clearing his good name and less in the politics surrounding the advancement of Clarence Thomas in the US political system, why did he play the race card so quickly? Why did he play the race card at all? It certainly did not clear his good name. If anything it put an artificial gag order on the whole matter.

10. Last but certainly not least. I am an independent. I am not conservative nor am I a liberal. I don't live my life with a one size fits all attitude. I examine every issue.

reply

[deleted]

I attended Law School at Oklahoma. I don't know what happened for certain but she was not liked by her students. I never had her as a student but know plenty who did.

reply

Um yea the affair between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton was consensual. Two consenting adults having sex. The reason why conservatives are so easily mocked and made fun of is because you people believe some old guy rounded up two of everything and placed them on a boat. It's ridiculous and so are your ideals. The GOP USE to be a viable party until you religious fruitcakes took over. Maybe Thomas is guilty maybe he's not. Who knows.

reply

I believe the point of my opinion was that a movie was being made about a Conservative Supreme Court Justice and unproven allegations, as it was 20 years ago. Consensual or not, there should be a higher standard held to the commander and chief. Yes those are my ideals, not a religious one, a moral one. And at this time you have Mrs Clinton running for the presidency on a platform of standing for the rights of women and yet turned a blind eye to the 17 women coming forward of complaints of sexual harassment, ( The theme of this movie ). It would seem to me that a President having an affair in the Oval Office would be the kind of thing that Hollywood dreams about making. Absence of moral standards leads to absence of mankind. Thank you for your comments.

reply

So what are you saying? That black men are unfairly treated by the media in comparison to white men? Fair point I guess.


Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

reply

This was actually a Conservative- Liberal point. Had Thomas been a Democrat, Ms. Hill would have been branded a whore in the media. In the business of politics, Party trumps ( Pardon the pun ) race very time.

reply

Well we now have 25 years of history and we now know that Clarence Thomas is probably the worst Supreme Court justice of modern times. He never should have been appointed to the court. This is not a Liberal opinion. It is a fact and only those with a limited intellectual capacity would dispute this fact. I believed Anita Hill, who, by the way, would have made an infinitely better SC justice than Thomas, but, then, almost anyone would have been better, but was not sure that the allegations were enough to disqualify him. However, as I have said, history has shown that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING should have been done to keep this abysmal failure off the court.

reply

Well we now have 25 years of history and we now know that Clarence Thomas is probably the worst Supreme Court justice of modern times.



Worse than that corrupt bint, Sonia "Yeah, we make the law!" Sotomayor? Or that turncoat, Roberts?? Or the calcified re-animated remains of Ginsburg?! Or that other 200-pound lesbian Obongo appointed?!?

Buckle up, kid. You've got a lot of modern history to get acquainted with!

reply

Yes. Light years worse than any of them.


Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com

reply

Please explain, in detail, how Roberts is a turncoat and how Sonia is corrupt, backed up with facts. Oh, and can you also explain, in detail, all the positive things Thomas has brought to the court, backed up with facts?

reply

He thinks Roberts is a turncoat because he came to the same conclusion all congressional Republicans came to until Obama came to the same conclusion: an individual mandate for health coverage is constitutional.


Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com

reply

So basically, he's a typical teabag idiot.

reply

You say tea bagger like it's an insult... thank you for the compliment... how's that hope & change working for you ?

reply

Uninsured down to record lows, a record-shattering more than 70 consecutive months of private sector job growth, unemployment down to 5%....I'd say it's working out quite well!


Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com

reply

The fact you consider it a compliment underscores your cluelessness and stupidity. Figures. How's that hatred and ignorance workin' out for ya?

reply

I beg to differ nyrunner101. I shudder to think how this world would be run with 9 Ruth Bader Ginsburg's making all the decisions. Please look up these past rulings

1 Rikki vs DeStefano ( Fire Department test should be thrown out because of too many whites getting high scores ) 2 Ring vs Arizona ( The poor boy only murdered for money )
3 Bakke vs California ( Skin color trumps test scores )

You believe that Clarence Thomas is guilty based upon his political views and nothing else, which is why you would make a poor choice for a Supreme Court Justice because emotion rules your logic. I stand by my views. This movie comes out this month and I think you'll see that I was right. This film is about liberal vs conservative nothing to do about sexual harassment.

reply

"This film is about liberal vs conservative nothing to do about sexual harassment."

The fact alone that you believe this means you have zero credibility.

reply

Excuse me but legal scholars have placed Mr. Thomas among the five worst justices ever appointed to the Court. And what are your credentials? He has voted to gut the voting rights act, was against legalizing same sex marriage, and, dissented in Lawrence vs. Texas, which means he was totally comfortable with the government dictating what you could do in your bedroom.

Two of the cases you mention have some connection to affirmative action. This is ironic because if it was not for affirmative action Clarence Thomas never would have been appointed to the court.

reply

And I suppose you believe that Thuragood Marshall was elected on his merit nyrunner101 ? Skin color was the only criterion during the civil rights era.

reply

Thurgood Marshall argued (and won) Brown vs the Board of Education, one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions in history. So, yes, Marshall was appointed on his merits, which were huge. You have your argument reversed. It was Thomas who was chosen only because of his skin color. If you disagree, tell me some of his achievements,

reply

Brown Vs Board of Education was a landmark decision, granted, however, our discussion pertained to the fact was Marshall nominated on merit or skin color. Being that Johnson was one of the most racist president in history, case in point with this excerpt from the LBJ tapes in 1963.... ........ "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them *beep* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". That being said one has to wonder what his reasons were for nominating Marshall during the Civil Rights era. I'm not inclined to believe it was love of his fellow man. I guess we can agree to disagree on this one

reply

> one has to wonder what his reasons were for nominating Marshall during the Civil Rights era

The implication is that all available black candidates were less qualified than the least qualified white candidate. That's a huge stretch.

As for LBJ being one of the most racist presidents in history? Nope. He's just one of the few presidents to be so frequently recorded in private. We didn't even have magnetic tape recordings until after the nazis invented it. The first president to make regular recordings was JFK, and that only started one year before LBJ became president. They were like kids today with facebook - naively using new tech, unaware of the full consequences of making permanent records of their private thoughts.

reply

What is your basis for determining his fitness as fact?



Build the rules of society from rationality to buttress ourselves against the times we are not.

reply

A poll of legal experts placed him among the five worst justices ever appointed to the court. But it goes further. He dissented in the decision that overturned Bowers vs Hardwick (Lawrence vs Texas) which would have given legal authority to govern what you could or could not do in the privacy of your bedroom. He also voted to gut the Voting Rights Act and we can all see the damage that decision has done. There is more, but you should be able to get the picture.

reply

Nah, I think in a society in which a broadcaster, Fox News, is entirely devoted to operating as a promotional tool for the Republican Party, my narrative, about the media being anti-black, rather than anti-conservative, makes a lot more sense. 


Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

reply

They've moved a lot more to the center in this election Harvey.... but I digress..... " When I hear Obama speak I get a tingle up and down my leg " - Chris Matthews :)

reply

Yes, Fox News is conservative. Most other networks are not. You are suggesting we censor anyone that disagrees with us.

reply

Sexual harassment allegations are the blunt object of choice whenever one is needed, it must be legitimized to continue being an effective weapon, hence this movie.

-"Water? Like out of the toilet?"-

reply

Very true Luke !!!

reply

You obviously haven't read much of what Scalia said.

reply

The Voting Rights Act, The Affordable Car Act and the Dream Act. Yes I have and that's why he'll be missed :)

reply

Only by teabags like you. For real Americans, good riddance.

reply

What exactly is your definition of a REAL American coldnaps ? I would so love to hear this. Please enlighten us ?

reply

Easy. Someone who's not a teabagger moron like you, johnny.

reply