Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (6987)	6/6/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 9127

Anita Hill had absolutely no proof and the media went after Judge Thomas with a bias almost of unheard of before. (simply because he was conservative) Sorry I hit a sore spot. I wasn't trying to get off topic onto Clarence and Anita. I was just telling what I thought was an amusing anecdote. I recall, though, that the chatter in the "biased," "liberal" media was overwhelming that that particular allegation couldn't possibly be true because it was just too stupid for Clarence to have said--that Anita must have gotten the idea from that book/movie (Was it the Godfather?) and attributed it to her boss. I remember that clearly because the same thing had happened to me, said to me by a very smart fellow. Go figure! Karen

To: greenspirit who wrote (6987)	6/6/2000 11:58:00 AM
From: jhild	Respond to of 9127

Anita Hill lied for the publicity, . . . And just what pray tell allows you to assert that she lied? You talk about her not having any proof, but you seem merrily oblivious to your own lack of proof in throwing out an assertion that she lied. I personally found Judge Thomas testimony not believable. I found the deferential process that the almost all male panel of Senators, who avoided asking Judge Thomas point blank questions like "Did you ever rent or view the movie Long Dong Silver?" to be heavily tilted toward Thomas. I am not quite at all convinced that the man didn't lie during his testimony. As far as a higher standard of conduct, the man was accused of sexual harassment. Last I heard Monica was making no such claim. It was consensual. That you would find breaking existing laws on sexual harassment in the case of a nominee to the Supreme Court as a higher standard is a bit odd. As far as I know there is no law against hand jobs in the White House. In fact . . . oh, well let's not go there, hopefully you get the point.