I'm trying to understand why Anita Hill has another op-ed in the New York Times. Or, I guess it wasn't an op-ed. There was this interview with her, back on April 26th, which begins with the news that Biden apologized to her, and it was more or less clear that she didn't accept the apology:
But I cannot be satisfied by simply saying, “I’m sorry for what happened to you.” I will be satisfied when I know that there is real change and real accountability and real purpose to correct the issues that are still there.The new op-ed just repeats what was already clear: She doesn't want to be the Accepter of Apologies. To put her in that position is to suggest a ritual of absolution. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way.
But we heard all that 2 weeks ago. Why revive it now? I'm trying to perceive the NYT agenda. I see this political analysis (from Lisa Lerer) in the NYT on May 6th: "Some Look at Joe Biden’s Campaign and See Hillary Clinton’s." Excerpt:
Like her, he touts his decades of government experience, intimate knowledge of world leaders and close relationship with former President Barack Obama. But unlike Mrs. Clinton, who faced attacks from just one opponent, Mr. Biden is running against a historically large and diverse field of candidates, some of whom have already spent months scrutinizing parts of his long political record....Why did the NYT go back to Anita Hill? Was it an effort to extract forgiveness or to get her to push him back more for the sake of the candidates he seems to be blocking or did they want this repetition and sameness (which doesn't seem to help any Democrat)?
The Clintonian echoes began before Mr. Biden even kicked off his campaign, with his drawn-out apology to Anita Hill for how she was treated during the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas. It’s an issue he’s been publicly expressing regret over since 2017.
After several interviews, Mr. Biden settled on some phrasing: “I take responsibility,” a sentence that echoed the words Mrs. Clinton landed on after months of declining to apologize for her use of a private email system while she was secretary of state....
I see that Maureen Dowd brought up Anita Hill in her column last Sunday:
Now that Joe Biden is running for president in a post-#MeToo era, he says he always believed Anita Hill. But as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he acted more like a Republican collaborator. He shut down the hearing without calling the three women who worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with Thomas, women who were ready to puncture the phony image of a prim and proper boss.A prattling, ineffectual lump of nothingness. But that's Angela Wright-Shannon, not Hill. And Hill is the one who rejects the apology gambit. But perhaps WaPo's presentation of Angela Wright-Shannon made the NYT want to publish Anita Hill's reiteration of what she'd said 2 weeks earlier.
Biden implied on “The View” recently that one of those women, Angela Wright-Shannon, had been a reluctant witness. But she came to Washington set to testify and then got worn down by all the obstacles thrown up by Biden.
In a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday, she wrote that she wants an apology from Thomas, not Biden, adding: “I understand why Biden turned into a prattling, ineffectual lump of nothingness.”...
Again, I'm just trying to understand how the NYT thinks it's using Anita Hill. I'm not criticizing Hill for writing an op-ed with the message and in the style she chose. I assume she was invited to write.
For some added insight into the mind of the NYT, consider the correction on that Maureen Dowd column:
An earlier version of the picture caption with this column, using information supplied by Getty Images, misstated when the photograph of Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas was taken. It was in July 1991, shortly after Mr. Thomas was nominated to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. It was not during his confirmation hearings, which took place in October 1991.The photograph shows young Joe and Clarence shoulder to shoulder, beaming happily.
Posts
75 comments:
As long as there are men and women there will be sexual violence.
Biden is stepping on the crazies' campaigns before they can really build any fundraising. Except of course for Mayor Buttplug.
I still think Harris was supposed to be the one but Democrat voters, the older ones, are turned off by the crazies and the scolding harridans.
She should be the one apologizing to Biden. And he should apologize to Judge Thomas.
Democrats can't imagine any problem that doesn't call for a national solution.
Except of course, those which call for a global solution.
Clearly, the NYT does not like Biden. I don't need to know why.
Why should I or anyone else give a bee's fart what Anita Hill thinks?
And remind me again, what Thomas was accused of doing (and denied he ever did) that bears any comparison at all with what we know that Bill Clinton did as an elected official in Arkansas and the White House.
Puh-leaze.
Not sure what the Times' goal is here.
But sexual violence? If you believe her story from way back, then Thomas was guilty of -- at worst -- inappropriate flirtiness and chatter (Long Dong Silver, a pube on a Coke can). There was never a suggestion that he tried to lay a hand on her, or to extract sexual favors.
So now that's sexual violence? Or are we to believe that inappropriate chitter-chatter on sexual topics is the gateway drug to sexual violence? Or are we making a category error on purpose to score political points?
Making some crude remarks in the office--or failing to punish someone who does so--is "sexual violence"? As the Black Muslim newspaper commented at the time of the Thomas hearings, "God forbid Anita Hill should ever be caught in a strong wind."
The times agenda, whatever it is, it is in the service of the democrat party. What a partisan rag.
You won’t criticize Hill, but you should. She lied. She lied just as some of Kavanaugh's accusers lied, just as Smollett lied, just as Ahmed Chalabi lied. Liars should not demand apologies, and we *should* criticize those who do.
It’s promising you’re initial reaction us to figure out their agenda rather than allow their agitprop to wash over you and take you away...
I think they bring up Hill to try and jar suburban geezer white women out of their TDS stupor and into attention. Further instructions to follow but for now they’re trying to light a fire under those weary feminist loins. Or maybe just trying to convince the more senile amongst them that its 1991.
Anita Hill is a baldfaced liar and Biden said so at the time of the Thomas Hearings. Thank God for the internet because the Dems and the Media (but I repeat myself) have no way to suppress the truth like they were able to do before the internet.
The cycle goes like this: Anita Hill says something.
I don't care.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The only thing I want to hear from her is an apology for how she smeared Clarence Thomas.
David Brock's book The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story is a journalistic masterpiece. It’s one of the best books I ever read. The story's essence is as follows.
Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer. Her understanding of the law was mediocre, and she could not write well. Her main qualification was that she was an African-American woman. She would work at one place until her incompetence became too obvious, and then she would go to work at some other place.
During 1982, she was working in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For a while she worked under the supervision of a lawyer named Chris Roggerson, who was the Executive Assistant of Clarence Thomas, who was the EEOC’s Chairman. Roggerson was a notorious sexual harasser, and he harassed Hill. During that time, Hill confided to a lawyer friend, Susan Hoerchner, about Roggerson’s harassment.
Hill and Hoerchner drifted apart in about 1984.
In 1991, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner telephoned Hill out of the blue and asked whether Thomas was the supervisor who had sexually harassed her. Hill responded ambiguously, and Hoerchner took that response as a confirmation. In the following days, Hoerchner secretly passed this false accusation to various people who were trying to stop the nomination of Thomas.
As the situation developed, Hill decided to go along with the false accusation — but on the condition that she herself remain anonymous. The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.
As it turned out, though, Thomas stubbornly refused to withdraw from his nomination, and then the secret false accuser’s name — Anita Hill — was leaked to the press. From that point on, Hill felt compelled to press forward with her false story.
Hill is a despicable person, a character assassin. She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma. As throughout her career, she is incompetent in this professional position too.
She should be the one apologizing to Biden. And he should apologize to Judge Thomas.
What Chris wrote.
rehajm alternative theory #2: #MeToo was a tool invented to keep conservative male judges out of SCOTUS and never had anything to do with anything anyone says its about. That failed and now they need a way to work Harvey Weinstein back into the fold. But how to keep the feminine masses from feeling abandoned? Just so happens we have a classic tale from long ago to sell to those too young to remember and not too old to have forgotten.
So is Anita Hill representing herself as a victim of sexual violence?
Who will join Anita Hill in her quest for sexual healing? If only there were some kind of anthem they could all unite in singing.
The healing from sexual violence must begin now. I will take up that challenge.
I am stumped as to what that means. How does an individual take up that challenge?
What does it have to do with Joe Biden's behavior and Clarence Thomas' (falsely) alleged behavior towards Anita Hill?
Modern leftist rhetoric seems to have no logic to it. It just express an emotion.
Why look for complex explanations when simple ones will do?
The New York Times is all in on the Social Justice Warrior/victimhood identity politics agenda and Kamala Harris is still their default standard-bearer for 2020. Therefore, Biden's surge is a direct threat to their ambitions, and thus must be attacked at every opportunity.
Indeed, I'm willing to bet that for a significant contingent of the SJW crowd, letting an old white moderate like Biden win the presidency is a bigger threat to their longterm goals than another four years of Trump. In states like Texas, Democratic activists had a choice between: (A) Taking over the Democratic Party's levers of power for the hard left, and (B) Winning, and they chose (A) time and time again.
Nothing happened to Anita Hill. It was all lies!
She's rewriting history. Orwell was right.
Apparently the NYT thinks Trump will wipe the floor with Biden. Me too (pun fully intended.)
I think Anita Hill owes Thomas an apology. But how can she? Would it go like this?:
I lied about Clarence Thomas all those years ago to keep him off the Supreme Court. My handlers lied when they said he would fold before I was put on public display. But when he did not, I was used by the left.
All the years since I have made lemonade out of that lemon by riding the Woman Wronged train. And it's given me a better life and public acclaim far beyond my actual abilities.
But now, as I prepare to retire I have to admit my lies and ask Justice Thomas for forgiveness. I have led to your being given less acclaim than your actual abilities deserve. You have suffered public scolding for decades due to my lies. That is unforgivable.
Finally all those who always link the good Justice' name with sexual assault, grow up. Do not weigh yourself down with this smear. It is a burden on your soul.
That would work for me. But I have a better chance with the lotto.
Mike S.
I glanced at Hill's book. There is a funny part where Anita and other female law prof at Oklahoma U were walking around Norman trying to figure out how they could do this without a public appearance and being questioned under oath. Law professors! Obviously, they had never tried a case. In a criminal case, everyone has a right to confront their accusers and cross them under oath. Same rule should apply in SCOTUS confirmation hearings and Biden - to his credit - allowed it.
What a bizarre juxtaposition; Joe Biden apologizing abjectly for on-the-record proceedings of the Senate Judiciary Committee (in which I think Biden’s only sin was in being too solicitous of Anita Hill’s handlers), and for a lifetime of too-cozy political glad-handing...
... Compared to Donald Trump’s record of sexual violence, adultery, wretchery, and the most cravenly crude misogynist language from any major political figure in modern American life.
She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma.
Even that overstates her mediocre accomplishments. Last I checked she was in a Gender Studies position.
On March 26, 2015, the Brandeis Board of Trustees unanimously voted to recognize Hill with a promotion to Private University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women's Studies.
Why revive it now? I'm trying to perceive the NYT agenda.
My guess regarding the powers that be at and behind the NYT is
1) They still would prefer Kamala.
2) Failing that, the want to be sure to fully inoculate Biden of this "issue" for farther left wing elements of the Dem voting base. They want to be able to say "this is old news".
They fully realize the crisis the Dem party is in. Despite Biden's clear lead, there's still great division. If Biden is indeed going to be the nominee, in order to beat Trump they absolutely need the votes of the the Bernie fans, the social justice set, and the rest of the moonbats. They can't have disgruntled people sitting out the election or casting a Jill Stein style protest vote.
Indeed, I'm willing to bet that for a significant contingent of the SJW crowd, letting an old white moderate like Biden win the presidency is a bigger threat to their longterm goals than another four years of Trump.
Biden won't run as a moderate, though, he doesn't dare. The fact that he's a stale, pale male just means that he has to race-bait even harder than the rest of them. And since subtlety has never been his strong suit, we can expect lots of insanely woke and cringeworthy moments for Althouse to blog about!
Donald Trump’s record of sexual violence
Please enumerate specific instances instead of your usual bullshit.
Anita who? Even among Democrat voters there's a small and fading slice who remembers who she is. By invoking her, the NYT is, effectively, absolving Biden of anything serious.
Chuck said...
... Compared to Donald Trump’s record of sexual violence, adultery, wretchery, and the most cravenly crude misogynist language from any major political figure in modern American life.
You have to remember Chuck supported Bill Clinton and still apologizes for his rapes.
And remember Chuck supported Hillary who apologized for Bill's rapes and attacked Bill's victims.
So this type of lie is exactly what you would expect from Chuck.
. Compared to Donald Trump’s record of sexual violence, adultery, wretchery, and the most cravenly crude misogynist language from any major political figure in modern American life.
Are we including JFK and LBJ as part of modern American life?
"But we heard all that 2 weeks ago. Why revive it now? I'm trying to perceive the NYT agenda."
There's not a lot of primary news this week. Maybe they were drawn back to it. What's the agenda? Not sure it's beyond trying to get clicks. But the story is going to come out. It's better for Biden for the story to be hashed over now, months before the first primary; one could say they want to help Biden by airing the story until there's no more news from it.
Achilles I never supported Bill Clinton; never voted for him and I was active in the Republican Party, working against him.
You cannot point these readers to one single comment from me in which I offered so much as a word of support for any Clinton.
You’re not just mistaken; you’re a liar. And in the scheme of things on this blog, where my entire history has been supportive of Republicans Republican causes with the one, lone, singular exception of my personal loathing of Donald Trump, you’re a really weird and inexplicable liar.
Most everyone here is on the same page. This attempt to make Hill relevant is aimed at Biden. The problem is that Thomas never even touched Hill or came close to doing so. So all they have is Thomas possibly talking dirty a very little bit around her. For anyone who actually knows anything about Hill, her charges, and Thomas’ confirmation, this article is nonsensical. This is only persuasive to those who don’t, hence it’s publication in the NYT.
"Indeed, I'm willing to bet that for a significant contingent of the SJW crowd, letting an old white moderate like Biden win the presidency is a bigger threat to their longterm goals than another four years of Trump."
Woke twitter is going to be surprised when they discover they are a small slice of the Democratic party. Twitter not equal to real life.
Crisis. Hmph!
There has been a crisis of sexual violence since the first weasel-like creature could be called a primate.
Or probably before that.
with the one, lone, singular exception of my personal loathing of Donald Trump, you’re a really weird and inexplicable liar.
Speaking of liars, where are your instances of Trump sexual violence ?
Woke twitter is going to be surprised when they discover they are a small slice of the Democratic party<
Oh yes, I think that is all about Biden. If only Obama had not killed off the farm teams of Democrats. Instead you get creepy stalkers like that Pennsylvania state rep.
The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.
Every Republican but two, have fallen for this. Him and Trump
Woke twitter is going to be surprised when they discover they are a small slice of the Democratic party. Twitter not equal to real life.
I think you're wrong about this...winning the nomination is all about getting party activists to show up at boring, confusing events like all those caucuses where 2,500 people decide who gets 150 delegates. The ordinary voter doesn't have time for that nonsense, but woke Twitter lunatics do. That's why Biden is going to have to go hard left to win. He'll probably screw it up, because he's a screwup, but he's going to try.
The crazy thing is that the Dems tried the same stunt with CBF and Kavanaugh and CBF was an even worse liar than Anita Hill.
Chuck, you owe us some specifics regarding Trump’s sexual violence.
Or, she can’t actually articulate what someone needs to apologize for? She told multiple conflicting stories in the senate hearings that not only conflicted with her previous statements, they also conflicted with established facts. That made her a highly non-credible witness. No one did that to her. She did that to herself. If she really was harassed, that’s a tragedy made sadder because she couldn’t articulate what happened. It isn’t “victim blaming” when we ask accusers tough questions - it’s a search for the truth in the pursuit of justice. The evidence and her conflicting statements simply didn’t support her claim. Biden is reported to have said privately that the other witnesses were even more suspect - though, he now denies these statements.
Finally, when sexual assault and harassment claims are weaponized for political gain, such as with Kavanaugh and Thomas, it hurts every legitimate claim and produces the opposite of justice. That Congress pays out $17m in sexual harassment and assault settlements to, which have remained sealed, adds to the hypocrisy and fuels the injustice.
the notion that Anita Hill is owed an apology from anyone is fucking preposterous. She lied about Clarence Thomas in an organized effort to sink his nomination. It failed. She told the FBI one story and then Senate Judiciary another. She thought she could remain anonymous. She couldn't keep her own story straight. Not even a flaming liberal like Joe Biden believed her lies. Her story did not hold up to even basic scrutiny. Very few people believed her then and any fair recitation of the facts of that time would lead to the same result now.
The Democrats even dusted off that old play in trying to sink the Kavanaugh nomination. These people are so transparent.
Traumatic insemination, in which the male pierces the female's abdomen and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity.
Poor Anita!
The NYT agenda is Hate TRUMP.
"Sexual violence is a national crisis that requires a national solution.
People speaking in platitudes are trying to conceal their plan. This is almost always because the specifics would reveal the plan would not solve the problem asserted as justification.
The most recent national solution for sexual violence was weaponizing Title IX. This does nothing about sexual violence which is already against the law and appropriately adjudicated by the legal system. The purpose of weaponizing Title IX is empowering women to forcibly remove men they don't want to be around for reasons less than violence usually due to a prior sexual history or speech they dislike.
I can't see the article to understand what her proposed "solution" is but there is no policy which can address sexual violence. If laws threatening decades of imprisonment aren't sufficient to stop it no level of disapproval will either. It's fairly obvious her objection is not to violence but pretends it is because it allows her and her allies to smear civil libertarian opposition as supporting sexual violence.
a crisis of sexual violence since the first weasel-like creature
Before that, and still today, the violence was asexual. Sexual violence progressed with human evolution. Religion or morality, appealing (i.e. normalization) to humanity's self-enlightenment, was supposed to temper that orientation, and, in the majority, it has been effective.
You cannot point these readers to one single comment from me in which I offered so much as a word of support for any Clinton.
Could you Please point us to a single word of condemnation, you ever made towards Clinton?
Thanx
Traumatic insemination
Traumatic? Hardcore, a hole like any other, that fulfills a function.
Woke twitter is going to be surprised when they discover they are a small slice of the Democratic party.
They won't be surprised since they already know that - at least other than idiots like AOC who haven't been around long enough to learn anything. It's of minor importance though since they control all Dem institutions and through those control effectively all Dem politicians.
I’ve written that I never voted for any Clinton. That I was a Republican and supported Republicans and voted Republican.
I’ve written that I supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and had I been in the Senate, I’d have voted for his conviction and removal.
And I have written that Hillary Clinton was the worst Democratic nominee since Al Smith in 1928.
Why did the NYT go back to Anita Hill? Was it an effort to extract forgiveness...
Reminds me of the NYT and other national outlets during Obama's 2008 campaign when, for a third time, his 20-year pastor Jeremiah Wright said something incendiary to which Obama had to respond.
The reporters desperately tried to corral him into saying "I denounce him." He never did. He wasn't going to alienate the urban voters who shared Wright's paranoid racism. At the very end of the news conference, they tried one last time:
Q: The other day, on Sunday, you were asked whether -- to respond to -- (off mike) -- is this -- you said you didn't believe in irreparable damage. Is this relationship with you and Wright irreparably damaged, do you think?
SEN. OBAMA: There's been great damage. You know, I -- it may have been unintentional on his part, but, you know, I do not see that relationship being the same after this. Now, to some degree, you know -- I know that one thing that he said was true, was that he wasn't -- you know, he was never my, quote-unquote, "spiritual adviser."
He was never my "spiritual mentor." He was -- he was my pastor. And so to some extent, how, you know, the -- the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, wasn't accurate.
But he was somebody who was my pastor, and married Michelle and I, and baptized my children, and prayed with us at -- when we announced this race. And so, you know -- so I'm disappointed.
"I do not see that relationship being the same after this."
NPR headline the next day: Obama Expresses Outrage at Ex-Pastor's Speech
The media will try to get Democrats like Hill and Biden to say what is necessary for The Cause. If they don't, they'll make it up.
"They won't be surprised since they already know that"
My POV: I don't believe they do know it. They were shocked at Biden's polls after he announced, and the continuous upward climb. I think the wokeness crowd does not understand the majority of D voters are non-upper class, non-arugula eating, not NY Times reading, non-woke, ordinary blue collar people.
"I think you're wrong about this"
Could be. We'll see what happens.
Chuck, you did write that Trump had committed sexual violence.
Do you care to back that up?
Healthy people moved on from this charade about 10 minutes after it ended.
Then we have the Democrats.
What utter bullshit!
Regarding Christine Blasey Ford's testimony Hill says:
Even worse, a new generation was forced to conclude that politics trumped a basic and essential expectation: that claims of sexual abuse would be taken seriously.
Later Hill wraps up with:
Despite the grim reality, I remain hopeful, knowing how far we’ve come. If we acknowledge the severity of the problem and demand processes in which all sexual harassment and assault survivors are heard and not dismissed or punished for coming forward, our leaders will step up.
See? We didn't take Ford seriously because we didn't automatically believe her. It's a transparent motte & bailey fallacy: Hill SAYS she just wants women making accusations to be heard...but we fucking heard Ford for days and allowed her unsupported accusations against Kav. to get weeks of national airtime. That's as heard as you can get! What we didn't do, though, was AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVE her...we didn't #BelieveAllWomen and that's what Hill actually wants--she's just too cowardly to come out and say it.
Seriously, fuck Anita Hill--I respect her less now than I did before. It's another example of the Lefty feminist bullshit where they say they just want fairness or equality but they're really demanding special treatment. We would in no circumstance automatically believe some unsupported accusation a man makes against another man in a similar way (years later, no details, shaky consistency, etc)...but we're somehow bad people if we treat the accusation that way when it's from a woman.
Women's accusations are special and must be treated as special, see, becaue to do otherwise is an affront to equality. Ridiculous.
It could just be that she agreed to do thd previous interview on condition that they give her an op-ed.
Being a self-proclaimed professional victim means never having to retire or say you're sorry.
Seriously, fuck Anita Hill-
I suspect that is her problem.
Hillary called all of Bill's sexual abuse accusers "bimbos and sluts and nuts and..."
Sisterhood!
I don't apologize, I demand apologies! And then I reject them!
So, ain't that precious: another "you owe me plenty, I owe you nothing." When actually it is she who owes all of us plenty for her disgraceful attempt to derail Thomas' nomination with a character assassination that was so conveniently non-falsifiable.
The reason why she's a viable political property now is because the Thomas hearings were long enough ago so that many voters didn't see them originally, but only heard their echos in the ceaseless "Women Don't Lie About That" propaganda that has emanated from this event ever since.
I posted this in the above link about James Baker and love and Charlottesville. But perhaps it better belongs here:
Until recently I've had some confidence that the long arc of history will bring us to the truth (Eisenhower and Truman were not weak ineffectual Presidents, we now know. JFK was not as impactful as we once thought.) So (I would have thought until recently) in 20 years or so, people will realize the truth of the Charlottesville comment.
But now I see Anita Hill (what is it?) 20-30 years on still saying to great acclaim what has been repeatedly and unassailably proven to be untrue.
Journalism may be the first draft of history; but it now appears to me that the first draft will be re-written and edited and re-written "until it comes out the way we want it to". (Thanks Sen. Feingold for that insight into the rhetoric of liberalism.)
Can anyone here, just off the top of their head, name either of the two women who accused Fairfax of rape. Do either have a book deal? Maybe an HBO movie dramatizing their plight?......I'm sympathetic to all the victims of sexual assault, but I'm especially sympathetic to those who were assaulted by Dem politicians, illegal immigrants, or Hollywood power brokers. No book deals for them.
The most? Really? Is LBJ pre-modern, are you too blinded by your dislike of Trump to make an honest comparison, or are you just ignorant?
And LBJ wasn't caught on a hot microphone talking about celebrity gold-diggers who will let you grab them by the pussy for a chance to marry your back account.
If Chuck clutches those pearls any tighter he's going to choke himself to death.
He acts like Trump made a public official statement or something. I guess privacy rights is another principle our Life Long Republican(tm) Ahab will abandon in pursuit of his Great Orange Whale...
Compared to Donald Trump’s record of sexual violence, adultery, wretchery, and the most cravenly crude misogynist language from any major political figure in modern American life.
Chuck has caught the leftist malady of all history being wiped clean at the new dawn.
Sexual violence? Assumes facts not in evidence. (like Russian conspiracy)
Wretchery? That can mean absolutely anything (meaning nothing at all)
Adultery? Seriously? NOBODY in modern history.(Well since sunrise anyway, makes it true.)
JFK, is modern times, What he did offering up young girls to his buddies is pretty disgusting.
Willy Jeff, a serial abuser of woman. His wife's language used to smear the women Billy Jeff attacked makes DJT's language tamer than Church lady.
But now I see Anita Hill (what is it?) 20-30 years on still saying to great acclaim what has been repeatedly and unassailably proven to be untrue.
At a time when 20% of the women who attend college are raped, some things are more important than the truth.
Fuck Anita Hill and the NYTimes. Can I make it any clearer?
BTW, how does her Op-Ed happen? Did they call her up and say, "Hey, can you write another column bashing Biden?"
THEOLDMAN
"Compared to Donald Trump’s record of sexual violence, adultery, wretchery, and the most cravenly crude misogynist language from any major political figure in modern American life."
Chuckie, oh Chuckie, last time I checked Trump never left a girl to suffocate in the back seat of an upside down '67 Olds Delmont 88 and then lied about it on national TV.
Ruminate on that in your safe space.
I gave up reading this blog a couple of months ago because I found the endless back-and-forth just too time consuming. I now visit only to follow an occasional link from Instapundit. And here I find Chuck still endlessly whining that people are lying about him. Christ almighty, why does our hostess allow him to get away with this crap?
Gahrie, my daughter is a high school junior, up in arms about "campus rape culture." Her dad and I assure her that if in fact 20% of women on campus are raped, there is no way in HELL we would be letting her go to college - nor would any other parent she knows let their daughter. Sometimes she believes us; sometimes she reverts to the cant of her fellows. Sigh.
Gahrie, Are you aware that the 20% rape number is a lie made up and spread by the Dems to push anti-male policies in the colleges and universities?
Gahrie, Are you aware that the 20% rape number is a lie made up and spread by the Dems to push anti-male policies in the colleges and universities?
You don't come around here very often, do you?
@Jamie:
I refuse to believe that you are old enough to have a daughter going to college. That would imply certain other unpleasant facts about me.
Has she picked a major yet?
This is the time of the year I tell my "You won't believe how I got into USC" stories.
Post a Comment