-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/clarence_thomas_liberal_progressives_are_as_bad_as_old_south_racists -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Calling him "Uncle Tom" working for a white "massa" falls under the category of differences of ideology?
Well, I guess it does! You called it WOOF!
The same liberals who support "affirmative action" turn around and use it as a weapon.
a Supreme Court Justice?
SOP.
Told you listen for the wailing and gnashing, not to mention the attempts to tear him down, to begin....why - there's one now!!!!!
a Supreme Court Justice?
Things that are said reveal a mindset. Many aren't merely against Thomas because of differing ideology, they are against him because he is black. That was the point.
You can flippantly throw that away if you like. I don't blame you, after all - we're talking about your fellow libs here. It's not a pretty picture.
It has nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with his politics. If he can't see that...well...I'm not surprised. This coming from a man whose opinions normally entail "yeah...what he said."
He's still pissed off that people bothered to care about the whole "long dong silver" thing? Imagine that.
Where do you live? Here in America, blacks aren't allowed to be conservative according to the liberals. Any black who is a conservative is an "Uncle Tom".
At least you showed us that you don't pay too much attention Jay. It's all a "card" to you.
[/quote]
Great point.
It's called political bigotry.
It's called political bigotry. [/quote]
Wow, great picture to go with the statement. (Excuse me, got to clean green tea off my keyboard.)
([b]Lame[/b] apologists like WOOF, notwithstanding!)
Rush has 90 minutes with Justice Thomas starting NOW!
It would be far more correct, and honest, to say that prominent Democrat bigots like Senate Majority leader Harry Reid have more difficulty with that distinction than does Justice Thomas. Reid [url=http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1104865807.shtml]referred[/url] to Thomas as "an embarrassment" and stated that Thomas' opinions were "poorly written" and when pressed later for an example Reid offered,
[quote]You take the Hillside Diary case. In that case you had a [dissent] written by Scalia and a [dissent] written by Thomas. There -- it's like looking at an 8th grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.
Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn [stare decisis] on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do.[/quote]
But Justice Thomas' opinion in Hillside was a succinct two sentence paragraph which was the epitome of concise, and accurate legal writing.
Furthermore, contrary to Harry Reid's make believe analysis, Justice Scalia didn't write any opinion in Hillside at all.
The real tragedy is that Justice Thomas is subject to the most insidious racism from liberal bigots (and blatant liars) like Reid. There really is no other excuse for Reid's systematic lies about Thomas and his work on the Court.
And you've shown that you can disregard all else and implicate race instead of seriously considering why liberals may not agree with him.
He's a conservative. Liberals disagree with conservatives. It's not race...it's ideology.
What's the converse? You don't care for Barack Obama's politics...is that because he's black?
If the disagreements with Justice Thomas are strictly ideological as you say, then why would Harry Reid feel compelled to lie about Thomas' written opinions, but endorse those of fellow conservative "originalist" Antonin Scalia?
If it was only ideology, perhaps you could provide a list of liberal Democrats who have disavowed Reid's racist remarks, or those of Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant, Gary Trudeau, Daryl Cagle, and Matt Davies toward Secretary of State Rice, including Rall's reference to her as "Bush's house nigga"? And what liberal has disavowed the racist treatment of former Lt. Governor Michael Steel in 2004?
Fact is, Thomas is right. The racist bigotry is still alive and well on the left.
I studied law school in Oregon. It was a VERY liberal environment. Thomas was criticized for his absenteeism as a Justice, his conservative views, and his downright creepiness...not his race. It had nothing to do with it.
This "racism" scenario was created by Clarence because he feels he's being picked on for his politics. It's convenient and easy to do. I would expect nothing less from him...saying the easy thing (or nothing at all) is CLarence's MO.
Without knowing what opinion you're talking about, I have no idea really how to respond. But perhaps because Scalia isn't your run-of-the-mill conservative and he's not a neocon. More than anything, Scalia is an originalist. And although 9 times out of 10 this originalism provides for a conservative outcome (which is why he is despised by a good portion of the left), sometimes his "originalist" ideology provides for a somewhat "democratic" end result. That and maybe because members of the different party sometimes agree on things. LOL.
[i]If it was only ideology, perhaps you could provide a list of liberal Democrats who have disavowed Reid's racist remarks, or those of Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant, Gary Trudeau, Daryl Cagle, and Matt Davies toward Secretary of State Rice, including Rall's reference to her as "Bush's house nigga"? And what liberal has disavowed the racist treatment of former Lt. Governor Michael Steel in 2004?[/i]
I'm not disagreeing that racism may, in fact, be alive and well. However, my OP had nothing to do with Rice. Instead, I was reflecting on how I believed that some liberals disagree with Thomas for something OTHER than his race and that Clarence simply uses this as an excuse because he's it's convenient for him to do so.
Justice Thomas seems like a decent, honorable and intelligent man and is a very competant Justice of the Supreme Court.
[quote]I don't see how any rational person can honestly claim that the hatred by the Left for Justice Thomas [b]isn't [/b]solely because he is black and he isn't a liberal[/quote]
So, when they called him an "Uncle Tom", and when they called Condi Rice "Aunt Jemima", and when they both were referred to as "house niggers", that wasn't racist, Jay?
Jay,
Perhaps if you had read my previous comment, several entries above, you'd know that the opinion excoriated by Reid was [quote]Hillside Dairy v. Lyons[/quote]. Note too, that a thorough discussion of Harry Reid's idiotic remarks are at the provided bookmark.
Your suggestion that Thomas is "inventing" the charge of racism because of his politics would likely be as offensive to Thomas as Harry Reid's documented idiocy. Besides, those of us on/in the Right have listened to far, far too many accusations of racism from the left when our critiques of black politicians were ideologically based, to fall for that feeble argument now.
The problem with your argument is that almost all of the people who have made derrogatory comments about Justice Thomas are black themselves.
Joycelyn Elders, Joseph Lowery, Julianne Malveaux...all these people are african americans.
And I'm not about to get into that shitstorm.
They are black [i]Dems[/i], Jay, which is the exact point Thomas is making. Wake up.
I figured they could do 1/2 hour episodes, twice a week. A rotating quay of left and right guests, perhaps some location work, crash some public schools and Ivy League colleges, for starters. Maybe once a month do an hour long on a different network or perhaps History Channel or Comedy Central. Maybe get Dennis Miller to do man in the street spots. Chris Rock to do the Congressional Report, go into Congress Critters working offices and see exactly what the racial mix is. And who is doing what for how much. That sort of thing.
Just a thought.
No. I listen to what they say Jay. For some liberals, the disagreement is ideological. For others, it's because he's a black conservative. You can't sit there and claim "Uncle Tom" was said strictly because of ideology. That's just not going to wash. YOU are the one disregarding all else by ignoring such statements.
What's the converse? You don't care for Barack Obama's politics...is that because he's black?
Black, white, the guy is both, isn't he? It doesn't matter to me. I'm not the type of person who cares. Your "converse" is nothing more than a lying tit-for-tat.
The problem with your argument is that almost all of the people who have made derrogatory comments about Justice Thomas are black themselves.
Oh. Well now I see the source of your confusion Jay. You're the type of racist I was talking about. You don't even realize it.
You mean conservative. But thanks for admitting that part of the reason is because Thomas is black!
He enforces the law against sexual harassment and then practices it.
Do you have proof of that?
Oh, and if you're going to compare what Thomas allegedly did to what Clinton did in the White House, remember that what Clinton did was not a crime, while potentially sexual harassment is. Oh, and Clinton got IMPEACHED!!!!!
What did Clinton get "IMPEACHED!!!!!" for? You probably don't even know.
Further, it's funny how so many conservatives will listen to the few black conservatives but not to the overwhelming majority.
Conservatives don't pay attention to the overwhelming majority of other conservatives? Um...weird claim there.
No one is actually trying to LYNCH him because of his politics except in his imaginary "let me play the race card now and get out of this jam" world.
This is moving the goalposts. When there is real racism, you sit there and say, "no one is actually trying to LYNCH him".
Think about what you're telling us there. That this is okay because he isn't being lynched. It's all a "card" to you.
Imagine what they would have brought up had they had $30 million to spend for an investigation.
They probably would have found a bunch of hypocritical clueless people like you who are willing to overlook racism as long as that racism isn't lynching.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/10/clarence-t...
Clarence Thomas is a remarkable human being and an American treasure.
You mean conservative. But thanks for admitting that part of the reason is because Thomas is black!"
Thanks for the correction. No thanks for the derogatory comments so common from people who can't stand ideas other than their own.
"He enforces the law against sexual harassment and then practices it.
Do you have proof of that?"
No, but that is part of the popular perception. And we ARE talking about perception here.
What did Clinton get "IMPEACHED!!!!!" for? You probably don't even know.
I certainly do know why he was impeached. Of course it was after a $30 million investigation into actual crimes that came up with nothing. And I'd bet there are few people in the WORLD, much less in political life than won't lie about SOMETHING if put under oath and asked personal questions like that. I'd bet you would. I'd bet George Bush would.
"Further, it's funny how so many conservatives will listen to the few black conservatives but not to the overwhelming majority.
Conservatives don't pay attention to the overwhelming majority of other conservatives? Um...weird claim there."
Sorry you didn't understand me here. Poor phrasing, again, on my part. Funny how so many conservatives listen to the few black conservatives but not to the overwhelming majority of black people.
"No one is actually trying to LYNCH him because of his politics except in his imaginary "let me play the race card now and get out of this jam" world.
This is moving the goalposts. When there is real racism, you sit there and say, "no one is actually trying to LYNCH him".
Think about what you're telling us there. That this is okay because he isn't being lynched. It's all a "card" to you.
Huh? By pointing out the fallacy of his statement I'm moving the goalposts? Even metaphorically, he's not being lynched. Your argument escapes me here. It sounds like when I hear someone say "White Christian males are the most persecuted people in the country" and then I say "not really, very rarely does anyone get shot, lynched, beat up, etc., because they are white Christian males" and then you say "oh, just because none of that stuff happens, they're not being persecuted?" Further, I never said that racism was ok. Doubt if I ever will. But it is hypocritical for a man who up to a certain point basically claims that racism no longer exists and that black people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps like "he" did, to then turn around and start accusing people of, I guess, reviving racism. I guess racism only exists when you're trying to get appointed to the Supreme Court huh?
They probably would have found a bunch of hypocritical clueless people like you who are willing to overlook racism as long as that racism isn't lynching.
Hmm...just as an aside, I do notice that so many conservatives love to engage in personal attacks. Is that part of the philosophy or just a general lack of ideas? Or maybe you can explain where I've been hypocritical? Or where I said or even implied that racism was ok? Or where I attacked you personally, despite what I am growing to think of you?