|
| Posted by: Jag
- [14828255] Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 18:13
Go Clarence
Thomas’s most deeply felt opinions are about race, and he pulls no punches. For Thomas, the menacing racists who donned white sheets in the segregated South of his childhood are as bad or worse as the northern liberal zealots in suits and ties.
“These people who claim to be progressive … have been far more vicious to me than any southerner,” Thomas says, “and it is purely ideological.”
You can witness the same on this forum. The Liberals here are vicious on any idea, except the far Left ones. You would think Bush is the devil and Hussein is Mother Teresa. The venom spewed towards the Right is equal only to the hate of old Klu Klux Klan members.
“People get bent out of shape about the fact that when I was a kid, you could not drink out of certain water fountains. Well, the water was the same. My grandfather always said that, ‘The water’s exactly the same.’ But those same people are extremely comfortable saying I can’t drink from this fountain of knowledge,” Thomas says. “They certainly don’t see themselves as being like the bigots in the South. Well, I’ve lived both experiences. And I really don’t see that they’re any different from them.”
He says his critics — the people who question whether he is smart or qualified to be on the Court or who suggest he merely does what a white Supreme Court colleague dictates — are as also as bigoted as the whites of his childhood in the deep South. (Emphasis mine.)
“People feel free to say about me what they think about lots of blacks,” Thomas said in an interview in his chambers at the Supreme Court. “Because of the heterodox views I’ve taken, they have license to say it about me with impunity.”
Blacks not following the Liberal line are ostricized by the Left. Liberal bias and prejudice of conservative blacks for their beliefs is as foul as the bigots who condemn them for their skin color, maybe worse because the Left is more vocal.
|
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 18:17
|
Absolutely nothing new in his book. Nothing at all. He wants to get rid of the social programs that allowed him to get ahead, and his own shortcomings are blamed on "liberals."
Like a lot of blacks, his problem is the lack of taking responsibility.
|
|
| | | 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 18:18
|
Full disclosure: I did some legal work on that book before it was published. Doesn't mean I won't criticize it, however.
|
|
| | | 3 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 18:24
|
What shortcomings?
|
|
| | | 4 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 18:48
|
What "social programs"?
|
|
| | | 5 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 19:00
|
MBJ, a black man can't succeed without the help of a Liberal, he must of used some sort of social program.
|
|
| | | 6 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 19:11
|
Great interview with Thomas last night on 60 Minutes. He was treated very fairly, and I found a new respect for him.
He admitted his acceptance to Yale Law School and Supreme Court nomination were solely because he's black, though I don't think either of those have anything to do with social programs. Tokenism, maybe.
|
|
| | | 7 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 19:13
|
Right, PV. I'm not aware of the "social programs" of Jim Crow Georgia that "allowed" him to get ahead. I thought it had something to do with his rearing, talent and work ethic
|
|
| | | 8 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 19:27
|
The Liberals here are vicious on any idea, except the far Left ones.
Note the usual silence from MBJ and the few other conservatives here on Jag's keyboard vomit. You think I'd give a pass to any similarly absurd statement from any of the lefties here?
You enable him.
|
|
| | | 9 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 19:38
|
This isn't a team sport, MITH.
|
|
| | | 10 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 19:40
|
Yeah, that's part of my point.
|
|
| | | 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 20:42
|
A somewhat even-handed review
This doesn't necessarily mean that Hill's accusations were true. It does mean that Thomas' sense of outrage is exaggerated and one-sided. He rails against a vast left-wing conspiracy for distorting his true character. Yet the portrait painted by his supporters at the time and now by Thomas was (and is) also false. For all his fury at those who so intrusively investigated him, he has only praise for those who slung the mud at Hill, tarring her with little foundation as journalist David Brock did in describing her as "a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty."
Thomas' book is not only not new, but is a 2003 throwback to when broad-brushing was not only permitted, but encouraged on the Right. Meanwhile his own errors, when they come up at all, are minimized as "misunderstandings" or "immaturity."
|
|
| | | 12 | walk
ID: 2530286
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 21:01
|
Yeah, I saw the 60 Minutes interview last night as well. Thomas came across, IMO, very well, with strong principles. However, I still don't quite understand his very consistent conservative views on the court.
I think the social programs from which he benefited, which he now denounces, are affirmative action. He thinks it strips personal responsibility away from the individual. However, it is sorta bogus cos he accepted those jobs and nominations as a result of affirmative action. It's just a little interesting for one to denounce those programs after benefiting from them.
Jag, what is your point here anymore? How many times do you continue to make aggressive generalizations against liberals (like me), and then ultimately backtrack and say "well, not all of you," or somethingorother. I mean, what is the point? Please discuss policies etc. without the Hannity/O'Reilly name calling. It just lowers the level of discourse here.
And Bush IS an idiot, an arrogant one, but no, Saddam is NOT better. Us "liberals" do not believe that. Maybe you are thinking of some comments I or others have made that life in Iraq was ultimately better and more stable under the ruthless rule of Saddam, but he is not a better leader or nice man than Bush. Okay?
|
|
| | | 13 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 21:31
|
It seems everyone notices my generalizations of Liberals, but they fail to see their own fault, when they do the same with Republicans. I find this behavior consistant with ALL Liberals.
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 21:32
|
Uh, OK. And this makes it OK for you to generalize "liberals" because...?
|
|
| | | 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 22:05
|
they fail to see their own fault, when they [make generalizations] with Republicans
If that's true then attack that when you see it. If you're right, you might be surprised at who agrees with you. Your current approach of framing almost every point within an insult amounts to nothing more than taunting and picking fights.
That's why people don't respect you here - not because of your political leanings.
|
|
| | | 16 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Oct 01, 2007, 22:36
|
Don't hate me because I am beautiful.
Don't hate the playa hate the game.
Don't be hatin'.
I am telling ya I get no respect...
I went to a massage parlor. It was self service.
I went to a freak show and they let me in for nothing.
I remember I was so depressed I was going to jump out a window on the tenth floor... so they sent a priest up to talk to me. He said.. On your mark...
On Halloween..the parents send their kids out looking like me. Last year.. one kid tried to rip my face off! Now it's different.. when I answer the door the kids hand me candy.
Good crowd... good crowd. I'm telling you I could use a good crowd. I'm ok now but last week I was in rough shape... Why? I looked up my family tree and found out I was the sap.
|
|
| | |
| | | 18 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 09:58
|
I thought her 15 minutes were up.
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 09:59
|
She never sought fame. Unlike Thomas, that is. Apparently the "liberals" forced him to write a book with a fat advance, too.
|
|
| | | 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:21
|
It's too bad, but I'd be inclined to doubt that Jag read Hill's piece at all. Her points and her concerns, are all valid.
|
|
| | | 21 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:21
|
The question that needs to be asked is why Hill waited 10 years after the fact to bring the accusations to light.
The other question that needs to asked is why did Hill accept the position with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Thomas, if she was sexually harrassed previously as his assistant at the Department of Education.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:24
|
Much of that was already covered, PV. That's why Thomas' book is nothing new.
|
|
| | | 23 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:25
|
She didnt wait PV. C'mon, she testified in 1991 before the Senate COmmittee.
This Op-Ed piece, is in response to Thomas' book and 60 Minutes appearance/comments. It woulkd have been difficult yes, for her to have responded to the books contents, 10 years before it was published?????????
|
|
| | | 24 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:29
|
He wants to get rid of the social programs that allowed him to get ahead, and his own shortcomings are blamed on "liberals." - PD
OMG, ROTFL, see what fun I miss when I am away?
Private school and good old fashioned personal effort and high character.
You thot he was an 'equal opportunity' hire, PD?
|
|
| | | 25 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:32
|
She never sought fame. - PD
You are on a roll, my man! She was riding a man's coat-tails from start to finish stabbing him in the back all the while.
|
|
| | | 26 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:35
|
She was riding a man's coat-tails from start to finish stabbing him in the back all the while.
That assertion is based on what exactly? (Other than the statements of Thomas that is. Said statements, having already been disputed by others.)
|
|
| | | 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:38
|
#25: She sought fame? When? Where?
#24: Even Clarence Thomas himself admits he got into private high school, college, and his first jobs because of affirmative action. Far be it for me to get between Thomas and a boot licker, but when it comes to what Clarence Thomas believes I'll take his word over yours, sorry.
|
|
| | | 28 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:40
|
Sarge - She waited 10 years to make any allegations. It took her that long to make them up, so I suppose we shouldn't hold that delay against her.
She absolutely sought out her 15 minutes of fame. After her story was investigated and dismissed privately by the Sentate Judicial commitee, she made sure that the circus that followed happened.
She slandered. Now, after the smoke has cleared a bit and Thomas responds - PD thinks his response to the extremely public slander and assasination of his good name is a publicity stunt. That's sad.
|
|
| | | 29 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:43
|
#24: Even Clarence Thomas himself admits he got into private high school, college, and his first jobs because of affirmative action
Please post me the proof of that one.
|
|
| | | 30 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:47
|
PD - you said "social programs" Which ones were you referring to?
Private colleges admissions programs are not social programs. They're, generally, not AA. AA, specifcally refers to state or Court institutued plans taken to remedy past government discrimination.
Holy Cross and Yale in the 60's weren't part of any AA plan that I know of.
So what were you referring to?
|
|
| | | 31 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:52
|
He said it on 60 Minutes the other night, Baldwin. He did, really. It's not scandalous though. He said it with modesty of one who realizes after the fact that was exploited and chosen for the wrong reasons, and that such programs, in the larger scheme, enable minorities instead of encouraging them to be self-reliant. The first half of the show told us about his very poor upbringing, mostly done b his very respected grandfather, who was strict, but fair and very hard-working. He taught Clarence that he could do anything he wanted, if he tried very hard. So, Thomas tried very hard, but he also was only ranked in the middle of the pack at Yale Law, yet he got some very desirable jobs afterwards. He said he realized afterwards that this was due to ethnic background. I am not suggesting he should have turned those jobs down. I think the observation here is that he benefitted from affirmative action but is now against it. It is the opinion of some that this is inconsistent/contradictory.
|
|
| | | 32 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:54
|
She sought fame? When? Where?
If you don't realize that testtifying before the Senate about a salacious story you've made up involving a SCOTUS nominee will make you famous, you shouldn't be allowed to go outside alone.
And, of course, by your logic,
her book defines her as a publicity hound.
|
|
| | | 33 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 10:57
|
I am googling to see if I can find a transcript of the interview. Not so easy, but am searching now. This is not really like a secret or anything. He was sorta matter of fact about it.
Thomas' 60 Minute Transcripts
I have not checked these transcript links to see if they work or all the whole thing, but here's a first hit.
|
|
| | | 35 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:00
|
C'mon, she testified in 1991 before the Senate COmmittee.
Correct. She testified about alleged harrassment that occurred in 1981. Then she accepted another position under Thomas after he allegedly harrassed her.
I personally don't doubt that Thomas said some things that can be described as innapropriate, but that's a big difference from sexual harrassment, which has risen to the level of absurdity.
If a boss says sleep with me or you're fired, or creates an environment of hostility because of rejected advances, that's sexual harrassment. Occasional off-handed remarks are now condidered sexual harrassment because of a PC society partly because of this sordid affair.
I've personally seen a friend of mine fired over alleged sexual harrassment claims, when it was obvious to everyone that that the "victim's" agenda was to raid his client list. Obvious to everyone except corporate, who were too afraid of a lawsuit than any sense of fairness and justice.
|
|
| | | 36 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:01
|
Printed 60 Minutes Thomas Transcript
But at Yale, Thomas sensed he was being treated differently by teachers and fellow students. The law school had a program that set aside a certain number of slots for minority students.
"I honestly, honestly believed that Yale thought that having a kid who came from working people in the South, who had grown up through segregation, that this kid who had prospered, who had done well every single place he'd ever been, whether an all-white school, all-black school, he's always done well. He will do well here. And it will benefit both him and Yale," Thomas says. "That's what I thought. Well, that isn't what it was converted to."
"It was converted to, 'Well, you're here because you're black,'" Thomas explains.
Thomas did well at Yale, graduating somewhere in the middle of his class, but he says it was the first time anybody had tried to put him in a box because of his race, and whatever benefits he accrued from being there were tarnished when it came time to graduate.
"You know, I was in debt. I needed a job. And I couldn’t get a job," Thomas says.
"Not even with a Yale law degree?" Kroft asks.
"I couldn’t get a job. And I just saw the discounting of my degree happen before my eyes," Thomas says.
Asked why he thinks that is, Thomas says, "That degree meant one thing for whites and another thing for blacks…it was discounted."
"You write in the book that your Yale degree was worth 15 cents," Kroft remarks.
"Well, you know Steve, I have still a 15 cents sticker on the frame that my law degree is in," Thomas says. "It's tainted. So I just leave it in the basement."
Thomas finally found a $10,000-a-year job in Jefferson City, Mo., working for the state’s attorney general, John Danforth.
"And the biggest negative was that it didn't pay much money. And he was a Republican. But, I had to swallow hard, go out to Missouri and work for a dreaded Republican," Thomas says.
"You were still a liberal Democrat at that point," Kroft asks.
"I was never a liberal. I was radical. I was cynical. I was negative. But, I was never a liberal. I always saw that as too lukewarm for me," Thomas says.
Thomas would follow Danforth to Washington and in 1980 switched parties to vote for Ronald Reagan, whose beliefs in hard work and personal initiative, Thomas says, were more consistent with the way he had been brought up.
But in many ways he was still a radical. Over time he came to believe that government programs designed to help blacks were ultimately demeaning and detrimental to them. He rejected decades of civil rights dogma on the grounds that it created a cult of victimization, and implied that blacks required special treatment in order to succeed, postponing the day when all men and women would truly be viewed as equals.
"You're a huge believer in self reliance. And I get sort of a subtext from you. Tell me if I'm wrong. That you think that the black community could use a few more leaders preaching that?" Kroft asks.
"You've been down here long enough to see who raised me and what my grandfather. What approach would he take?" Thomas says, laughing. "It'd be get out there and work. The problem for me isn't that everybody agrees with him or me. But, that they think they have the exclusive providence of how to approach it. That I am to be destroyed because I won't drink that Kool-Aid or because I don't follow in this cult-like way something that blacks are supposed to believe. I have an opinion. It seems as though the problem with me and other people with our opinions is that we are veering away from the black gospel that we're supposed to adhere to."
|
|
| | | 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:05
|
MBJ: I think you are defining "social programs" far too narrowly. Thomas was admitted to schools and jobs because of race-preference programs. The very programs he strives to knock down now that he's on the bench. I get your point, but Thomas does not limit his hatred to court-ordered plans. Indeed, an undercurrent of his book (and the reason, IMO, for his resentfulness and meaness) is taking the handout of the Yale set-aside.
#29: How about reading the book? I read it months ago. I'm sure you're conservative side will rejoice at finding it yourself, instead of having it spoon-fed to you like the liberals would have it.
|
|
| | | 38 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:19
|
I notice the word 'hatred' bandied about when talking about conservatives. I don't believe he said he HATED social programs.
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:21
|
And you got this from not reading his book?
Am I the only one who finds it ironic thar I'm the only one who has read his book, and yet I'm getting all sorts of potshots from Thomas "supporters?"
|
|
| | | 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:22
|
BTW, I'll post my own mini-review of the book in just a bit.
|
|
| | | 41 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:31
|
Where is the word in this entire thread, except in your posts, Jag?
|
|
| | | 42 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:38
|
#37
Thomas does not limit his hatred to court-ordered plans.
Liberals try to pigeon-hole Moderates, like myself and the Right as haters, when the opposite is true. I was told to stop generalizing and to attack when I see fault in specific Liberal logic. I am just being a good soldier and following orders.
|
|
| | | 43 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:45
|
Thanks...my search on the word "hate" neglected to add "hatred."
|
|
| | | 44 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:46
|
Saying that Justice Thomas hates preferential treatment based on race is the opposite of the truth?
|
|
| | | 45 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:47
|
Wait a minute though, Jag. Sorr to change the subject, but you describe yourself as a "moderate"...? I think your self-assessment is wrong. A moderate would be somewhere in between a liberal and conservative, but you bash liberals far, far, far more often. How do you explain that?
|
|
| | | 46 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 11:58
|
Mith-Hate and Hatred are key spinning words for Liberals, that is the point and PD's post illustrated it. It was your orders I was following.
Walk- I bash Liberals far, far, far more on this forum, because they post far, far, far more often. MBJ's and Baldwin's appearances are about as short lived as a Rosie O'Donnell diet.
|
|
| | | 47 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 12:16
|
Well I do commend you for trying but you happen to be wrong. On both levels. Every indication is that Thomas does in fact hate preferential treatment based on race. The opposite - which you seem to claim as truth - would be that Thomas loves preferential treatment based on race.
Also, dissing the use of the word 'hate' because of what you feel it connotes rather than the actual and literal point in which it is applied is a rather bizarre demand for political correctness from you. So now liberals can't use the word 'hate' to describe how conservatives feel about things that are opposed their fundamental political beliefs?
Allow me to apologize on behalf of liberals everywhere. PD, I respectfully suggest you change your phrasing to say that Thomas is pro-affirmative-action-challenged.
|
|
| | | 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 12:23
|
I really don't think that there is any question, from anyone who has actually read Thomas' writings on the subject (whether on the bench or his own books & articles), that he hates race-based programs (in employment, school admission, etc). Use another word if you want to (despise, makes war upon, etc). The feeling is the same.
Jag, you're far too busy trying (and failing) to make points on political correctness questions to see you are missing the larger points.
|
|
| | | 49 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 12:24
|
And if I say "Clarence Thomas hates abortion" will Jag try to get me for that one, too?
|
|
| | | 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 12:30
|
"Clarence Thomas hates abortion"
Quit spinning the facts, Perm Dude!
|
|
| | | 51 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 12:45
|
:)
|
|
| | | 52 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 12:53
|
PD - Does THomas "hate" abortion? You read the book right. The 60 Minutes interview made the claim that, at least a one time, he believed the state should not have a role at all.
His legal stance has always been simply that there is no Constitutional right to abortions. I don't know I've ever seen his personal view on abortion addressed (except for the 60 Minutes mention).
He certainly wasn't admitted because of AA or a social program.
walk - My reading of the 60 Minutes transcript doesn't describe a person who felt he got into Yale or Holy Cross just because he was black - on thr contrary, his anger was directed at those whose implied that was so.
|
|
| | | 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:00
|
In the book, his anger is directed (IMO) at the feeling of inferiority he felt at having gotten in the schools under the programs in question. The belief being that all his hard work at getting there was undermined and finally negated by these programs.
|
|
| | | 54 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:02
|
Such arrogance to assume I am the one missing the larger point. Did it ever dawn on you that you are, in fact, missing the larger point?
|
|
| | | 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:12
|
ROFL! No, it hasn't. Mostly because there is no larger point you are making.
|
|
| | | 56 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:15
|
So, what is that larger point, Jag? That the use of the term "hate" by us "liberals" clearly in the context of "is vehemently opposed to" ....what?
MBJ: I dunno.
"I honestly, honestly believed that Yale thought that having a kid who came from working people in the South, who had grown up through segregation, that this kid who had prospered, who had done well every single place he'd ever been, whether an all-white school, all-black school, he's always done well. He will do well here. And it will benefit both him and Yale," Thomas says. "That's what I thought. Well, that isn't what it was converted to."
"It was converted to, 'Well, you're here because you're black,'" Thomas explains.
This seems to indicate that Thomas felt he got into Yale cos he was Black.
|
|
| | | 57 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:20
|
Not to me, Walk - just the opposite.
He explcitly rejects the "you're here because you're black" assumption. That second paragraph is what he rebelled against.
He thinks he got in because Yale wanted to take a chance on a underpriviledged kid who had always achieved.
|
|
| | | 58 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:22
|
I think phrases like, "I honestly, honestly believed..." and "That's what I thought..." suggest that he came to question those notions. If this were a written statement I'd say that MBJ might have a fair point, since it isn't quite explicit. But read as a verbal interview the inference seems pretty likely.
|
|
| | | 59 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:28
|
He thinks he got in because Yale wanted to take a chance on a underpriviledged kid who had always achieved.
I don't think that is mutually exclusive from the "got in because you're black." The assumption (by many conservatives) is that AA programs are specifically targetted to allow otherwise unqualified candidates. Thomas gets all tied up because of that. True AA programs are designed to open the doors to qualified candidates who otherwise might not get to the door at all.
|
|
| | | 60 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:34
|
Right, PD has it correct on AA (I know a little given my role in HR).
MBJ, I read it as: "I thought I got in cos I was qualified and I worked hard, but then I found out that they selected me cos I was black." Amazing that we conclude different
things. That is what makes us human.
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 5093716
Tue, Oct 02, 2007, 13:38
|
BTW, I think Thomas was certainly qualified to get in, from everything I've read. But this self-hatred as a result of the admissions programs is almost liberal-like by Thomas.
Perhaps the only things he took away from an early flirtation with liberalism was a touch of self-hatred and an inability to admit mistakes.
|
|
| | | 62 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 02:34
|
On the remote chance SS is still solvent when I can apply for it, I intend to. I would also encourage eliminating it today or at the very least allowing opt-out. It is not inconsistant to hate the destructive programs that you are forced to participate in while 'benefitting' from them.
Woulda been a millionaire but for that wretched program. Invested right, everyone would retire one.
|
|
| | | 63 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 09:43
|
I saw another interview with Thomas on Hannity and Colmes. He never had a problem with extreme racists, he saw them protest, but they never addressed him or tried to personally hurt him in any way. The Left, however has tried to destroy him. he is quoted as saying the Supreme Court confirmation hearings were more frightening than the Klu Klux Klam.
The Video
Thomas makes a great point, that I have reiterated many times, I am happy to see a Supreme Court Justice thinking along the same lines as myself, he says some people, he was talking about Liberals, have one issue that is so important that will try to kill you, not physically kill you, but destroy your reputation, your character, your image, they will do whatever is necessary to prevent you from getting to the Court. Character assassination is the chief tool of Left, because their ideology is wrong, they have no other options. Clarence Thomas proves without a doubt, many of those championing the black cause are in fact simply trying to push their own agenda and will trample anyone that gets in their way.
|
|
| | | 64 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 09:54
|
Jag, you make some good points, but then make some gross generalizations that you know are inaccurate and unfair:
Character assassination is the chief tool of Left, because their ideology is wrong, they have no other options. Clarence Thomas proves without a doubt, many of those championing the black cause are in fact simply trying to push their own agenda and will trample anyone that gets in their way.
This is more of a strategy that all different kinds of folks unfortunately take to make a point, and is only your slanted opinion that it's the chief MO of the proverbial left. I guess the swift boating of Kerry or Cleland done by the right was also orchestrated by the left? This bad behavior goes both ways, and I think is not the province of anyone party, but the few bad apples within each party who resort to lows. Rove is a good example for the right. Does that make all republicans character assassinators? Does your comment mean that lefties like me and MITH are character assassinators? Can you not make a point without being so polarized? Thanks.
|
|
| | | 65 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:05
|
I have a friend, who is a Liberal, and he does the exact same thing you just did Walk. he tries to deflect the debate by saying "you are gemeralizing" well there are certain traits used by the Left, that are extremely common, but EVERYONE knows not EVERYONE thinks the same way. I know you think differently tham MITH and he differently than PD, but you all have the same Liberal core. You have to generalize to an extent because it is impossible to know evryone's true thoughts, muchless address every Liberal's ideology independently.
|
|
| | | 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:20
|
Except Jag, what you attribute to a being a tool "of the Left", isnt a tool of EITHER side exclusively. Its a tool of the American political spectrum, and pretty much has been since the advent of television and almost instant "in your living room" news.
The Nixon-Kennedy debate is a prime example of it. Nixon looked bad on camera, and THAT was the gist of the talk after the debate. That "character assasination" if you will, was just the beginning. Cant recall the particulars, but a one time winner of the Governors race in Lousiana, was won because he called his opponent a "homo-sapien", which of course was true. BUT, the general publilc heard the term "homo" and that was the end of it. Both sides engage in it, and it works due to the laziness of the American general public. You unfortunately, are virtual proof of its affectiveness. EVERYTHING from the Left, you blast, without truly thinking it through. The "Right", had been in control of the Legislature AND the Administration for a good longtime. They had the ability, to pass any damn bill they wanted to. Yet, they managed to mire us in an untennable position in Iraq, run the deficit so high its almost inconceivable how to fix it, and vast number of middle income jobs have been lost and replaced by low income poverty level wage positions. If the "Right", was SO "right", then why are things SO fvked-up right now?
Truth is Jag, at the national level, the only REAL difference between too many of the Republicans and Democrats..is the content of the lies to tell and the composition of the audience they tell them to. A few, a very few I think, are different. Those folks come from both sides of the aisle, and the trick we as voters have before us now, is to identify those very few, and make damn sure they get into office, regardless of political persuasion.
|
|
| | | 67 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:29
|
I see your point, Jag, but you know that:
1. I am not deflecting by saying you are generalizing because I go on to say that you fail to make the same observations by the republican side.
2. Generalizatons such as the one's you make deteriorate your points. Your comments about a given policy or statement made by a given politician, etc., are more impactful if your overall argument does not usually conclude with: "See, all you liberals think like this and it is wrong." This is playground level thinking and you have the ability to restrain from extending your points to this level.
3. It's really douchebag kinda talk (a little Maherian level humor there cos I know how much you really do want to have dinner and conversation with him).
4. You consistently fail to identify and post about the "traits" you observe on the left that may be just as practiced, or likely (IMO) more so, by the right. I could easily say: "I have this friend who is a conservative, and he does the same thing you just did Jag. He tries to deflect the debate by failing to admit the same negative behaviors that his own affiliates conduct when he is bashing the people he dislikes." It's almost common knowledge that character assassination is a Roveian ploy that has been used extensively by republicans to win elections and "deflect debates" when negative behavior focused on their commrades. However, I do not think that is indicative of the republican party per se, but I do recognize it as an more frequently used tactic since Bush vs. Gore in 2000.
5. So, on this particular point, about character assassination, I think you truly have it backwards, but I aint gonna say "all you republicans do it cos you have nothing else." I think Roveians, Hannity's, Coulter's, Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's do it a lot.
|
|
| | | 68 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:36
|
sarge33rd said it better...
|
|
| | | 69 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:36
|
You have to generalize to an extent because it is impossible to know evryone's true thoughts, muchless address every Liberal's ideology independently.
The contradictions in this sentence are a perfect example of why generalizations have contributed so greatly to the polarization of political debate in this country. In post #46 Jag states:
Hate and Hatred are key spinning words for Liberals
as if the constant refrain that liberals hate America, and positions are taken just because people hate Bush aren't key spinning words for conservatives.
It is impossible to know evryone's true thoughts, muchless address every conservative's ideology independently, which is why it is important not to attempt to apply group thought with sweeping generalizations like Ann Coulter's "Liberals are traitors" rhetoric. But Jag eats up that that nonsense like a puppy dog chowing on a steak bone, because it takes a thought process to sort out political nuances, something Jag rarely displays.
|
|
| | | 70 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:38
|
I am not sure what would scare me more, a psuedo-liberal like Hilary, I believe she just panders to the Left or a true honest Liberal like Kucinich, becoming President.
Sarge, on the deficit, you can't in earnest believe Liberals are better at handling it than Conservatives, spending is one of chief differences between the 2 philosophies. Lets be honest here, the reason we had a lower deficits in the 90s was a Republican congress controlling the spending bills and a Democrat President not giving tax breaks to the rich.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:42
|
Yes JAG, lets BE honest....
Cllinton and Congress worked together to reduce the deficit. Thats called "bi-partisanship". They past 7 years, a Rep Congress passed spending bill after spending bill after spending bill, and a Rep Administration waited more than 4 years to veto ANYTHING!
The philosohpical difference between the two parties, has become more and more rhetoric and less and less truthfully a "difference" at all. The real difference, is where the money is spent...Dems spend it domestically and Reps spend it ..well, the award it to their buddies from what I've seen lately.
I, and many others here I'm sure JAG, would love it...if you'd be "honest".
|
|
| | | 72 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 10:51
|
Yeah, it's true, Jag. You rely on old policies and history, but you conveniently overlook recent spending policies and deficits as a result of recent republican power. It's like you are pointing to how great the chisox were in winning the world series a few years ago but are forgetting how awful they were this year. Stick with current events, please.
Also, maybe your hypothetical presidential question could also include: "I don't know which would scare me more, a pseudo-conservative like Giuliani or Romney who I believe just pander to the right, or a real wingnut like Brownback?"
|
|
| | | 73 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:03
|
Come on guys, to say Liberals are more frugal on spending bills is just silly, in fact it is a contradiction in terms. I don't have the stats on hand, but the difference on proposed spending between Dems and Reps is astronomically one side towards Dems. The war is a separate issue, if you believe it was necessary, then cost doesn't matter and vice verus, if you don't believe Saddam was a threat, then money is not the main issue.
|
|
| | | 74 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:05
|
You need to do your homework JAG.
|
|
| | | 75 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:07
|
Walk, let me make one thing perfectly clear, in many ways, Bush is an idiot. His handling of the deficit is a prime example. Just because I am anti-Left does not mean I am pro Bush.
|
|
| | | 76 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:11
|
maybe not, but it DOES mean...you're not a moderate.
|
|
| | | 77 | angryChair
ID: 100501014
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:14
|
It's hard for me to respect someone who demoralized a female
like he did 16 years ago. Yes, I guess one could forgive what he
did, but in no way does that make me forget. CT is a scary man,
with a lot of power------sounds a lot like "the shrub" to me. So
for Jag to claim: "Go Clarence!" seems to sum it up to me.
|
|
| | | 78 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:27
|
Jag, I guess it depends on what you choose to spend your $ on, but Bush does not get a pass (as you seemingly are not giving him, I get it...) cos he's spending like crazy on war instead on social programs. I watched a piece of Ken Burns' "The War" yesterday and one quote by a vet summed things up quite well about the human race: "There will always be war, because humans are an aggressive animal." I wish we could at least freakin refrain from "dumbass wars." This one, besides the more important moral and living costs, has created a huge financial burden that is gonna go in the accounting books as "spending."
|
|
| | | 79 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:38
|
We will never know what tragedies were averted by this war, I believe Saddam would have attempted a biological attack, but it is all hypothetical now.
|
|
| | | 80 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:46
|
#79
We now have the lamest justification to date for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
|
|
| | | 81 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 11:50
|
Apparently, you're not terribly willing to admit to the tragedies OF this war either.
Fact: Saddam had no means of hitting the US.
Fact: Saddam had no WMDs and was indeed in compliance with many of the UN Resolutions he was accused (and invaded) for violating.
Fact: Saddam posed no imminent threat to our national sovereignty.
Fact: Saddam was an evil hearted dictator.
Fact: Over 30,000 American military personnel are either dead or maimed as a result of military ops in Iraq.
Theory: Saddam was working to acquire WMDs.
Theory: Saddam was striving to pose a threat to our national security.
Theory: Saddam was striving to be the Middle East power.
The fact of Iraq JAG, is that we should not have been there in the first place. I for one, will standup and admit that I was wrong to have altered my stance, and ultimately supported the invasion. Colin Powells testimony before the UN, swayed my position. I trusted Powell implicitly, and I;m sure that many others did as well. That trust, was not IMHO, betrayed by Powell. He was but a pawn, played by the administration, the same as any other pawn gets played in a chess game. He was sacrificed, for the ultimate aims of the "player", or in this case, the "decision maker".
|
|
| | | 82 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 12:00
|
I am sure Saddam would have sat on his hands with his billions of dollars and not tried to attack the U.S. in any way, shape or form.
If Hitler had been killed before he became the world's greatest threat, people like Sarge would of been saying the exact same thing, back then.
|
|
| | | 83 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 12:04
|
Fact: Saddam had no WMDs and was indeed in compliance with many of the UN Resolutions
I'm not convinced of this. In fact I think it entirely likely that he did have WMDs and that he was able to get rid of them prior to the invasion. We did find other banned armaments that had been hidden prior to the invasion.
Of course even if he did possess WMDs, the fact that they didn't turn up after the fall of Baghdad or since that time shows that he was much more concerned with not getting caught with them than he was intent on using them against us, which supports the argument that many of us espoused back in late 2002 and early 2003, that he wasn't ever any significant threat to us in the first place.
|
|
| | | 84 | Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 12:12
|
I agree Mith, we haven't found Bin Laden yet either, but I am pretty sure he exists.
The chemical weapons were never an issue for me. I am not very bright as all of you attest to, but I can think of 100s of ways to kill 1000s of Americans, if had a billion lying around. To think that madman would not of planned some sort retaliation on America is naive.
|
|
| | | 85 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 12:23
|
Poor JAG...insists on displaying either a total lack of applied intellect or an ignorance of history, or perhapps even both.
A few differences between Hitler in 1939 and Saddam in 2002:
1) Hitler started the war. Saddam didnt.
2) Hitler arguably had the most technologically advanced army on the planet. Saddam didnt.
3) Hitler had one of the most technologically advanced Air Forces on the planet. Saddam didnt.
4) Hitler made overt moves, to repeatedly violate the sovereign borders of neighboring countries. Saddam didnt. (Yes, Saddam had a lengthy "war" with Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. The Iranians fought him to a standstill and we booted him back out of Kuwait 11 years prior.)
Ignorance JAG, to imply even, let alone state, that people like Sarge would of been saying the exact same thing, back then.
|
|
| | | 86 | Perm Dude
ID: 57943310
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 12:43
|
Ah, the old "Saddam was Hitler" argument. The fact that Saddam was, essentially, castrated in the Middle East and Hitler was in the middle of Europe with a huge army and lots of money should have put to rest the whole argument.
But it doesn't. Because Bush apologists, like the Great Leader, can't admit a mistake.
|
|
| | | 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 13:01
|
Oh I dont hold much doubt that Saddam was a Hitler "wannabe". I do however, fold substantial doubt that he had either the capability or the mental resources to know how to go about it. (ie, he lacked the charisma to actually get the common people behind him. Hitler at least had that much going for him.)
|
|
| | | 88 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 13:02
|
damn puter at work...hadnt finished my post above:
Saddam I think, was much closer to being a Mussolini than a Hitler.
|
|
| | | 89 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 13:06
|
I am sure Saddam would have sat on his hands with his billions of dollars and not tried to attack the U.S. in any way, shape or form.
Is there any reason to think that Iraq was significantly stronger economically in early 2003 than he'd been at any point going back to the first Gulf War? My reading on the matter was that the country was literally crumbling, facing economic ruin.
But much more to the point, as I have stated many times over the years since late 2002, dictators with the lasting power of someone like Saddam are survivalists first (something he clearly displayed if he did in fact get rid of stockpiles of illegal WMDs prior to the invasion, rather than save them to use on American troops). Saddam would have fully known that any attack on the US that he perpetrated assisted would very likely have been traced back to him, ensuring his doom.
|
|
| | | 90 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 13:35
|
Saddam I think, was much closer to being a Mussolini than a Hitler.
What Saddan could do however is export his capabilities to groups willing to do the dirty work and take credit. Lookup the $$$ he paid to families of suicide bombers as an example.
Jag: If Hitler had been killed before he became the world's greatest threat, people like Sarge would of been saying the exact same thing, back then.
Amen to that. Sarge would be decrying our profiling of European artists and our attacks on them.
|
|
| | | 91 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 13:55
|
You guys obviously haven't been around here long enough to claim to know what Sarge thinks. Sarge is no stranger to hawkish positions even if he doesn't tow the neocon line of supporting preemptive war like you folks.
On 9/11 Sarge was the 1st one on these boards to call for OBL's head - well before government did.
What Saddan could do however is export his capabilities to groups willing to do the dirty work and take credit.
Perhaps he could also hula dance with the pope, but I fail to see any reason for why he would. By taking credit for an attack on the US, he'd be begging for the US to turn Baghdad into a parking lot. Highly unlikely.
|
|
| | | 92 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Oct 03, 2007, 14:05
|
Sarge would be decrying our profiling of European artists and our attacks on them.
Did I miss something. or is the European art wolrd now out to "get us"? Why else would we be profiling/attacking artists??? (Its all those damn painters along the river in Paris sint it? Trying to hawk their wares and infuriating the tourists?)
|
|
|
|