Clarence Thomas: The ‘Modern-Day Liberal’ Has Been Bigger ‘Impediment’ than ‘Klansmen’

I'm very doubtful his statement is accurate. In fact, this statement says much more about Clarence Thomas than it does about liberals. It shows that he is the one with a bias believing that somehow all liberals think and act the same towards black people. What it actually highlights is his still bitter resentment over "liberals" who called out his sexually harassing behavior and views on women. It's his way of rationalizing what happened to him when it was he who did it to himself. So he can try and find a boogie man for his bad behavior all he wants as I suppose he has that right, but it doesn't make it true. It just makes it fodder for right wing internet trolls who are in fact the biggest impediment to all things good in life. I'm sure I can find someone in a position of power who agrees with me and thus lends as much credibility to that so called truth as Thomas lends to your so called truth.

 

Thomas is obviously speaking in generalities when he speaks of how liberals in general think and act towards black people.

And he is correct.

Instead of attacking the source, or denying the truth in what he says, liberals would do better to perhaps re-examine their mentality/behavior. In other words, a little introspection might be in order for anyone who is angered or defensive about what Thomas said.

 

1. The Republicans should have disarmed the defeated Confederate armies.
2. The Republicans should have given those weapons to former slaves and organized them into defensive militias.
3. Failing to do 1 and 2 the Republicans should have sent the troops back into the South and liquidated the Klan as soon as the DP terror campaign to overthrow elected government in the South began.

 

Which behaviors are those again? The clip quoted in a Fox News story states this:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/clarence-thomas-modern-liberal-klansmen

So he claims that any criticism of a liberal black person is called racism. Not true. Here's some criticism of a liberal black person known as Barack Obama. He should have been more aggressive in punishing those involved in the Fast and Furious scandal. He should have been more clear and careful on Middle East Foreign Policy, the Red Line in Syria and Libya.

That's criticism that isn't racist in any way.

Here's an example of being racist:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...619560-d0cd-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html

If you and Clarence Thomas can't see the difference then that's YOUR and HIS problem. Not liberals.

And as I stated above, Thomas' criticism of liberals is just a veiled excuse to talk away the accusations of sexual harassment he levied at a woman. There were two additional women who corroborated Thomas' behavior. Their witness quality can be debated and only Hill testified mostly due to political reasons. The biggest reason was of course to not damage the GOP's attempt to put the "most conservative" black justice on the court anymore than Hill already had done. Of course being a political mascot for the GOP should have offended anyone black or female or Hispanic. And did it offend him? Perhaps but you'll never hear about it because that would distract from the already distracting narrative he had to create to minimize political damage to his nomination. None of his actions were transparent about it and all were designed to redirect towards so called boogie-men aka white liberals who were the ones bringing testimony against him or that made him look bad. That's simple human behavior.

So there's some talk about behaviors. It's your turn to list some of these so called liberal behaviors please.

 

Well, Anita was for sure.

 

Ok. I thought you meant something more current/relevant, like abolishing Affirmative Action or something.

While I'm sure your train of thought is interesting on the subject, rehashing things from 150 years ago doesn't really interest me (with all due respect, genuinely, that's not snark.) Particularly with regards to the Civil War, as it's an area where I'm very knowledgeable, whereas it seems like at least half of the posters here don't have any more than a 2nd graders understanding of the complexities of the Civil War (it's been dumbed down to "slavery bad!!!!", "South bad!!!!")

 

I disagree with that Big box stores and chains did not have a negative impact on Black owned businesses. Ok so what do you attribute the decline in Black owned businesses and farms in thevSouth? I am all ears!

 

Big box stores had an impact on all mom and pop stores, why are you just talking the south? Black business was everywhere in the 1950's

 

Goes back to someone who made a point that Blacks owned more businesses in the 1950's. My point was sure and I used the chains as a reason but I did not say that only Blacks were affected.

 

This is projection. The man was targeted for being the wrong kind of black man-he wasn't a democrat.

Watch his confirmation hearings to see how dems (including Biden) treated him.

Watch the media coverage from the time.

 

Elephant in the room.

This reminds me of being in jail getting a haircut or walking into a black barbershop, one day

The entire problem is people are cool if you show respect to one another..

 

That would have been my fondest of dreams, however:

1. Lee's army was disarmed, surrendered their rifles, cartridges, and their flags, which were shipped to Washington. Lee was allowed to keep his sword and Confederate officers were allowed to keep their personal sidearms and their own horses, which in most cases they had personally paid for. Rations were supplied to all of them by Grant's army until the surrender was complete and Lee's 28,000 enlisted veterans dispersed on foot the next morning as civilians toward their homes. I don't know what if anything was done with Confederate weapons in other locations. My guess is that it was probably thought that the sublime symbolism of the illustrious Lee surrendering and his army stacking arms would have been enough. It wasn't.

2, 3. Grant wanted to send troops back down to enforce order and peace on the democrats, and did so to a very limited extent, but 600,000 Americans in all had died, the country was much in shambles, the people were war weary, and there just wasn't popular support for it in the north. Grant's AG did win more than 1100 cases in the South against democrats attempting to take former slaves rights away, but the democrat racists were too many and never relented. In addition northern democrat racist pro-slavers were gaining political clout and successfully opposed the abolitionists of the north in the congress. There probably wouldn't have been support even among the vast majority of abolitionists to arm the former slaves; that would have been a bridge too far, unfortunately. After all that Grant had accomplished, he was only a president with limited power.

Those are in the main my recollections from reading Ron Chernow's tome, Grant, and also college lectures.

 

Judges can always be barred from hearing certain issues.

 

That was probably a field test of chemical weapons conducted for the military to see how it could be introduced in a civilian environment to cause panic in a war.

 

Depends on the circumstances-but there is no democrat "solution" that isn't worse for them.

Its quite the pickle.

 

The soft prejudice of low expectations.

Libs believe blacks aren’t as intelligent as whites. Blacks need help to manage their lives.

 

Many of the black Americans in the South after the Civil War were well armed. IMO, they should have been encouraged to organize themselves and federal authorities should have severely punished anyone attempting to disarm them. Violations of the 2nd Amendment rights of former slaves should have been considered treason.

"Black veterans returning home were considered dangerous, and disarming them was a priority for the white supremacist of the defeated Confederacy. They made systematic efforts to prevent blacks from bearing arms. Among other things, White Southerners demanded that black federal troops be disbanded or moved out of the south. A Mississippi law passed in 1865 said in part, "No freedman, free Negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed to do so by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or Carry fir-earms of any kind, or any ammunition ... and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free Negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him are her to be committed to trial." p. 44,45.

 

Carter is certainly not a racist. He's a Democrat and a fine human being.

 

I forgot to paste in the full citation.

This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, Charles E. Cobb JR., Basic Books 2014.

 

IMO, the inherent institutional racism of the DP can be traced back to slavery, the Civil War, and the failure of Reconstruction. OTOH, most white Southerners supported the Union until the war actually began.

“As late as April 4, the Virginia convention voted down a proposal to draw up an ordinance of secession by an almost to two-to-one majority.”
Myth and Southern History, Volume 1: The Old South, Second Edition, Edited by Patrick Gerstner and Nicholas Cords, University of Illinois Press, 1989. p. 127.

 

Jim crow gun laws-who's vestiges are seen even today with the strict gun control in democrat inner cities.

 

The old times and ways that define the DP and its corrupt political class are not forgotten. TG voters are finally rejecting them.