Clarence Thomas and Affirmative Action

[Pheonixops]

I found this article pretty interesting. What say you?

Editorials & Opinion | Clarence Thomas: Poster Boy For Affirmative Action | Seattle Times Newspaper

Trotting out the same old lies again...


Fucking communists - no integrity at all...

Thanks for the laugh!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

What question did you ask, the emotional fear or anger? I don't think it is either, I think it is you trying to frame the debate, and your inability to respond with anything of substance shows that.

I thought at least you would wait until it went to a new page to pretend you didn't see the question above.

Here:

No not the same obstructions. Are you trying to say that everything is all good and AA isn't needed anymore? If so, which feeling are you citing as proof? Fear? Anger?

I'm saying it is better and it is not needed, I cited my reasons in the above posts and I also answered both your questions, though you have not addressed mine.

It's not needed according to what emotion? Anger? Because you aren't citing any proof...so where are you getting this?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I found this article pretty interesting. What say you?

Editorials & Opinion | Clarence Thomas: Poster Boy For Affirmative Action | Seattle Times Newspaper

Trotting out the same old lies again...


Fucking communists - no integrity at all...

Thanks for the laugh!!!

20 years ago, you leftists went on a high tech lynching of Thomas - your bullshit was refuted and you retreated.

10 years ago, you donned your white robes and hoods again - using the same bullshit hit piece from 1996. Again you were refuted.

Now here you are again, cross burning bright - with the same pile of shit you've used and failed with repeatedly.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Don't mind Uncensored...he's pushing...meaning trying really hard to troll.

 

[Pheonixops]

Trotting out the same old lies again...


Fucking communists - no integrity at all...

Thanks for the laugh!!!

20 years ago, you leftists went on a high tech lynching of Thomas - your bullshit was refuted and you retreated.

10 years ago, you donned your white robes and hoods again - using the same bullshit hit piece from 1996. Again you were refuted.

Now here you are again, cross burning bright - with the same pile of shit you've used and failed with repeatedly.

LOL, I never went after him 20 years ago.

I don't think that the KKK would accept my Brown ass.

People from your political persuasion are more likely the ones who are the 'cross burners', not mine. It seems like you are the person who wants that "PC" stuff, ha comrade?

 

[Meathead]

Thanks for the laugh!!!

20 years ago, you leftists went on a high tech lynching of Thomas - your bullshit was refuted and you retreated.

10 years ago, you donned your white robes and hoods again - using the same bullshit hit piece from 1996. Again you were refuted.

Now here you are again, cross burning bright - with the same pile of shit you've used and failed with repeatedly.

LOL, I never went after him 20 years ago.

I don't think that the KKK would accept my Brown ass.

People from your political persuasion are more likely the ones who are the 'cross burners', not mine. It seems like you are the person who wants that "PC" stuff, ha comrade?

Your brown ass and illiteracy is not the problem. You will never understand that because it conflicts with your pathological victimization.

You thus relegate yourself to second-class . But as Zorba the Greek once said, "You can knock on a dead's man door forever."

 

[Papageorgio]

I thought at least you would wait until it went to a new page to pretend you didn't see the question above.

Here:

I'm saying it is better and it is not needed, I cited my reasons in the above posts and I also answered both your questions, though you have not addressed mine.

It's not needed according to what emotion? Anger? Because you aren't citing any proof...so where are you getting this?

There is no anger or fear. Why do you need to assign an emotion for the need not to have affirmative action?

Logic dictates that affirmative action is not needed as I explained earlier, look it up.

 

[Papageorgio]

Black were banned from the NBA at one time. Don't you think that a sort of 'affirmative action' played a role in integrating different sports and the military?

Talent played the part of blacks getting into the NBA 63 years ago. The first Puerto Rican in 78 and the first Chinese player debuted in 2001. Not affirmative action.

I do agree that in many walks of life affirmative action worked, I believe now it is outdated. IMHO

You may have missed this post from me:

I'm not actually 'blaming' him, I just ran across that picture and thought that it would make an interesting discussion. I do find it funny that on one hand he was praising it's virtues when he was benefiting from it and then turns around and says those negative things about it. It helped him get where he is today.

Do I think that there is still a need for 'Affirmative Action'? I (surprisingly to some of you folks) don't think that there is a need for racial hiring quotas and other similar quotas for the most part. I say "for the most part" because maybe someone can come up with a valid argument that may make me change my mind a little. I think a LOT of people , for various reasons, tend to over dramatize that 'evil' Affirmative Action.

Thank you, I did miss this post.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm saying it is better and it is not needed, I cited my reasons in the above posts and I also answered both your questions, though you have not addressed mine.

It's not needed according to what emotion? Anger? Because you aren't citing any proof...so where are you getting this?

There is no anger or fear. Why do you need to assign an emotion for the need not to have affirmative action?

Logic dictates that affirmative action is not needed as I explained earlier, look it up.

the reason I cited emotion is because you haven't provided this "proof" that its not needed. Therefore I can only assume that the reason you believe its not needed is based in emotions. Logic doesn't explain anything and neither have you.

Logic says its needed. So there! (see?)

 

[rdean]

AA is the govt-mandated persecution of white people and the biggest hate crime in america. Only racists support it.

Not really.

Former HBS Prof Blasts Bush | News | The Harvard Crimson

“[George W. Bush] didn’t stand out as the most promising student, but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected,” Tsurumi said. “He wasn’t bashful about how he was being pushed upward by Dad’s connections.”

Tsurumi said that the younger Bush boasted that his father’s political string-pulling had gotten him to the top of the waiting list for the Texas National Guard instead of serving in Vietnam.

----------------

Look at John McCain, graduated 894th out of 899 from the Naval Academy. With both father and grandfather 4 star Admirals, no one believes he got into the Naval Academy on "merit". Another instance of Affirmative Action?

Course, when rich white people do it, it's different. That makes it OK. Because they do it with money and connections.

 

[Pheonixops]

20 years ago, you leftists went on a high tech lynching of Thomas - your bullshit was refuted and you retreated.

10 years ago, you donned your white robes and hoods again - using the same bullshit hit piece from 1996. Again you were refuted.

Now here you are again, cross burning bright - with the same pile of shit you've used and failed with repeatedly.

LOL, I never went after him 20 years ago.

I don't think that the KKK would accept my Brown ass.

People from your political persuasion are more likely the ones who are the 'cross burners', not mine. It seems like you are the person who wants that "PC" stuff, ha comrade?

Your brown ass and illiteracy is not the problem. You will never understand that because it conflicts with your pathological victimization.

You thus relegate yourself to second-class . But as Zorba the Greek once said, "You can knock on a dead's man door forever."

It probably took most of your brain cells to make that stupid post above, and that's what makes it a lot funnier. Thanks for the laugh moron!

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL, I never went after him 20 years ago.

Did you happen to read the byline date on the hit piece you linked?

I don't think that the KKK would accept my Brown ass.

I wouldn't be too sure. The KKK is a myth perpetrated by the FBI to get funding - I doubt there are any actual members at all. But the real scumbags are the Aryan Brotherhood - who have virtually merged with Hamas/Al Qaeda in their JOOOOO hatred.

People from your political persuasion are more likely the ones who are the 'cross burners', not mine. It seems like you are the person who wants that "PC" stuff, ha comrade?

Bet there has NEVER been a cross burner who wasn't a democrat - ever.

You attack Thomas because the hate sites tell you to. The hate sites tell you to because Thomas went after institutional racism, which is a major plank of the left.

{“I would overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause,” began Thomas in a scathing concurring opinion.

He didn’t stop there.

“As should be obvious, there is nothing ‘pressing’ or ‘necessary’ about obtaining whatever educational benefits may flow from racial diversity,”}

Read more: Clarence Thomas: affirmative action arguments ?segregationist? | The Daily Caller

Thomas is the best legal mind on the court - by a long shot. A no-nonsense defender of the Constitution and civil rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So what you're saying is the speech doesn't exist except it does. You don't like where it exists so you want me to show you the speech in a place you like?

So basically...you have nothing and are trolling

Where is your proof it exists? All I have seen is the alleged quotes from the speech, not the speech. Want to prove me wrong?

You already said it exists in the old articles and blogosphere you just don't like WHERE it exists.

I suggest you go back and reread what I said. The only thing that exists is the quote, not the speech, because the speech never happened.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They "made them up" in 1995 so they can be used today?

My guess is they made them up to use them against him when he was nominated for the Supreme court, but then they found Anita Hill. The fact that they still can be used today because some people believe anything they read on the internet only makes it better. All you have to do to prove me wrong is find the actual speech.

1995 is a long time after he was nominated to the SCOTUS.

Yet it is the first mention of the quote, which you insist happened in 1983. Can you explain that, or are you going to keep pretending it is real?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was good for him, helped him to succeed. After he succeeds he determines the route he took should be destroyed because...*wait for it*....it doesn't help anyone he says while sitting on the Supreme Court.

Call that whatever you want...it's wrong

So you are trying to say that the laws and rules that put obstructions in the path of Clarence Thomas and others 50 years ago are still in place and need to be protected against?

Do I understand you correctly?

No not the same obstructions. Are you trying to say that everything is all good and AA isn't needed anymore? If so, which feeling are you citing as proof? Fear? Anger?

We have a black president, when the assholes who set up AA started we didn't even have black dog catchers.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's not needed according to what emotion? Anger? Because you aren't citing any proof...so where are you getting this?

There is no anger or fear. Why do you need to assign an emotion for the need not to have affirmative action?

Logic dictates that affirmative action is not needed as I explained earlier, look it up.

the reason I cited emotion is because you haven't provided this "proof" that its not needed. Therefore I can only assume that the reason you believe its not needed is based in emotions. Logic doesn't explain anything and neither have you.

Logic says its needed. So there! (see?)

I gave reasons in earlier posts, just because you don't like or have not read them is not my issue.

And you have yet to cite the different obstructions it is needed now as opposed to 50 years ago or than things have changed, what has changed and why is it still need as opposed to 50 years ago?

 

[kwc57]

They posted sources in the original article. Are you claiming the Seattle Times is not trustworthy? The largest Paper in Washington state?
One that has even backed a republican state attorney candidate?

I think you and QW are grasping at straws. It is kind of sad.

It wasn't an article. It was an opinion piece. You know, where people say what they think and often spin. If I said that in November 2012, Obama said such and such but could provide no other evidence other than I wrote it in an opinion piece, would you accept it as gospel or ask for proof?

I bet I could go back and find where Glenn Beck said that Obama claimed to have been born on Mars. Given the current insistence that claiming someone said something is proof they actually said it I think we should make McCain president by default.

I read somewhere on the interwebs once that JFK and Elvis were still alive and living on a UFO somewhere. It has to be true or they can't put it on the interwebs!

 

[Papageorgio]

"The thing about quotes on the Internet is you cannot confirm their validity" - Abraham Lincoln

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is no anger or fear. Why do you need to assign an emotion for the need not to have affirmative action?

Logic dictates that affirmative action is not needed as I explained earlier, look it up.

the reason I cited emotion is because you haven't provided this "proof" that its not needed. Therefore I can only assume that the reason you believe its not needed is based in emotions. Logic doesn't explain anything and neither have you.

Logic says its needed. So there! (see?)

I gave reasons in earlier posts, just because you don't like or have not read them is not my issue.

And you have yet to cite the different obstructions it is needed now as opposed to 50 years ago or than things have changed, what has changed and why is it still need as opposed to 50 years ago?

I gave reasons too. You didn't read them either. Here a different obstruction includes hidden racism instead of blatent racism

It's still needed because racism still exists. Understand now? You wont because being on the outside looking in you cant see the dirty floors, sorta speak.

 

[ModerateGOP]

Affirmative Action is, in its present form and at the time it was expanded in the past, one of the most backward and covertly racist programs ever. Wasn't Martin Luther King's Dream to have a society where we only judged one's character and didn't need to take into account the color of his or her skin with things like college admissions, hiring, etc.?! He would not approve of a system that literally tells minorities, "you're not capable of doing this on your own, and for no other reason than that you are a minority, you need our help to succed." What better way to communicate to minorities that they are inferior?

I think it's a gross practice with malicious intentions that has evolved into something that actually keeps minorities down, which is really sad. I guess it doesn't surprise me that Democrats still support it; when segregation was no longer an option, they simply moved on to Affirmative Action is their new form of racism.