Are Liberals really closet racists?

[glenn1]

Story Link

The story involves a now rescinded invitation to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to an ACLU debate in Honolulu. The Liberal response? Request an ?affirmative-action investigation? on Justice Thomas. Some of the testimony from that investigation and comments made by the petitioners:

?Bringing Clarence Thomas sends a message that the Hawaii ACLU promotes and honors black Uncle Toms who turn their back on civil rights.?

"Justice Thomas is an anti-Christ, a Hitler, and it?s like having a serial murderer debate the value of life."

"I didn?t want to invite him then, and I still don?t. If not Hitler, he is a Goebbels."

?The fact that Clarence Thomas has benefited from the very civil-rights advances he seeks to dismantle, makes his invitation particularly racially sensitive.?

"an intellectual fraud"

"intellectual capacity is not there."

"I have the inside scoop on [Thomas]. Anita Hill wasn?t the only one. When he came [to Hawaii for a visit], he went to strip clubs... He?s married to a white person."

And finally, a statement from the same person who compared him to Hitler, and undoubtedly the real reason for the other statements:

?There?s a chance, even a likelihood, that a lot of people might like his views.?

So Liberal types, want to stand up with these brethren of yours who seem to be completely comfortable using racist-type languange in denouncing Thomas? Do you agree or disagree with them? And even if you do disagree, will you simply give them a free pass, because you agree with their desired end result of demonizing Justice Thomas?

IMHO, the Hawaii ACLU in general, and the folks who made those comments, are an utter disgrace to the profession of law and of Liberalism. While i disagree with many Liberal viewpoints, i had always held respect for its practioners as being men and women of principle, but not today. These people are trash (the ones who made the statements, not necessarily Liberals in general)

 

[DeathlyCurse]

I don't think those Liberals are closet 'racists' and I also think that you are being misleading by trumpeting these liberals as examples of liberals in general.

These particular people should not be be categorized as racists but as whiney, delusional, zealots.

 

[Czar]

We can find racists in any political group, there are racists everywhere. But generalazing one group as being one (apart from those who say they are racists) is dumb.

 

[glenn1]

<< you are being misleading by trumpeting these liberals as examples of liberals in general. >>



I am not trumpeting these individuals as examples of liberals in general; to the contrary, i am sincerely praying just the opposite, and that some self-described liberal-types on the forums will stand up to denounce these people for what they are.



<< These particular people should not be be categorized as racists but as whiney, delusional, zealots. >>




And their comments look awfully racist to me... if they weren't intended to be, why the need to even mention his race at all? I'm sure that every member of the ACLU panel knew that he is black, so what other purpose does it serve to mention the fact? For that matter, what difference does it make that he is black, unless you are playing to racism? I see no other possible rationale for making mention of the fact. Not to mention, i'm sure if it had been a Conservative saying such, it would have been labeled as racist in a heartbeat.

 

[Carbo]

Q: Are Liberals really closet racists?
A: Yes. And elitists, as well.

 

[Mikal]

And are the White-Bread conservatives gonna allow..... THEM in their country club? I don't think so!!

Point is, there is racism anywhere. Singling one group out is just plain silly.

 

[classy]

The conservatives here are just amazing. Your title Are Liberals really closet racists? is just a bogus way to start some stuff. I read the whole article and outside of the woman saying something about him being married to white a person I really didn't see anything racist. The people who objected may have used the wrong tactic to get their point across, but their complaints are legitimate. First of all the complaint of Thomas being some what of a fraud is true. The man has benefited from civil rights initionatives, but now seeks to do away with them. He is a real far right black, that the real racists whom he has aligned himself with have used as poster child to some degree. He has spoken out against many programs for minorities on behalf of the GOP. If he wasn't black he would fit right with Cheney, Helms, Lott, and the rest of the crew whom many including myself have been deemed racists by their actions, words, and voting records. So this group of people were wrong in the way went about handling their objection, but certainly are not wrong about the man. I don't blame them let him get a free trip to Hawaii from someone else.

And ps. There are racists of every color, race, creed, political group, and religion. Just that some have more than others.

 

[StageLeft]

If Liberals are closet racists Republicans don't even try to hide it.

BTW what a silly notion !

 

[NesuD]

<< Cheney, Helms, Lott, and the rest of the crew whom many including myself have been deemed racists by their actions, words, and voting records. >>



Classy's criteria for labeling a racist appears to be anyone with a different opinion than his. For cryin out loud Classy get a grip having a different opinion doesn't necessarily make someone a racist. Racism is an attitude and your attitude is suspect.

 

[MrPALCO]

Liberals have corralled a large and easy to command group, in order to ride to Power.

The carrot has been ever increasing government largess and a promise that government will grant Peace.

That cannot be given by government , but God alone.

Are Liberals racist?

Well if you call enslaving a large group of people by using the device of government, then yes, they are racist.

 

[Mikal]

Gee, if keeping the black man down is just a &quot;different opinion&quot;, then slavery was obviously just a &quot;myth!&quot;

 

[glenn1]

<< And are the White-Bread conservatives gonna allow..... THEM in their country club? I don't think so!!

Point is, there is racism anywhere. Singling one group out is just plain silly. >>



No argument about your first point, Conservatives sadly are hardly always without blemish in this regard either.

No argument on your second point either, although i think you didn't go nearly far enough... racism is more than silly, it's idiotic, immoral, and shows a hollowness and shallowness of mind, and I pull no punches when it comes to calling people on it, be they Liberal, Conservative, or anything else. It's just that in this case, the people involved would seem to be on the Liberal side of the aisle.




<< I read the whole article and outside of the woman saying something about him being married to white a person I really didn't see anything racist. >>



Perhaps, but to me, it seems that a bait-and-switch racism is in evidence. Because someone didn't put two and two together means you can't? To me, making special mention of the fact that he is black a few paragraphs before they say &quot;the intellectual capacity is not there&quot; is an attempt to establish an unspoken link between those two statements. What, because the person didn't come out and say &quot;because he's black, therefore he doesn't have the intellectual capacity&quot; directly, are you simply going to let these statements pass without questioning them? What, if racism is subtle, it's okay?

Again, what would be the point in bringing his race into the discussion if it wasn't to link that with the later statements about him? If i say i'm for or against Affirmative Action, does whether i'm black or white or asian or other make a difference in your view? So why would it make a difference in Justice Thomas's case? Obviously race does make a difference for some people....

 

[TripleJ]

Far out, you guys are always complaining about what each party is doing, and why your party is the best. Where I am we complain about all major parties and most minor parties no matter who we vote for. Try it sometime, it's good fun!

 

[classy]

<<

<< Cheney, Helms, Lott, and the rest of the crew whom many including myself have been deemed racists by their actions, words, and voting records. >>



Classy's criteria for labeling a racist appears to be anyone with a different opinion than his. For cryin out loud Classy get a grip having a different opinion doesn't necessarily make someone a racist. Racism is an attitude and your attitude is suspect. >>



Obviously you know nothing about the very people you defend. Helms and Cheney have voted against every single minority program for the last 20 years. Both have done interviews and said some things that really I just don't even want to get into. Lott? How much more proof do you need than the man doing interviews for an outright clearly racist magazine. And he is also very much in favor of having the Confederate flag fly. You guys either deny or explain away these men's actions as just being a differing opinion when it clearly goes far beyond that.

 

[etech]

classy &quot;The conservatives here are just amazing. &quot;

Thank you Classy, I always knew you held us in high regard but I do not know you thought we were amazing.


www.galegroup.com
Thomas transferred to Holy Cross College and earned his B.A. He was accepted into Yale Law School in 1971, after Yale had adopted an affirmative action program. Thomas was never certain whether he was admitted for his credentials or because of his race. This is perhaps one of the reasons he has remained staunchly against affirmative action. He earned his J.D. in 1974. After graduating, Thomas became an assistant attorney general for the state of Missouri, working there from 1974 to 1977. Thomas then worked briefly at Monsanto Company in St. Louis as an attorney, specializing in pesticide, fungicide, and rodenticide law. He also worked as a legal assistant for Senator John C. Danforth.

---------
supct.law.cornell.edu
ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC., PETITIONER v. FEDERICO PENA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit

[June 12, 1995]

Justice Thomas, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the majority's conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to all government classifications based on race. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with the premise underlying Justice Stevens' and Justice Ginsburg's dissents: that there is a racial paternalism exception to the principle of equal protection. I believe that there is a &quot;moral [and] constitutional equivalence,&quot; post, at 3, (Stevens, J., dissenting), between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law.

That these programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race. As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a government's racial classifications are drawn by those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help those thought to be disadvantaged. There can be no doubt that the paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution. See Declaration of Independence (&quot;We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness&quot.

These programs not only raise grave constitutional questions, they also undermine the moral basis of the equal protection principle. Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation's understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society. Unquestionably, &quot;invidious [racial] discrimination is an engine of oppression,&quot; post, at 3. It is also true that &quot;[r]emedial&quot; racial preferences may reflect &quot;a desire to foster equality in society,&quot; ibid. But there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So called &quot;benign&quot; discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government's use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are &quot;entitled&quot; to preferences. Indeed, Justice Stevens once recognized the real harms stemming from seemingly &quot;benign&quot; discrimination. See Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 545 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (noting that &quot;remedial&quot; race legislation &quot;is perceived by many as resting on an assumption that those who are granted this special preference are less qualified in some respect that is identified purely by their race&quot.

In my mind, government sponsored racial discrimination based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice. In each instance, it is racial discrimination, plain and simple.
------------------------------


Justice Thomas is againt discrimination in whatever form it appears. There is nothing wrong with that view.

 

[NesuD]

Gee, if keeping the black man down is just a &quot;different opinion&quot;, then slavery was obviously just a &quot;myth!&quot;

that is just your opinion isn't it. I remember what things were like 30+ years ago. If you think what has been going on since that time is keeping the black man down then you need to take the blinders off my friend. Just exactly what acts have Lott and Cheney committed that make them Racists? Note that i am leaving Helms out of this because i certainly consider him to be a racist based on his attitude. Are you saying that their opposition to the concept of affirmative action makes them Racist? think carefully before you answer.

 

[classy]

Let me speak on black on black for a minute. That is the whole issue with Thomas and the highly publicized situation of the University of Calif. President who is black. When you benefit as these two men have from Civil Rights reforms like AA and the such, it is wrong for you then to turn around speak against these things. Let me use the college President for an example. It was clear he got the job because the University felt that a black should now be allowed to be president. About time. So they initiated an AA hiring if you will. He accepts the job, then turns around and says AA should be done away with. Huh? If he really believed that AA should have done away with he should have declined the position. But no he accpeted the fruit of the tree he now condemns. The man is a fraud. So you can't condemn something but yet accept the fruits of it. It would be like Bush who is against abortion accepting campaign donations from abortion doctor clinics. It wouldn't make sense would it. Seem principle appplies.

 

[NovaTerra]

Leave it to a conservative to put up a post like this. Do you even know the definition of the word racist?

The statements in the article were not racist, they were directed at one person. Nobody said, &quot;All blacks go to strip clubs in Hawaii&quot; or &quot;All blacks want to take advantage of affirmative action and then legislate agains it.&quot; They were saying that they did not want Justice Thomas to speak because he did those things, not all blacks.

What these people did was point out that they did not want an individual to speak, and gave (valid) reasons why, considering the context.

What YOU did was take individual statements, and color an entire segment of the population as having the same views. And that is the very definition of racism. If you want to know what a racist looks like, go check out the nearest mirror.

 

[etech]

Classy, are you saying the college president is unqualified for that position and should only have accepted it becuase of affirmative action.

Isn't that the crux of the problem with AA. Black people that are accepted do not know if they have won the position on their own merits or because of their color. What does that do to their advancement and the state of race relations in the US?

 

[Mikal]

<< that is just your opinion isn't it. I remember what things were like 30+ years ago. If you think what has been going on since that time is keeping the black man down then you need to take the blinders off my friend. Just exactly what acts have Lott and Cheney committed that make them Racists? Note that i am leaving Helms out of this because i certainly consider him to be a racist based on his attitude. Are you saying that their opposition to the concept of affirmative action makes them Racist? think carefully before you answer. >>



Oooooooohhh, let me think carefully......

 

[NesuD]

Ok Classy if that is the criteria then i can say with absolute certanty the virtually every Liberal Democrat is a Racist. Why? Because they all consistantly vote in support of affirmative action which is a vote to promote one race above another based on the color of ones skin.

I don't really think all of them are racists though. Some are simply misguided, others are playing the political power game but some of them are truly dyed in the wool racists.

 

[Mikal]

I'd hate to live in Nesud's mountaintop hideaway world. Try to get out more!

 

[classy]

Good morning etech . Now onto your post. Now lets be real for minute. You and I both know Thomas got into Yale because of AA. Plain and simple. And all his belief against AA and these programs would be fine if we lived in a world without racism. But the we don't. You have never heard me say that AA and these prgrams are right from a moral stand point. But they are needed to try and balance the scales. It does no good for you and the republicans to constantly attack minority programs as being bad, when the real issue is we still have a lot a racism in America. Thats the real issue. The day when racism no longer exist, then that day AA and the such will will cease to exist as well. The right wing speaks lies when they say AA is not needed. Go out into the real world for a change, then tell me what you see.

 

[classy]

<< Classy, are you saying the college president is unqualified for that position and should only have accepted it becuase of affirmative action.

Isn't that the crux of the problem with AA. Black people that are accepted do not know if they have won the position on their own merits or because of their color. What does that do to their advancement and the state of race relations in the US? >>



No he was qualified from a knowledge standpoint. But thats not why he got the job. And if AA offends him so much, why not take the stand then against AA. But he didn't, he just took the fat paycheck.

 

[NesuD]

My that was an intelligent response Mikal remember I suggested that you think carefully. Pity that you were unable to do so. Umm one more thing there aren't any mountains here I do not understand your comment.