Clarence Thomas
John Aquino
On 8 Jan 1997 02:22:07 -0700, xona <xo...@primenet.com> wrote:
)ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
)
): Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find
it
): incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
): overture to black people, [snip]
)
) Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives
and
) prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
) except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He
perfers
) white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
) racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at
them.
He's just a man - you're the one who's bringing up the race crap.
He's far more intelligent and important than you or any of your
squirming little spawn will ever hope to be.
Cyndi Bakke
xona wrote:
>
> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>
> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>
>
I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
general middle class values of traditional America and live in
communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
Cyndi Bakke
xona
Jerome Walker
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: My thoughts on BET
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3289DA...@aztec.lib.utk.edu> <328CC0...@pacbell.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: NYT Tunnel
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <328CC0...@pacbell.net>,
Liberalace <npe...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>M Hatfield wrote:
>> <well thought, well stated post snipped>
>
>Nice job, T. If only Jerome and his Dan Quayle wanna-be friends
>could think this clearly. Instead Jerome beleives that if you
>work hard, pull yourself by your bootstraps then anyone can
>succeed in America. That's why he wants to put and end to
>all social and anti-discriminatory safety nets. He figures
>that it would save HIM money, everyone else be damned.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Show Over Substance
Summary:
Expires:
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961115...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> <19961118144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: NYT Tunnel
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <19961118144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<kha...@aol.com> wrote:
>From: Rich Thompson <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca>
>On 14 Nov 1996, DarkStar wrote:
>> In article <19961113140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> <kha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >Isn't that the current banner statement of the moment?
>>> >"Black women don't want me, so I date white women."
>>> I have 2 responses:
>>> 1. If they don't want him, what should he do? Jerk off for life?
>>Yes. To actually go out with someone who is interested in you would be
>>extremely spiteful.
>
>To tag white women as automatic pussy is sexist and racist. And if
>they're that easy to get, then you can take consolation in the thought
>that you are the object of someone's chocolate fantasy.
What I have stated is that if a black man has more in common with a white
woman, then
>>And terribly unfair to the people who aren't
>>interested in you anyway.
>
>It is terribly unfair to tag black women, as a group, as narrow-minded
>idiots who are only interested in how black a man is. We're interested in
>how big his dick is, too.
>
>
>
>
>----
>
>Whip me, chain me; feed me Ding-Dongs!
>kha...@aol.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Losing money on boycott.
Summary:
Expires:
References: <328E6C...@premier.net> <328FD1...@premier.net> <56okia$n...@panix.com> <328FE9...@premier.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: NYT Tunnel
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <328FE9...@premier.net>,
Stefan Andreasson <ze...@premier.net> wrote:
>Jerome Walker wrote:
>>
>> In article <328FD1...@premier.net>,
>> Stefan Andreasson <ze...@premier.net> wrote:
>> >Jerome Walker wrote:
[ edit ]
>> >Really? One injustice deserves another?? That's a really constructive
>> >way of looking at it. No wonder there is no progress in these matters.
>> >Blacks care as little about justice and better relations as whites
>> >supposedly do?? Just wondering...
>>
>> During the California grape boycott, there were a lot of migrant workers
>> hurt.
>>
>> And as another poster already stated, the same boycotts happen in television
>> when companies advertise on "non-family oriented" shows, or in the case
>> of the Disney company and their benefits package.
>>
>> It isn't black and white, it's green, but the self-proclaimed Swede doesn't
>> know this huh?
>>
>> Any bets that he responds with an insult?
[ edit ]
>
>No, I leave the insults to Wayne and Bittersweet... Well, there is
>always unintended victims of boycotts. I just wondered if it is usually
>worth it. Like in Cuba and before in South Africa. I know black South
>Africans who both though the boycotts were productive and necessary and
>some who felt they just made conditions worse for the already suffering.
>I guess Jesse Jackson don't have to worry about innocent gas station
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,ca.politics,alt.current-events.usa,alt.society.conse
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Summary:
Expires:
References: <5areik$t...@ratty.wolfe.net> <5avovv$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <32D3E9...@inforel.com> <5b17aj$t...@carbon.cudenver.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Black, Conservative -- DEAL WITH IT!
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <5b17aj$t...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
holman <aholman...@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>>I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
>>What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
>>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>>educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
>>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>>
>>Cyndi Bakke
Cyndi, I give you my complments on your asinine post. I pray for the
day when white conservatives actually get to *KNOW* black people instead of
taking images off of the television, and buying into thee ignorance
of other clueless white conservatives.
Did you know that most blacks are middle class? Did you know that most
blacks live, not in the inner cities, but in the south? Did you know that
many blacks that start to gain success, leave the inner cities? Did
you know that many blacks that do live in the cities send their children
to Catholic schools?? Did you know that most blacks are productive
citizens? *OBVIOUSLY* you didn't!
>>
>I know you weren't talking to me, but not a whole a lot.
>Many middle class black americans live in communities such as
>you describe yet they do not subscribe to the political
>philosophy of either Thomas or JC Watts. So what? The criteria
>for being a successful black person in not embodied in that
>particular philosophy and only that philosophy. The recipe for
>success is not a black or white proposition. Its tones of
>gray. And the dumb pun was intended.
>
Cyndi, it's bad enough that I have to overcome the label of
conservative that has been corrupted by people like David Duke, Jesse
Helms, etc, butI also have to overcome clueless white conservatives
like yourself who are just as patronizing and *MORE* condenscending
than white liberals! YOu could have made my life easier by waving
the Confederate flage and singing "Dixie".
Jerome -- damn I have to agree with Alice -- Walker
--
Jerome -- Liberals are blacks' mortal enemies! -- Walker
xona
holman <aholman...@cudenver.edu> wrote:
: >
: >I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
If they follow the Goldwater Philosophy of Conservatism, I am with
them 100%. If they follow the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Rush
Limbaugh version - Fuck them all.
: >What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
: >general middle class values of traditional America and live in
: >communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
: >have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
: >educated, articulate, and productive citizens.
Three cheers for each and every one.
What about JC Watts (one
: >of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
: >
The same as I think of Alan Keys: An articulate. educated,
"House nigger" for the far-right wing of the Republican party,
that proudly display them as a sign of Republican inclusiveness
for the purpose of public relations.
And in the case of Keys, a first-class religious conman.
xona
I just don't buy into that bullshit
holman
Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>xona wrote:
>>
>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
>> : overture to black people, [snip]
>>
>> Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives and
>> prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
>> except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
>> white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
>> racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
>>
>> xona
>
>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>
>
>
I know you weren't talking to me, but not a whole a lot.
Many middle class black americans live in communities such as
you describe yet they do not subscribe to the political
philosophy of either Thomas or JC Watts. So what? The criteria
for being a successful black person in not embodied in that
particular philosophy and only that philosophy. The recipe for
success is not a black or white proposition. Its tones of
gray. And the dumb pun was intended.
alice
Nat Turner
In article <32D3E9...@inforel.com>,
Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>xona wrote:
>>
>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
>> : overture to black people, [snip]
>>
>> Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives and
>> prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
>> except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
>> white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
>> racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
>>
>> xona
>
Well, you obviously know more about Mr. Thomas than I, and probably most
in this group, and no doubt most of his friends and associates, and
perhaps more than his family members, ex-wife and father-in-law, all of
whom with the exception of the members of this group think him an
exemplary human being. And that's the really impressive thing about Judge
Thomas as I see it: no matter how far back you go in his history the only
person who has anything negative to say about him is Anita Hill. No one
else. Not school-mates, bosses, subordinates, school teachers, no one but
Anita Hill, a woman whose reputation among those she came in contact with
is just the opposite of Clarence Thomas'. Only Anita Hill, and even she
readily admits on one person helped her more with her career than he.
Thus we can only assume you are privy to information none here have yet
come to know. Hopefully, rather than continuing to call Judge Thomas a
nigger and licker of white assholes, you'll be as fair enough to include
said information in your next post. Please do that, you stupid ape.
Enquiring minds want to know...
Nat Turner
Mystic Knights of the Sea
>I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
n>What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>
>Cyndi Bakke
>
>
--
Norman R Nithman
In article <32D3E9...@inforel.com>,
Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
Not much, which is how I feel about conservatives in general.
>What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>educated, articulate, and productive citizens.
I'm glad that they could. Most of them are Democrats.
What about JC Watts (one
>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>
Isn't he the ex-jock who ditched his kid?
--
Norman Nithman n...@tezcat.com www.tezcat.com/~nrn
Oceansize
On 9 Jan 1997 00:12:17 GMT, tur...@smarty.smart.net (Nat Turner)
wrote:
>And that's the really impressive thing about Judge
>Thomas as I see it: no matter how far back you go in his history the only
>person who has anything negative to say about him is Anita Hill.
I believe Anita Hill and I believe America has better than Justice
Thomas. Furthermore, My main gripe with Justice Thomas is that he
has benefitted from Affirmative Action and now is one of America's
biggest opponents. Hypocrisy in a Supreme Court Justice is
intolerable. America could do better.
Kind Regards,
Stephen Rosales
dou...@aa.net
"Baby's gonna help build a Wall"
Pink
idleeric
Cyndi Bakke wrote:
>
> xona wrote:
> >
> > ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
> > : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
> > : overture to black people, [snip]
> >
> > Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives and
> > prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
> > except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
> > white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
> > racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
> >
> > xona
>
> general middle class values of traditional America and live in
> communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
> have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
> of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>
loaded question:
"in general" -- the devil is in the details: Clarence's affinity for
pornography ...
"general middle class values" yadda-yadda ... ditto
you ass-hole right wingers are always setting up your self-righteous
"middle class values" as a straw man ... go ask Bill Bennett for a blow
job ... i hear he'll do it for Rush for free.
Stan Ivester
->He's far more intelligent and important than you or any of your
->squirming little spawn will ever hope to be.
Amen. How many other porndogs get to be on the Supreme Court--with the
backing of the Christian Coalition, no less?
--
Stan
Ben Larson
I belive that I have heard Rush Limbaugh praise JC Watts. That's all I need
to know.
--
Ben Larson
The Last Liberal in the Texas Panhandle
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson
Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote in article
FrankenChrist
In message <32D3E9...@inforel.com> - Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com>Wed,
08 Jan 1997 12:39:36 -0600 writes:
:>
:>xona wrote:
:>>
:>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
:>>
:>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
:>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
:>> : overture to black people, [snip]
:>>
:>> Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives and
:>> prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
:>> except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
:>> white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
:>> racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
:>>
:>> xona
:>
:>I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
:>What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
:>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
:>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
:>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
:>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
:>Cyndi Bakke
:>
:>
Speaking of black conservatives, what's your opinion of
Louis Farrakhan?
Mycroft
David Nieporent wrote:
>
.>
.> How about if we just call him a liar and an idiot? How anyone could
.> believe that the guy, who was in law school when Roe v. Wade was
handed
.> down, NEVER DISCUSSED THE CASE, is beyond me. It fails the laugh
test.
.>
.> --
.> David M. Nieporent Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many who
live
.> Niep...@pluto.njcc.com deserve death. And some who die deserve
life. Can
.> Hampshire/Plainsboro, NJ you give it to them? Then be not so quick
to give
.> FIRE PAT GILLICK!!!! the other. For not even the wise can see
all ends.
David, I can believe it. Since Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme
Court
he has been known more for what he has NOT done than for what he has
done.
Since being on the court he has NOT often articulated his opinion, he
has
NOT voted against Scalia except in defense of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, and he
has
NOT taken any opportunity to prove to anyone that he has his own mind.
One other thing, a lot of people posting in this thread have tried to
make a big
deal out of the fact that most black people, and most black
orginizations such
as then NAACP do not think much of Clarence Thomas. Do you all think
that someone
has to be supported by the black community just because they are black?
Should all
white people support David Duke just because he is white? Should all
Jewish people
ascribe to the views of Karl Marx just because he was Jewish? And no, I
don't
dislike Clarence Thomas simply because he is a conservative. I dislike
Clarence
Thomas 1) because I think he lacks integrity and 2) because I strongly
disagree with
him on issues that are important to me. I DO support black conservative
Colin Powell
whom I might have voted for even if he had run as a republican.
However, I can find
no reason to question Colin Powell's integrity, and he is much closer to
me on the
issues (affirmative action, abortion rights, TRUE welfare reform ect)
than Clarence
Thomas.
Lou Minatti
He's praised Jesse Jackson, too. That's all you need to know. Right?
Ben Larson wrote:
>
> I belive that I have heard Rush Limbaugh praise JC Watts. That's all I need
> to know.
> --
>
> Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote in article
> > What about JC Watts (one
> > of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>
> >
> >
> >
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My World: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/HOMEPAGE.HTM
(By sending me unsolicited commercial email, you agree to the Terms and
Conditions as listed here: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/SPAM.HTM)
willie
> holman <aholman...@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> : >
> : >I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
>
> If they follow the Goldwater Philosophy of Conservatism, I am with
> them 100%. If they follow the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Rush
> Limbaugh version - Fuck them all.
>
> : >What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
> : >general middle class values of traditional America and live in
> : >communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
> : >have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
> : >educated, articulate, and productive citizens.
>
> Three cheers for each and every one.
>
> What about JC Watts (one
> : >of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
> : >
>
> The same as I think of Alan Keys: An articulate. educated,
> "House nigger" for the far-right wing of the Republican party,
> that proudly display them as a sign of Republican inclusiveness
> for the purpose of public relations.
>
> And in the case of Keys, a first-class religious conman.
>
> xona
> I just don't buy into that bullshit
What a hateful, intolerant person. If you're as oppressed as you claim,
you should know better and have no excuse for your hatefull attitude
towards others.
Jerome Walker
In article <5b17aj$t...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
holman <aholman...@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>>>
>>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
>>> : overture to black people, [snip]
>>>
>>> Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives
and
>>> prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
>>> except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He
perfers
>>> white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
>>> racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at
them.
>>>
>>> xona
>>
>>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>>
Cyndi, I give you my complments on your asinine post. I pray for the
day when white conservatives actually get to *KNOW* black people instead
of
taking images off of the television, and buying into thee ignorance
of other clueless white conservatives.
Did you know that most blacks are middle class? Did you know that most
blacks live, not in the inner cities, but in the south? Did you know that
many blacks that start to gain success, leave the inner cities? Did
you know that many blacks that do live in the cities send their children
to Catholic schools?? Did you know that most blacks are productive
citizens? *OBVIOUSLY* you didn't!
>>
>I know you weren't talking to me, but not a whole a lot.
>Many middle class black americans live in communities such as
>you describe yet they do not subscribe to the political
>philosophy of either Thomas or JC Watts. So what? The criteria
>for being a successful black person in not embodied in that
>particular philosophy and only that philosophy. The recipe for
>success is not a black or white proposition. Its tones of
>gray. And the dumb pun was intended.
>
Cyndi, it's bad enough that I have to overcome the label of
David Nieporent
In article <5b1d51$fap$1...@news.smart.net>,
Nat Turner <tur...@smarty.smart.net> wrote:
>In article <32D3E9...@inforel.com>,
>Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>>xona wrote:
>>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
>>> : overture to black people, [snip]
>>> Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives and
>>> prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
>>> except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
>>> white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
>>> racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
>Well, you obviously know more about Mr. Thomas than I, and probably most
>in this group, and no doubt most of his friends and associates, and
>perhaps more than his family members, ex-wife and father-in-law, all of
>whom with the exception of the members of this group think him an
>exemplary human being. And that's the really impressive thing about Judge
>Thomas as I see it: no matter how far back you go in his history the only
>person who has anything negative to say about him is Anita Hill. No one
>else. Not school-mates, bosses, subordinates, school teachers, no one but
>Anita Hill, a woman whose reputation among those she came in contact with
>is just the opposite of Clarence Thomas'. Only Anita Hill, and even she
>readily admits on one person helped her more with her career than he.
Angela Wright would be very surprised to find this out.
(Oh, you don't know who she is? Hint: she's the OTHER woman who accused
Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings, but who
wasn't allowed to testify.)
>Thus we can only assume you are privy to information none here have yet
>come to know. Hopefully, rather than continuing to call Judge Thomas a
>nigger and licker of white assholes, you'll be as fair enough to include
>said information in your next post. Please do that, you stupid ape.
>Enquiring minds want to know...
How about if we just call him a liar and an idiot? How anyone could
believe that the guy, who was in law school when Roe v. Wade was handed
down, NEVER DISCUSSED THE CASE, is beyond me. It fails the laugh test.
--
David M. Nieporent Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many who live
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can
Hampshire/Plainsboro, NJ you give it to them? Then be not so quick to give
Mycroft
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>
.> In article <32D5CD...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu>
wrote:
.>
.> >>
could
.> >.> believe that the guy, who was in law school when Roe v. Wade was
.> >.> hande down, NEVER DISCUSSED THE CASE, is beyond me. It fails the
.> >.> laugh test.
.> >
.> >David, I can believe it. Since Clarence Thomas has been on the
Supreme
.> >Court he has been known more for what he has NOT done than for what
he
.> >has done. Since being on the court he has NOT often articulated his
.> >opinion, he has NOT voted against Scalia except in defense of CHILD
.> >PORNOGRAPHY, and he has NOT taken any opportunity to prove to anyone
that
.> >he has his own mind.
.>
.> What a load of crap. This is simply false.
.>
.> Three minutes of searching on Westlaw turned up the following Scalia-
.> Thomas disagreements:
.>
.> Henderson v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1638 (1996)
.> United States v. Williams, 115 S.Ct. 1611 (1995)
.> Tome v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 696 (1995)
.>
.> If I could figure out how to construct the search properly, I could
.> probably turn up a lot more.
.>
Actually Joseph it's not a load of crap, and I doubt you could turn up
more.
I did not pull that statement out of thin air as you apparently think.
That
statement came from an Atlanta Constitution article from a couple of
years
ago. I believe if you did a search the year might have been 1993, but
I'm
not sure. Anyway, notice that the three cases you cited came AFTER
1993.
Maybe Thomas read the constitution article and decided to try to
moderate
some? Who knows. But I'm certain if you did a more extensive search
you
would find a strong trend of Thomas-Scalia agreement. Oh, by the way,
I noticed you didn't touch the child pornography case. Why not?
.> Incidentally, I'd be interested to see comparisons of the agreement
.> between Scalia and Thomas vs. Brennan and Marshall. My suspicion is
.> that Brennan and Marshall agreed with each other more frequently than
.> Scalia and Thomas do now, yet no one at the time impugned the
intellect
.> of either Brennan or Marshall. It's hard not to think that people
are
.> simply looking for yet another cheap shot to throw at Thomas.
.>
.> --
.> Joseph G. Adams
.> Stanford Law School, 3L
.> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
See the above response as to why it was not a "cheap shot". Granted,
the
Atlanta Consitution may not always be right, but I do regard it as a
reasonable source of information.
Wayne Johnson
ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>{To Jerome Walker}
>I think the only thing we really disagree on is how to get there. Am I wrong?
Oh no...he's gonna start pounding that damn freedom drum again...
Wayne "Dang, Mitch, you're gonna get him started and I won't get any
sleep" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
"...you see...despite their pretenses the people here are your
basic low stratum black. Educated and degreed, sure; but still
more ghetto than middle-class. Wayne Johnson is a good example
of this..." bard, pretending to be Nat Turner
Snidely Whiplash
> >>
> >.> How about if we just call him a liar and an idiot? How anyone could
> >.> believe that the guy, who was in law school when Roe v. Wade was
> >.> hande down, NEVER DISCUSSED THE CASE, is beyond me. It fails the
> >
> >David, I can believe it. Since Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme
>
>
>
> Henderson v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1638 (1996)
>
>
>
> Joseph G. Adams
> Stanford Law School, 3L
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
Aw, who'd be mean enough to take a cheap shot at Uncle Thomas? }:>D
ttmit...@msn.com
wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
>Cyndi, it's bad enough that I have to overcome the label of
>conservative that has been corrupted by people like David Duke, Jesse
>Helms, etc, butI also have to overcome clueless white conservatives
>like yourself who are just as patronizing and *MORE* condenscending
>than white liberals! YOu could have made my life easier by waving
>the Confederate flage and singing "Dixie".
So Jerome,
Although this is off the topic line, let's go at this a different
way. On politics we know we disagree, but we tend to agree on many
other fronts. Why don't we attempt to try to find out what we agree
on, you being a black conservative and me being a black liberal. For
instance, I know we both believe that there should be some kind of
moral standard to live by. We both believe that real criminals should
be put away for a long time. We both believe that there should be
full racial equality, and also believe that it hasn't been achieved
yet. We both hope that more and more blacks will achieve greater and
greater things, so that we don't have to read much of the bigoted
dogma attached to all blacks by those who wish to pontificate upon
blacks as a race instead of some individuals. I think the only thing
we really disagree on is how to get there. Am I wrong?
--
Mitch
blackalice
Sam Hall <sam...@dkdavis.com> wrote in article
<32e61f8b....@news.airmail.net>...
On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:39:36 -0600, Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com>
wrote:
>xona wrote:
>>
>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
>> : overture to black people, [snip]
>>
>> Mr. Thomas is an educated, articulate, O. J. Simpson. He lives and
>> prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
>> except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
>> white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
>> racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
>>
>> xona
>
>I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
>What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>
>Cyndi Bakke
>
>
I thought that you asked a reasonable question. Very interesting how
they are not answering your question, but insulting you.
Also interesting how they assume that you are not black (as if it made
a difference).
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)
Not true, for the most part. Are you having difficulty with STANDARD
english, Sam? Several people said they didn't think much of Watts
and they also said that in order to be a middle class black person
living in the type neighborhood she describes, you do not have to
subscribe to the beliefs of either Watts or Thomas. Both of you (regardless
of what color you are) seem to be stuck on the theme that in order
to be successful as a black person, you have to be a conservative.
It ain't so. It was NOT conservative blacks holding an honorary white
boy card that pushed civil rights forward. Quite the contrary. It's those
people who get labeled "liberal" like it was a dirty word who did it.
And back in the old days before the end of the Cold War, they were
called "communists." It's the conservatives who try to undo what has
been done. Uncle Thomas is a wonderful example.
alice
Jerome Walker
In article <01bc0001$943ca160$ad9790cc@benzie>,
You are a bold faced liar.
Not only that, but any black person who honestly believed the shit
that Cyndi wrote, doesn't have a damn clue.
As I wrote before, most blacks *ARE* middle class. That *FACT* alone
blows a whole in the garbage she wrote.
>Not true, for the most part. Are you having difficulty with STANDARD
>english, Sam? Several people said they didn't think much of Watts
>and they also said that in order to be a middle class black person
>living in the type neighborhood she describes, you do not have to
>subscribe to the beliefs of either Watts or Thomas. Both of you (regardless
>of what color you are) seem to be stuck on the theme that in order
>to be successful as a black person, you have to be a conservative.
>It ain't so.
Alice is right. Vernon Jordon is *VERY* successful and is not a
conservative.
Cyndi Bakke
Sam Hall wrote:
>Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> >I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
> >What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
> >general middle class values of traditional America and live in
> >communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
> >have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
> >educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
> >of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
> >
> >Cyndi Bakke
> >
> >
> I thought that you asked a reasonable question. Very interesting how
> they are not answering your question, but insulting you.
> Also interesting how they assume that you are not black (as if it made
> a difference).
Ms. Xona seems incapable of posting an argument without making a number
of profane attacks against those newsgroup members who disagree with
her. She has the same problem when attacking public figures.
But I guess that's what you've got to do when you are incapable of
making a coherent argument. As a result I don't usually read her posts
anymore. They are obviously not designed to provoke an intellectually
honest debate. They aren't even clever insults.
Cyndi Bakke
Ricardo Samuel
This is in regards to the question about Black conservatives. First of
all, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by conservative. The politically
correct orthodoxy treats every Black person who slightly departs from
certain opinions (e.g. affirmative action, ebonics, etc.) with hysterical
outrage and disgust. Secondly, Blacks can choose whatever political
direction they feel best represents their agenda.
Remember all the insults and slander directed towards Clarence Thomas.
None of this had anything to do with his qualifications, rather, the
pc-orthodoxy was pissed that they couldn't get one of theirs on the
Supreme Court.
Ricardo
nee...@syix.com
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:49:14 GMT, hemp...@io.org (FrankenChrist)
wrote:
>In message <32D3E9...@inforel.com> - Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com>Wed,
>08 Jan 1997 12:39:36 -0600 writes:
snip
>:>
>:>I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
>:>What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
>:>general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>:>communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>:>have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>:>educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
>:>of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>:>
>:>Cyndi Bakke
>:>
>:>
>
>
> Speaking of black conservatives, what's your opinion of
>Louis Farrakhan?
Louis Farrakhan like David Duke are examples of the extreme right
wing. Both also happen to be extreme BIGOTS!
LN
Nat Turner
In article <5b9anh$p...@elaine31.Stanford.EDU>,
Joseph G. Adams <jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>In article <32D6D1...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>
>>Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>>>
>>.> Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>.>
>>.> >Supreme Court he has been known more for what he has NOT done than
>>.> >for what he has done. Since being on the court he has NOT often
>>.> >articulated his opinion, he has NOT voted against Scalia except in
>>.> >defense of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, and he has NOT taken any opportunity
>>.> >to prove to anyone that he has his own mind.
>>.>
>>.> What a load of crap. This is simply false.
>>.>
>>.> Three minutes of searching on Westlaw turned up the following Scalia-
>>.> Thomas disagreements:
>>.>
>>.> United States v. Williams, 115 S.Ct. 1611 (1995)
>>.> Tome v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 696 (1995)
>>.>
>>Actually Joseph it's not a load of crap, and I doubt you could turn up
>>more. I did not pull that statement out of thin air as you apparently
>>think. That statement came from an Atlanta Constitution article from a
>>couple of years ago. I believe if you did a search the year might have
>>been 1993, but I'm not sure. Anyway, notice that the three cases you
>>cited came AFTER 1993. Maybe Thomas read the constitution article and
>>decided to try to moderate some? Who knows.
>
>Scalia-Thomas disagreements in the following cases:
>
>Richmond v. Lewis, 113 S.Ct. 528 (1992)
>Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 113 S.Ct. 716 (1992)
>Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1190 (1993)
>City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 113 S.Ct. 1505 (1993)
>United States v. McDermott, 113 S.Ct. 1526 (1993)
>Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1670 (1993)
>CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 113 S.Ct. 1732 (1993)
>Smith v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 2050 (1993)
>Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins., 113 S.Ct. 2085 (1993)
>Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 113 S.Ct. 2151 (1993)
>
>There were also a number of separate concurrences, where either Scalia
>or Thomas agreed with the other, but wrote separately anyway. The
>above cases are disagreements about the outcome of the case.
>
>>I noticed you didn't touch the child pornography case. Why not?
>
>disagreement.
>
>>.> Incidentally, I'd be interested to see comparisons of the agreement
>>.> between Scalia and Thomas vs. Brennan and Marshall. My suspicion is
>>.> that Brennan and Marshall agreed with each other more frequently than
>>.> Scalia and Thomas do now, yet no one at the time impugned the
>>.> intellect of either Brennan or Marshall. It's hard not to think that
>>.> people are simply looking for yet another cheap shot to throw at Thomas.
>>
>>See the above response as to why it was not a "cheap shot". Granted,
>>the Atlanta Consitution may not always be right, but I do regard it
>>as a reasonable source of information.
>
>conclusions about the cheap shot.
Good show, Mr. Adams, so refreshing watching one of these Al Sharpton
wannabees getting their chowder head clobbered all over the place, and as
you have so thoroughly demonstrated it isn't at all that difficult. The
weapon of choice -- fact, for time and time again we see when it comes to
Thomas, innuendo, misdirection, and down-right ignorance is their stock in
trade. Their fearless leader Al Sharpton says we must march against
Thomas, gives them a bunch of double-talk of the type you totally
demolish above, and the chowderheads are out in force hounding the poor
man to death.
Idiots!
Nat Turner
--
Michael Zarlenga
Oh my ...it seems Judge Thomas was invited to give an inspirational
speech to a group of black children later this year but had to decline
after the NAACP expressed public opposition to "Uncle Tom" speaking
to young, impressionable black children.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"Aks not what your country be for you, aks what you be for
your country." JFK Ebonicized
Mycroft
Nat Turner wrote:
>
[clip a bunch of garbage from an uninformed minstrel cab driver]
> Nat Turner
> --
What was that about quality posts that didn't have personal attacks?
You're such a hypocrite. I would compare you to Ken Hamblin, but
I think he would have the courage to stand up for himself instead
of being a cheering section for someone elses post. How many time
have I busted you now? Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting for you to
go to your "black penal colony".
And why do you take the name of "Nat Turner" since you obviously
do not stand for anything he stood for? That would be like
Fidel Castro taking the name "Dale Carnegie".
Mycroft
.> >>
.> >.>
.> >.> >David, I can believe it. Since Clarence Thomas has been on the
than
.> >.> >for what he has done. Since being on the court he has NOT often
.> >.> >articulated his opinion, he has NOT voted against Scalia except
in
.> >.> >defense of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, and he has NOT taken any
opportunity
.> >.> >to prove to anyone that he has his own mind.
.> >.>
.> >.> What a load of crap. This is simply false.
.> >.>
.> >.> Three minutes of searching on Westlaw turned up the following
Scalia-
.> >.>
.> >.> Henderson v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 1638 (1996)
.> >.> Tome v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 696 (1995)
.> >.>
.> >Actually Joseph it's not a load of crap, and I doubt you could turn
up
apparently
.> >think. That statement came from an Atlanta Constitution article
from a
.> >couple of years ago. I believe if you did a search the year might
have
.> >been 1993, but I'm not sure. Anyway, notice that the three cases
you
.> >cited came AFTER 1993. Maybe Thomas read the constitution article
and
.> >decided to try to moderate some? Who knows.
.>
.> You shouldn't believe everything you read. The October 1992 Term
contained
.> Scalia-Thomas disagreements in the following cases:
You just repeated me on the "not believing everything read" statement.
Rather
childish but expected.
.>
.> Richmond v. Lewis, 113 S.Ct. 528 (1992)
.> Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 113 S.Ct. 716 (1992)
.> Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1190 (1993)
.> City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 113 S.Ct. 1505 (1993)
.> United States v. McDermott, 113 S.Ct. 1526 (1993)
.> Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1670 (1993)
.> CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 113 S.Ct. 1732 (1993)
.> Smith v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 2050 (1993)
.> Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins., 113 S.Ct. 2085 (1993)
.> Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 113 S.Ct. 2151 (1993)
.>
.> There were also a number of separate concurrences, where either
Scalia
.> or Thomas agreed with the other, but wrote separately anyway. The
.> above cases are disagreements about the outcome of the case.
.>
A handfull of cases, none from Thomas' first years on the court, and not
nearly
enough to draw any correlation. Besides, you've said nothing about the
cases
themselves. There are many cases that come before the court that have
no
overidding policy implications. I'm only concerned about the ones that
do.
.> >I noticed you didn't touch the child pornography case. Why not?
.>
.> Why would I? It's simply one more instance of a Scalia-Thomas
.> disagreement.
.>
You fail to see the significance there. That was one of the few cases
where
Thomas SHOULD have voted with Scalia, that is unless you support child
pornography.
.> >.> Incidentally, I'd be interested to see comparisons of the
agreement
.> >.> between Scalia and Thomas vs. Brennan and Marshall. My suspicion
is
.> >.> that Brennan and Marshall agreed with each other more frequently
than
.> >.> Scalia and Thomas do now, yet no one at the time impugned the
.> >.> intellect of either Brennan or Marshall. It's hard not to think
that
.> >.> people are simply looking for yet another cheap shot to throw at
Thomas.
.> >
.> >See the above response as to why it was not a "cheap shot".
Granted,
.> >the Atlanta Consitution may not always be right, but I do regard it
.> >as a reasonable source of information.
.>
.> See the above cases as to why that information is false. Draw your
own
.> conclusions about the cheap shot.
.>
.> --
.> Joseph G. Adams
.> Stanford Law School, 3L
.> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
Why don't you do that study you're talking about? I think that would be
most
enlightening.
Nat Turner
In article <01bc0001$943ca160$ad9790cc@benzie>,
blackalice <ray...@henge.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sam Hall <sam...@dkdavis.com> wrote in article
>>
>>
>they are not answering your question, but insulting you.
>Also interesting how they assume that you are not black (as if it made
>a difference).
>
>Samuel L. Hall
>Systems Engineer
>(communications systems)
>
>
>english, Sam? Several people said they didn't think much of Watts
>and they also said that in order to be a middle class black person
>living in the type neighborhood she describes, you do not have to
>subscribe to the beliefs of either Watts or Thomas. Both of you (regardless
>of what color you are) seem to be stuck on the theme that in order
>to be successful as a black person, you have to be a conservative.
>boy card that pushed civil rights forward. Quite the contrary. It's those
>people who get labeled "liberal" like it was a dirty word who did it.
>And back in the old days before the end of the Cold War, they were
>called "communists." It's the conservatives who try to undo what has
>been done. Uncle Thomas is a wonderful example.
>
>alice
>
Not being a politico I admit I know little of why folks get so testy when
the name Clarence Thomas comes up. However, one thing I do know is that
the process of dehumanizing the man is identical to what racists did to
black men for the longest. It's also interesting to note that now in the
bundle of charges his detractors level at him the charge of sexual
harasser a la Anita Hill is no longer on top of the list. My theory about
this is, folks -- the stupid ones -- have now had enough time to realize
how unfair they were towards the man with this particular charge. Anita
Hill presented not a shred of evidence, clearly her fundamental case
against him was "Who you gonna believe -- me a classy black fox, or, him,
short, homely-looking darkskin man (blacker than me!) married to a white
woman? Meanwhile black America still thinks Marion Barry is innocent
no matter the videos, and that OJ Simpson was in bed watching the Disney
channel when Nicole and Ron were butchered. Yeah, so what happened along
the line, I think, is Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson called each other up
and got it together:
JESSE
"Shit, Al, you know we look a little shaky pointing the finger
at Judge Thomas over Anita while not coming down on Marion
and OJ."
SHARPTON
Yeah, Jesse, I was thinking about that shit myself, it is a little
inconsistent. Fuck it, let's come down on everybody then --
n except ourselves, or course."
JESSE
Uh-uh, man, nah, we can't do that. Why, then we'd have to come
down on Ben Chavis, Winnie Mandela, Don King, those Ford brothers
in Tennessee, half the brothers in the NFL and NBA, Ron Brown,
Mike Tyson, Idi Amin, the Wayan brothers, Vanessa Williams, Rue
Paul and the Rodman fella who plays basketball. In other words,
there'd be no end to it."
SHARPTON
Yeah, I hear what you're saying Jesse, and I can dig it, but what
I'm not so clear on is why Clarence Thomas? Why he got to be the
one?
JESSE
Why? What? You wanna take his place you big, fat ignorant mudder
fucker?
SHARPTON
Hey, a simple yes or no would have sufficed, and I ain't gonna be
all them mudder fuckers, bitch.
Anyway, the point here is this business of going around saying "Judge
Thomas is trying to undo all we've accomplished through the Civil Rights
movement" is the kind of demogoguery that has long lulled blacks into
incredible acts of stupidity, the demonization of Thomas being only one.
Obviously, Thomas has a profoundly well-thought out explanation for his
voting record. The problem? It simply doesn't mesh with the throw money
at it, quick fix pork barrel thinking of the race-hustlers and
anit-poverty pimps. Think about it, if
we hadn't squander so much money on Welfare half those crack-smoking
mad-dog niggas choking the life out of our urban centers today would not
have ever been born.
Yeah, this is the kind of shit Judge Thomas wants to bring to a screeching
halt, and you know, I for one, am all for it.
Nat Turner
Soul Proprietor
Fresh Air Cab Co.
"Your riding pleasure is our delight. Stop us at the next green
light."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Mycroft
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>
> In article <32D926...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
.>
.> >Joseph G. Adams wrote:
.> >>
<dr...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
.> >.>
.> >.> >Actually Joseph it's not a load of crap, and I doubt you could
turn
.> >.> >apparently think. That statement came from an Atlanta
Constitution
.> >.> >article from a couple of years ago. I believe if you did a
search
.> >.> >the year might have been 1993, but I'm not sure. Anyway, notice
that
.> >.> >the three cases you cited came AFTER 1993. Maybe Thomas read
the
.> >.> >constitution article and decided to try to moderate some? Who
knows.
.> >.>
.> >.> You shouldn't believe everything you read. The October 1992 Term
.> >.>
.> >.> Richmond v. Lewis, 113 S.Ct. 528 (1992)
.> >.> Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1190 (1993)
.> >.> City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 113 S.Ct. 1505 (1993)
.> >.> United States v. McDermott, 113 S.Ct. 1526 (1993)
.> >.> Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1670 (1993)
.> >.> CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 113 S.Ct. 1732 (1993)
.> >.> Smith v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 2050 (1993)
.> >.> Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins., 113 S.Ct. 2085 (1993)
.> >.> Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 113 S.Ct. 2151 (1993)
.> >.>
.> >
.> >A handfull of cases, none from Thomas' first years on the court, and
not
.>
.> You moron. Thomas was appointed in 1991. These *are* his first
years
.> on the Court.
.>
.> I'm not saying that Scalia and Thomas don't often agree. I am saying
that
.> they sometimes disagree. And I'm saying that your statement that
they
.> only disagree about kiddie porn is false.
.>
.> >.> >I noticed you didn't touch the child pornography case. Why not?
.> >.>
.> >.> Why would I? It's simply one more instance of a Scalia-Thomas
.> >
.> >You fail to see the significance there. That was one of the few
cases
support
.> >child pornography.
.>
.> You moron. Supreme Court cases establish precedent that is used in a
.> wide variety of cases. Just because the case involved child
pornography
.> does not mean that a vote for the defendant's side was a vote "for"
.> child pornography.
.>
Temper temper little boy, now your resorting to name calling. Next
you'll
be holding your breath till you turn blue. Thomas only confirmed his
own
affinity for porn, which is his own damn business anyway.
And I sincerely doubt that those cases you listed were all of the cases
that
Thomas voted on. The Supreme Court is far more busy then that.
.> I'm not sure if this is the case you're referring to, but there was a
.> case involving child porn before the Court several years ago.
Although
.> the defendant was convicted of possessing child pron, the issue in
the
.> case was entrapment. The decision in that case established rules
about
.> what the police could and could not do with respect to entrapment in
.> the future. Only the completely clueless could think that a vote for
.> the defendant in that case was pro-child pron.
Mycroft
Ricardo Samuel wrote:
.>
.> This is in regards to the question about Black conservatives. First
of
.> all, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by conservative. The
politically
.> correct orthodoxy treats every Black person who slightly departs from
.> certain opinions (e.g. affirmative action, ebonics, etc.) with
hysterical
.> outrage and disgust. Secondly, Blacks can choose whatever political
.> direction they feel best represents their agenda.
.> Remember all the insults and slander directed towards Clarence
Thomas.
.> None of this had anything to do with his qualifications, rather, the
.> pc-orthodoxy was pissed that they couldn't get one of theirs on the
.> Supreme Court.
.> Ricardo
I beg to differ on that one. There were people who looked at his
limited
judicial experience as a complaint. Here's a quote from the editor of
time
in Oct. 91. You may disagree with his conclusion, but the fact remains
that
people were taking shots at Thomas' qualifications as well as his views.
By the way, conservatives have done the same thing will Bill Clinton's
nominees for certain posts, that is attacking someone's views instead of
his/her qualifications. Remember the Loni Guanier nomination?
It's Bush's Fault
"The spectacle, however, really began with Mr. Bush's choice of
Judge Thomas
who, for all his virtues, was no more qualified for the Court than
Dan Quayle was
to be Vice President.... "But it was Mr. Bush who carried politics
too far. By
trying to pack the Court with conservatives and by seeking to
predetermine
rulings on the most important issues before the nation, he robbed
would be
justices of their protective dignity and the Court of if its
judicial impartiality and
majesty. He took the Court into the political pit and,
predictably, ignited an ugly
political brawl. For justice now, he must be made to choose
another Justice." --
New York Times columnist and former national security affairs
reporter Leslie
Gelb, October 13.
"I think it's mind-boggling and appalling that the Republicans and
the
Administration would regard this debacle as partisan political
triumph and I
suspect that they too will pay a price for their
smugness....George Bush could
have done something to improve the nomination process himself by
coming up
with a more credible and impressive nomination to begin with." --
Time
Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott on Inside Washington, October 19.
Jerome Walker
In article <5b6gvk$8...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, <ttmit...@msn.com> wrote:
>wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
>
>
>>Cyndi, it's bad enough that I have to overcome the label of
>>conservative that has been corrupted by people like David Duke, Jesse
>>Helms, etc, butI also have to overcome clueless white conservatives
>>like yourself who are just as patronizing and *MORE* condenscending
>>than white liberals! YOu could have made my life easier by waving
>>the Confederate flage and singing "Dixie".
>
>So Jerome,
> Although this is off the topic line, let's go at this a different
>way. On politics we know we disagree, but we tend to agree on many
>other fronts. Why don't we attempt to try to find out what we agree
>on, you being a black conservative and me being a black liberal. For
>instance, I know we both believe that there should be some kind of
>moral standard to live by.
This is true.
>We both believe that real criminals should
>be put away for a long time.
This is true.
> We both believe that there should be
>full racial equality, and also believe that it hasn't been achieved
>yet.
This is true.
>We both hope that more and more blacks will achieve greater and
>greater things, so that we don't have to read much of the bigoted
>dogma attached to all blacks by those who wish to pontificate upon
>blacks as a race instead of some individuals. I think the only thing
>we really disagree on is how to get there. Am I wrong?
No, you are correct.
To go directly to the core of the issue: There is no one way to start
to correct many of the problems that exist in the black community. However,
some of the current ways are not working, and can be shown to be a
failure. Even though it was supported in the past by black civil rights
leaders, we have to admit whas is not working, and try something else.
So, we should look at all possible solutions, and address them
logically, not emotionally. I believe more solutions can be found using
teh conservative model, and I know that many blacks agree with many
conservative principles. The only thing holding back conservative solutions
is the tag conservative.
Note follow-up. Enough of this spam.
Kaiju
Ricardo Samuel wrote:
<snip>
> Remember all the insults and slander directed towards Clarence Thomas.
> None of this had anything to do with his qualifications, rather, the
> pc-orthodoxy was pissed that they couldn't get one of theirs on the
> Supreme Court.
> Ricardo
I don't know what you mean by "pc-orthodoxy" (and I doubt you do,
either), but my sentiments against Clarence Thomas stem from his behavior
throughout the entire confirmation hearings. No, not the part most of
you saw, "The Anita Hill Show". I watched the hearings from gavel to
gavel. Clarence Thomas is a mendacious, sycophantic, butt-licking,
hypocritical, self-serving traitor. Not a traitor to blacks, but to all
American citizens. He gave every indication during the confirmation
hearings that he would do anything and say anything to get what he wants
for Clarence Thomas and his handlers.
As someone previously pointed out, he denied having ever discussed Roe v.
Wade. Yarite. He also denied ever hearing about or discussion benchmark
anti-trust and interstate commerce cases. That alone should have
rendered him unqualified for the Supreme Court, and I had nothing but
disgust for him from that point. (This happened during Day 2 of the
hearings. Sheeesh...where could he go from there?)
Mycroft (I think) said Clarence Thomas is being held up as a litmus test
to all Black Americans as to the measure of worth of the Blacks.
Clarence Thomas was nominated as a highly cynical gesture to "appease"
Blacks while appeasing the most conservative and anti-minority forces in
the U.S. at the time. And there were many, and they were in power.
Well, mark me down as not passing that litmus test. Of all of the
conservative Black jurists in the United States, certainly there was
someone more qualified than Clarence Thomas, someone with more integrity
than he (which would have been just about anyone).
Notice that none of my criticisms have to do with "pc-orthodoxy"
...whatever that is, or his being (arguably) Black and his supposed role
in representing Black interests. It is about integrity. Clarence Thomas
has none that I've seen. His politics aside, he never deserved that
position on the Supreme Court, and he will never earn my respect for his
position. His role, in my opinion, is not to represent Black Americans,
but to uphold the law with honesty and diligence. He has not indicated
that he can do this.
Kaiju <who has the highest respect for the law, but Clarence Thomas does
not represent it at all>
P. Kropotkin
> Not being a politico I admit I know little of why folks get so testy when
> the name Clarence Thomas comes up. However, one thing I do know is that
> the process of dehumanizing the man is identical to what racists did to
> black men for the longest.
The poor victim of the liberal/feminist/wicca cabal does, nonetheless,
have a life time appointment to the "negro" seat on the Supreme Court via
affirmative action, GOP/Nixon style. When are the Thomas defenders going
to post some of his great rulings supporting the struggles of blacks here
in the usa.
>It's also interesting to note that now in the
> bundle of charges his detractors level at him the charge of sexual
> harasser a la Anita Hill is no longer on top of the list. My theory about
> this is, folks -- the stupid ones -- have now had enough time to realize
> how unfair they were towards the man with this particular charge. Anita
> Hill presented not a shred of evidence, clearly her fundamental case
> against him was "Who you gonna believe -- me a classy black fox, or, him,
> short, homely-looking darkskin man (blacker than me!) married to a white
> woman?
Give me a break. I'm sure that coke & porn swilling Thomas wanted Anita
real bad, probably at least as much as Clinton wanted Jennifer Flowers.
Too bad Anita Hill didn't want him, so he got a little lewd. There was
plenty of evidence, at least as much as any of the recent sex scandals
(i.e. Flowers, Paula Jones, Dick Morris, etc, etc...)
>Meanwhile black America still thinks Marion Barry is innocent
> no matter the videos, and that OJ Simpson was in bed watching the Disney
> channel when Nicole and Ron were butchered.
That's your mass media mediated interpetation of what some blacks believe. The
Lucy Parsons Gun Club believes OJ killed Nicole and that Fuhrman may have
planted evidence. OJ simply proves class is now more important than race,
i.e. even a black man , one rich enough, can buy the kind of legal help to
expoit the prosecution & police weaknesses. Claus Van Bulow, W.
kennedy-Smith, now OJ: the rich always have the advantage compared to the
poor defendant, even a black man.
Fictional dialog between two played out mass media created "black" snipped...
> Uh-uh, man, nah, we can't do that. Why, then we'd have to come
> down on Ben Chavis, Winnie Mandela, Don King, those Ford brothers
> in Tennessee, half the brothers in the NFL and NBA, Ron Brown,
> Mike Tyson, Idi Amin, the Wayan brothers, Vanessa Williams, Rue
> Paul and the Rodman fella who plays basketball. In other words,
> there'd be no end to it."
Guilt by association. Why Are going to mention Idi Amin, mass murdering
dictator of Uganda with Dennis Rodman and Vanessa Williams, two african
americans who have succeded in the marketplace just like you
"conservatives" are always suggesting to do? What is the point? Cross
dressing and repressive African dictators are on the same slippery slope
of negritude?
>
> Anyway, the point here is this business of going around saying "Judge
> Thomas is trying to undo all we've accomplished through the Civil Rights
> movement" is the kind of demogoguery that has long lulled blacks into
> incredible acts of stupidity, the demonization of Thomas being only one.
> Obviously, Thomas has a profoundly well-thought out explanation for his
> voting record.
What is his "profoundly well-thought out explanation for his
voting record." I'd like to hear in articulated.
Stuff about crack and crime in the black communities sipped...
> Yeah, this is the kind of shit Judge Thomas wants to bring to a screeching
> halt, and you know, I for one, am all for it.
How? By abridging peoples rights under the bill of rights? Allowing the
police more powers to search and detain people? How exactly will he bring
this to a halt? Roadblocks in the ghettos, searches of all cars in/out
for contraband? How and at what price?
Nat Turner
In article <32D97B...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Ricardo Samuel wrote:
>.>
>.> This is in regards to the question about Black conservatives. First
>of
>.> all, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by conservative. The
>politically
>
Hey, pal, the cite you include above is just an opinion not a reasoned
assertion backed by hard evidence. Allow me to explain...
Like you, the author argues Thomas was "unqualified." Like you, he
provides not an iota of evidence, which prompts the question "Is objective
evidence possible?"
Of course it it is. Take for example his time on the bench before the
nomination. A simple measurement here, right? We take the days, months,
years, on the bench and compare this to his peers' past and present. Mind
you, if we're really clever we understand the real question herein is how
much time did the really great Supreme Court judges have on the bench?
That's right! Was Justice Black great? Did he have more or less time on
the bench than Judge Thomas? See what I'm getting at here, Clyde?
Anyway, bottom-line -- no correlation between amount of time on the bench
and greatness as Supreme Court judge. Judge Thomas had more than some,
less than others and by no means is at the bottom of the heap in this
category.
So,
Next category he's supposed to be "unqualified" in, please....?
Nat Turner
--
Soupy Sales
Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>Sam Hall wrote:
>
>>Cyndi Bakke wrote:
>> >I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
>> >What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
>> >general middle class values of traditional America and live in
>> >communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
>> >have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
>> >educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
>> >of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
>> >
>> >Cyndi Bakke
>> >
>> >
>> I thought that you asked a reasonable question. Very interesting how
>> they are not answering your question, but insulting you.
>> Also interesting how they assume that you are not black (as if it made
>> a difference).
>
>Ms. Xona seems incapable of posting an argument without making a number
>of profane attacks against those newsgroup members who disagree with
>her. She has the same problem when attacking public figures.
>
>But I guess that's what you've got to do when you are incapable of
>making a coherent argument. As a result I don't usually read her posts
>anymore. They are obviously not designed to provoke an intellectually
>honest debate. They aren't even clever insults.
>
>Cyndi Bakke
>
I don't know. They seem about as clever as most of the reactionary
vomit that pollutes these newsgroups. And they have the wonderful
effect of making vicious conservatives suddenly sit up straight and
start pouting about dignity and "arguments," as if they had any of
either, and as if their despicable political program were anything
more than an outright attack on civilization and decency. I certainly
can't speak for Xona, but I can tell you what I think of black
conservatives: it's what I think of any conservatives. They're
reprehensible exploitative bastards, and come the revolution, they go
up against the wall with everybody else.
And as for "honest debate," Ms. Bakke, you've certainly gotten things
off to an auspicious start by equating "conservative" with people "who
have chosen to adopt the general middle class values of traditional
America and live in communities that are not located in the inner
cities; communities that have good schools in which they might raise
their children to be educated, articulate, and productive citizens."
Let's try some of your honesty in the other direction. What do you
think of conservatives in general (to leave your racist
presuppositions behind), that is, what do you think of people who have
chosen to adopt a mask of fictious traditions to cover their greed and
narrow-minded resentments and to live in anti-social exclusivity in
order to reap the benefits of a grossly unjust productive order
without accepting even the smallest responsibility for dealing with
the fallout from it, and who raise their kids to be bigoted,
repulsive, irresponsible fuckheads like themselves? Me, I don't like
'em. But hey, I'm just one man.
Personally, I think Xona's too good for you. It's just her language
that's obscene, but it's your entire ethics.
Soupy Sales
Truth-teller
Game Show Contestant
Man
Smash the State in '98!
Paul H. Henry
In article <5b9vpn$c...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
"Sicko" Zarlenga) wrote:
> Oh my ...it seems Judge Thomas was invited to give an inspirational
> speech to a group of black children later this year but had to decline
> after the NAACP expressed public opposition to "Uncle Tom" speaking
> to young, impressionable black children.
Good for the NAACP.
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || Okay, folks. Show's over. Nothing
|_) || to see here. Move along.
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.||"I'm a hoochie-coochie man!" --Muddy Waters
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
richard stout
What is wrong with a black person, after being strongly acquinted with
the process of affirmative action, and after simply reviewing the
situtation, who then comes to the conclusion that it just does not work
very well? What is wrong with liberals in this matter? Are they
embarassed that a black person made it to the U. S. Supreme court on his
own merits and now does not fit some liberal stereotpe? Should Mr Thomas
dance on a string like some Marxist pupet?
I think the left wing is too preoccupied with political correctness.
They apparently wish that many persons that should fit some narrow
stereotype, because the liberals worked hard for this, and hence conform
to some predifined political animal resembling a drooling toadie. Are
liberals burned that Mr. Thomas is an independent thinker? Independent
thought signals the death of liberalism.
R. W. Stout
Jerome Walker
In article <32D87F...@ecn.com>, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
[ edit ]
>
>Notice that none of my criticisms have to do with "pc-orthodoxy"
>...whatever that is, or his being (arguably) Black and his supposed role
>in representing Black interests. It is about integrity. Clarence Thomas
>has none that I've seen. His politics aside, he never deserved that
>position on the Supreme Court, and he will never earn my respect for his
>position. His role, in my opinion, is not to represent Black Americans,
>but to uphold the law with honesty and diligence. He has not indicated
>that he can do this.
Why does he not "deserve" the position?
Clinton is a bold faced liar and look at the position he obtained.
Jerome Walker
In article <phenry-1201...@blv-pm109-ip25.halcyon.com>,
Paul H. Henry <phe...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <5b9vpn$c...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>"Sicko" Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>> Oh my ...it seems Judge Thomas was invited to give an inspirational
>> speech to a group of black children later this year but had to decline
>> after the NAACP expressed public opposition to "Uncle Tom" speaking
>> to young, impressionable black children.
>
>Good for the NAACP.
>
Will the NAACP make up for the money that will be lost?
Mycroft
Nat Turner wrote:
.>
.> In article <32D97B...@cis.uab.edu>, Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu>
wrote:
.> >Ricardo Samuel wrote:
.> >.>
.> >.> This is in regards to the question about Black conservatives.
First
.> >.> all, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by conservative. The
.> >politically
.> >
.> > It's Bush's Fault
.> >
.> > "The spectacle, however, really began with Mr. Bush's choice
of
.> >Judge Thomas
.> > who, for all his virtues, was no more qualified for the Court
than
.> >Dan Quayle was
.> > to be Vice President.... "But it was Mr. Bush who carried
politics
.> >too far. By
.> > trying to pack the Court with conservatives and by seeking to
.> >predetermine
.> > rulings on the most important issues before the nation, he
robbed
.> >would be
.> > justices of their protective dignity and the Court of if its
.> >judicial impartiality and
.> > majesty. He took the Court into the political pit and,
.> >predictably, ignited an ugly
.> > political brawl. For justice now, he must be made to choose
.> >another Justice." --
.> > New York Times columnist and former national security affairs
.> >reporter Leslie
.> > Gelb, October 13.
.> >
.> > "I think it's mind-boggling and appalling that the Republicans
and
.> >the
.> > Administration would regard this debacle as partisan political
.> >triumph and I
.> > suspect that they too will pay a price for their
.> >smugness....George Bush could
.> > have done something to improve the nomination process himself
by
.> >coming up
.> > with a more credible and impressive nomination to begin with."
--
.> >Time
.> > Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott on Inside Washington, October
19.
.>
.> Hey, pal, the cite you include above is just an opinion not a
reasoned
.> assertion backed by hard evidence. Allow me to explain...
.>
.> Like you, the author argues Thomas was "unqualified." Like you, he
.> provides not an iota of evidence, which prompts the question "Is
objective
.> evidence possible?"
.>
.> Of course it it is. Take for example his time on the bench before the
.> nomination. A simple measurement here, right? We take the days,
months,
.> years, on the bench and compare this to his peers' past and present.
Mind
.> you, if we're really clever we understand the real question herein is
how
.> much time did the really great Supreme Court judges have on the
bench?
.> That's right! Was Justice Black great? Did he have more or less time
on
.> the bench than Judge Thomas? See what I'm getting at here, Clyde?
.>
.> Anyway, bottom-line -- no correlation between amount of time on the
bench
.> and greatness as Supreme Court judge. Judge Thomas had more than
some,
.> less than others and by no means is at the bottom of the heap in this
.> category.
.>
.> So,
.>
.> Next category he's supposed to be "unqualified" in, please....?
.>
.> Nat Turner
.> --
Hey "pal" you obviously clipped most of the original message from
Richard and from
me and you apparently didn't read it, or were incapable of understanding
it. Richard
said that none of the attacks on Clarence Thomas were about his
qualifications.
I simply showed him of an attack on Thomas that was about his
qualifications. Maybe
you missed the statement I made about "you may not agree with this
statement" but
I'll repeat it for you and maybe you'll get it this time.
Maybe you don't agree with this attack that was made about Clarence
Thomas, and
maybe you think it was unfair or couldn't be backed up. But even you
HAVE to admit
that it was an attack and it was made on his qualifications. That is
enough to
contradict Richard's original statement. I suppose I could do research
on Thomas'
qualifications, but that was not the point of Richard's first statement,
nor was it
the point of my reply. Try next time to understand the post before
responding to it.
ka...@ecn.com
<trimming a bunch of ngs>
In article <5ben18$3...@panix.com>,
Sheeesh, Jerome. What part of my post did you not understand and/or read? I
said precisely why Clarence Thomas did not deserve the position. He said he'd
never discussed and/or heard of key Supreme Court decisions. This in no way
compares to what you believe Clinton did or did not lie about. It would seem
that a Supreme Court Justice should be held to a much higher standard of
integrity and knowledge than does a President. At least we have the opportunity
to get rid of Presidents. We're stuck with this dolt until he retires or dies.
Note that I specifically did not use his politics in my reasons for disgust for
him.
Kaiju <this country just deserves better>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Aquino
On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 06:15:53 GMT, mys...@man.con (Soupy Sales) wrote:
)Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
)I don't know. They seem about as clever as most of the reactionary
)vomit that pollutes these newsgroups. And they have the wonderful
)effect of making vicious conservatives suddenly sit up straight and
)start pouting about dignity and "arguments," as if they had any of
)either, and as if their despicable political program were anything
)more than an outright attack on civilization and decency. I
certainly
)can't speak for Xona, but I can tell you what I think of black
)conservatives: it's what I think of any conservatives. They're
)reprehensible exploitative bastards, and come the revolution, they go
)up against the wall with everybody else.
Oooh, big words from an ineffectual little pimp. "The Revolution"...
Oooooh! America is quaking in its boots. You and your ilk have so
much power in this country, we should be worried.
Liberal queeg. [Granted, I'm quite sure you're trolling - but I like
to shit on you anyway]
)And as for "honest debate," Ms. Bakke, you've certainly gotten things
)off to an auspicious start by equating "conservative" with people
"who
)have chosen to adopt the general middle class values of traditional
)America and live in communities that are not located in the inner
)cities; communities that have good schools in which they might raise
)their children to be educated, articulate, and productive citizens."
)
)Let's try some of your honesty in the other direction. What do you
)think of conservatives in general (to leave your racist
)presuppositions behind), that is, what do you think of people who
have
)chosen to adopt a mask of fictious traditions to cover their greed
and
)narrow-minded resentments and to live in anti-social exclusivity in
)order to reap the benefits of a grossly unjust productive order
)without accepting even the smallest responsibility for dealing with
)the fallout from it, and who raise their kids to be bigoted,
)repulsive, irresponsible fuckheads like themselves? Me, I don't like
)'em. But hey, I'm just one man.
I think they're pretty cool. Live a hell of a lot better than you do,
and they contibute more to society than you do.
)Personally, I think Xona's too good for you. It's just her language
)that's obscene, but it's your entire ethics.
You're a blackguard and an utter idiot.
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
What is so scary about the attitude of many balck americans (not all,
mabye not even a majority). is how if a black man/women does not fit their
measure of being BLACK they are a sellout.
When i attended high school in buffalo ny i had a friend named Dave,
he was extreamly smart, articulate, and driven. grant it his dress, walk,
talk ect. were not the STERIOTYPICAL way an african american would dress,
walk..
For this he was called a sellout by a good portion of hte black
studant body, some of whom lived in a much more middle/uperclass
neiborhood then my friend. so much my people (whites) are told we should
not assume anything by the way a man presents himself, it does not mean he
is a criminal or a doctor.
what the african american community is doing is isolating itself from
its successful members.
C'apn
Mike Best
In article <ppc-120197...@news.sfo.com> p...@sfo.com (P. Kropotkin):
>The poor victim of the liberal/feminist/wicca cabal does, nonetheless,
>have a life time appointment to the "negro" seat on the Supreme Court via
>affirmative action, GOP/Nixon style.
In spite of the protestations of the National Organization of Liberal
Women to the contrary, yes he's there alrighty. Also, we now prefer
not to call it the "negro seat" but rather the "conservative seat"
because, being conservatives, we don't think of people in terms of
skin color first as liberals (and you just proved it again) do.
>Give me a break. I'm sure that coke & porn swilling Thomas wanted Anita
>real bad, probably at least as much as Clinton wanted Jennifer Flowers.
Unsubstantiated supposition alert...
>Too bad Anita Hill didn't want him, so he got a little lewd. There was
>plenty of evidence, at least as much as any of the recent sex scandals
>(i.e. Flowers, Paula Jones, Dick Morris, etc, etc...)
Evidence? You mean where if the woman is a liberal and she is attacking
a conservative in a "her word against his" argument then that constitutes
evidence? Of course, should a woman attack a liberal like Bill Clinton
and have *real* evidence such as that of troopers who recall bringing her
to Bill "schwiiing!" Clinton then that would not constitute evidence.
Face it, Ms Hill made a political calculation to bring down Thomas. Her
past behavior with Thomas as a close friend *after* the alleged incident
notwithstanding, she had zero evidence but that didn't hurt her credibility
with the NOW gang or liberals. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it
is entirely amusing to watch people like Susan Estrich squirm and ration-
alize the defense of Clinton in public.
Then again, with a "leader" like Clinton what kind of *principled* stand
can one expect from the troops?
Mike Best
be...@anasazi.com
holman
Why do racists always put 'articulate' before African American
like its an oxymoron? Kinda puts you in mind of 'qualified'
minorities. Sigh.
Ted Krueger
>In article <5b9vpn$c...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>Zarlenga) wrote:
>> Oh my ...it seems Judge Thomas was invited to give an inspirational
>> speech to a group of black children later this year but had to decline
>> after the NAACP expressed public opposition to "Uncle Tom" speaking
>> to young, impressionable black children.
>Good for the NAACP.
Right on. God forbid that these kids might get exposed to the marketplace
of ideas.
I mean it's not as if Justice Thomas is the most powerful and influential
Black man in judicial America or anything.
After all, a woman said that he told her a dirty joke once. And we all
know that he attended a college that had an AA policy.
What a hypocrite.
Ted
--
"Since election day 1992 Democrats have lost 12 Senate seats, about 60 House
seats, 11 governorships and about 500 state legislative seats." NR 12/9/96
kru...@neta.com
Cyndi Bakke
John Aquino wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 06:15:53 GMT, mys...@man.con (Soupy Sales) wrote:
>
> )Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
> )I don't know. They seem about as clever as most of the reactionary
> )vomit that pollutes these newsgroups. And they have the wonderful
> )effect of making vicious conservatives suddenly sit up straight and
> )start pouting about dignity and "arguments," as if they had any of
> )either, and as if their despicable political program were anything
> )more than an outright attack on civilization and decency. I
> certainly
> )can't speak for Xona, but I can tell you what I think of black
> )conservatives: it's what I think of any conservatives. They're
> )reprehensible exploitative bastards, and come the revolution, they go
I would like to disassociate myself with these comments. I did not
write any of them, in spite of the fact that my name is quoted above.
Anyway, those who wish to wait around for a Marxist revolution have my
blessings...they can feel free to wait as long as they like...as long as
they don't ask to sit upon the public dole while they're waiting.
Cyndi Bakke
>
>
> )And as for "honest debate," Ms. Bakke, you've certainly gotten things
> )off to an auspicious start by equating "conservative" with people
> "who
> )have chosen to adopt the general middle class values of traditional
> )America and live in communities that are not located in the inner
> )cities; communities that have good schools in which they might raise
> )their children to be educated, articulate, and productive citizens."
> )
> )Let's try some of your honesty in the other direction. What do you
> )think of conservatives in general (to leave your racist
> )presuppositions behind), that is, what do you think of people who
> have
> )chosen to adopt a mask of fictious traditions to cover their greed
> and
> )narrow-minded resentments and to live in anti-social exclusivity in
> )order to reap the benefits of a grossly unjust productive order
> )without accepting even the smallest responsibility for dealing with
> )the fallout from it, and who raise their kids to be bigoted,
> )repulsive, irresponsible fuckheads like themselves? Me, I don't like
> )'em. But hey, I'm just one man.
You know, I grew up in the South and expect a certain amount of respect
and decency in conversations, especially from men in response to women.
If you disagree with me, disagree with me. But it does not really help
your argument much to accuse me of raising my children in an unethical
manner and use foul insults and the label of 'racist' to describe me.
I would love to know what personal knowledge you have about me by which
you justify such a personal attack.
I would also love to hear an honest presentation of your ideas, and I
would love for you to critique mine according to your presumptions about
economic relations in society. But you don't do your cause much justice
by going off on an emotional explosion of anger and irrationality. I
certainly wouldn't want you to be a messengers of any ideas I hold dear.
In short, if you have a point make it. Your attacks make you look like
a fool...and a rude one at that!
Cyndi Bakke
xona
Two black men who perfer the white world and it's woman to their own.
One articulate, one semi-illiterate and both mornons.
xona
da...@gateway.ecn.com
And what do you think of OJ?
Dan
Kaiju (ka...@ecn.com) wrote:
: Ricardo Samuel wrote:
: <snip>
: Notice that none of my criticisms have to do with "pc-orthodoxy"
: ...whatever that is, or his being (arguably) Black and his supposed role
: in representing Black interests. It is about integrity. Clarence Thomas
: has none that I've seen. His politics aside, he never deserved that
: position on the Supreme Court, and he will never earn my respect for his
: position. His role, in my opinion, is not to represent Black Americans,
: but to uphold the law with honesty and diligence. He has not indicated
: that he can do this.
: Kaiju <who has the highest respect for the law, but Clarence Thomas does
No More Cross-Posting
=o= This has absolutely nothing to do with the Libertarian Party
or the Green Party. Please don't send followups in this thread
to alt.politics.libertarians or alt.politics.greens.
<_Jym_>
Soupy Sales
sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) wrote:
>)I don't know. They seem about as clever as most of the reactionary
>)vomit that pollutes these newsgroups. And they have the wonderful
>)effect of making vicious conservatives suddenly sit up straight and
>)start pouting about dignity and "arguments," as if they had any of
>)either, and as if their despicable political program were anything
>)more than an outright attack on civilization and decency. I certainly
>)can't speak for Xona, but I can tell you what I think of black
>)conservatives: it's what I think of any conservatives. They're
>)reprehensible exploitative bastards, and come the revolution, they go
>)up against the wall with everybody else.
>
>Oooh, big words from an ineffectual little pimp. "The Revolution"...
>Oooooh! America is quaking in its boots. You and your ilk have so
>much power in this country, we should be worried.
I've got an ilk? Hot damn! How'd you learn to spell it, anyway? But
man, you are one mean motherfucker with a keyboard, Johnny-boy.
Argument by play-ground taunt. That's low. That's real low. Why,
I...I...I think I'm gonna cry!
>Liberal queeg. [Granted, I'm quite sure you're trolling - but I like
>to shit on you anyway]
I suppose "queeg" is a pretty devastating riposte in your quaint
little patois. But it's water off a duck's back to me, J.A. And
"liberal"? If it means someone you don't like cuz he's smarter than
you, well, guilty as charged. If it means some lukewarm reformist
Democrat, then, in the words of Your Lord: "So then because thou art
lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
[Revelations, 3:16].
>)And as for "honest debate," Ms. Bakke, you've certainly gotten things
>)off to an auspicious start by equating "conservative" with people "who
>)have chosen to adopt the general middle class values of traditional
>)America and live in communities that are not located in the inner
>)cities; communities that have good schools in which they might raise
>)their children to be educated, articulate, and productive citizens."
>)
>)Let's try some of your honesty in the other direction. What do you
>)think of conservatives in general (to leave your racist
>)presuppositions behind), that is, what do you think of people who have
>)chosen to adopt a mask of fictious traditions to cover their greed and
>)narrow-minded resentments and to live in anti-social exclusivity in
>)order to reap the benefits of a grossly unjust productive order
>)without accepting even the smallest responsibility for dealing with
>)the fallout from it, and who raise their kids to be bigoted,
>)repulsive, irresponsible fuckheads like themselves? Me, I don't like
>)'em. But hey, I'm just one man.
>
>I think they're pretty cool. Live a hell of a lot better than you do,
>and they contibute more to society than you do.
You also think the word "queeg" is pretty cool, so we've got a fairly
good idea of your taste in these matters. And why aren't I surprised
that you don't know how to use the word "society"? As if there's only
one possible society, the one we now live in, and so contributing to
it is the only sensible thing to do. But you miss the point here,
John-John. (I bet you hear that a lot, don't you.) We're talking about
changing society, not contributing to it. Even your pudgy little Newt
knows that. Get with your own program, son.
>
>)Personally, I think Xona's too good for you. It's just her language
>)that's obscene, but it's your entire ethics.
>
>You're a blackguard and an utter idiot.
Thanks indeed, Mr. Aquino. Four and a half minutes in your
scintillating company, and I've come to understand why they have to
print directions on shampoo.
Soupy Sales
Confident
Confidant
Uebermensch
Smash the State in '98
Peregrin
In article <5bhfj7$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, xo...@primenet.com says...
>
>
>
>Two black men who perfer the white world and it's woman to their own.
>One articulate, one semi-illiterate and both mornons.
>
>xona
"MORNONS?"...Nit-wit!
Your always good for a knee slapper..lol
xona
Peregrin <Ha...@raven.cybercom.com> wrote:
: In article <5bhfj7$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, xo...@primenet.com says...
: "MORNONS?"...Nit-wit!
Hey, I am XONA, spelling mistakes, slurs, slander, improper
grammatical construction are my trademarks.
xona
Self-taught MORON
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu
I put articulate in front of white too (provided they deserve it). Why do
racists ASSUME that if a white person says a black person is more
educated than he/she is they have an ulterior motive!
-C'apn
xona
No More Cross-Posting <j...@igc.org> wrote:
: =o= This has absolutely nothing to do with the Libertarian Party
: or the Green Party. Please don't send followups in this thread
: to alt.politics.libertarians or alt.politics.greens.
: <_Jym_>
Touchy little fuckers aren't you. As a libertarian I do not
recognize your limitations. You would be better off as a
right-wing Republican newsgroup as that is more along with
your desire to censor.
Xona
Libertarian
da...@gateway.ecn.com
References: <5areik$t...@ratty.wolfe.net> <5avdid$7...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> <5avovv$j...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <32D3E9...@inforel.com> <32e61f8b....@news.airmail.net> <32D805...@inforel.com> <5b9he3$c...@agate.berkeley.edu> <32D87F37.1E8A@
<5bfg76$q...@gateway.ecn.com> <5bhfj7$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
Organization: West Coast Computer Products
Distribution:
Who's the articulate one?
Dan
Jerome Walker
Sad but true.
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.97011...@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
<trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>
> What is so scary about the attitude of many balck americans (not all,
>mabye not even a majority). is how if a black man/women does not fit their
>measure of being BLACK they are a sellout.
> When i attended high school in buffalo ny i had a friend named Dave,
>he was extreamly smart, articulate, and driven. grant it his dress, walk,
>talk ect. were not the STERIOTYPICAL way an african american would dress,
>walk..
> For this he was called a sellout by a good portion of hte black
>studant body, some of whom lived in a much more middle/uperclass
>neiborhood then my friend. so much my people (whites) are told we should
>not assume anything by the way a man presents himself, it does not mean he
>is a criminal or a doctor.
> what the african american community is doing is isolating itself from
>its successful members.
>
>
>C'apn
>
Jerome Walker
In article <E4063...@anasazi.com>, Mike Best <be...@anasazi.com> wrote:
>In article <ppc-120197...@news.sfo.com> p...@sfo.com (P. Kropotkin):
>>
>>The poor victim of the liberal/feminist/wicca cabal does, nonetheless,
>>have a life time appointment to the "negro" seat on the Supreme Court via
>>affirmative action, GOP/Nixon style.
>
>In spite of the protestations of the National Organization of Liberal
>Women to the contrary, yes he's there alrighty. Also, we now prefer
>not to call it the "negro seat" but rather the "conservative seat"
>because, being conservatives, we don't think of people in terms of
>skin color first as liberals (and you just proved it again) do.
As a black conservative, I have to say you are lying. Otherwise, problems
in the black community would not be addressed as black problems, but as
social and class problems.
David A. Hart
>
>
>
>Two black men who perfer the white world and it's woman to their own.
>One articulate, one semi-illiterate and both mornons.
>
>xona
"White world?" Is this racist or what?
Nat Turner
In article <5bhfj7$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
xona <xo...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Two black men who perfer the white world and it's woman to their own.
>One articulate, one semi-illiterate and both mornons.
>
>xona
Fine, now tell us a little about your accomplishments...
Nat Turner
Fresh Air Cab Co.
--
Soupy Sales
Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>I would like to disassociate myself with these comments. I did not
>write any of them, in spite of the fact that my name is quoted above.
>
>Anyway, those who wish to wait around for a Marxist revolution have my
>blessings...they can feel free to wait as long as they like...as long as
>they don't ask to sit upon the public dole while they're waiting.
>
>Cyndi Bakke
What she says is true. Mr. Aquino left the impression that Ms. Bakke
wrote a string of vulgar abuse directed at hard-working traditional
conservatives, and then called for violent revolution and their
indescriminate slaughter. This is totally misleading. I, Soupy Sales,
am personally responsible both for the invective and the prescription.
>>
>>
>> )And as for "honest debate," Ms. Bakke, you've certainly gotten things
>> )off to an auspicious start by equating "conservative" with people "who
>> )have chosen to adopt the general middle class values of traditional
>> )America and live in communities that are not located in the inner
>> )cities; communities that have good schools in which they might raise
>> )their children to be educated, articulate, and productive citizens."
>> )
>> )Let's try some of your honesty in the other direction. What do you
>> )think of conservatives in general (to leave your racist
>> )presuppositions behind), that is, what do you think of people who have
>> )chosen to adopt a mask of fictious traditions to cover their greed and
>> )narrow-minded resentments and to live in anti-social exclusivity in
>> )order to reap the benefits of a grossly unjust productive order
>> )without accepting even the smallest responsibility for dealing with
>> )the fallout from it, and who raise their kids to be bigoted,
>> )repulsive, irresponsible fuckheads like themselves? Me, I don't like
>> )'em. But hey, I'm just one man.
>
> You know, I grew up in the South and expect a certain amount of respect
>and decency in conversations, especially from men in response to women.
>If you disagree with me, disagree with me. But it does not really help
>your argument much to accuse me of raising my children in an unethical
>manner and use foul insults and the label of 'racist' to describe me.
> I would love to know what personal knowledge you have about me by which
>you justify such a personal attack.
>
>I would also love to hear an honest presentation of your ideas, and I
>would love for you to critique mine according to your presumptions about
>economic relations in society. But you don't do your cause much justice
>by going off on an emotional explosion of anger and irrationality. I
>certainly wouldn't want you to be a messengers of any ideas I hold dear.
>
> In short, if you have a point make it. Your attacks make you look like
>a fool...and a rude one at that!
>
>Cyndi Bakke
>
Ms. Bakke, I have read a number of your posts on this newgroup
(alt.politics.radical-left), and I have to say I appreciate your
measured tones and intelligent diction, even though I find your views
abhorent. I was raised in the North, where a cultivated demeanor and a
traditional presumption of feminine gentility have long since been
corroded by the imperatives of industrial capitalism. But my dear
father (who, as you can imagine, disagrees with my politics), is a
Southerner born and bred, and I am delighted to learn that you, too,
hail from that noble (though oh so misguided) part of the country.
Please accept my apologies for any personal disagreeableness that may
have arisen in the course of our electronic interchange.
There is a difference between personal ethics and political ethics.
Many conservatives have a relatively unobjectionable commitment to
such values as individual responsibility, respect for the human body,
preservation of the institutional achievements of their forebears,
etc. Oddly enough, these personal ethical commitments somehow become
translated into support for a political program of unabashed
viciousness, a set of policies with quite predictable outcomes that
would revolt them if they happened to destroy the children of someone
that they loved. Diagnosing this strange translation is a difficult
matter, which I will leave for a future time. But the distinction here
is analogous to the difference in military ethics between those
virtues that bring coherence to any army, and those principles for
which it is in fact engaged in the field. Courage, self-sacrifice,
endurance, mercy, loyalty, humility, are the stock in trade of the
soldier, and there is really nothing to say against them. But the fact
that these virtues structure military service does not tell us whether
the war the soldiers are fighting is moral. The Nazis, to take an
egregious example, exhibited plenty of bravery and self-sacrifice, but
the cause for which they were fighting was nonetheless (as I am quite
sure you agree), utterly reprehensible. (And no, I am not equating
American conservatism with Nazism, I am illustrating a distinction
with an example of particular clarity.)
What this means is that conservatives can be thoroughly decent people
at the personal level, (and I suspect that this describes you, Ms.
Bakke), while nonetheless contributing to a political program of moral
depravity. One judges personal ethics in terms of what a person
intends. But one judges political ethics in terms of what effects a
program has or can reasonably be predicted to have. (Moral
philosophers, ever fond of obscure terminology, speak of the
difference between deontological and consequentialist ethical systems.
But the distinction is relatively intuitive.) Now, I would be the
first to admit that in the heat of debate, this distinction gets
blurred, and rhetorical bolts hurled at policy and its defenders seem
to strike at the personal attitudes of the opponent. Such are the
hazards of eristic engagement. But it is perhaps not entirely
pointless to take a calmer moment to make the distinction clear.
Moreover, in my previous attack, I was not even pretending to give an
untendentious description of conservatives. I was trying to point out
that your description had already weighed the debate unacceptably in
your favor by depicting conservative commitments in the whitewashed
manner you did. My slanderous portrayal is simply the mirror image of
your hagiography. A real debate would have to leave both these biases
behind.
I have little hope of ever swaying you (or anyone else) to my
particular brand of radical politics. But I do find this, in your
case, regrettable, because you seem to take these matters seriously
and to want to do the right thing. So many of your comrades-in-arms
are mere mouthpieces for unfocused frustration and embittered
resentment, at best evidence of how easy it is to surrender to
misanthropy and prejudice. You may take some slight satisfaction,
perhaps, in knowing that for me there is nothing more depressing than
an intelligent conservative, because if intelligence is not enough to
reveal to them the threadbare ghastliness of that philosophy, it is
hard to see what could. In any case, I do indeed tip my metaphorical
hat to a decent woman of Southern breeding, whatever her politics, and
wish her and her family a long, happy, and prosperous life.
Now, back into the fray!
Soupy Sales
Congenial
Congenital
Ingenious
Mike Best
>One articulate, one semi-illiterate and both mornons.
>
>xona
My oh my! Not only are you a liberal, Xona, but you're also a racist.
I've been told time and again that liberals can't be racists, what a
relief to find out that supposition is false!
So Thomas and Simpson, being black, are supposed to *segregate* them-
selves (aka. celebrate their diversity by remaining homogenous by
skin color). You no doubt think of yourself as quite enlightened,
being a substitute teacher and all, yet the more you write the more
we learn about you. Now we learn that you think of the country in
terms of black and white worlds and who belongs in each.
Amazing... just because you don't wear a sheet doesn't mean you aren't
a racist.
Mike Best
PS. Since you are a substitute school teacher I feel it only fair to
warn you that you should use "women" in the context you were using.
Also, the word you meant to use is "moron" not "mornons".
Peregrin
In article <32DBD7...@inforel.com>, cba...@inforel.com says...
>
>John Aquino wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 06:15:53 GMT, mys...@man.con (Soupy Sales) wrote:
>>
>> )I don't know. They seem about as clever as most of the reactionary
>> )vomit that pollutes these newsgroups. And they have the wonderful
>> )effect of making vicious conservatives suddenly sit up straight and
>> )start pouting about dignity and "arguments," as if they had any of
>> )either, and as if their despicable political program were anything
>> )more than an outright attack on civilization and decency. I
>> certainly
>> )can't speak for Xona, but I can tell you what I think of black
>> )conservatives: it's what I think of any conservatives. They're
>> )reprehensible exploitative bastards, and come the revolution, they go
>> )up against the wall with everybody else.
>
>
>write any of them, in spite of the fact that my name is quoted above.
>
>Anyway, those who wish to wait around for a Marxist revolution have my
>blessings...they can feel free to wait as long as they like...as long as
>they don't ask to sit upon the public dole while they're waiting.
>
>Cyndi Bakke
>>
>>
threatened by strong intelligent women..
How is it then that between Cyndi here, and Jill, and Eleanor. I
couldn't feel more prouder..They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and always
on mark.. I've yet to see either of them stumped, or backed up...They beat
hell outta these liberals on a regular basis.
Gee!! Hold me back...I just might vote for Christie AGAIN!
How can this be?..What's wrong with my "conservative" small
mindedness, my inherent fear of powerful women?
Oh BTW...Hillary is little more then a sleaze...Not to mention, a
shameless liar..Just thought I'd throw that in, lest some one
missinterpret my political leanings.
Keep it up girls....The reward is on it's way, I'm sure you see it
on the horizon. It's gonna be more fun then you can imagine watching this
pkunzip of Clinton, and now the house dems...And just wait till his
friends, and the press bail on him..This is too good!
Nat Turner
In article <32D87F...@ecn.com>, Kaiju <ka...@ecn.com> wrote:
>Ricardo Samuel wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Remember all the insults and slander directed towards Clarence Thomas.
>> None of this had anything to do with his qualifications, rather, the
>> pc-orthodoxy was pissed that they couldn't get one of theirs on the
>> Supreme Court.
>> Ricardo
>
>I don't know what you mean by "pc-orthodoxy" (and I doubt you do,
>either), but my sentiments against Clarence Thomas stem from his behavior
>throughout the entire confirmation hearings. No, not the part most of
>you saw, "The Anita Hill Show". I watched the hearings from gavel to
>gavel. Clarence Thomas is a mendacious, sycophantic, butt-licking,
>hypocritical, self-serving traitor. Not a traitor to blacks, but to all
>American citizens. He gave every indication during the confirmation
>hearings that he would do anything and say anything to get what he wants
>for Clarence Thomas and his handlers.
You hate-filled, schizophrenic adder. And it's a wonder you don't choke on
your own venom. And what in God's name are you talking about anyway, you
hissing Hydra? Everyone, Democrat/Republican alike agree Thomas handled
himself remarkably well during the hearings, in fact, this is precisely
why they introduced Anita Hill -- Thomas was doing too good!
DUH...
>
>As someone previously pointed out, he denied having ever discussed Roe v.
>Wade. Yarite. He also denied ever hearing about or discussion benchmark
>anti-trust and interstate commerce cases. That alone should have
>rendered him unqualified for the Supreme Court, and I had nothing but
>disgust for him from that point. (This happened during Day 2 of the
>hearings. Sheeesh...where could he go from there?)
>
Boy, subtlety and shades of meaning go right over your head, don't they?
You really are an uncommonally stupid woman, aren't you? You know I bet if
they took your brain and put it in a pit-bull nobody would be able to tell
the difference -- same frenzied stupidity, same inability to let go once
you grab something in your muzzle. Thomas handled things exactly the way
they should be handled. It wasn't a question of integrity, you dumb bell,
it was a question of avoiding the gazillion land minds the Democrats were
trying to lead him smack dab on top of.
>Mycroft (I think) said Clarence Thomas is being held up as a litmus test
>to all Black Americans as to the measure of worth of the Blacks.
>Clarence Thomas was nominated as a highly cynical gesture to "appease"
>Blacks while appeasing the most conservative and anti-minority forces in
>the U.S. at the time. And there were many, and they were in power.
>
No, it was thought that Thomas would be accepted by his own -- As He
Should Have Been! No one could have predicted the incredible display of
black stupidity that followed. In short it says, blacks aren't ready for
a two party system -- it confuses us (like you get) and makes us paranoid.
Better, give us a dictator who looks good, talks in rhymes, and does our
thinking for us.
>Well, mark me down as not passing that litmus test. Of all of the
>conservative Black jurists in the United States, certainly there was
>someone more qualified than Clarence Thomas, someone with more integrity
>than he (which would have been just about anyone).
>
And this mantra is one of the stupidest. "Most qualified" the last thing
we'd expect to hear from a black woman who literally starts frothing at
the mouth whenever the subject of Affirmative Action comes up.
Additionally, the man's integrity is unimpeachable, virtually everyone who
ever met or worked with him vouched for this. Indeed, with the exception
of the Anita Hill charge there was not a hint of any impropriety
anywhere in his resume, zero, nothing, except in your bile infused
dementia.
>Notice that none of my criticisms have to do with "pc-orthodoxy"
>...whatever that is, or his being (arguably) Black and his supposed role
>in representing Black interests. It is about integrity. Clarence Thomas
>has none that I've seen. His politics aside, he never deserved that
>position on the Supreme Court, and he will never earn my respect for his
>position. His role, in my opinion, is not to represent Black Americans,
>but to uphold the law with honesty and diligence. He has not indicated
>that he can do this.
>
Hey, bonehead, you call yourself a lawyer -- ever hear of "rules of
evidence"? I mean, really -- you keep burping up the word "integrity"
keep slinging the word around like a red flag but as yet haven't produced
one example that shows his lack of it. And, fellows, I want you to take
a good look at the kind of woman this female is. Years ago when I was a
student and use to volunteer in County Court, I use to see ignorant black
female prosecutors and judges commit the most mindbending travesties
against black men. Really, I saw a stupid slut-judge give a man six
months on a bullshit harassment charge, then give him six months more
because he whispered under his breath, "I can handle it" (to which she
replied, "Well since you said that I'm going to give you six more
months,"). Had he insulted? No. Had he meant to insult her? No, again. His
comment was not even meant for her. It was a macho thing, but the stupid
bitch didn't understand and rather than leave it alone, she reacted like
the attack pit-bull she was and took away six more months of this man's
life. In other words when in doubt, think the worst about a black man.
In short, women like Kaiju have their own logic about things. If Anita
Hill went on 60 Minutes and said "I lied about the whole thing"
women like Kaiju would still go to their graves proclaiming she didn't.
It's an illogic actually; a mysterious thing they don't even understand
themselves. Anita Hill, Tisha Campbell, Robin Givens, Tina Turner, they're
all infected with it. Something, I think, that has to do with their rage
that black men aren't the rulers of the world. Yeah, something real
freaky-deaky like that; something deep in their blood going all the way
back to that slave-ship that brought their asses over here; uh-huh,
something they've hated you for ever since, bro...
Nat Turner
Fresh Air Cab Co
>
>Kaiju <who has the highest respect for the law, but Clarence Thomas does
>not represent it at all>
>
--
Nat Turner
In article <32e52a0c...@pandora.digitaladvantage.net>,
Cyrus Afzali <caf...@interport.net> wrote:
>
>
>On 10 Jan 1997 00:26:13 GMT, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <5b1d51$fap$1...@news.smart.net>,
>>Nat Turner <tur...@smarty.smart.net> wrote:
>>>In article <32D3E9...@inforel.com>,
>>>Cyndi Bakke <cba...@inforel.com> wrote:
>>>>xona wrote:
>>>>> ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
>>>>> : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
>>>>> : overture to black people, [snip]
>>
>This isn't exactly related to the issue at hand, but is something I
>don't think many are bringing up. With the Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton
>case now before the Supreme Court, I think it bears mentioning again
>if it has been in the past.
>
>Many times over the past few years, and again during the elections and
>now that the case has gone to the High Court, many people are talking
>about how bad it is that the sitting president of the United States is
>involved in such a lawsuit.
>
>While that does have some merit, I wonder why nobody made such a fuss
>about the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill situation. I mean here's a guy
>that will be around long after Clinton's allowable two terms are up.
>Here's someone who serves on the land's highest court and has a chance
>to help shape the legal landscape of this country for years to come.
>
>Yet IMO the allegations waged against him by Anita Hill were more
>substantive than the ones waged by Paula Jones against Pres. Clinton.
>The fact that she's now saying she'll forget about the whole thing for
>the right amount of money doesn't lend much credibility to her claims
>or her character.
Whoa, fellow, the claims of Anita Hill were not at all "substantive."
Indeed, everyone who'd ever been in contact with Thomas said Ms. Hill's
claims were entirely out of character with the man they knew. Moreover,
she neither produced evidence or corroboration, something quite startling
inasmuch as a lawyer and law professor we'd expect her of all people to
produce in much plenitude; all of which suggests an even more disturbing
mindset, namely, that she meant to evoke the age-old stereotype of the
black man as a rapist in order to carry her case. Clearly, there existed
nothing else to convince us of the man's guilt -- no history, no
corroboration, no evidence just --"Y'all gotta show me the same respect
you would a Mississippi white woman, so get out the torches and rope for
me too."
Yeah, perhaps the lowest point for black women in this country since the
first one was herded off the boat. In five thousand unmarked graves
across the country 5000 black corpses with broken necks and flame-charred
bones rattled in disbelief and outrage....
Am I over dramatizing? I don't think so. Again, in the old South a white
woman had only to do precisely what Anita Hill did -- accuse a black man
and that would be his death warrant. No evidence, no corroboration, no
history. The black man could have been the town's 80 year old black
Baptist minister, it didn't matter, he'd be pulled out of bed and hung
from a tree with a couple of other innocent black men hung along side
for good measure.
And thus the question of Thomas' guilt or lack of is not even important
compared to the monstrous crime Anita Hill committed against him, and most
horrifically, every other black man lynched in this country. Her act in
so many words said, "White America, you were right about them nigger men."
Nat Turner
Fresh Air Cab Co
--
Michael Zarlenga
holman (aholman...@cudenver.edu) wrote:
: > When i attended high school in buffalo ny i had a friend named Dave,
: >he was extreamly smart, articulate, and driven. grant it his dress, walk,
: >talk ect. were not the STERIOTYPICAL way an african american would dress,
: >walk..
: Why do racists always put 'articulate' before African American
: like its an oxymoron? Kinda puts you in mind of 'qualified'
: minorities. Sigh.
They don't, but racists THINK they do.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
holman
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>holman (aholman...@cudenver.edu) wrote:
>: > When i attended high school in buffalo ny i had a friend named Dave,
>: >he was extreamly smart, articulate, and driven. grant it his dress, walk,
>: >talk ect. were not the STERIOTYPICAL way an african american would dress,
>: >walk..
>
>: Why do racists always put 'articulate' before African American
>: like its an oxymoron? Kinda puts you in mind of 'qualified'
>: minorities. Sigh.
>
>They don't, but racists THINK they do.
>
Sigh. Here we go again. Another one who attempts to
lessen the burden of white racism by accusing African
Americans who resist their BS as racist. You'd think
that somewhere, some how they would at least get a new
tune. It is soooo tiresome. And so are they.
alice
Kaiju
trio...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
> What is so scary about the attitude of many balck americans (not all,
>mabye not even a majority). is how if a black man/women does not fit their
>measure of being BLACK they are a sellout.
> When i attended high school in buffalo ny i had a friend named Dave,
>he was extreamly smart, articulate, and driven. grant it his dress, walk,
>talk ect. were not the STERIOTYPICAL way an african american would dress,
>walk..
> For this he was called a sellout by a good portion of hte black
>studant body, some of whom lived in a much more middle/uperclass
>neiborhood then my friend. so much my people (whites) are told we should
>not assume anything by the way a man presents himself, it does not mean he
>is a criminal or a doctor.
> what the african american community is doing is isolating itself from
>its successful members.
GMAB. That guy probably was a sellout.
The majority of Black Americans are middle class and above in income and
socialization. To denigrate a "successful" Black is to denigrate ourselves.
Spare me these little bigots with their snide, sly patronizingly stupid
observations.
Kaiju
Soupy Sales
Ha...@raven.cybercom.com (Peregrin) wrote:
> In short, if you have a point make it. Your attacks make you look like
>a fool...and a rude one at that!
>>
>>Cyndi Bakke
>>
> You know, they keep trying to say we conservative men are
>threatened by strong intelligent women..[sic]
>
> How is it then that between Cyndi here, and Jill, and Eleanor. [sic] I
>couldn't feel more prouder [sic].. [sic] They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and always
>on mark [sic].. [sic] I've yet to see either of them stumped, or backed up...They beat
>hell outta these liberals on a regular basis.
>
> Gee!! Hold me back...I just might vote for Christie AGAIN!
>
> How can this be?..What's wrong with my "conservative" small
>mindedness, my inherent fear of powerful women?
Why, Peregrin, there's no need to worry. You're conservative
small-mindedness and inherent fear of powerful women is on bright and
shiny display, for everyone to see. You sound like someone who expects
to be toasted with champagne because he didn't belch after dinner.
You've barely managed to claw your way up from blind prejudice to the
banal realization that women have minds, too. We're all very proud of
you, and in fact, we couldn't be more prouder if you learned how the
form the English comparative adjective.
> Oh BTW...Hillary is little more then a sleaze...Not to mention, a
>shameless liar..Just thought I'd throw that in, lest some one
>missinterpret my political leanings.
Thanks for the confirmation, but I'd be surprised if anyone imagined
that you could have thought your way out of the "liberal" vs.
"conservative"; "Democrat" vs. "Republican" conceptual straightjacket
the talking heads wrapped you in. This may hurt a bit, but it's in
your own best interest, Sparky. No one -- liberal or conservative or
Democrat or Republican or socialist or libertarian or atheist or
devout -- cares in the slightest what you think or who you vote for,
because everything you say and feel has already been said better and
felt more strongly by millions of other people. I assume you picked
your nom-de-plume with reference to the soaring grace and merciless
huntsmanship of the glorious falcon, but it fits you only because both
you and the bird are about as dimwitted as is compatable with
maintaining a heartbeat. Now I'm sure your mother loves you, 'cause
that's what mothers do. So the next time you feel the urge to share
your mighty insights into complex questions of social policy, why
don't you write them on a napkin and give them to your mother. I bet
she'll wait till you're out of the room before she tosses it into the
trashcan. And if you puff out your chest and announce to her how
highly you think of the girls, why she might even pat you on your
thick "conservative" head. The rest of us, however, have real lives to
lead and actual thoughts to think.
> Keep it up girls....The reward is on it's [sic] way, [sic] I'm sure you see it
>on the horizon. It's gonna be more fun then you can imagine watching this
>pkunzip of Clinton, and now the house dems...And just wait till his
>friends, [sic] and the press bail on him.. [sic] This is too good!
>
The only annoying thing about a potential Clinton fall from grace
(which will happen, Peregrin, only if the bond markets start to fall),
is that it will put a gap-toothed grin on your ugly mug. Lucky for me
that's not enough to mitigate my detestation of that right-wing chief
executive and his corporate sleaze-mate.
Cyndi, with friends like this guy, you don't need enemies.
Soupy Sales
Man-About-Town
Mad-About-Town
Masterful Clown
Paul H. Henry
> In article <ppc-120197...@news.sfo.com> p...@sfo.com (P. Kropotkin):
> >
> >The poor victim of the liberal/feminist/wicca cabal does, nonetheless,
> >have a life time appointment to the "negro" seat on the Supreme Court via
> >affirmative action, GOP/Nixon style.
>
> In spite of the protestations of the National Organization of Liberal
> Women to the contrary, yes he's there alrighty. Also, we now prefer
> not to call it the "negro seat" but rather the "conservative seat"
> because, being conservatives, we don't think of people in terms of
> skin color first as liberals (and you just proved it again) do.
Hmm. I wonder why conservative George Bush thought of that seat in terms
of color, then. Besides, poor Thurgood Marshall is probably turning in his
grave at the thought of his seat becoming the "conservative seat."
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || Okay, folks. Show's over. Nothing
|_) || to see here. Move along.
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.||"I'm a hoochie-coochie man!" --Muddy Waters
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
kenfran
idleeric wrote:
>
> Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> >
> > xona wrote:
> > >
> > > ttmit...@msn.com wrote:
> > >
> > > : Uncle Tom had more personal dignity than Clarence thomas. I find it
> > > : incredible that it's taken this long for him to make some kind of
> > > : overture to black people, [snip]
> > >
> > > prosperes in the white man's world and avoids the black community
> > > except went to do otherwise is in his own best interest. He perfers
> > > white woman to black except for sexual harassment, when the white
> > > racist subconscience essence of his personality lashes out at them.
> > >
> > > xona
> >
> > I am curious. What do you think of black conservatives in general?
> > What do you think of African Americans who have chosen to adopt the
> > general middle class values of traditional America and live in
> > communities that are not located in the inner cities; communities that
> > have good schools in which they might raise their children to be
> > educated, articulate, and productive citizens. What about JC Watts (one
> > of my personal heroes), what do you think of him?
> >
> > Cyndi Bakke
>
Bakke---where have I heard that name? Might you be related to the poor
underpriviledged white engineer that sued because he was being
discriminated against in applying for medical school? Personally making
sure that a lot of Black people didn't get the chance for an education
so they could get a chance to live that middle-class life you extole?
Well, maybe not. Just because your name is the same and you spout the
same garbage doesn't prove anything.
REINALDO SCHUMANN
In article <5bhfj7$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> xona <xo...@primenet.com> writes:
>From: xona <xo...@primenet.com>
>Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas <-> O.J. Simpson
>Date: 14 Jan 1997 19:32:07 -0700
>Two black men who perfer the white world and it's woman to their own.
>One articulate, one semi-illiterate and both mornons.
"To their own" I presume you mean Black women. And i presume you consider
such "preference" (assuming it actually exists for these two men) a *bad*
thing.
1.) IS it because a white woman would have nothing or less to offer a black
man?
2.) IS this solely due the color of their skin, that these women are *less?*
The preceding sentence has often been uttered by good 'ol fashioned
rascists, klan members ect. So, xona, at least, you're not *alone* in your
thinking!