Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas

**leejo** · 09-29-2007, 03:39 PM

John Edwards: 'Pretty Soon We’re Not Going to Have a Young African-American Male Population in America.'

Justice Clarence Thomas (from a WaPo article today): "As a child in the Deep South, I'd grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I'd been afraid of the wrong white people all along," he writes. "My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony."

When I was a kid I thought liberals were more minority-friendly because we focused more on racial issues. As an adult, I find the democratic position on many racial issues patronizing and wrong, and the republican position respectful and more correct. But the popular narrative is persistent: republicans are bigots. Democrats get more cache out of attending a black church shortly before an election than republicans get by nominating black justices to the supreme court, secretary of state, NSA, and so on. It's weird to me.

Anyway, these two quotes hit the news in the last 24 hours and they seem to speak to this issue.

Evo<^|SiNz|^> · 09-29-2007, 06:11 PM

Just do a YouTube search for Hillary Clinton if you want to see pandering you're talking about. It's embarrassing to watch.

Really, I think politicians in general, regardless of party, come off as pandering and contrived when they try to appeal to ANY group that they obviously have had no other affiliation in their life with, other than political support/fundraising. For example, unions, women and minority groups, etc... I'm not saying they don't really care about issues they're not directly involved in, but candidates often sound disingenuous when they try to overdo it trying to sound like they care.

**TheFeniX** · 09-30-2007, 06:15 PM

This justice is more afraid of patronizing idiots than racist rednecks that want him dead? Tough guy.

For the record: "minorities" are not just limited to racial characteristics. Homosexuals are a minority and Republicans do tend to be pretty bigoted against them.

**leejo** · 09-30-2007, 07:02 PM

Forgive me for taking his words as more authoritative on just about any subject, but certainly racism, than yours.

How are republicans bigoted against homosexuals? Because they oppose radical change to law and a staggering expansion of the 14th amendment beyond what anyone might imagine the states and federal legislature contemplated when they passed it?

Two paragraphs, two name-calling. GG dude.

**CingularDuality** · 09-30-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

How are republicans bigoted against homosexuals?

LOL!! C'mon, man...

**leejo** · 09-30-2007, 07:13 PM

The way democrats are bigoted against blacks because Bird was in the KKK? Oh wait, they get a free pass on that and aren't judged en masse by his history.

There are some elements of the evangelical Christian coalition who consider homosexuality anathema, just as there are vast numbers of Methodists and Episcopalians who wish to elect homosexuals as bishops. Do you really wish to paint with she same wide brush that Edwards used when he said black males are about to wind up dead or in jail (when in fact more are in college)?

There is the narrative and there is the reality. You're a smart guy. Pick one.

**TheFeniX** · 09-30-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

How are republicans bigoted against homosexuals? Because they oppose radical change to law and a staggering expansion of the 14th amendment beyond what anyone might imagine the states and federal legislature contemplated when they passed it?

I don't recall any Democrats fighting to have a Gay Marriage ban written into the Constitution.

**leejo** · 09-30-2007, 07:35 PM

Of course you don't. You probably don't remember the defense of marriage act either, or who signed it.

**[tR]Greasy_mullet** · 10-01-2007, 12:28 AM

This is not about how unnatural homosexuality is or if marriage should be raped and thrown to the wayside to a meaningless status to attempt to justify and make accepted an un natural lifestyle?

Thomas is right on the money. It is the Liberals who are the real racists. Black or white, they are the ones who keep minorities down.

**CingularDuality** · 10-01-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

The way democrats are bigoted against blacks because Bird was in the KKK? Oh wait, they get a free pass on that and aren't judged en masse by his history.

There are some elements of the evangelical Christian coalition who consider homosexuality anathema, just as there are vast numbers of Methodists and Episcopalians who wish to elect homosexuals as bishops. Do you really wish to paint with she same wide brush that Edwards used when he said black males are about to wind up dead or in jail (when in fact more are in college)?

There is the narrative and there is the reality. You're a smart guy. Pick one.

I'm not talking about political rhetoric or ancient history. I'm talking about current legislation. And while individual politicians might vote in a particular way, it's clear that, under the guise of "family values", Republicans are against homosexuals while Democrats tend to be more supportive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [tR]Greasy_mullet

This is not about how unnatural homosexuality is or if marriage should be raped and thrown to the wayside to a meaningless status to attempt to justify and make accepted an un natural lifestyle?

I despise the fact that people use the term "unnatural lifestyle". What is natural? That which occurs in nature? Can you name a single mammal on this Earth that doesn't engage in homosexual sex? (I'm sure there are plenty that haven't been documented, but I want to know if you can name ONE of them...)

**leejo** · 10-01-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

it's clear that, under the guise of "family values", Republicans are against homosexuals while Democrats tend to be more supportive.

No that's your opinion. It's NOT clear that Democrats have ever done jack for homosexuals, at least not on a national level, though they have certainly used homosexuals to their advantage on that stage. And I don't know that Republicans are "against" homosexuals. Do Democrats hate the military? If you're going to paint the entire party with a broad brush because of a radical special interest group on the one hand, be sure to do the same on the other.

Other than whine about republicans, what have democrats done for homosexuals?

**CingularDuality** · 10-01-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

No that's your opinion. It's NOT clear that Democrats have ever done jack for homosexuals, at least not on a national level, though they have certainly used homosexuals to their advantage on that stage.

Of course it's my opinion. And I never said that Democrats have done squat for anyone. But I bet if I really cared about this, that I could find more evidence to defend my position than you could to defend the Republicans!

Kerostasis · 10-01-2007, 05:41 PM

See, Democrats are the party of "caring". They care more than you on every issue that could possibly be important. But it's not really fair to ask them to actually do anything about your issues. You should just be happy that they care. If you wanted action, you should have been a Republican.

**leejo** · 10-01-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Of course it's my opinion. And I never said that Democrats have done squat for anyone. But I bet if I really cared about this, that I could find more evidence to defend my position than you could to defend the Republicans!

Uh huh. Well that's a pretty intellectually lazy position. Insult an entire group then can't be bothered to dig up evidence to support your position. Fine.

But completely typical. Republicans don't like black people. Republicans hate gays, women, jews, etc. Name a minority Republicans like.

And yet, who is most likely to abandon Israel? Why would Bob Geldof say "You'll think I'm off my trolley, but Bush has the most positive approach to Africa since Kennedy' (and contrariwise, say "Clinton was a good guy, but he did f*** all.")

Etc. It's a lot easier to hurl a name than to understand a policy difference. That's fine.

Have you noticed all the attention Edwards's comments have gotten? The uproar? Of course not. He gets a free pass because he cares. Imagine if an R had said the same thing.

Steeler · 10-01-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

And yet, who is most likely to abandon Israel?

Minor point, and then you can get back to the awesomeness of this thread:
Israel ≠ Judaism.

09-29-2007, 03:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,690	Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas John Edwards: 'Pretty Soon We’re Not Going to Have a Young African-American Male Population in America.' Justice Clarence Thomas (from a WaPo article today): "As a child in the Deep South, I'd grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I'd been afraid of the wrong white people all along," he writes. "My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony." When I was a kid I thought liberals were more minority-friendly because we focused more on racial issues. As an adult, I find the democratic position on many racial issues patronizing and wrong, and the republican position respectful and more correct. But the popular narrative is persistent: republicans are bigots. Democrats get more cache out of attending a black church shortly before an election than republicans get by nominating black justices to the supreme court, secretary of state, NSA, and so on. It's weird to me. Anyway, these two quotes hit the news in the last 24 hours and they seem to speak to this issue.

09-29-2007, 06:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Evo<^\|SiNz\|^> Join Date: May 2006 Location: Alexandria, VA Age: 27 Posts: 1,165	Re: Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas Just do a YouTube search for Hillary Clinton if you want to see pandering you're talking about. It's embarrassing to watch. Really, I think politicians in general, regardless of party, come off as pandering and contrived when they try to appeal to ANY group that they obviously have had no other affiliation in their life with, other than political support/fundraising. For example, unions, women and minority groups, etc... I'm not saying they don't really care about issues they're not directly involved in, but candidates often sound disingenuous when they try to overdo it trying to sound like they care. __________________ "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - Attributed to General George Patton, Jr.

09-30-2007, 06:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
TheFeniX Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 26 Posts: 4,475	Re: Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas This justice is more afraid of patronizing idiots than racist rednecks that want him dead? Tough guy. For the record: "minorities" are not just limited to racial characteristics. Homosexuals are a minority and Republicans do tend to be pretty bigoted against them. __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TheFeniX's Steam Profile TG's Team Fortress 2 Steam Group

09-30-2007, 07:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,690	Re: Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas Forgive me for taking his words as more authoritative on just about any subject, but certainly racism, than yours. How are republicans bigoted against homosexuals? Because they oppose radical change to law and a staggering expansion of the 14th amendment beyond what anyone might imagine the states and federal legislature contemplated when they passed it? Two paragraphs, two name-calling. GG dude.

09-30-2007, 07:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,690	Re: Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas The way democrats are bigoted against blacks because Bird was in the KKK? Oh wait, they get a free pass on that and aren't judged en masse by his history. There are some elements of the evangelical Christian coalition who consider homosexuality anathema, just as there are vast numbers of Methodists and Episcopalians who wish to elect homosexuals as bishops. Do you really wish to paint with she same wide brush that Edwards used when he said black males are about to wind up dead or in jail (when in fact more are in college)? There is the narrative and there is the reality. You're a smart guy. Pick one.

09-30-2007, 07:35 PM	#8 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,690	Re: Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas Of course you don't. You probably don't remember the defense of marriage act either, or who signed it.

10-01-2007, 12:28 AM	#9 (permalink)
[tR]Greasy_mullet Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tennessee Age: 29 Posts: 674	Re: Interestin Juxtaposition: Edwards v. Thomas This is not about how unnatural homosexuality is or if marriage should be raped and thrown to the wayside to a meaningless status to attempt to justify and make accepted an un natural lifestyle? Thomas is right on the money. It is the Liberals who are the real racists. Black or white, they are the ones who keep minorities down.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links