PDA

View Full Version : Why Liberals Hate Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin



Sev
03-28-2011, 08:54 AM
Star nails it!!

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparke...and_sarah_palin (http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/03/28/why_liberals_hate_clarence_thomas_and_sarah_palin)
Star Parker

<span style="color: #000000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Why Liberals Hate Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin</span>

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Political/columnistsstarparker.gif

In days when slavery was legal in this country, all slaves did not willingly resign to the grim fate cast upon them.

The human spirit longs to be free. In some individuals, that longing beats so strong in their breast that they will take large personal risks, against great odds, to rebel against tyranny that has transformed their life into a tool for someone else’s will and whim.

Slaves who had the temerity to run away from their plantation “home” paid dearly if they were caught and returned. Measures were taken to make them an example to others who might harbor similar thoughts about freedom.

Among those measures were brutal public beatings of rebels to which other slaves were forced to bear witness and digest with great clarity the price of rebelliousness.

Such is the fate today of those uppity souls who choose to challenge the authority and legitimacy of our inexorably growing government plantation.

Those with interests for the care and feeding of this plantation cannot physically punish these rebels with the whip.

Their whip is the mainstream media and the means of punishment of this virtual whip is not beating of a physical body but assassination of character.

This perspective helps us understand the ongoing liberal obsession with destroying Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Thomas and Palin are particularly threatening to liberals because their lives fly in the face of liberal mythology. According to this mythology, the essential and ongoing struggle in our nation is a power struggle of interests between “haves” and “have-nots” rather than an ongoing struggle for human freedom.

According to this mythology, there is an elite class of “haves” who, by virtue of fate and birth, control power and wealth. They are conservative because their only interest is to keep things as they are.

Fighting against this conservative elite are noble “have-nots”, struggling, by any means possible, to get their fair share and against wealth distributed by an unjust and blind fate.

A high profile conservative, whose very life and personal history poses an open challenge and affront to this mythology, is a liberal’s worst nightmare.

If being a conservative means simply protecting the bounty passed on to you by your forebears, why would a man from a poor black family in the south, or a woman from a white working class family in Alaska, be a conservative? No less a conservative whose conservatism plays a role in a successful professional life?

The liberal answer is that the only way this could be possible is that this is an individual of dubious character, on the take, and being paid off handsomely by conservative powers that be.

After all, in the liberal mindset, the government plantation, carefully grown and nurtured by liberals over these years, supposedly on behalf of our unfortunate “have-nots”, should be the natural home for anyone of modest background and no inheritance.

Not only should that individual want to live on the plantation, but you’d think they would want to participate in the noble cause of keeping it growing.

The federal government plantation now sucks out one quarter of our economy. Seventy percent of federal spending now amounts to checks government cuts and mails to individuals.

Where does it all lead? Look at Detroit. This is a government plantation poster child and portent of our nation’s future if this keeps up.

The human spirit does long to be free. Many understand this but are intimidated to speak up. Some are brave and do speak up.

Those who are successful, who know there is no future on the plantation, will be publicly flogged by the overseers. Such is the case of Justice Thomas and Mrs. Palin.

But it is brave individuals like this, in public and private life, upon whom our future depends. </span>

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 11:34 AM
No, Star hits her thumb with the hammer!

It is ludicrous to shoe-horn in Sarah Palin with Clarence Thomas on some race card argument. It's particularly ridiculous with regard to Palin and Alaska, because Palin's popularity there stemmed from jacking up the state take from its oil production, and directly writing $3,000 dollar checks to each and every citizen from the 'socialistic' take from the state's ownership rights of that oil. THAT'S what got her to her high job approval rating-- substantially INCREASING the 'socialist' subsidy of the state to EVERYONE, via what might otherwise be called the 'punitive' taking of what really belonged to the 'producers' of society, i.e., the oil companies and their rich executives.

Which liberals like, actually-- it is the conservatives who supposedly oppose the state's taking of private income to redistribute it out communist style to the people.

The problem with Clarence Thomas is exactly that he is wholly a product of affirmative action, and yet having ascended that ladder, he now wants to pull it up and refuse others the leg up he received, over and over again.

He knows he's a fraud, and his bitterness and shame have created a nasty frame of mind. He's the most cruel of all members of the high court in his opinions, and a complete statist and corporatist in his rulings as he tags along with his mini-me to Scalia.

LWW
03-28-2011, 12:12 PM
What a pant load that was.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:21 PM
Yes he is, you are right.

LWW
03-28-2011, 12:24 PM
This time he's a she.

But, the welfare state as the modern plantation is very appropriate.

Sev
03-28-2011, 12:31 PM
You do know Star was a victim of dependency that the welfare state fosters?

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do know Star was a victim of dependency that the welfare state fosters? </div></div>

Right, which appears to have skewed her opinions, don't you agree?

How is the state of Alaska paying everyone in the state several thousands of dollars a year, jacked up by Sarah Palin by at least 50% and probably more, NOT creating victims of dependency on a welfare state?

Star doesn't seem to understand her material in this respect.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This time he's a she.

But, the welfare state as the modern plantation is very appropriate. </div></div>

I meant Clarence Thomas, of course.

LWW
03-28-2011, 01:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do know Star was a victim of dependency that the welfare state fosters? </div></div>

Why would you expect the far left to listen to anyone who has "walked the walk" when the have all the poverty pimps who can "talk the talk" to tell them about who be oppressing who in da hood.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 06:48 PM
Her whole position suffers from a major problem: there are countless conservatives who have risen from humble beginnings, and yet they are not generally given the Palin/Thomas treatment, even though their history belies the class warfare angle whose disruption by such examples, Parker claims, is the reason for attacks on Palin and Thomas.

It's not generally true, and it's not specifically true in the two cases she cobbles together, either.

The welfare state system Parker grew up in substantially ended as of Clinton's signing the (third and modified) welfare reform bill authored by the GOP-majority Congress, in the runup to his '96 election. Try to get up to speed, Parker-- it ended 15 years ago. So things are great now, or should be, if she had been right. They're not, and she's wasn't.

Parker appears to blame her own past bad behaviors on the welfare state, when it was her own bad character. 4 abortions instead of responsible use of birth control? Assorted crimes like burglaries?

Now she's against all abortions AND all birth control? Makes no sense.

Sev
03-28-2011, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Her whole position suffers from a major problem: there are countless conservatives who have risen from humble beginnings, and yet they are not generally given the Palin/Thomas treatment, even though their history belies the class warfare angle whose disruption by such examples, Parker claims, is the reason for attacks on Palin and Thomas.

It's not generally true, and it's not specifically true in the two cases she cobbles together, either.

The welfare state system Parker grew up in substantially ended as of Clinton's signing the (third and modified) welfare reform bill authored by the GOP-majority Congress, in the runup to his '96 election. Try to get up to speed, Parker-- it ended 15 years ago. So things are great now, or should be, if she had been right. They're not, and she's wasn't.

</div></div>

They are not given that treatment because they are not conservatives in the public eye.

The Welfare substantially ended with Clinton??? Really???
Its still frigging disaster no matter who signed the bills into law. The dependence on the government in this country is in overdrive.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 07:11 PM
Yes, really.

The TANF law explained (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/law-reg/finalrule/aspesum.htm)

All entitlement to permanent welfare is ended. 60 months on it (somewhat less than a lifetime, and less than getting two children to age 5), whether in one stretch or over several stretches, ends the eligibility for the subsidy forever. Those receiving it <u>must generally work</u> to remain eligible. Etc.

Her claims about how much goes to supposed slackers refers to retired people on SS that they and their employers paid into, and retired people on Medicare, which they and their employers paid into. Dependency? Yes, but on lawful old-age safety net programs that only take place when the person is too old to really work.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Her whole position suffers from a major problem: there are countless conservatives who have risen from humble beginnings, and yet they are not generally given the Palin/Thomas treatment, even though their history belies the class warfare angle whose disruption by such examples, Parker claims, is the reason for attacks on Palin and Thomas.

It's not generally true, and it's not specifically true in the two cases she cobbles together, either.

The welfare state system Parker grew up in substantially ended as of Clinton's signing the (third and modified) welfare reform bill authored by the GOP-majority Congress, in the runup to his '96 election. Try to get up to speed, Parker-- it ended 15 years ago. So things are great now, or should be, if she had been right. They're not, and she's wasn't.

Parker appears to blame her own past bad behaviors on the welfare state, when it was her own bad character. 4 abortions instead of responsible use of birth control? Assorted crimes like burglaries?

Now she's against all abortions AND all birth control? Makes no sense. </div></div>

Your entire position suffers from a major defect ... it's wrong.

According to the plantation massahs ... white males who escape the plantation are supposed to.

Blacks and females ... different story. According the democrooks, blacks and women simply cannot succeed without the bayonet of the state at their back, and if they do they had better well kneel at the altar of the state lest they be striped as Powell, Rice, Bachmann, Palin, Clarence Paige, Walter Williams, JC Watt and many more have been.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The welfare state system Parker grew up in substantially ended as of Clinton's signing the (third and modified) welfare reform bill authored by the GOP-majority Congress, in the runup to his '96 election. Try to get up to speed, Parker-- it ended 15 years ago. So things are great now, or should be, if she had been right. They're not, and she's wasn't.</div></div>

Welfare reform was de facto voided with the Porkulus bill. Try to get up to speed ... the welfare state was restarted 2 years ago with a vengeance.

Soflasnapper
03-30-2011, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The welfare state system Parker grew up in substantially ended as of Clinton's signing the (third and modified) welfare reform bill authored by the GOP-majority Congress, in the runup to his '96 election. Try to get up to speed, Parker-- it ended 15 years ago. So things are great now, or should be, if she had been right. They're not, and she's wasn't.</div></div>

Welfare reform was de facto voided with the Porkulus bill. Try to get up to speed ... the welfare state was restarted 2 years ago with a vengeance. </div></div>

That was a 2-year bill, so once again, even if you are correct, it's alleged resurrection was short-lived, and we're back to the status quo ante, per the '96 passed and '97 implemented welfare reform.

LWW
03-31-2011, 03:39 AM
Do you really expect anyone to believe that if these programs aren't continued that the far left will not wail and gnash their collectivist teeth ad infinitum about the draconian and cruel and extreme cuts being proposed by these <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> conservatives?

Qtec
03-31-2011, 05:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with Clarence Thomas is exactly that he is wholly a product of affirmative action, and yet having ascended that ladder, he now wants to pull it up and refuse others the leg up he received, over and over again.

He knows he's a fraud, and his bitterness and shame have created a nasty frame of mind. He's the most cruel of all members of the high court in his opinions, and a complete statist and corporatist in his rulings as he tags along with his mini-me to Scalia. </div></div>


Bought and paid for. The reason he hasn't said a word for 5 years is that he knows he is guilty and is covering his a$$.




Q

LWW
03-31-2011, 06:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Her whole position suffers from a major problem: there are countless conservatives who have risen from humble beginnings, and yet they are not generally given the Palin/Thomas treatment</div></div>

1 - Name them.

2 - Your statement is, at the very least, an admission that the far left has and uses a slime machine against those who they feel threaten the agenda.

Stretch
03-31-2011, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Her whole position suffers from a major problem: there are countless conservatives who have risen from humble beginnings, and yet they are not generally given the Palin/Thomas treatment</div></div>

1 - Name them.

2 - Your statement is, at the very least, an admission that the far left has and uses a slime machine against those who they feel threaten the agenda. </div></div>

Proof yet again that you can read anything into anything. St.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 06:30 AM
LWW uses the same MO. When cornered, change the subject.

Q

LWW
03-31-2011, 06:37 AM
So neither of you can name them?

Imagine that.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 07:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So neither of you can name them?

Imagine that. </div></div>

Your right. Its tricky to think of a black Con.

Q

Soflasnapper
03-31-2011, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Her whole position suffers from a major problem: there are countless conservatives who have risen from humble beginnings, and yet they are not generally given the Palin/Thomas treatment</div></div>

1 - Name them.

2 - Your statement is, at the very least, an admission that the far left has and uses a slime machine against those who they feel threaten the agenda. </div></div>

I suggest that Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Scott Walker, Dr. Ron Paul, and I could go on, all are conservatives probably from humble beginnings (not entirely sure) who have not been given this 'off-the-plantation, how dare they?!?!' class warfare treatment.

They are all attacked AS CONSERVATIVES HOLDING CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS, of course, but not because they are 'supposed to' hold up their original class interests or be thought traitors to their under-class beginnings, thus dooming the plantation narratives that supposedly are the reasons for attacking Palin and Thomas.

I must admit that Parker's putting anti-Palin attacks in the same plantation narrative as have been long the case by the right as an alibi for why anyone could possibly oppose Thomas is a unique twist on the topic, but it's incorrect in my view as to either Palin or Thomas himself. It's basically a reverse race card being played.