What's Mallard raving about today?
Clarence Thomas, Liberals.
This is one of my favorite Mallard themes, that there is something hypocritical about Liberal opposition to certain Black people, such as our unqualified Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.
The implicit baseline assumption, of course, is that Straw Liberal is unable to form an opinion based on a set of criteria more complicated than a skin color equation which boils down to Black = good. A claim which is, of course, completely undermined by the mere admission that Liberals oppose Justice Thomas.
By contrast, this theme tells us oceans about how Mallard's forms his own opinions.
11 comments:
Clarence Thomas cheapened himself. Liberals don't buy a "woe is me" tale when it comes from somebody who attempts to make themselves appear as trampled on as possible.
I think someone once put it best when they said "you still have to earn the degree" with regards to affirmative action. Yes, being black might boost your chances of getting into a school with affirmative action. It will not, however, actually earn you a degree. That will be obtained by filling out tests that don't give a damn if you're black or white or red or purple or green or blue.
Victimizing yourself only goes so far when you're counting on the ignorant to feel sorry for you. Sort of like the conservative at my uni who cried out that people who were leaving the country because they disagreed with it's politics were traitors, that people such as himself struggled long and hard to immigrate to this great country... from Puerto Rico.
It was funny when someone broke the news to him that you can't immigrate to the country you're already from.
Hey, yet another disgusting sexual harasser Bruce Tinsley admires. Dog and fleas, Tin-Tin.
Thomas is just another putz who savored the benefits of liberalism even as he pissed on it; natch, the moment he got his, he was more than ready to knock it down for everyone else. (Just like Arianna Huffington's anti-gay and anti-immigration stance back when she was a neocon puppet married to a gay man for a green card, and just like cowardly chickenhawk George W. Bush sending National Guard units into combat in the Iraq quagmire after hiding safe at home in one during the Vietnam quagmire.)
This is what I gleaned from today's strip: "It's amazing how libruls react when they find out what they think would be an encouraging story of hope is instead the whiny screed of a contemptible toadie, lol amirite redstaters?"
What about 'I want people to see me reading it!'?
Gag me. LIBRULS R HIPOCRITZ!!11!!
If you've ever read any of Justice Thomas's opinions (such as his dissent in the Kelo case) you'd be less likely to dismiss him as "unqualified." (Not that any of you actually read or can understand a Supreme Court opinion.) Feel free to disagree with him, but he is not "unqualified" simply because you disagree with him. Try reading a few Supreme Court decisions in cases where there have been split decisions from several different justices. You might enjoy thinking for yourself!
Dear Anonymous (10:51 AM): I love it when some blowhard comes along to inform us that we don't know what we're talking about.
Sunday's article.
Now...you were saying something smart, you sniveling limpdick troll?
Hey anonymous, thanks for playing! I love that you tell us to think for ourselves when the man you're championing is basically Justice Scalia's lapdog.
What's that?
It's about a bastard German child that didn't amount to much in life, even dropping out of school, but managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps to become a national hero!
Wow! I want to read it!
It's "Mein Kampf".
Oh... Never mind.
Ha! He only supports the "right type" of Germans! What a bigot the modern liberal is.
BWD, I see nothing in that article about his being unqualified. This seems to prove anons point, and your personal attack just seems to strengthen his position.
Rev: When it comes to personal attacks, snotty lines like "not that any of you actually read or can understand a Supreme Court opinion," and "you might enjoy thinking for yourself!" qualify as "asking for it."
I've always been curious as to how tossing insults back in some mouthy asshole troll's face "strengthens his position." And I'm forever amused how whiny such little shits get when they get a serving of their own pudding.
As for Thomas' qualifications: the point of linking the article was to illustrate that while Thomas loves serving the wealthy and powerful, he does not represent the interests of the average American--let alone the ones who need representation most. (And before it comes up: yes, even prisoners are entitled to representation. We're not completely transformed into a new version of the Soviet Union yet.)
Thomas may be qualified on an educational level, but fails the character test miserably. That's strictly a matter of opinion--but welcome to the world. His opinions are proof of his qualities. And his qualities suck.
Don't you just love people who like to tell you how stupid you are and post under the name "Anonymous"?
So, "Anonymous" -- if Clarence is such a brilliant legal mind, why is he unable to speak for himself? 281 words in 3 years of oral arguments?! Hasn't asked ANY questions since February 2006? Sounds to me like someone who either (a) has already made up his mind and isn't listening, or (b) doesn't need to listen because someone else <*cough* Scalia *cough*> will tell him how to vote.
As you said, try reading.
Post a Comment