The one who may not have gotten his seat at all if it wasn’t for progress, blasts progress.
Clarence “Steven Candie” Thomas, raper of Anita Hill…
This black man did not just oppose progressivism.
Fuck you, ungrateful sellout. Remind that bastard how he came far took a lot of blood before him. Specifically the Civil Rights Act.
The asswipe fails to realize the progressives are the ones who allowed women and minorities to occupy a SCOTUS seat.
And for those groups to intermingle. Virtually no aspect of his life would’ve been if it were up to conservatives.
“Progressivism hurts my deals with rich billionaires who bribe me” -Clarence Thomas… probably
Sustained.
Fuck you Clarence Thomas.
And your bulldog wife, too.
Remember Anita Hill.
Someone should blast Clarence Thomas for being an actual threat to America
…in Minecraft
there’s no need to specify minecraft. if the news outlet can describe criticism as “blasting” then so can you.
Can’t he just take his RV quietly into the night!?
And not continue to take out his hate against everyone not a white, wealthy, Republican!?
Okay! Let’s turn back the time to where he would have been a slave.
I think every American who comes across this article should read the whole thing. It’s not long, and any reasonable person with a high school education will see he’s talking nonsense.
Here are a few choice quotes and responses
Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government
Our form of government’s most basic premise is that it changes if people vote to change it. They can literally change everything about it.
A spirit of “cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus” toward America – by Americans – has taken hold, Thomas said in remarks carried live on CSPAN.
The founding fathers literally started a war of rebellion against their government. That’s what that Declaration of Independence that Thomas mentioned was all about.
He said that the values enshrined in the 1776 Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor” among Americans – a trend perpetrated, he argued, by “intellectuals” and the nation’s colleges and universities.
Those values aren’t “enshrined”. They’re not even backed by the laws that our founding fathers ratified.
Thomas called on Americans to stand up for their principles and endure personal “sacrifices,” if necessary, to preserve the nation’s democracy.
“In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs,” he said.
Those people, with that document, started a war of rebellion against their government. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to rid themselves of tyranny. How can Thomas reference this and come to the exact opposite conclusion?
And to “preserve our democracy” can only mean one thing. To ensure that the will of the people becomes the law of the land without violating the Constitution or the rights given by it.
Anyone who wants to preserve our democracy has to be viciously opposed to Donald Trump, who’s been trying to oppose the will of the American people and the Constitution.
Every time an erudite conservative throws out “animus” as a negative trait, I grow another pineal gland.
The biggest violations of the constitution are in due process and illegal search from ice. Like the biggest to me in all of history really. They are not one offs but part of an executive administrations policy.
Of course, it’s completely subjective what is the biggest violation. The constitution itself doesn’t really make any distinction between which violation is worse, unless I am misremembering something.
If you’re offended by a lack of due process and racism and that sort of thing, you might also find the Internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 similarly offensive. 2/3 of them were US citizens whose only “crime” was being ethnically Japanese. Or the infamous Trail of Tears.
Thomas also said he believes many people no longer believe “all men are created equal” and deserving of “unalienable rights” protected by a limited government.
No, progressives actually believe we are all equal and that we possess inalienable rights. He’s saying that we believe rights come from the government, but no, we believe the government must be forced to acknowledge and enforce our rights and to never treat certain groups as lesser.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It’s wild that he’s referencing this document in opposition to those seeking to alter or abolish their government - believing it has become destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - in order to make it more likely to effect their safety and happiness. Progressives are acting in the spirit of those values which saw the American revolution take place by acting perfectly in line with what the Declaration of Independence clearly states is our right.
Progressives are acting in the spirit of those values which saw the American revolution take place by acting perfectly in line with what the Declaration of Independence clearly states is our right.
Eh, acting in line with the Declaration of Independence would require most of Congress to be hanged from the nearest tree or put on a boat to England.
Yo, what the fuck?
We bear no responsibility for your current crop of shitheels. You collectively put them in power, they’re your problem. We have enough self-fellating fuckwits of our own to be going on with, thanks very much.
Sorry man/woman/person dem are da rules. It’s what the Founding Fathers intended.
Someone should blast his face with a chocolate pie.
That face says “it’s my turn now.”
“[Progressivism] holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,” he said.
Because it’s unequivocally true. Even if you believe your rights originate from God, unless or until God comes down and forms a state capable of enforcing those rights, they’re meaningless.
“It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.”
What a stupid thing to say. He’s the one advocating for subservience, that is subservience to the supposed God who is supposedly the originator of our supposed rights.
That being said, I agree that we should not be subservient to the government. The government should be subservient to we, the people.
"[O]ur rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,” he said.
Hmm.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Ephesians 6:5
…and…
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Colossians 3:22
Is that the God you want to derive your rights from, Clarence?
He’s such a slimy snake…
Rights don’t come from government or god. The USA based their form of government on the idea of “natural rights.” These rights are inherent in human beings. They are the default.
We give the government the power to restrict those rights in order for everyone to get along and thrive. The government does not grant rights. We let the government restrict or strip those rights under certain circumstances.
I’ve never heard of progressivism denying natural rights.
He’s trying to put religion above the State. The State, in a democracy, is the people. Fucker wants a theocracy.
I don’t see any material difference between divine rights and “natural” rights. Both seem to be supernatural or metaphysical, to me, so I don’t think it matters if you believe that these rights come from a god or something else. Either way they are meaningless without some means of enforcement.
You can certainly say that you have rights and that those rights emanate from some inherent part of your human being, but without a means of enforcement, it’s immaterial.
It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.
And it’s the foundation for most, if not all, liberal democracies.
Just like the divine right of kings was the foundation of most if not all medieval monarchies. You’re really not defending your case here.
It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.
What’s the difference?
And it’s the foundation for most, if not all, liberal democracies.
I’m aware. That doesn’t mean it’s above reproach or critical examination/reexamination.
Philosophy can be tested, it is an evolving system of methods used to think.
The supernatural is a set of (false) claims about reality. Bigfoot exists and magic god says we should do stuff.
Philosophy can be tested
Like, through repeatable experimentation and observation and study of natural phenomena?
Some branches of philosophy, yes. I think that your best defense would be to claim that there are metaphysical aspects of philosophy. We use metaphysics as a shortcut, even in pholosophy. I am a materialist, so I dont really think that anything can be “immaterial” or “metaphysical”. Anything we have identified as immaterial has just not been adequately defined.
It’s not supernatural, it’s philosophical.
What’s the difference?
Are you serious? Honestly, you’re not worth talking to if you have to ask that.
This coming from one of the jerks who wrote the tenth amendment out of the constitution is the rankest hypocrisy ever.
I wish I could kill God in front of these mother fuckers to show them that the old ways are dead. The only thing we know for certain is that we are here together and better work it out - anti-progressiveness is radically against the people and should be put down with extreme prejudice because it is so wholly toxic to all life on the planet.
A black man, repeat, BLACK MAN, is saying that progresivism is bad?
Does this idiot even know that the reason why he can have that job is because progresivism gave black people rights?
Fuck! We keep seeing studies linking low intellect with conservatism and we keep seeing imbeciles willing to prove them right…
Look into his past, he was against interracial marriage until his own.
“Fuck you, got mine”
He has that job because he was purchased long ago.
He was a former Monsanto lawyer who never recused himself from any case involving them and always ruled in their favor.
