Liberals Hate Clarence Thomas, But Can’t Tell You Why

[Guest]

Margaret Thatcher said: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Argumentation is a creature that requires one to be critically attentive; by which I mean: when trying to make a point, one must always have the sharpest blade. If one goes to cut with a dull foil, it may sting, or break the skin, but it will leave no lasting impression. It is always easy to tell when a person with whom you are arguing has run out of steam, because the attacks become less substantive, and more personal. Thus is the case with MSNBC.

MSNBC has tanked not only because they have no interest in pretending to be anything other than a Democratic mouthpiece; but because they have nothing substantive to say. Their hosts are ardently Leftist, and their guests are often loons. When I watch MSNBC—more often than not for comic relief–the more I feel like I’ve been drugged, and transported to Russia, circa 1980. It’s Pravda. They will accept anything a guest says, so long as it fits within the architecture the Left has built for them.

Speaking to that, on a recent Martin Bashir, guest Michael Eric Dyson was monologuing about the so-called tragedy regarding the nullifying of part of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. First, he began with some old news, mixed with a healthy dose of grudge holding:

“States rights has often been a symbolic representation of the desire of the southern states of this country—which, but the way, tried to leave this nation during the civil war; and have committed treasonous and treacherous activities ever since against the best interest of democracy. We are now expected to believe that we should trust them to police themselves…”

So, what Dyson is arguing is that because some southern states waged war on the north (over 150 years ago), and because the south remained a shadow as the rest of the nation progressed (that being said, this is 2013, not 1950), we cannot trust them to police themselves in regard to voting laws. Evoking long past events that are arguably no longer relevant in modern society in order to argue a point is more than a bit weak, Mr. Dyson.

Secondly, notice how Dyson never finishes his first point. He interrupts himself (intentionally) so that he doesn’t have to finish his sentence. This is a tactic used frequently in faulty argumentation to get a preposterous point across without actually having said it on record. Excuse me, Mr. Dyson: “States rights has often been a symbolic representation of the desire of the southern states of this country…” to what? Enact racist policies? Voter suppression? Racial dog whistle? Blah blah blah. It doesn’t matter; by interrupting himself, Dyson makes viewers finish his thought in the way he wanted them to.

This oh so brilliant tactic gives way to his practically ad hominem attack on the entirety of the southern United States, by way of a rehash of ancient history.

Following that, Dyson continued his vapid argument:

“Clarence Thomas’ actions here today — though consistent, though tragic to me — are even more so in light of the bulk of decisions he’s rendered in the name of a judicial vote on the Supreme Court. A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people…”

Calling up more history (isn’t he SO smart?!) to bash a black Conservative. I don’t need to say much beyond the fact that evoking Hitler is pretty much the basest form of argumentation in existence today. Attempting to tie something as gruesome as the slaughter of 6 million people to Thomas’ thoughtful decision is just lame; not to mention in terrible taste.

The fact that Dyson is a black Liberal shields him from criticism when attacking a black Conservative. So, he’s safe. It’s in the Liberal argumentation rule book—look it up. Beyond that, Dyson’s thought process is just seriously ridiculous. He stands on sinking sand, and so does MSNBC. This is quite pitiful, even for them.

The worst part about it is that there are people who actually watch this garbage, and eat it up like it’s ambrosia from the gods. But, as Thatcher said, you know you’re winning when all your enemy has on you is vague, and personal insults.

http://lastresistance.com/2508/liberals-hate-clarence-thomas-but-cant-tell-you-why/