Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Dill]

(04-08-2023, 05:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Digging, his whole house is basically a historical museum. Students, friends and so on often visit there.  
over 10k books, 5k manuscripts.

his statue garden consists of an UP hill and DOWN hill zones.
Up Hill contains statues of Churchill, Thatcher, Reagan and so on.
Down Hill contains: Hitler, Stalin, Lennin, Zedong and so on.

If you ask him why he has those guys in his collection, he will tell you that he doesn't want the younger generations to forget about the geopolitical struggles.

Media is trying hard to slander him just to get to Thomas as well.

I thought you guys liked non-biased shit? Or do you just keep swallowing the damn pills you are being fed to further your leftist agenda? You ***** about the right swallowing pills and parroting bs, but you are just as guilty of it.

Well, let's review what was actually said before we jump on the "swallowing pills and parroting bs" biased band wagon.

And I wouldn't turn down Nazi regalia either,* but I would not display it anywhere except a site which contextualizes them.
A fascination with Nazi regalia for its own sake, collector or no, raises questions--though I don't know if that is really the case fromthe info given so far. No questions if along with that regalia, the guy collects French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era. 
But if his focus is just on that regalia, as it is with neo-Nazis, and he displays it in his home, then I don't regard him a "just a collector," like someone with a stamp or coin collection.

Sounds like I said no problem if the regalia is contextualized, with "French and British and Soviet stuff from the same era." Pally and that well known radical leftist Sunset Bengal gave pretty much the same qualifications about context. Right? How does this qualified judgment make us "just as guilty" of "swallowing pills"?

Just speaking for myself, I have never held up "non-biased shit" as an ideal. Rather, I've always said that the assumption there can be a non-biased perspective in politics (or most anything else) is not only impossible but misunderstands the process of accurate description and reasoned judgement.

Finally no one disputed the guy's right to "display what he chooses." The question was always about what those choices say about him. Yet somehow you get from questioning Hitler regalia, to questioning Washington and Eisenhower.  So a lot of straw men in your post, along with talk of "leftists" parroting BS and following an "agenda." Stuff that you WISH we'd said cuz that's easier to respond to.