Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2023, 11:55 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

I already blew up that no laws/rules were broken by the Thomas/Crow friendship. 

So now  now someone goes all James Nares and go after COI in SC cases but still can't provide proof? if it's so easy to prove then there would be something there already (you don't think the media leftists wouldn't have found it by now?) Besides, i already proved he's incorrect on one of his general broad brush stroke claims by donating only to Reps. 

Then, you got 2 guys who seems intent on making HC out to be some Nazi Dictatorship lover just because out of the thousands of things he owns and displays, displaying a few Hitler things in his own personal home obviously makes any Right-Winger troubling? Which i pointed out is nothing more than a few pieces in a vast collection (which some of you understand that he collects more than just that).

So pointing out that HC's collection involves more than just "Hitler" regalia and you calling it a strawman arguement cancels his entire collection? 

And yes, someone did post that he shouldn't have those statues in his Dictator Garden in his own personal back yard.