“A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister… For it is bravery that is required to secure freedom.”

Who would ever believe that this fool could utter such words of insight.

Their is no more chance that Clarence Thomas thought this up on his on than there is a chance that he practices, understands, or believes it.

There is a time for everything. Subtlety and finesse can be a useful tool. Some head on arguments can be avoided and actual agreement be found by two protagonists actually circling each other rather than head long charges. We get into arguments by knee jerk reactions rather than by actually talking to each other and what is more in listening to each other. On some occasions I am sure Mr. Thomas is correct.

With stupid comments like that, I'd remain Anonymous.

Reston and Edwin - right-on. Jim, there you go again...Please save the abuse and comment sensibly

If Clarence Thomas were a Democrat I'd suspect somebody was racist around here. If you had ever heard Clarence Thomas speak you would know he is someone who bases his thoughts and speech on a set of sound principles that do not change with the winds of public opinion. He has the integrity to apply the law as it was intended and written. That is, of course, anathema to those who want to distort the words of the Constitution and law to their own liking to achieve the outcome they desire (bondage for us all). He is not a house boy to the leftist powers that be and that brings out their hatred.

Ken, interesting, so you know he is a Republican? Did you listen to his confirmation hearings if you did then you would know where we are coming from. This statement is said in defense of his own hypocrisy. I thought it was Republicans that have house boys... so the media has us to believe

He has said he is a Republican, Robert. Do you doubt him? I find it interesting that so many who imply that Thomas has a poor intellectual capacity never seem to have read his writings or his decisions, or to have heard him speak. His legal writings are rational, logical well reasoned and are based on basic principles that he holds. I have no problem with someone arguing principles, or showing that he has misapplied his principles in a certain case. That is what we ought to do. But there seems to be an inordinate number of people who will call him an intellectually deficient fool when that clearly goes against the facts of how well reasoned his opinions are. So, if someone is not judging the book by its content, then its pretty obvious they are judging it by its cover: a dark cover. As for house boys, you don't really believe big media do you? I mean they're just untrustworthy corporatists, right?

I admired Thomas choice in women. That woman who he was hitting on and who testified against his sexual morality was really cute, methinks.

Even if he was hitting on women, we all learned a few years later that sex doesn't matter given that we had a President with a live, walking, teenage humidor.

She wasn't a teenager, was she? I think the first thing I do when I get the to the White House is I am going to get laid in the Oval Office, I think that is so sexy.

Ken, well said

Waffller--If you watched the hearings you know that all of the testimony against him was given by people that were either misinformed or lying. Anita was caught in numerous lies and had to change her testimony right in front of all of us.

I'm pretty sure I don't have experience with the diluted argument concept. 

A blessing we have Justice Thomas.