You're probably a racist.

Posted by KevinSmith1281 10 years, 2 months ago to Politics
25 comments | Share | Flag

I knew I was a racist, even when I'm opposed to Marx I knew it's because I'm a racist.

All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 2 months ago
    Do be fair, I have no doubt that there are some people who really do oppose Obama because they're racist. The KKK is not dead, as much as I wish it were.

    However, I do think that most people who oppose Obama don't give a crap about the fact that he's black (half-black, anyway – his mother was white), and oppose him simply because they actually dislike his policies.

    Of course there's also a significant percentage of the population who overestimate the President's power, and they use whoever is in that position as a scapegoat for whatever economic or social problems the country happens to be facing, regardless of whether or not the President was actually involved. I still remember when the BP oil spill happened, and immediately afterwards people were waiving signs saying that it was Obama's fault and that he had ruined the livelihoods of all the fishermen in the Gulf Coast. The fact that BP is a privately owned corporation which Obama has literally no control over apparently didn't matter. Something bad happened – Innocent people were negatively impacted – Blame the President. That seems to be the train of logic followed by many people. Too many, if you ask me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years, 2 months ago
    This whole "racist" thing is just a method. We saw Hillary pit races and socio-economic groups against each other to promote her goals as First Lady. Why, because she adores the ideas of Saul Alinsky - see her 92-page thesis on the subject. Now, the pitting of groups continues toward a Marxist collectivist goal. Obama out Alinskyed Hillary to win, but his IQ is actually much lower. Read "Rules for Radicals", it is what we are seeing, and we should use their methods against them, not flee from their labels.
    I grew up with black friends watching TV in the 50s at our home, and have always had friends who were Black, probably more so than did Obama. I respected those who earned it, as with any person I knew. I detest Obama for his Marxist anti-American views, for his posing and lying, for his goal to destroy capitalism - and I do not consider him Black! He is half white, raised with citizenship of Malaysian origin with Muslim loyalties. He would not know how to be a Black man if he had to, he never lived on the streets or was discriminated against. If you are a Marxist, own it, if you are gay, own it. I detest liars. Same goes for white gal Hillary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 2 months ago
    how about disliking him because he dislikes the country he lives in and has been given a job that he has demonstrated to the hilt he is incompetent at.
    I further agree with Eyecu2
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 2 months ago
    Racism is a tool of the progressives to try and invoke unearned guilt and to attempt to chill the opposition. It's a threat used when there is no rational argument on their side. I don't care what color skin a communist has, I disagree with them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kyllacon 10 years, 2 months ago
    Progressives pull out the "racist" accusations when they want to end debate. Those who engagein this type of lazy rhetoric do so because of different reasons. One reason is they are losing the ideological argument, another is they are not equipped to have that argument in the first place.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago
    Isn't it obvious that any opposition to a person of color must only be due to racism?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 2 months ago
    When a liberal cannot answer a rational point, he falls back on to the good old-never-fail accusation of racism. It is equivalent to two kids arguing in the schoolyard and when one of them is losing and has no counter argument he'll look bellicose and say the only thing he can to end the "discussion." He'll say, "Oh, Yeah!?!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 2 months ago
    And we will soon watch the left attempt to guarantee Hillary's success by way of the "sexism" shield.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh Plu-leze! I’ve been around through a few president administrations. This is the first President in modern history who doesn’t know he is suppose to hold televised national addresses and speak directly to the American people during crisis. I’m not talking about an appearance in the WH pressroom either. I look for my leader to be behind the podium, above the seal, beside the flag.
    Instead, I’ve got to search for the Leader of the Free World between two ferns on youtube??

    You can try to bait me with an argument based on assumptions of how I would respond to what this President will or won’t do, but at the end of the day, I walk away with the smug knowledge that I am far from alone in my opinion. My belief these last few years that the Commander In Chief is absent --is beautifully validated and demonstrated by the now well-known image of an empty chair. (Courtesy of Clint Eastwood. Hubba-hubba)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by g4lt 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And had he done anything, you'd have blamed him for his actions as well. Catch-22 much?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They didn’t blame him for the spillage; they blamed him for his inaction. He did NOTHING for weeks. The situation was resolved eventually by others. It was the first serious indication that this guy might be a little mentally-challenged.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They're not very good at helping people, and the gov't official selling programs to help people often have ulterior motives. I'm not dead-set against doing it though.

    I believe in public policing because it's hard to deny the benefits to those who want to opt out of the benefits of policing.

    Similarly, I think limited programs to help the needy benefit all of society, and it's hard to deny the benefits of social justice to those who want to opt out of its benefits.

    In some cases, helping people provides a direct and less expensive alternative to more policing and jails. It's simplistic to say that most crime is caused by poverty or to say that most crime is unrelated to poverty. In the cases where you can make things better for everyone by helping people, we should do it for the very same reasons we act on cases where we can improve society by punishing bad people. The left/right sell large doses of one of these, but we really need small doses of both.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. The government has done so very little successfully, the social welfare programs are huge demonstration of this fact.
    "Race" has become a useless term, played when the left is losing the fight to end it. Talk to a liberal, they'll use it when they have nothing of value to counter facts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by KevinSmith1281 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well I certainly agree with you about the false left/right paradigm, but I don't believe the federal government should be involved in helping people. I don't trust their intentions when they say they want to help people, in order for them to attempt to help some they have to do so at the expense of others, and I don't think they are very good at it anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe the left/right ideological battle if false. They ask you to choose between hope and helping and punishing evil-doers, both things the gov't should do to some degree. I want the gov't to do less of everything-- an intelligent mix of helping people when it prevents harm and punishing criminals; mostly just enforcing contracts. I'm generally an optimist, so if I must choose to focus on helping good people or punishing criminals, I choose hope/change and helping. I'm certainly not a diehard supporter of any ideology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago
    This is just foolish. "You're against Obama b/c you're a racist" is the last death throes of this thinking. It's like of like the thinking that gay people will despoil your heterosexual marriage. It sounded questionable to begin with, and now it's completely lame.

    I generally support President Obama, and it's not because of race or sex. People oppose him for policy reasons and b/c of the left/right thing that made people hate President Bush. It's not about race.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo