I can't help but notice there may be a couple of racists posting here.

It depends on what caused the OP to conclude there were racists. If someone is against obama is it because they are racist, or because they correctly conclude he is an anti American communist?

What is the evidence of racisim? If Mitt Romney refused to speak before the NAACP it could be said that he was racist who didn't find the votes of black people worth his time. When obama refuses to speak before the NAACP he's not racist, he's just taking their own racist votes for granted as fellow racists.

What in the world does any of that have to do with racists posting on USMB? are you seriously trying to tell me jerk offs like Ariux and 52ndStreet are not racist because they openly admit it.
 
1) Rabbi
2) USArmyRetired

Two confirmed full blown racists. Others here may have tendencies but haven't fully exposed themselves yet.
 
Racists (and extremists of all other kinds) need to ignore obvious truths for their theories to work.
Surely they must be aware all blacks/women/Muslims/Jews/whites and so on all individuals, not a group with all the same behaviour patterns.

But there ARE patterns to group behavior. Humanity is neither a collection of atomized individuals nor synchronized groups. But to say that you can't observe group behavior patterns is ludicrous. Mountains of data -- along with everyday observations and experience -- back that up.

There's nothing "irrational" about acknowledging that.

Human groups do much better living separately from other groups. That's a fact. And wanting to see you own race or ethnicity prosper and live in unmolested peace isn't "racism" or "hatred", it's the most natural thing in the world.

The entirety of the modern "anti-racist" movement is in fact nothing but an effort to destroy whites, depriving them of any sense of peoplehood or destiny while loading up the other races with extra does of that same sense, plus grievance toward whites.
 
Both party's are ruled by the globalist. You don't have a choice.
-------------------------
You're right about "both" parties (as though there were only two!) but you and I do have a choice this time- Dr. Ron Paul.

Write him in if you have to- as though your future and your country's future depended on it.
Because it does.
 
Perhaps it'd help if we were to agree on a functional definition of "racism" before going any further.
A definition which would, by definition, NOT be "racist".

Assuming that one believes that there are different races, in the genetic sense.
 
Perhaps it'd help if we were to agree on a functional definition of "racism" before going any further.
A definition which would, by definition, NOT be "racist".

Assuming that one believes that there are different races, in the genetic sense.

There are, of course, and the acknowledgment of them is what makes one "racist."

Gotta be a different word for that.

Believing in reality can't be "racist." Or, reality can't itself be "racist." And if it is, well, that should tell you something!
 

Forum List

Back
Top