You Don't Have to Be a Bigot to Be Called a Racist Anymore

No...the gaps came when 90% of blacks were enslaved, kept from purchasing land, earning an income, accumulating wealth, learning to read, etc, while white had the freedom to do all these things. You have a hammer and all you are going to look for are nails. In other words, you will try to make everything a Federal Reserve issue. Yes, I know all about the FEDS, fractional banking, the Rothschild's, ect, etc. That coexisted with white racism and what was happening to blacks. Coincidence is not causation.

Yeah. I'll concede that. I reject your contention that we were founded on it, however. We told the King to go hump himself. And then we killed his men when he sent them.

We, as a nation, I mean.
 
Last edited:

I haven't shot anyone that was "black", and my plans don't require shooting anyone. Where they do require I help ensure someone doesn't get shot, I have put reasonable measures in place to do my best to ensure they will not be shot on my watch (well, unless of course, it requires shooting them, to stop them from shooting someone else).

Yeah....well....the true test of character cannot be taken in times of comfort.
 
No...the gaps came when 90% of blacks were enslaved, kept from purchasing land, earning an income, accumulating wealth, learning to read, etc, while white had the freedom to do all these things. You have a hammer and all you are going to look for are nails. In other words, you will try to make everything a Federal Reserve issue. Yes, I know all about the FEDS, fractional banking, the Rothschild's, ect, etc. That coexisted with white racism and what was happening to blacks. Coincidence is not causation.

Yeah. I'll concede that. I reject your contention that we were founded on it, however. We told the King to go hump himself. And then we killed his men when he sent them.

We, as a nation, I mean.
Ok....then let me reword it. It was part of the foundation. Slavery was the economic foundation of the new nation.
 
Yeah....well....the true test of character cannot be taken in times of comfort.

I've been tested, measured and have had no complaints from anyone who counts (anecdotal of course, but meh). On a more direct note, "Vision" requires leaving comfort to embrace a challenge not already recognized.
 
Ok....then let me reword it. It was part of the foundation. Slavery was the economic foundation of the new nation.

Yeah. I can't debate otherwise. It'd be intellectual dishonesty on my part to attempt so.
 
Yeah....well....the true test of character cannot be taken in times of comfort.

I've been tested, measured and have had no complaints from anyone who counts (anecdotal of course, but meh). On a more direct note, "Vision" requires leaving comfort to embrace a challenge not already recognized.

The context of the challenge and discomfort and making a decision that proved uninfluenced by race.
 
The context of the challenge and discomfort and making a decision that proved uninfluenced by race.

To use racial qualifiers as a prerequisite for a challenge, when they are not required to succeed at anything other than racial division, is not discomfort as much as foolishness.
 
That reminds of something. In hind sight, used to be that kids were still innocent and free from becoming racist, liketheir adult counterparts. But now the education system has indoctrinated them to accept victim status before they even reach their teens and always from a social perspective, rather than teaching them about economics and the real reason racial inequality exists
The real reason racial inequality exists is because the white race decided that they were ordained by God himself as the superior race and that the black race was ordained to be subservient to them in perpetuity (forever). And then to ensure God's will was enforced they turned this belief into an actual set of laws in the United States that racially delegated people of African descent to second class citizenry, with few of the rights, opportunities or protections granted to whites. Additionally, certain laws were passed criminalizing specific behavior when committed by blacks but not when committed by whites. This form of abuse and oppression naturally generated a certain animus towards the individuals who perpetrated this unjust system of laws against those whose rights have been abused, however this animus is not "racism".

On the other hand we can only surmise that there is a lot of resentment among the white racist faction due to the fact that it is no longer lawful to lynch black people, bomb their churches, burn crosses on their lawns, get them fired from their jobs, run them out of town, prevent them from voting, going to school, etc. and get then away scot free with no repercussions. There are citizen journalists EVERYWHERE using technology to document the continuing abuses and violations of the rights of people of color and other groups.

THIS is the real reaon racial inequality exists.
 
When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

Whites have always voted based on race. Whites talk plenty about the past. That's what you republican conservatives are all about. A return to the past, and the small government claim is nothing but a wish to return to the past.
 
The context of the challenge and discomfort and making a decision that proved uninfluenced by race.

To use racial qualifiers as a prerequisite for a challenge, when they are not required to succeed at anything other than racial division, is not discomfort as much as foolishness.

And that's what whites have continuously done for now 242 years.
 
The context of the challenge and discomfort and making a decision that proved uninfluenced by race.

To use racial qualifiers as a prerequisite for a challenge, when they are not required to succeed at anything other than racial division, is not discomfort as much as foolishness.

And that's what whites have continuously done for now 242 years.

Precisely. Its akin to playing a game of poker and your opponent has been cheating the whole game, allowing the cheater to rack up a lot of chips relative to the cheated. Then the cheater gets called out on the cheating and now seeks to go forward in the game playing fair, but not looking back and not using the labels of cheater and cheated. Essentially its a new game with the person who cheated in the past being able to keep all that he cheated the other person out of, while the other person is not longer recognized as the cheated to explain or reconcile why he has so fewer chips.
 
The context of the challenge and discomfort and making a decision that proved uninfluenced by race.

To use racial qualifiers as a prerequisite for a challenge, when they are not required to succeed at anything other than racial division, is not discomfort as much as foolishness.

And that's what whites have continuously done for now 242 years.

Precisely. Its akin to playing a game of poker and your opponent has been cheating the whole game, allowing the cheater to rack up a lot of chips relative to the cheated. Then the cheater gets called out on the cheating and now seeks to go forward in the game playing fair, but not looking back and not using the labels of cheater and cheated. Essentially its a new game with the person who cheated in the past being able to keep all that he cheated the other person out of, while the other person is not longer recognized as the cheated to explain or reconcile why he has so fewer chips.
 
The context of the challenge and discomfort and making a decision that proved uninfluenced by race.

To use racial qualifiers as a prerequisite for a challenge, when they are not required to succeed at anything other than racial division, is not discomfort as much as foolishness.

And that's what whites have continuously done for now 242 years.

Precisely. Its akin to playing a game of poker and your opponent has been cheating the whole game, allowing the cheater to rack up a lot of chips relative to the cheated. Then the cheater gets called out on the cheating and now seeks to go forward in the game playing fair, but not looking back and not using the labels of cheater and cheated. Essentially its a new game with the person who cheated in the past being able to keep all that he cheated the other person out of, while the other person is not longer recognized as the cheated to explain or reconcile why he has so fewer chips.
 
When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

Whites have always voted based on race. Whites talk plenty about the past. That's what you republican conservatives are all about. A return to the past, and the small government claim is nothing but a wish to return to the past.
Well for starters, I am not a republican. ( And blacks don't vote along racial lines?). You lost me. Some people want a return to old fashioned values. We yearn for integrity and honor.AND those values seem to be going extinct. (sidebar: If I lived in 1859: I would have been an abolitionist. That is the past too, and it's worthy of merit).
 
When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

Whites have always voted based on race. Whites talk plenty about the past. That's what you republican conservatives are all about. A return to the past, and the small government claim is nothing but a wish to return to the past.
Well for starters, I am not a republican. ( And blacks don't vote along racial lines?). You lost me. Some people want a return to old fashioned values. We yearn for integrity and honor.AND those values seem to be going extinct. (sidebar: If I lived in 1859: I would have been an abolitionist. That is the past too, and it's worthy of merit).

We've voted for whites all of our lives Mary. You don't live in 1859 and you're a racist. You yearn for things that really never existed here.
 
When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

Whites have always voted based on race. Whites talk plenty about the past. That's what you republican conservatives are all about. A return to the past, and the small government claim is nothing but a wish to return to the past.
Well for starters, I am not a republican. ( And blacks don't vote along racial lines?). You lost me. Some people want a return to old fashioned values. We yearn for integrity and honor.AND those values seem to be going extinct. (sidebar: If I lived in 1859: I would have been an abolitionist. That is the past too, and it's worthy of merit).

We've voted for whites all of our lives Mary. You don't live in 1859 and you're a racist. You yearn for things that really never existed here.
Ohoookaay. Everybody is a racist, if they don't digress and run away because of allegations, sue me. Speaking of allegations, you can prove I am a racist, right? You might bugger cats, who needs proof? Allegations need proof. You think?
 
What is a racist? There was a time when the answer to that question was pretty clear-cut. A racist was someone who joined a group like the Ku Klux Klan, spewed racial slurs, or supported segregation. A racist was someone who thought that people of other races were inherently inferior.
In the last decade or so, that's changed. In a time of expanding definitions, you don't have to be a bigot to be a racist anymore. You just have to have the wrong politics to be branded a racist, or race-baiter or race warrior.
Or you can just be associated with someone who has the wrong politics.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed David Horowitz, 79, a former 1960s radical turned conservative, as an extremist and "driving force" in the "anti-black" movement.
On Monday, The Washington Post ran a front-page story that reported that Ron DeSantis, the GOP candidate for governor in Florida, "spoke at racially-charged events" - that is, he spoke at four conferences put on by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
What makes Horowitz anti-black? He is "a vocal opponent of reparations for slavery," the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote.
He also makes provocative statements. Like this one: "Unfortunately, as a nation we have become so trapped in the melodrama of black victimization and white oppression that we are in danger of losing all sense of proportion. If blacks are oppressed in America, why isn't there a black exodus?"
Horowitz's tone can be insensitive. I think he's dead wrong to dismiss black grievances as melodramatic and I believe he overstates white grievances. He has written things that make me cringe, but I've known him for years and he is no white supremacist. In fact, Horowitz was collaborating with the Black Panthers on a learning center in 1974, when a colleague was murdered; he blamed the group for her death and began to move away from the left.
Once the SPLC labeled Horowitz as an extremist, he was supposed to become so radioactive that others would associate with him at their own peril. As DeSantis learned. According to The Washington Post, you see, DeSantis not only spoke at Horowitz events, he also "recently was accused of using racially tinged language."
After he won the GOP primary, DeSantis called his African-American Democratic opponent, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum "articulate." The Republican also told Fox News that the last thing Floridians need is "to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda."
"Monkey," critics argued, is a racist dog whistle.
"Articulate" is racist because it can be condescending -- as Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., learned in 2007 after he praised colleague Barack Obama as the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Biden apologized. Obama later picked Biden to be his running mate in 2008.
DeSantis said his "monkey" remark had nothing to do with race. Without proof, one would expect DeSantis to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Instead he got a front-page story that implied he's a race-baiter because he spoke at conservative confabs.
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-enforcement group branded a "hate group" by the SPLC. He sees the SPLC as a left-wing political organization now dedicated to marginalizing ideas that used to be mainstream.
Politicians like former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and the late Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Texas, used to support enforcing immigration laws. Today, Krikorian said, their positions would be "branded as hate speech" by the SPLC.
The SPLC also charged Horowitz with hating Muslims because of his harsh criticism of radical Islamic terrorism and Palestinian groups opposed to Israel.
As a proof, the SPLC includes this statement, which really is a political argument: "The difference between Islamic fanatics, or Jew haters, and Hitler is that Hitler hid the Final Solution, and the Iranians and Hezbollah shout it from the rooftops. And the whole Muslim world accepts it."
And here's how you know the SPLC's labeling is highly partisan. In 2016, Richard Cohen, the group's president, wrote a piece titled, "Black Lives Matter is not a hate group."
"There's no doubt that some protesters who claim the mantle of Black Lives Matter have said offensive things, like the chant, 'pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon' that was heard at one rally," Cohen wrote. "But before we condemn the entire movement for the words of a few, we should ask ourselves whether we would also condemn the entire Republican Party for the racist words of its presumptive nominee -- or for the racist rhetoric of many other politicians in the party over the course of years."
No, the SPLC would never condemn the entire GOP as racist because of Donald Trump. Better to cook the frog slowly. Start by isolating David Horowitz. Then let the r-word hang over anyone who associates with him. And then see where that goes.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-voter-groups-20180320-story.html — RealClearPolitics
you don't have to be a bigot to be a racist anymore

Republicans are both. It's very difficult to deny. Look at their policies.
 
The Left derives their power from imflaming cultural tensions.
The Democrats/MSM/Hollywood work very hard to divide Americans by race, religion,region, gender, class and age.
It's why the Press is biased on coverage of interracial crimes.
A Democrat Politician's worst nighmare is racial harmony.

Exactly. That is why you have people like Obama being a "Community Organizer", which is just another name for rabble rouser to create divisiveness, and disharmony.

Left Wingers use Orwellian euphemisms like “community organizer”.
The truth is that Obama is a despicable racist demagogue.

View attachment 216781
Hilarious! You describe Trump perfectly and then show a picture of who isn't what was described, Obama. Good job!
 

Forum List

Back
Top