1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Democrats are racistsFollow

#177 Jul 21 2010 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
You can say it, we all know it anyway. Black people in urban ghetto's hate whitey. You're probably right though, east st. louis is most likely worse than houston.


I visit the casinos and strip clubs there on nearly a weekly basis and have yet to be the victim of any black on white crime. I've even hung out for couple of hours once at the metrolink station there while waiting for a ride. Sure, I was pretty restless about it, but probably unnecessarily so, as I never had so much as a hint of a problem.

Most inner city crime is just that, inner city. It's rare for outsiders to fall under the veil of scrutiny and even more rare for such crime to spill over such territorial boundaries. And in case you were wondering, most of the crime in East St. Louis is black on black, not that it holds any statistical relevance.
#178 Jul 21 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Brown,

Quote:
I visit the casinos and strip clubs there on nearly a weekly basis


You know bourbon st is relatively safe, go two blocks over and it's like entering a war zone.

I went to primary school in downtown raleigh (just down the st from NC state...it was a feeder school for broughton for those that know the area) and most, not all, blacks hated white boys. Now they loved, or rather were filled with lust, for white girls.

How many times does it take a person who's jumped by a group of blacks to face the truth of what i'm saying?

But this all goes back to why I was originally banned. I do think there's a difference between black americans working hard to provide for their family and thug N***** who try and emulate that f*cked up lifestyle.

Believe it or not in my experience black people from small to mid-size towns act a whole lot different than the brothers who grew up in the projects raised on welfare checks and food stamps.


#179 Jul 21 2010 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
But this all goes back to why I was originally banned. I do think there's a difference between black americans working hard to provide for their family and thug N***** who try and emulate that f*cked up lifestyle.

Believe it or not in my experience black people from small to mid-size towns act a whole lot different than the brothers who grew up in the projects raised on welfare checks and food stamps.


Maybe talk like this is what got your *** beat so often by the very people you're ******** about.

Anyone who attempts to divide a group of people with derisive language such as:
Quote:
there's a difference between black americans working hard to provide for their family and thug N*****
are the true racists.
#180 Jul 21 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Kael,

Quote:
anyone who attempts to divide a group of people with derisive language


So we're agreed Obama is a racist then aren't we? He did after all refer to members of the tea party as "teabaggers". Unless you think calling someone a teabagger isn't "derisive language".



Quote:
Maybe talk like this is what got your *** beat so often by the very people you're ******** about


Only really gotten my as* beat once by the brotha's, and there were 4 of them. From then on, and I was in the 3rd grade, I learned when surrounded by bullies beat the ever lovin sh*t out of the first one to open his mouth and then walk away without looking back, that's worked 3 different times for me.



Edited, Jul 21st 2010 3:54pm by knoxxsouthy
#181 Jul 21 2010 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
So we're agreed Obama is a racist then aren't we? He did after all refer to members of the tea party as "teabaggers". Unless you think calling someone a teabagger isn't "derisive language".


It's not. But calling one member of the same race a black person and another a nigger, is.

You can't even be comparing teabagger to that.

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 2:55pm by Kaelesh
#182 Jul 21 2010 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Kael,

Smiley: lol Thank you for providing another glaring example of liberal hypocricy in action.

It's sad you think calling mostly religious straight people teabaggers isn't derisive.
#183 Jul 21 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
So we're agreed Obama is a racist then aren't we? He did after all refer to members of the tea party as "teabaggers". Unless you think calling someone a teabagger isn't "derisive language".

I was told that the Tea Party is multi-racial!


'Cept for the Tea Party Express as endorsed and promoted by FOX. Those dudes are so racist, the rest of the Tea Party guys kicked them out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#184 Jul 21 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Kael,

Smiley: lol Thank you for providing another glaring example of liberal hypocricy in action.

It's sad you think calling mostly religious straight people teabaggers isn't derisive.


What in the fuck are you even talking about? Teabagger is a term for a political party, not a people. Like Repubs and Dems.

Your thinly veiled attempts to push past your language is pathetic and they should just ban you all over again.
#185 Jul 21 2010 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
Kael,

You're so naive.Smiley: oyvey Teabagger is a sexual expression of someone sucking someone elses *******. And for the record tossing someones salad means licking their as*, literally.

The only people using the Teabagger expression are Democrats; and you're to stupid for words if you don't think it's intentional or that they don't know it's sexual conotation. But hey as long as I differentiate between blacks and thug n*gas i'm the as*hole.



#186 Jul 21 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Kael,

You're so naive.Smiley: oyvey Teabagger is a sexual expression of someone sucking someone elses *******. And for the record tossing someones salad means licking their as*, literally.

The only people using the Teabagger expression are Democrats; and you're to stupid for words if you don't think it's intentional or that they don't know it's sexual conotation. But hey as long as I differentiate between blacks and thug n*gas i'm the as*hole.





Unless it is your assertion that all members of the Tea Party share the same race, then you have no point vis-a-vis racism. Is that your assertion?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#187 Jul 21 2010 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
You're so naive.Smiley: oyvey Teabagger is a sexual expression of someone sucking someone elses *******. And for the record tossing someones salad means licking their as*, literally.

Listen to the Man-Seeking-Man. He knows these things.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#188 Jul 21 2010 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Well lookee there. The White House apologizes.

Quote:
WASHINGTON – An embarrassed White House apologized on Wednesday to a black Agriculture Department employee who was ousted for her remarks about race, saying the administration did not know all the facts when she was fired.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the dismissal of Shirley Sherrod an injustice and a mistake and said he was apologizing for the "entire administration." He said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was trying to reach her to extend an apology.

"I accept the apology," Sherrod said on CNN after watching Gibbs talk to reporters at a televised briefing. But she said the apology took too long and she wasn't sure if she wanted her job back.

"I just don't know at this point, I don't know," she said, adding that she would be surprised if Vilsack offered her the job.

Gibbs said Obama had been briefed as the situation developed.

"He talked about the fact that a disservice had been done, an injustice had happened and, because the facts had changed, a review of the decision based on those facts should be taken," Gibbs said.

Sherrod has said she submitted her resignation under pressure from the White House. The Agriculture Department says it was Vilsack's decision alone.

Sherrod was asked by department officials to resign on Monday after conservative bloggers posted a video of her saying she didn't initially give a white farmer as much help as she could have 24 years ago, when she was working for a farmers' aid group. Sherrod says she used the story in her speech to the NAACP to promote racial reconciliation and that the edited video distorted her remarks.

After a video of her full speech was posted online by the NAACP, the White House called the Agriculture Department about the case Tuesday night and it was agreed that her ouster should be reviewed.

Gibbs said people in the administration and outside of it acted without all the facts.

"We now have a more complete set of facts," he said.

The White House is facing strong criticism over the case, which marks a stumble for both the Obama administration and the NAACP. Both reversed their positions after initially condemning Sherrod's remarks based on the video first released Monday night.

It is the latest race-related brouhaha to garner national attention since Obama became the nation's first black chief executive.

A year ago, Obama convened a "beer summit" at the White House between a black Harvard scholar and the white police sergeant who arrested him after a confrontation at the professor's home. The administration also faced criticism over then-Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's comments about the virtues of having a "wise Latina" on the bench. And there was controversy over the Justice Department dropping an investigation into complaints that New Black Panther Party members threatened white voters at a Philadelphia polling place on the day Obama was elected.

Black leaders piled on Wednesday. The Rev. Jesse Jackson already had called on the administration to apologize and reinstate Sherrod to her job, if she wanted it. The Congressional Black Caucus, which includes 42 members of Congress, called for Sherrod to be reinstated immediately, saying Vilsack overreacted.

Soon after, the Rev. Al Sharpton said black leaders should refrain from calling on the administration to apologize, saying that creates the impression that black leadership is fractured. "We are only greasing the rails for the right wing to run a train through our ambitions and goals for having civil and human rights in this country," Sharpton said.

The incident comes as the NAACP and the conservative tea party movement have been trading charges of racism.

The two-minute, 38-second clip posted Monday by Biggovernment.com was presented as evidence that the NAACP was hypocritical in its recent resolution condemning what it calls racist elements of the tea party movement. The website's owner, Andrew Breitbart, said the video shows the civil rights group condoning the same kind of racism it says it wants to erase. Biggovernment.com is the same site that gained notice last year after airing video of workers for the community group ACORN counseling actors posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend.

Reacting to the video on Monday, the NAACP issued a statement disavowing her comments, which were made at a local NAACP event. Sherrod then took to the media airwaves Tuesday, saying she was unfairly attacked and that the entirety of her remarks, delivered in March in Georgia, were not about racism, but part of a larger story about racial reconciliation and learning from her mistakes.

People who knew Sherrod were quick to defend her, including the wife of the white farmer discussed in the speech.

"We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction," said Eloise Spooner of Iron City, Ga. "I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you."

In the clip posted on Biggovernment.com, Sherrod described the first time a white farmer came to her for help. It was 1986, and she worked for a nonprofit rural farm aid group. She said the farmer came in acting "superior" to her and she debated how much help to give him.

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land," Sherrod said.

Initially, she said, "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do" and gave him only enough help to keep his case progressing. Eventually, she said, his situation "opened my eyes" that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor versus those who have."

In the full 43-minute video, Sherrod tells the story of her father's death in 1965, saying he was killed by white men who were never charged. She says she made a commitment to stay in the South the night of her father's death, despite the dreams she had always had of leaving her rural town.

"When I made that commitment I was making that commitment to black people and to black people only," she said. "But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people."

Sherrod said officials showed no interest in her explanation when she was asked to resign. She said she was on the road Monday when USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her and told her to pull over and submit her resignation on her Blackberry because the White House wanted her out.

"It hurts me that they didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care," Sherrod said. "I'm not a racist. ... Anyone who knows me knows that I'm for fairness."

Sherrod also appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" and NBC's "Today" show.
#189 Jul 21 2010 at 2:28 PM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Teabagger is a sexual expression of someone sucking someone elses *******.


And again, you miss the mark by a wide margin. Teabagging: putting your balls on someone's face.

Quote:
And for the record tossing someones salad means licking their as*, literally.


Yea, I like Chris Rock too.
#190 Jul 21 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I had always heard it was pissing into someone's mouth, *then* dipping your balls into it.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#191 Jul 21 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
the administration did not know all the facts when she was fired


This is a problem. In conjunction with the other thread about the FOIA, this makes me very uneasy.

No one should be making kneejerk decisions like this without being in possession of all relevant facts. Period, end of story. Making decisions based on political expediency is, I know, a reality; but please please please try to be a little bit sane about it.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#192 Jul 21 2010 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Samira wrote:
No one should be making kneejerk decisions like this without being in possession of all relevant facts. Period, end of story. Making decisions based on political expediency is, I know, a reality; but please please please try to be a little bit sane about it.


Of course they shouldn't but Tom Vilsack was the one that made the call. He hired her, he fired her. He's taking responsibility for that by claiming the WH didn't direct him in this. If that's true, well that's anyones guess but as I stated on page one of this farce, Vilsack is worthless.

He did say regardless of context or allegations, it makes it too hard for Sherrod to do her job at this point. If they re-hired her, every Republican talking head in the county would be all over them for flip-flopping and if they don't rehire her, Dems look like pussys for jumping in the gun and retracting.

It's a no-win situation, created by FOX and Vilsack.
#193 Jul 21 2010 at 2:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira wrote:
Quote:
the administration did not know all the facts when she was fired


This is a problem. In conjunction with the other thread about the FOIA, this makes me very uneasy.

No one should be making kneejerk decisions like this without being in possession of all relevant facts. Period, end of story. Making decisions based on political expediency is, I know, a reality; but please please please try to be a little bit sane about it.


Well at least they didn't, you know, declare war or anything.
#194 Jul 21 2010 at 2:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jeers for the administration for acting without all the facts, based on an obviously edited video from a racist partisan hack like Breitbart.

Cheers for the administration for turning around the next day, plainly admitting fault and trying to fix things.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#195 Jul 21 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
noxxsouthy wrote:
How about I drop your pasty white as* off in some of the hoods I know and we'll see if you make it out or not.


knoxxsouthy wrote:
I do think there's a difference between black americans working hard to provide for their family and thug N***** who try and emulate that f*cked up lifestyle.


...


lol
#196gbaji, Posted: Jul 21 2010 at 4:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It was always about the reaction and response Joph. Did you read the first line of the blog like I asked? "Context matters". Breitbart was attempting to show that the NAACP is holding the Tea Party to a standard it doesn't hold itself to. I'm not sure how one can fail to grasp that. He spends the first half of the blog entry explaining the full background of the issue so that numskulls like you *can't* misunderstand why the video is significant.
#197 Jul 21 2010 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It was always about the reaction and response Joph.

Right. That's why he prefaces the edited up video by calling her a racist. "But that's not really the issue!"

Quote:
Did you read the first line of the blog like I asked? "Context matters".

The hilarious thing about this is that you keep blindly reciting this as a mantra... involving a video which was completely pulled from its context and instead presented in a hacked up manner intended solely to depict Sherrod as a racist and the NAACP as a bunch of racists for listening to her.

Context matters! Except when we're talking about footage hacked up and presented with a crawl explicitly calling this woman a racist and lying about what she did (she was not in the federal employ when the story took place)! Then IT'S NOT THE ISSUE!!!


Hahahaha... yeah, I'm willfully stupid. You're just golden.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Jul 21 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Teabagger is a sexual expression of someone sucking someone elses *******.

And again, you miss the mark by a wide margin. Teabagging: putting your balls on someone's face.

Nope. Actually, Virus is right on this one. Urban Dictionary (NSFW!) agrees:

Quote:
2. teabagging

To have a man insert his ******* into another person's mouth in the fashion of a teabag into a mug with an up/down (in/out) motion.

The act of simply putting your balls on someone's face is called Arabian Goggles.

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 6:30pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#199 Jul 21 2010 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was always about the reaction and response Joph.

Right. That's why he prefaces the edited up video by calling her a racist. "But that's not really the issue!"


Forest and trees Joph. Read the whole blog. If his point is just to call her a racist to get her fired, why on earth spend 8 paragraphs talking about the NAACP and how they have been attacking the Tea Party on the issue of race because they have failed to "denounce the racism in their midst"?


Quote:
Quote:
Did you read the first line of the blog like I asked? "Context matters".

The hilarious thing about this is that you keep blindly reciting this as a mantra... involving a video which was completely pulled from its context...


No, it wasn't. It was precisely in context. It's just not the context you want it to be. Breitbart's blog was about the NAACP holding the Tea Party to a different standard. Specifically it was about how the NAACP takes the slightest examples of racism and holds the entire group responsible for not immediately and completely denouncing it, whether it actually happened or not.

Get the context yet? He showed a video in which a woman said something which appears to be racist and the crowd not only does not respond negatively, but they nod and laugh and generally seem to be agreeing with her. The fact that it's a clip in which the larger portion reverses the issue is just a big juicy bit of wonderful irony on top of the whole thing.


Let's compare this to attacks against the Tea Party for allegedly yelling the N-word at members of the black caucus, and despite zero evidence to support that claim, and multiple videos disputing said claim, is *still* being used by the NAACP to call them racists. Let's compare this to cases of plants at Tea Party rallies holding racist signs, and the video and/or pictures of said signs being used as yet more "proof" that the Tea Partiers are a bunch of racists, meanwhile editing out the sections where the crowd literally runs the guys with the signs out of the event. Let's compare it to a black member of the Tea Party having his head cropped out of video footage to make it appear as though he's a white man threatening Obama supporters.


You're failing to get that the broader lesson is that we *shouldn't* jump to call racism based upon scant information. Context is everything.


Quote:
Context matters! Except when we're talking about footage hacked up and presented with a crawl explicitly calling this woman a racist and lying about what she did (she was not in the federal employ when the story took place)! Then IT'S NOT THE ISSUE!!!


He never once called her a racist (present tense). You're allowing your own assumptions to lead you to the wrong conclusions. Read only what was written Joph. Step back and really read what he wrote. Then assess what happened. Pay attention to the first line: "Context matters". He's giving you a hint. Be smart enough to see it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#200 Jul 21 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Forest and trees Joph. Read the whole blog. If his point is just to call her a racist to get her fired, why on earth spend 8 paragraphs talking about the NAACP and how they have been attacking the Tea Party on the issue of race because they have failed to "denounce the racism in their midst"?

Who said that? His point was to smear her as a racist so he could smear others as racists. And then say "Gee! I didn't mean to for anyone to call Sherrod a racist... just because I state in plain letters that she's a racist!"

Even more telling is the intro he gave this on YouTube. So while you crow and holler about the "Context!" of a blog entry, the video itself which is still viewable by millions outside of the blog happily introduces itself by saying "Hey, get a load of this racist ***** working for the government and hating white people!" But that doesn't bother you. Of course not. Because the context matters! Especially when describing hacked up videos taken out of context and given intros slandering people (which only work when you watch the video out of context).

Quote:
No, it wasn't. It was precisely in context.

Hahahaha... yeah. That's why the unedited video shows it completely differently and lacks this so called "agreement" and "laughter". You really think they're sitting there saying "Haha! Fuck whitey!"? Of course, you're the tool who insisted that they didn't know how the story would end when the unedited video has her saying exactly what the story is about. Nice try though.

Quote:
He never once called her a racist (present tense).

Andrew Breitbart wrote:
Ms. Sherrod admits
that in her federally
appointed position,
overseeing over a
billion dollars...

She discriminates
against people
due to their race.

Maybe you and I have radically different ideas of what a "racist" is. Or whether or not "she discriminates" is in the present tense.

Or maybe you're just this desperate. I'm guessing the second one.

Edit: I see that since Breitbart was exposed as the racist lying hack he is, he's tried to cover his *** by throwing up an annotation on the YouTube video saying this story happened a while ago. Of course, he still says in the video that "she discriminates against people due to their race."

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 6:51pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Jul 21 2010 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I don't see the word "racist" applied to her anywhere Joph. You get that you're twisting words, right? What he said was that she discriminates (technically, whomever wrote the bits at the beginning of the video did, which may not have been him). He describes her tale as "racist", but does not label her as a racist.

Those are not equivalent Joph. If they were, then why do you insist on saying he "called her a racist" instead of saying he "claims she said racist things". The latter is correct, but the former is a stronger statement and fits the context you want to see. It shifts the focus from the words she spoke to her.

He was talking about what she said, not about her. That's the whole point. If you'd look at the actual words instead of changing them, you'd see this. Circular reasoning on your part I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 288 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (288)