Users who Dugg This
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
Ali Qayyum
4891 Followers
InfographicWrld
2972 Followers
Slum Dog Millionaire
4157 Followers
DigitaL GhosT
1055 Followers
diggnectar
946 Followers
Dominique Conte
1824 Followers
labdiscoJul 25, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
grgt1994Jul 26, 2010
Not as long as a few notorious liberal groups continue to find it in their interest to race bate. But we can always hope.
trentdeuxJul 26, 2010
Racist!
labdiscoJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
tk0680Jul 26, 2010
If the "liberals" are race baiting then the "fanatically nationalist and racist right wingers" are all too eager to chomp on the line.
swift2Jul 26, 2010
Not a good sign when you can't spell race "bateing."
grgt1994Jul 27, 2010
Hey Swift, is bateing to bating as potato is to potatoe? Not sure what regional version of English you speak, but as far as her in the US, there is no word bateing.
rpgmakrJul 26, 2010
FTA: "America's motto continues to be: Out of many, one."
Actually, some IDIOTS changed it to "In God we Trust".
zenmojoJul 26, 2010
Stop arresting black people for marijuana use at 3-4 times the rate of whites despite the fact that they don't use marijuana as much, and racial politics will end.
When white criminals are convicted at similar rates as blacks for the same crimes, racial politics will end.
When black and hispanic criminals no longer serve sentences 23% longer than whites for the same crimes, racial politics will end.
When black and hispanic criminals are no longer sentenced to death more frequently than whites for the same crimes, then racial politics will end.
When "tough on crime" is no longer a codeword for "tough on brown people," then racial politics will end.
"I think the system is racial, frankly, it's a racist system. And not by anybody's intent, it's just the way it's worked out."
--Former Republican Governor of Illinois George H. Ryan.
And when I say "will end" I say "will have ended" because since 1970 when Nixon decided he was going to expand the death penalty it was implicitly his assurance to white people that he wasn't going to let minorities get out of hand or forget their place.
f**k, when white felons aren't considered better candidates for jobs than their equally qualified and experienced black countrymen with clean criminal records, racial politics will end.
And hell, when I can state the above without some people "hmmm"ing and "haw"ing with every untenable and mealymouthed excuse explaining why a completely racist system is not actually racist and that correlation does not equal causation, then racial politics will end.
But until then, good luck. That s**t's pretty f**ked up right there.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#The Raw Data
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/marijuana/blacks-marijuana-arrests/
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer99/tabak.html
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_sentencing_review.pdf
labdiscoJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
kuzotzJul 26, 2010
You should read up on White Privilege.. ITs a dangerous thing, and its a stronger more controling force to ensure that the dominant culture remains so. Without members of the dominant culture knowing that they're actively participating in a hegemonic culture. Wonder why people even on digg argue about how racism can't be racist despite it being blatantly so? They're unknowningly participating in white privilege. Their privilege. Tim Wise talks about this. Bell Hooks talks about this and how American Buddhism is rifed with it. Cornell West talks about this. Many academics study this because it is an interesting way to keep control. Keep members of the dominant culture ignorant because they can afford to be ignorant while minorities can't afford to be ignorant and uneducated. IF you aren't white in America you can't afford to be a moron, and you must always be on top of your game. IF you can't even try to be the best at what you do in life then to me you're a waste of time... Its not about impressing the white folks. ITs about survival, and moving up in society. WE have to push to make America a truly multicultural country.
davidnivenJul 25, 2010
Liberals seem so determined to never let go, even when a man with dark skin gets elected to the highest office in the land. I think it has something to do with liberals' desire to make sure everyone is happy...or equally miserable as is more accurate.
It's like that is ALL they can think about.
Criticism of a black president...RACISM!
Criticism of useless affirmative action...RACISM!
Criticism of tax codes pushed by black politicians...RACISM!
Criticism of community organizers who thought they were helping a pimp hide underage, illegal alien girls in his harem...RACISM!
Perhaps the problem rests with the ones throwing around the race card. Perhaps the problem is that such people themselves think in racial terms...in a manner which they critique in others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
meghalcJul 25, 2010
Don't get me wrong but this country has a history of light colored people hating on dark colored people. Its just embedded into non-white peoples minds.
For example, heres a small history of America:
-white people come to unknown land known as America and over throw the natives (dark colored).
-white people take over native's land and call it their own while killing the natives.
-white people bring over more dark skinned people as their field workers, shoe shiners, etc...
-dark skinned people get mad because they're not getting paid over-time for their hard work.
-dark skinned people rebel and ask for equal opportunity treatment.
-Some white people help dark skinned people and get them their equal opportunity.
-Other white people hate all dark skinned people for doing the same work as dark skinned people now.
-Now, white people have to do their own hard work, in essence, makes them grouchy and complain all day on how dark people arn't doing the white people's work.
-dark people get mad because white people still don't treat them the same way..
-now its 2010 and still the cycle continues.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
woodsjransomJul 26, 2010
OOOOOOO boi I don't know where to begin
johnagainJul 26, 2010
You can start by not spelling it boi...
Then just ignore the moron up there.
emailowndmeJul 25, 2010
That racism card sure bugs you...Thats why I employ it every chance I get.
For example, the press goes all to hell at any wiff of reverse racism, but, when you are a white racist, you can go onto fox and promote your books, as long as you have something about those dirty terrible liberals as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidhierJul 26, 2010
So, basically, you just exacerbate the problem? Cute.
gnixon70Jul 26, 2010
Yep, as someone has said, "keep on f**king that chicken", sooner or later, that race card is going to wear itself out.
alienufoJul 26, 2010
MSNBC is no better. They have Pat Buchanon on all the time....
smacksawJul 26, 2010
Hey, I know you're on Digg a lot and the Top in All had an article about Rachel Maddow owning Bill O'Reilly.
Is it that you didn't watch it or you didn't understand the plain simple facts she made about Breitbart's ACORN expose being a fraud.
Now while we've taken you to task with the other stuff you said, I challenge you to come correct on ACORN being "caught" doing racist things.
Here, I'll show you how it's done:
I, Devin, aka smacksaw pretty much torched ACORN for the racist s**t they pulled. Except they didn't pull it. So I learned the actual facts from Rachel Maddow herself in a very objective and completely truth-based segment on her show and apologise for my rash judgment.
Considering the NAACP just did the same thing, they haven't learned from their actions. I withheld judgment on Ms Sherrod and learned that Breitbart was up to his old tricks - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice? Not gonna happen.
Regardless, I was wrong to accuse ACORN based upon that and I have come correct, which is better than an apology because it shows acknowledgement which is more than just "being sorry" can ever do.
Now for you, I guess I am calling your manhood into question and your objectivity. Are you man enough to match me and apologise to complete strangers on the internet for spreading misinformation and are you man enough and objective enough to learn the truth, which is that Breitbart duped you?
bic823Jul 26, 2010
DavidNiven is just a troll.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
Win-win if you ask me. Just further proof that what he says is worthless or he finally makes some sort of positive growth as a human being by showing objectivity and humility when it's time to do so.
maddoktor2Jul 26, 2010
We don't always agree, smack, but props to you for manning up like that.
Respect, mate.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
@Maddoktor2
Thank you sir.
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
Way to prove yourself part of the problem while blaming the problem on some else.
chrisvazquez1Jul 26, 2010
Wait isn't racism a form of prejudice? You seem to have a prejudice towards liberals. Wait, doesn't thatmake you a hypocrite?
favreismJul 26, 2010
You're literally my least favorite user on Digg.
labdiscoJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
anakastJul 26, 2010
"Perhaps the problem rests with the ones throwing around the race card."
You hit the nail on the head right there.
jaxcsJul 26, 2010
By guys like Breitbart, yes.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
During the campaign, I had misgivings about Obama/Biden and I had misgivings about McCain/Palin.
I felt, however, that it was an exciting time in America...because of regardless of what happened we would be making history.
And on election night, I was excited to watch the coverage and I was hopeful for the country.
I don't know if I am as hopeful for the country anymore. Democrats have control, yet seem to continuously demonize the opposition. People showed up at town halls and were called unamerican hate-mongers by the nation's highest leaders.
There are Americans who openly ASK for socialism ... but we are not allowed to talk about it.
Arizona has passed a law to do something about the terrible issues they are facing as a result of illegal immigration and some are calling them "Nazis" even though the majority of Americans support their law.
We, as a nation, elected our first black president...yet you would think from the tone nowadays that we are a more racist nation than we have ever been.
Christians of many denominations are becoming more liberal in their churches, but you would think, from the tone nowadays that we are on the cusp of having a theocracy.
If you are a Muslim commenting on a public forum, liberals will say, "You are welcome here and we thank you for expressing your views." If you are a Christian on the same forum liberals will say, "Cram it you religious nutjob!" I've seen atheists say that people of faith should not be able to provide religious guidance to their kids and that doing so constitutes child abuse.
I've seen people advocate for shutting down media that they don't agree with.
We are focused on the idea of race and overcoming racial inequality in the nation, but female politicians who don't have a liberal ideology (and some who do) are called ****s and bitches.
I've seen people on both sides of the political spectrum saying that a civil war is inevitable.
I've seen people on both sides of the political spectrum advocate for kicking the other side out of the union and forming their own country.
I have lost the sense of optimism that I had.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
soc7Jul 25, 2010
Change doesn't usually happen in a straight line. More like fits and starts, ebb and flow etc. We will get through this. In the mean time our nation is having a national dialogue about it and that is a good thing. We will get it sorted out. I am still very optimistic. The post election high is gone, but that is to be expected.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
We're not having a national dialogue. We're having a national screaming match. Our media is too partisan. Our people are too partisan. And all the frenzy feeds the partisanship.
soc7Jul 25, 2010
Our nation got through the civil rights movement and Viet Nam war protests, we'll get through this.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
I'm not optimistic, see ... I don't think we need to fundamentally change the country.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentally
Adverb
fundamentally (comparative more fundamentally, superlative most fundamentally)
to the very core of the matter
[edit]Synonyms
essentially
basically
--------------
I believe we are essentially and basically good. Right now, I believe that the federal government is increasing in size, scope and power and I don't like it. I do not wish to live in an America governed by "progressive" ideas since I feel that they are microwaved socialism, sometimes (with regard to the regulation and control of the evil corporations) with fascist overtones. I feel that we are on a spending course that may doom our economy.
We made it through the Great Depression and WWII ... that doesn't mean those things weren't a bitch.
I admire your optimism, but right now I don't share it. The next elections, however, may change my mind.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicJul 26, 2010
@quirkopatra problem is there's really only a handful of politicians on either side of the aisle really willing to make big changes with regard to the size, scope and cost of the federal government. We can blame liberals all day but it's really nothing specific to liberals that you listed. You state "progressive" ideas, but I don't think this country is all that progressive at the national level.
wefarrellJul 25, 2010
By only bashing liberals you wind up sounding like a partisan.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
Weferrell I'm talking about many things happening at the SAME time and a time when we appear to be somewhat on perilous ground as a nation.
wefarrellJul 26, 2010
You're blaming Democrats for things that Republicans have done for years and you're acting like it's completely new and alarming.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
People showed up to Town Halls when Bush was in charge and were called unamerican and hate mongering by the highest political leaders? Gee....I missed that. I saw people saying dissent was patriotic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wefarrellJul 26, 2010
What planet were you living on? Anti war protesters were absolutely called unamerican by the highest political leaders. People were arrested for protesting completely legally. A CIA operative was outed solely to discredit an anti war critic. Could you imagine the outrage if the Obama administration did that to the spouse of a tea party leader? Demonization of tea partiers is nothing compared to the demonization of anti war protesters.
"I also must have missed female politicians being called ****s and bitches."
You don't think anyone called Hillary a **** when she was running for president?
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
"Anti war protesters were absolutely called unamerican by the highest political leaders."
Source?
avengingturnipJul 26, 2010
Probably here.
http://old.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
With all due respect, that is not an elected political leader.
We've had Pelosi, Hoyer and Frank call Americans names....THESE are the highest political leaders.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brokedownpalaceJul 26, 2010
"You don't think anyone called Hillary a **** when she was running for president?"
I know I did; before, during and after.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Why? That's really sexist and rude.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
@quirkopatra
Michael Steele=Political Leader
George W Bush=Political Leader and Politician
Dick Armey=Political Leader
Rush Limbaugh=Political Leader
Newt Gingrich=Political Leader and Politician
So, we have political leaders who are the leaders of a political party like Steele, a President, someone who runs PACs, a radio host and a congressman who is also a pundit.
You should have paid attention to his words, they were apt.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Cite your sources. Which Republican elected political leaders called protestors unamerican and hate-mongers.
avooJul 26, 2010
Care to give a source about these claims of high ranking officials?
Because it seems that you're just using another long-debunked talking point -- out of context, manipulative talking points.
The Pelosi-Hoyer scandal was a perfect example where, ironically, actual talking heads misrepresented an opinion and controlled the political spectrum.
Here is part of USA Today Op-ed that neo-cons like to cite as evidence of those remarks:
"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.
Let the facts be heard.
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
They refer to protesters that were trying to disrupt formal, intelligent discussion. Indeed, "drowing out opposing views is un-American, is it not?
Where are you basing your claim that they generalize it into "all protesters of health-care reform are un-Americans"?
Because from that op-ed it can't be.
jasmareeJul 25, 2010
"Democrats have control, yet seem to continuously demonize the opposition."
Demonizing the opposition is what politicians do. They have been doing it for centuries, and will continue to do it. There's not much to be done about this.
"There are Americans who openly ASK for socialism ... but we are not allowed to talk about it."
Who says you're not? You're talking about it right now. And, last time I checked, those who want socialism (I don't think there are many) also have the right to speak. If they want to ask for socialism, let them. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure who you've witnessed asking for socialism, but whoever it is has the right to do so.
"Arizona has passed a law to do something about the terrible issues they are facing as a result of illegal immigration and some are calling them "Nazis" even though the majority of Americans support their law."
Illegal immigration is a problem, yes, and we should take care of it. I personally think that the approach Arizona took was a bit misguided. At any rate, calling them Nazis is extreme and illogical. But support for the law reaches about 57%, and support doesn't necessarily dictate constitutionality.
"We, as a nation, elected our first black president...yet you would think from the tone nowadays that we are a more racist nation than we have ever been."
That's quite an exaggeration.
"If you are a Muslim commenting on a public forum, liberals will say, "You are welcome here and we thank you for expressing your views." If you are a Christian on the same forum liberals will say, "Cram it you religious nutjob!""
That's quite a generalization.
"I've seen atheists say that people of faith should not be able to provide religious guidance to their kids and that doing so constitutes child abuse."
So? Some people have opinions that you agree with. Don't take it as a sign of the general degradation of the population.
"I've seen people advocate for shutting down media that they don't agree with."
Same comment as above, only I'd like to add that there have been people advocating this idea for centuries.
"We are focused on the idea of race and overcoming racial inequality in the nation, but female politicians who don't have a liberal ideology (and some who do) are called ****s and bitches."
I'm sure plenty a female politicians who have a liberal ideology are also called those things. Probably not on Digg, but certainly in other areas and on other websites. Does that make it right? No. But don't make a general issue into a partisan issue. Besides, even if the comments are sexist, the people making them still have a right to do so.
"I've seen people on both sides of the political spectrum saying that a civil war is inevitable."
So? There's no major support for a civil war in this country at the moment.
"I've seen people on both sides of the political spectrum advocate for kicking the other side out of the union and forming their own country."
Once again, this idea has been spread for many, many years.
P.S: You do realize that "microwaved socialism with fascist overtones" makes no sense, right?
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
Jas - that was a bunch of bunk. You may call these statements "generalizations" ....but people will also recognize the truth in them.
------
"We, as a nation, elected our first black president...yet you would think from the tone nowadays that we are a more racist nation than we have ever been."
That's quite an exaggeration.
~~~ Really? How many stories about "racism" are we seeing these days? Hm?
Let's have a look around Digg.
http://digg.com/search?s=racism
http://digg.com/search?s=racist
----------------------------------------------
"We are focused on the idea of race and overcoming racial inequality in the nation, but female politicians who don't have a liberal ideology (and some who do) are called ****s and bitches."
I'm sure plenty a female politicians who have a liberal ideology are also called those things.
~~~ Uh, hence my comment.
"Probably not on Digg, but certainly in other areas and on other websites. Does that make it right? No. But don't make a general issue into a partisan issue. Besides, even if the comments are sexist, the people making them still have a right to do so."
~~~ No, right here on Digg. A LOT! It's an issue of SEXISM. I'm female, it concerns me. Obviously people have first amendment protection in general.
---------------------------------------------
You went to a great deal of trouble to say nothing. The points I am making are things that seem to be occurring NOW all together simultaneously.
"microwaved socialism with fascist overtones" = the progressive agenda. You may not think these things went together in the past ... but this is the present and I hear people advocating for this agenda frequently.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jasmareeJul 25, 2010
My point was that a lot of your concerns shouldn't really be concerns at all. Most of them apply to a very small amount of people (most of the anecdotes, "I once heard a person that said..."), have been continuous throughout history and represent no new problems ("Politicians are demonizing their opposition!"), or are extremely generalized (Liberals say "Cram it you religious nut job!").
I said it was an exaggeration because, while I don't deny that racism still exists in our society (and is even prevalent in some places), it by no means compares to some decades in American history. And don't underestimate the power of anonymity on the internet. People lean toward extreme opinions because they feel that they can say anything without any consequences.
Racism and sexism are problems that need to be dealt with. That seems to be something that we agree on. However, I don't think that these problems are as pervasive as you make them seem.
I have witnessed no one claiming to support socialism with fascist overtones. These things have never gone together, and they still don't.
emailowndmeJul 25, 2010
Your victim complex is showing quirk.
I'm a white middle class Christian. Oh Woe is Me!!! I might be told I can't discriminate against the gay!!! We (the white Christian people) need to take this country back!! Derp.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Well...that was just stupid.
emailowndmeJul 26, 2010
No, you implied that I was implying you're a bigot. You're just ignorant, a pawn in a larger game going on.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Typical lib. Saying you didn't say what you said. Pathetic.
grammerpantsJul 26, 2010
Ignore quirk, she is just the female version of DavidNiven on DIGG
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
...and I have a-hole liberals like you following me around... personally, I think you are afraid of what I have to say. I think you partisans are a-feared that people might read what I have to say and decide to think for themselves and shrug off the lefty-lefty ness of the personal attackers and partisans.
It makes me dance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
"following me around" Translation: You post and we respond. I know you'd like your posts to go unchallenged, but since this is a public forum, you probably should get used to it.
smotpokerJul 25, 2010
@quirk
I know you probably don't care much coming from me but here is MY perspective on some of your opinions:
"People showed up at town halls and were called unamerican hate-mongers by the nation's highest leaders."
From what I have seen of those town hall meetings, many/most were very disorderly. They showed up heckling, shouting and repeating unsubstantiated and absurd rumors and then continually did everything they could to prevent speakers from assuaging them or correcting the misinformation they were attempting to spread.
Of course, I can't say that *all* town halls were like that but there were enough to make anyone who is objective suspect there was a good chance that most were orchestrated to turn out that way and the most vocal and rowdy people who participated were not rational or interested in any sort of civil dialogue. In my book people trying to aggressively incite hatred/opposition, especially when using disinformation and blocking civil discourse in the process, *are* hate-mongerers. What exactly fits *your* definition of the term?
"There are Americans who openly ASK for socialism ... but we are not allowed to talk about it."
Of course we are. The problem arises when everyone tries to label everything they disagree with as socialism and act as if the term itself is some form of revelatory disclosure or epithet that needs no further explanation.
"Arizona has passed a law to do something about the terrible issues they are facing as a result of illegal immigration and some are calling them "Nazis" even though the majority of Americans support their law."
The majority of Germans supported Nazism to some degree themselves. Popularity in/of itself does not imply full merit. Further, many of us who oppose the Arizona law do so to prevent exacerbation of another set of problems which might affect as many US citizens as illegal immigration itself does (and will impact that demographic much worse despite less ability to withstand it even if fewer numbers are affected).
"I've seen people advocate for shutting down media that they don't agree with."
I hope this doesn't refer to me! I only advocate shutting down media that irresponsibly supplies gross disinformation - and that only if they repeat the offense and refuse to be dissuaded.
"We are focused on the idea of race and overcoming racial inequality in the nation, but female politicians who don't have a liberal ideology (and some who do) are called ****s and bitches."
Half of the nation have no such concerns about racial and more than half continue to turn a blind eye to racism
and get upset or offended if it is pointed out. Though I understand the problem with crying wolf or jumping to conclusions it is an equally bad problem to assume for a fact that that is the case just because there is no hard evidence.
I agree that the picture looks a LOT more abysmal than it did during primaries and considerably worse than it did after election but obviously for different reasons (Obama not keeping/prioritizing his promises properly and the lengths many right wingers are willing to go to in order to disrupt social progress in any way possible)
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
I gave you the respect of the read. I disagree...and you've made some of my points for me!
RE the government calling town hallers hate-mongers:
"In my book people trying to aggressively incite hatred/opposition, especially when using disinformation and blocking civil discourse in the process, *are* hate-mongerers. What exactly fits *your* definition of the term?"
NOT people at town hall meetings, that's for damn sure! True hate-mongers hide! These town hallers were not promoting hatred of a group. They were protesting legislation. And openly protesting is supposed to be patriotic. Dissent right on? Right on? No???
"The majority of Germans supported Nazism to some degree themselves. "
~~~I'm resting my case on the description of the Arizona issue.
"I hope this doesn't refer to me! I only advocate shutting down media that irresponsibly supplies gross disinformation - and that only if they repeat the offense and refuse to be dissuaded."
~~~This is scary and somewhat totalitarian. Who decides? First amendment? No? Bad?
"The problem arises when everyone tries to label everything they disagree with as socialism and act as if the term itself is some form of revelatory disclosure or epithet that needs no further explanation. "
Can we discuss this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ
No? We can't? She talks about nationalizing oil! No? Not socialism? Not kinda fascist? Ok.
And finally:
I agree that the picture looks a LOT more abysmal than it did during primaries and considerably worse than it did after election but obviously for different reasons (Obama not keeping/prioritizing his promises properly and the lengths many right wingers are willing to go to in order to disrupt social progress in any way possible)
THIS is why I don't care much about what you say. This is how you ended.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smotpokerJul 26, 2010
"NOT people at town hall meetings, that's for damn sure! True hate-mongers tend to hide! These town hallers were not promoting hatred of a group. They were protesting legislation. And openly protesting is supposed to be patriotic. Dissent right on? Right on? No??? These guys WERE NOT the Phelps group."
They were trying to promote hatred of democrats whom they (ridiculously enough) equate to socialists. Though many might have believed what they were saying to some degree, their irrational hatred and desire to spread it most likely played a big role in their belief, IMO.
Besides this, most of the legislation they were protesting was completely or partially non-existent and legislation wasn't the only thing they mentioned. Another concern that was brought up (not exactly sure how frequent of one it was but I saw it at least a few times) was Obama's nationality and religion.
I am all for informed dissent but I have a problem with blind hatred and I see no problem with the media or anyone else pointing out what specifically was being dissented on or whether it was accurate.
I would also like to point out that people who intentionally disrupt townhall meetings are often arrested or at least removed. The fact that they weren't and that the meetings weren't carefully orchestrated to obfuscate dissent (such as in the Bush admin) should hopefully restore some of your optimism on that particular topic at least.
"I'm resting my case on the description of the Arizona issue."
Not sure what this implies. I was pointing out the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy or whatever it's called and trying to point out there are valid concerns that the AZ law could facilitate the harm of a lot of decent people (including citizens).
"This is scary and somewhat totalitarian. Who decides? First amendment? No? Bad?
Personally I would favor more of a market-driven approach to rooting out disinformers. That is why I mentioned "if they refuse to be dissuaded" (ie by lower ratings and legitimate complaints). However, it seems far too many people have been brainwashed into feeling insignificant and/or watching anything they find entertaining or validating which makes the market-driven approach to holding corporations accountable that much harder.
Still, given the amount of vitriol and misinformation spread by many who are supposed to be considered legitimate, it is hard to deny their great potential for harm. I suppose regulation via mandated proportional retractions/corrections and fines would at least help.
"No? We can't? She talks about nationalizing oil! No? Not socialism? Not kinda fascist? Ok."
And who said you couldn't or shouldn't mention socialism in that context? Personally I wouldn't go so far as to call it Fascism considering the circumstances but I can see how/why one might make that argument.
"THIS is why I don't care much about what you say. This is how you ended."
I am sorry that you feel that way. You are obviously passionate in your beliefs and I know you are pretty reasonable (sometimes at least). I did qualify that statement and didn't intend to imply all right-wingers are that way. However, so many of them make so many claims that are *so* preposterous and yet spread quickly and are treated as fact, it is hard to believe otherwise.
Also, consider some of the [attempted] shooting sprees, assassination plots, etc. At their worst I cannot recall so many leftists trying to stir up mayhem in such a manner. I am not a history buff so I could be mistaken but it's my understanding that such incidents were pretty rare even during the *worst* conservative administrations. Now we have some of the same people who would scoff at even suggesting government culpability in one administration going on killing sprees because of imaginary death panels and suspected socialism in another. Others are going out and stockpiling weapons and attempting to incite armed insurrection. Even more are continually fear- and hate-mongering with inaccurate or blatantly false/absurd rumors.
Personally, I find that a lot more fanatical and threatening than anything I've heard of on the left and it was entirely unexpected to me. I honestly had more faith in the right to overcome worst and most inaccurate disinformation at least by now and not react the way they have to all federal news and policies [for so long]. *That* is the role that right-wingers have played in the deterioration of my optimism and I don't believe it is either unreasonable or should be offensive to you personally.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
Quirk=Digg's biggest victim
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Ironhide - why don't you try debating with actual points instead of name-calling? It might get you some respect. It's GOT to be hard living like you... waiting for the tide to turn and then making snarky comments. Respect yourself! *chest pump*Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
I refuse to debate someone who will never accept any viewpoint other than her own. One only has to look at your posting history to confirm that.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Oh ironhide...I feel sorry for you, man. I'll always invite people to my posting history. They are welcome. They will find out all manner of things there. And I'll stand by all of them because I'm true to myself.
"I refuse to debate someone who will never accept any viewpoint other than her own."
So you only want to debate people who will accept YOUR viewpoint? I know. I've seen your posting history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
I'm not here to convince anyone. :) I'm not on some crusade. I'll leave that to you "true believers"
Keep going, I'm sure there is some liberal "infidel" that could use your attention.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
"I'm not here to convince anyone." No s**t. You cite no sources ... you have no argument, but you criticize others personally. And you wait until you know that your fellow Digglibs are going to Digg you up before you make your personal attacks. Such cowardice is what makes me pity you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
quirkopatra - The difference between you and the people you debate is that you're true to yourself (your opinions, values, feelings) while many of them are true to the facts and the inherent truth that lies within.
Herein lies the larger problem - it's not whether RACIAL politics will ever end, it's when stupid politics will ever end.
Until you can dispassionately argue the facts, you can never passionately argue the facts. But what you can do is passionately argue your opinions as if they were infallible facts. Yet they are not. In a nutshell, that is precisely what is wrong with politics.
I'll tell you a little secret. I happen to agree with you and the conservatives on a lot of issues, more than you'll realise. But you'd never know that because you can't see things objectively and you people irritate me and the liberals to no end because you cannot have an honest, factual debate. That is why politics suck. Just the facts, Jack!
ironhideJul 26, 2010
Wait...that sounded suspiciously like your victimhood leaking through again.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Hey Smack ... check out your bud ironhide again with the personal s**t!
-----------------
"quirkopatra - The difference between you and the people you debate is that you're true to yourself (your opinions, values, feelings) while many of them are true to the facts and the inherent truth that lies within."
~~~ Well, that's a tad insulting, don't you think? Surely you have seen me post facts to support my opinions only to have them buried without comment? You are saying here that there is no truth to what I say. That's wrong and offensive.
"Herein lies the larger problem - it's not whether RACIAL politics will ever end, it's when stupid politics will ever end."
This story is about racial politics.
"Until you can dispassionately argue the facts, you can never passionately argue the facts. But what you can do is passionately argue your opinions as if they were infallible facts. Yet they are not. In a nutshell, that is precisely what is wrong with politics."
You can not erase passion from people. People with passion who also have FACTS behind them are unbeatable. Many of these people are buried on Digg. There have been many places where I have dispassionately argued facts....here's one recent:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Wasn_t_Obama_Supposed_To_Take_Away_Our_Guns?t=34000498#c34000498
Buried.
"I'll tell you a little secret. I happen to agree with you and the conservatives on a lot of issues, more than you'll realise. But you'd never know that because you can't see things objectively and you people irritate me and the liberals to no end because you cannot have an honest, factual debate. That is why politics suck. Just the facts, Jack!"
~~~Well...I have to say then ... why don't you ever express your support? Are you scared of something? What kind of cowardice you must have. I feel bad for you now, too.
I have never seen you advocate on Digg for a conservative position. Ever. Want to point me to somewhere that you did? Did you get buried? Did anyone attack you personally?
Here's another conversation you might be interested in....
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Progressives_and_the_Declaration_of_Independence?t=33997727#c33999337
(hint: you will not get this level of discourse if you are a dick)
There are personally insulting chickens**t liberals who come in here on the wave every day. s**theads who attack you personally and then say you're playing the "victimhood" card.
Again...I have the courage of my convictions. It seems like you are calling me stupid, and you ought to know better.
Hey...if you decide to come clean and have a normal conversation, we can talk. But if you want to "chide" me ... the one person who will BOTHER to have a discussion and still be buried...(and really I ought to know better) if you continue with this s**t you folks try to lob at me ...
...forget it.
I'll tell you a little secret. I happen to agree with you and the conservatives on a lot of issues, more than you'll realise. But you'd never know that because you can't see things objectively and you people irritate me and the liberals to no end because you cannot have an honest, factual debate. That is why politics suck. Just the facts, Jack!
I may take up a cause I disagree with not because I am bored, but because the facts are more important than my selfishness; my opinion. I may not like something, but it doesn't make it untrue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
A little sensitive? Just telling you how you come off. Don't want to be considered a victim? Don't act like one *chest thump* :P
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Just familiar with you and your ilk, Ironhide. I've been here awhile, I haven't run for the hills...don't plan to, either.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
Says the pseudo-intellectual. You have a interesting tendency to dismiss any facts that don't fit in your cozy worldview.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Enjoy your pandering Diggs. Better a pseudo intellectual than a person who has shown no intellect whatsover.
soc7Jul 26, 2010
I tried to reason with her and got no where. Must be me.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
I recently read a post where you championed debate in school as a way of improving critical thinking. After reading this series of comments, I think you should meditate on exactly what you mean, because you aren't actually doing anything that you said was useful in debate.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Did you debate in school smacksaw? Because based on your posting history ... I'm willing to bet you didn't.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
If it has anything to do with your lack of objectivity, inability to keep the tone, the hypocrisy of doing to people what you damn for doing...no, I suppose I didn't debate in high school. What I did has no bearing on how you conduct yourself.
As a side note, I think it would be interesting to see you try and articulate the viewpoints you don't share - because being on a debate team and actually being able to debate either side of a given issue are two different things.
I actually wonder if *YOU* were on a debate team, because *MY* experience on the debate team in high school tells me that if I went against you, I would have won and if you were on my team, no amount of prep or coaching would have helped someone with such a myopic view of every topic that loses it as easily as you do.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Ditto - you have said you have some conservative beliefs...but you don't have the heart to voice them on Digg. You're scared of being buried.
True debaters aren't scared of being buried.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
Umm...I get buried all the time, especially when I call out the right and left. Plus, I wouldn't say that I have "conservative beliefs", just that I have libertarian beliefs and sometimes they intersect with conservatives. The difference is like Rand Paul - he and I can both be against civil rights legislation, but unlike Rand Paul I can concede that 80 years of the "free market" failed to correct it and that whether I like it or not, there was a use for say...the Civil Rights Act.
I don't want people on my side who support me for the wrong reasons. That just defeats my argument. The reality is that since John Kerry's defeat there has a been shift in liberal politics to rational thought instead of bleeding hearts. I'd rather disagree with someone who understands me than get full agreement from people who can't comprehend what I am saying.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
"I have lost the sense of optimism that I had."
...which has been the precise goal of the democrats' self-demonizing opposition since January 2008. Don't get me wrong, the democrats are far from perfect. But the GOP has chosen to embrace the least common denominator, countering policy recommendations with empty platitudes. And they know full well that they don't need to do anything to make the country a better place: they just need to stop the democrats from doing so.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Wanna tin-foil hat? They are all la rage!!
ironhideJul 26, 2010
"moderate media" - *SNORT*
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Tin foil hat? Moderate media? Quirk if your beliefs were any more malleable you'd be able to pour them into your eternally half-empty cup. I think you're projecting a bit.
magus_melchiorJul 26, 2010
You know, quirk, you are the exact replica of a 1980s-1990s politician: Great rhetoric, excellent issue reframing, but shallow knowledge and utter lack of an acceptance of reality.
If you ran for office twenty years ago, I don't think you would be ranting on digg.
It's a shame, really, because your rhetorical skills can be put to great use for good; instead you have set them to service your worldview.
jaxcsJul 26, 2010
You post a lot here so it's not exactly as if your opinions are unknown. I wouldn't say you are particularly tolerant. Jeering is more like it. So that claim to be hopeful for America post Obama, I don't really buy it. From my perspective you have a persecution complex. Your comments are not always level headed and so people call you out. It's not because you're a woman or a christian or even conservative. It's because you're just unpleasant.
alanocuJul 25, 2010
People who toss around charges of racism at everyone who disagrees with them are nothing but poison to a political debate. As soon as somebody injects the words racist or racism into any discussion or argument I find that I now have absolutely no interest in anything else they have to say. DailyKos for instance - there is not enough combined brain power there to light an LED, The race card is maxed out and those who keep making the charges are not able to keep up with the payments anymore.
lurchermanJul 25, 2010
Hear hear. Allegations of racism are a blatant attempt to shortcut a debate by those who recognise their own point of view to be on shaky ground.
entropyfanJul 26, 2010
No. Not even close.
The problem is instead of everyone stepping back and looking objectively at what has happened, many line up with a 'our side or their side' mentality and the issue of racism isn't discussed.
Case in point:
Are elements of the Tea-Party racist? Yes, without a doubt. Are all Tea-Party supporters racist? No, of course not.
But the rest of the Tea-Party won't denounce or distance themselves from those racist elements (remember, us verse them) and become supporters by silence.
The same thing happens with police officers; the many good ones are silent about the few bad ones, because it is a 'us against them' mentality. They empower and enable those bad elements in their ranks for perceived solidarity.
Until we can get around that, the blatant attempts to paint 'the other side' with one brush and 'our side' with another (regardless of how they act), we can't even start to talk about racism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pintomp3Jul 26, 2010
Does that mean we can't call the Klan racist anymore? How about this guy?
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/DaleRobertson_TeaPartyOrg_gentlemenr_med.jpg
pwrxJul 26, 2010
And this one:
http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=hp&biw=1920&bih=1017&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=robert+byrd&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
creationismlolJul 26, 2010
Jesus f**k. Those tea baggers are getting more insane by the date.
bossm4nJul 26, 2010
You can call the Klan racist. But you can also call other race-promoting organizations racist, like NAACP, NBPP, LULAC, et al. Essentially, they all exist to promote their own race-based agenda, they simply go about it using different methods.
creationismlolJul 26, 2010
As soon as somebody injects the words racist or racism into any discussion or argument I find that I now have absolutely no interest in anything else they have to say.
Yeah, because all arguments about race are hyperbole right?
swift2Jul 26, 2010
The simple fact is, the NAACP had a point about some fringes of the Tea Party. Look, THEY had the demonstrations. THEY carried the signs with Obama with a bone in his nose. It's no secret that there's that undertone to many of the "leaders" of the leaderless movement. It is thoroughly fair for the NAACP to pass a resolution asking that the organization take a harder line with this. And one sick individual was separated from the Tea Party Express for an unforgivable bit of insulting and, yes, racist prose. So the next day, Breitbart can't let that stand: he had to start with the line that "the NAACP is racist." Why on earth does he say that? "Because they stand up for one race." Well, first comes a history lesson, and you know, there's a reason for that. Blacks didn't lynch whites, it was the other way around.
No, this is just political bully-boy behavior. Sure, sometimes people get accused of racist behavior on weak grounds. But sometimes it's very clear, no?
I'm not going to go out of my way to say why Breitbart felt it was okay to excerpt a very inspiring talk by a woman who has done more for rural whites than anybody criticizing her. I won't put a motive on it, just describe it: he's a lowdown creep with no sense of honor or honesty.
wkrausmannJul 26, 2010
People on the left throw the race card at the Tea Party movement so much because they know that the Tea Party has struck a nerve with the current administration. They have affected change and the folks on the left are legitimately worried about what may happen in the next election.
beratebirthersJul 25, 2010
Not until the GOP's southern strategy is eliminated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
soc7Jul 25, 2010
They never really got over the whole voting rights act thing did they?
beratebirthersJul 25, 2010
Ask Rand Paul. He's still fighting that today.
nolibrariansJul 25, 2010
Don't forget Rand's insane father Ron is also against the Civil Rights Act
soc7Jul 25, 2010
I think the Neanderthal gene may have actually slipped through the eons into the present day gene pool. Just a hunch.
jack416Jul 26, 2010
Nope.
emailowndmeJul 25, 2010
At least the southerners are honest about it.
Some of the more powerful racists are in the north, controlling our dialogue, riding a wave of popularity because they support the white people who are "losing the country they love".
but yeah, good link BBComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
realeskimopimpJul 26, 2010
Heh. Funny how the truth gets buried because people are offended it was brought up.
In 100 years when everyone who is afraid of blacky and jose die off, then racial politics will be over.
soc7Jul 26, 2010
This also applies in part to minorities, Especially those that have vivid memories of Jim Crow, KKK lynchings and the trials of the civil rights movement. The younger generation of minorities only faces the task of discovering this history and deciding what part of it they want to embrace and how they want to move forward. As far as just how much racism the younger minority generation is experiencing, well only they know.
skinny01Jul 26, 2010
But don't forget, those folks are still raising kids with the same mindset. It'll take a lot longer for it all to finally filter out enough that it won't matter.
anachronusJul 26, 2010
Seen here a prime example as why it will not.
swift2Jul 26, 2010
As long as some scum politician thinks it's okay to divide the races by a morals-free attack on a very good woman, Breitbart will be there.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
As long as their is money to be made off of race and people to be exploited for political gain, the left will never let racial politics die.
jasmareeJul 26, 2010
*As long as there is money to be made off of race and people to be exploited for political gain, people will never let racial politics die.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
I always use the analogy of criticising someone for bleeding on your carpet, except that you just shot them in the chest.
Sure, it's bad to get blood all over someone's carpet, but you should probably stop shooting them.
You may not be a racist on the right, which is why these accusations of racism escape you - they aren't directed at you.
assassyn360Jul 26, 2010
Just give another million years when races will be unidentifiable. Then maybe the bulls**t will end.
jack416Jul 26, 2010
I think racial intermarrying and mixing has been going on for centuries if not for thousands of years.
assassyn360Jul 26, 2010
LOL I guess that is why I said, "another million!" And in that time human interaction will be universal globally.
Mich167Jul 26, 2010
LOL by that time the human race might be extinct but I guess that means racism would be too.
kuzotzJul 26, 2010
racial intermixing is normal and good. it keeps the human genetic pool diverse. in fact its one of the reasons why we have a diverse genetic pool. btw race is a social construct so lets stop this bulls**t.
swift2Jul 26, 2010
No, no. Maybe 200 years, in the US, tops. We'll all be kind of coppery. We'll need it, to stand up to the sun we'll be getting with global warming.
assassyn360Jul 26, 2010
We... what do you mean we. I am already shielded with a layer of sufficient melanin. I never had a sunburn in my life.
diskohJul 26, 2010
The only people obsessed with race lately are right wing people infatuated with the NAACP and Black panthers suddenly for some asinine reason. They perpetuate it all the while complaining that race is all we talk about.
nidstylesJul 26, 2010
Yep here you are bringing up the race card again.... Are you blind to your own action's?
diskohJul 26, 2010
I glanced at your post history and noticed you put an ' every time a word ends in S. Is there a reason you do that?
Not attacking, just asking.
patrickrossJul 26, 2010
What is asinine is overlooking the intimidation of voters in Pennsylvania by the New Black Panther Party, and the Eric Holder Department of Justice's decision to drop that case (which had already beeen WON).
swift2Jul 26, 2010
PartrickRoss, stop being used as a tool by the misinformers of the right. Now, when did that little bit of tape that FOX has shown you about 9000 times get shot? On November 2008 Election Day. Now, for three months after that, who was in charge of the Justice Department? Bush. What did they do about it? They decided against criminal charges, but they put one of these TWO MEN under an injunction not to show up with at a polling place for two years. He can go to jail if he does. In other words, they handled it just like they handled the case in 2006 where the militia types showed up at the polls in New Mexico, I think it was. Nobody was apparently intimidated by them either, and so there were no criminal cases. The case against the Black Panthers wasn't WON, it was almost totally dealt with by January 8 or so, when the Bush AG put it into the minor case category, where famous conservative Abigail Thernstrom says it belongs. http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007250017
In other words, there is no evidence that anybody in the Justice Department, Bush or Obama's, said anything like, "let's convict whites but not blacks." None. Zero. Now, somebody is trying to convince you that there is. That Obama and Holder and some secret group of socialists are coming to get white people. Now, why would anyone be saying something that stupid?
wkrausmannJul 26, 2010
So diskoh, you're okay with the intimidation of voters by a militant racist organization? A black man infringed on the civil liberties that generations of black people have fought so hard to acquire! It's disgusting to think that it's perfectly fine to do!
THAT is racism from the left!
iatethecrayonJul 26, 2010
Answer: Nope.
fatamericanJul 26, 2010
As long as we continue to deny race, we can never look at race relations in a way that makes sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior
PDF of the book:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
jack416Jul 26, 2010
ANNNNNND the Rightwing Screamer Brigade strikes again! This time, on a weekend evening instead of on a weekday midnight.
Time to commence burying.
tenderloveponyJul 26, 2010
At least this weekend evening, the Democratic Congress isn't passing another over arching bill.
nidstylesJul 26, 2010
Yes, just blame the other group for being irrational. Forget the article at hand, and that some people in the center might actually agree with it. Moderate's don't exist after all right? It's alway's polarized argument, and you are alway's right. May not be racism, but it's certainly Bigotry.
jack416Jul 26, 2010
I'm referring to some of the tin hat comments posted here. Don't get me wrong.
creationismlolJul 26, 2010
It usually stops midpage after they're done gaming their friends articles.
superkendallJul 26, 2010
Remember that it was not Brietbart that fired Sherrod, it was the government. If you want to truly be a post-racial government you can't drop-kick a person at the drop of a hat when someone utters the word Racism...
And that is a two-way street. The Tea Party deserves context as much as Sherrod did, I've never seen racism in evidence at a Tea Party and the media should not claim it is commonplace.
Basically, how about we all talk about real ideas, and not the race of those speaking?
superkendallJul 26, 2010
Buried for a call to reason. That's Digg for you.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Glad to see you being Dugg. I made a post upthread making observations about both ends of the political spectrum and, of course, was buried. God help those in the middle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pintomp3Jul 26, 2010
"I've never seen racism in evidence at a Tea Party" Really?
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/DaleRobertson_TeaPartyOrg_gentlemenr_med.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yasDDDHAHvQ/SrKpFuXAPsI/AAAAAAAAJEc/BrBB5oQNFcA/s320/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg
grgt1994Jul 26, 2010
Connection with tea party please?
Didn't think so. Remember, the most vitriolic instances of tea party racism have been proven to be Democrat party hacks appearing with Nazi posters and similarly offensive materials attending events they only intend to fraudulently undermine.
smaulzJul 26, 2010
Please feel free to continue trotting out the images of Dale Robertson. Yeah, you know, that guy who has absolutely dick to do with the tea parties.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2010/03/31/tea-party-fraud-tangled-web-lies
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/02/12/tpm-trumpets-racist-rebuffed-tea-party-groups-prominent-leader
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2010/07/21/light-naacp-condemnation-media-brings-back-tea-party-fraud
The second one I see absolutely nothing wrong with. It's implying that Obamacare is turning us into a third-world country, and I completely agree. If you try really hard to be offended about it though, I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing so.
Also, I do honestly believe birtherism has nothing to do with racism. (Not personally a birther since I couldn't possibly care less where the guy was born). When Obama first hit the spotlight, NPR themselves said he was Kenyan born. His father is from and resides in Kenya. How is being suspicious of his birthplace racist? Again, I'm sure since you've got your mind set, you'll be offended yet again, (confirmation). Thanks for playing though.
chrisvazquez1Jul 26, 2010
Well, I might as well just be speaking to air, but what does a birth certificate or citizenship have to do with loyalty? From what I understand the biggest reason that a president must be born in the U.S. is because of where his loyalty lies, but how can you apply that when said person was raised here and has no allegiance to another country? Regardless, there is no HARD evidence that Obama is not American born. Keep in mind I said HARD evidence. As long as his loyalty lies in the U.S. why does it matter where he was born?
Another thing, no birtherism has nothing to do with racism, it's just another form of prejudice. Racism is prejudice to race, birtherism is prejudice to where you where said person was born. We see birtherism more and more in this country. We're not AS racist as we used to be, but we still hold many prejudices to where people are born. For example an ignorant prejudice towards Mexico and its' people. You see it every day. We do still see racism though, too say we don't is negligent, I have no idea how many times I've heard a colleague say they dislike Asian people because they "can't drive" or have weird accents, or are annoyed by female black's because of their characteristic of being so outspoken. Everyone wants to say racism isn't still present, but it is. Hell we even hold prejudice to other political parties! How many times have you heard terms like 'socialist liberal' or 'racist conservative.' Prejudice is an ugly thing, quite frankly I'm tired of it.
savbyroyJul 28, 2010
Has the birth certificate any white president been questioned?
Technically no... McCain was a Presidential Candidate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html
realeskimopimpJul 26, 2010
Are you blind???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI
swift2Jul 26, 2010
It was Breitbart who intentionally spread the slander of the good woman, and that immediately got into the news cycle. The White House and the USDA made a mistake. Breitbart's the skilled liar.
anakastJul 26, 2010
Tell that to Maddow.
beratebirthersJul 26, 2010
Breitbart and Faux lied and she lost her job. Is it Obama's fault he actually thinks the right-wing is as honest as he is?
jhorraJul 26, 2010
As long as there is power to be had by turning groups of people against each other, no.
tenderloveponyJul 26, 2010
97% of back Americans voted for Obama. How is that not deemed racism?
k3rfuffl3Jul 26, 2010
Did you even bother to see what % of black voters voted for other Democratic Presidential candidates? Oh right... You didn't 'cause you're a f**king idiot trying to race bait.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
"Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." -- Wikipedia.
Blacks voting for the first half-white president isn't racism, at least by the above definiton.
skinny01Jul 26, 2010
Before Obama, 100% of black voters voted for a white guy. Were they all sellouts?
joejitsuJul 26, 2010
What's a back American?
nidstylesJul 26, 2010
Democratic parties have alway's done that.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
When you criticize the president you are doing the country a favor. We need discussion to drive progress.
When you criticize the president on *every single thing* he does, you start to look like a fool. When you criticize him for embracing a republican idea like the individual mandate (which was put out by Sen. Grassley), you start to raise questions about your cooperation. When you criticize him for doing something that should have been universally welcome (like increase PTSD funding for veterans), you start to raise questions about your motives. When you criticize the president for his mustard, you start to look retarded.
Then you get all huffy when a clip was taken out of context that shows supposed reverse racism, you start to show the motives. When you refuse to even engage in a discussion about potential racism, and instead just scream "YOU'RE RACIST TOO", you start to make it seem like there's some racial animosity. When your numbers show that 51% of your movement thinks that the struggle of the historically oppressed races are blown out of proportion, it becomes evident.
As pure as you say the Tea Party's motives are, there are signs of racism. You must hate the president for something other than his policies, and you decry the simplest accusations as completely baseless without any discussion.
The Tea Party is not a racist movement, but there is racism in it.
nidstylesJul 26, 2010
You really think that the left has no racism in it either? You would do well to not purely blame it on one team, when both are guilty. I'm involved in the Tea Party, but I am a Libertarian. Looking at it from the outside, it seem's to me that it's something that is prominent on both sides of the argument. The D party has alway's used racism in their election's to get the vote's. What better way to pander than to focus on the racism of the other party, while acting the same way themselves?
How about you both shut the f**k up and realize that there's only one race, Human. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kuzotzJul 26, 2010
you're a moron
collinetsJul 26, 2010
Also, your ideas are bad economics.
Just saying.
dustblinkJul 26, 2010
"The Tea Party is not a racist movement, but there is racism in it"
source?
k3rfuffl3Jul 26, 2010
Racist signs at tea party events which the rest of the tea party doesn't do anything about.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
My entire thesis was "there's racism in the tea party", which I back up with the rest of my mini-essay.
Also, search "racist tea party signs", and consider the fact that those people aren't kicked out.
magic6435Jul 26, 2010
No. Next question please.
rockerprincessJul 26, 2010
Sadly, highly unlikely. Crap like this is too deeply ingrained in the history of the US for it to easily disappear, particularly when a percentage of the populace is still quick to point out superficial differences amongst us as the cause of the country's problems.
collinetsJul 26, 2010
Immigrants have always been the ultimate scapegoat throughout history.
trashyamericanJul 26, 2010
a huge majority of america is racist, so no, racial politics will enver end in america. at least not until south secedes.
jimmiesJul 26, 2010
A huge majority? Citation needed.
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
Play any on-line game and you'll have a pretty good example of how racist America still is.
dreadpirateJul 26, 2010
So says Trashyamerican, a 16-year old pipsqueak from New York City. Someone who has probably never traveled outside of the city and has zero real-world experience, based on his repeated pathetic, baseless posts here on digg. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
Funny how the libs are the only ones who bring up race anymore... They use cries of racism to control the ignorant who can't think for themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
woodsjransomJul 26, 2010
Bullshyt and you know it. Look in the mirror.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
or spell...
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Do you enjoy stating things that are fundamentally false?
bcronosJul 26, 2010
Why would you say that's false? It's simply an observation from watching and reading the news everyday... and no I'm not a Republican...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drmangrumJul 26, 2010
Prove it's false. For the last year and a half all we've seen from liberals is the race card.
A cop detains a man allegedly breaking and entering a home in an affluent neighborhood? Racism!
People fight Obama on TARP. RACISM!
People fight Obama on bailouts. RACISM!
People speak out against the HCR. RACISM!
People question Obama on Gitmo still being open. RACISM!
Question Obama about Afghanistan and Iraq. RACISM!
The Arizona law. RACISM!
Every step of the way, the left has used The Race Card as a way to shut down debate. The people aren't buying it anymore. That dog won't hunt.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
@drmlangrum, "That dog won't hunt" sounds kind of southern to me.
RACISM!!! ;^)
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
Way to prove yourself part of the problem while blaming it on someone else.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
Funny how some people think race and racism doesn't exist unless someone happens to bring it up.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
Funny how the liberals are the only ones to constantly bring it up though...
chrisvazquez1Jul 26, 2010
How do you define racism? Prejudice of race. What you just showed is prejudice of political parties. I think we can call that partyism. As long as people such as yourself show prejudice, you prove that there is potential for racism.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
What did Breitbart do? Oh that's right, he race-baited.
And he's a liberal right?
jayjaylolJul 26, 2010
No. As long as whites continue to oppress blacks and latinos, it will never end.
kreatre2007Jul 26, 2010
Idiots like you are the purveyors of racism. Blacks, and latinos aren't oppressed. "Minorities" need to stop acting like victims, and join the rest of society.
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
Hrmm... last time I heard a white person call a black person a gentlemen: yesterday. You are therefor wrong.
jayjaylolJul 26, 2010
Minorities are always victims.
exposheyJul 26, 2010
I wouldn't exactly say there oppressed, but they definitely aren't treated the same as your run of the mill white guy.
kasha34Aug 2, 2010
@ivanmarsh
You need some new friends. I grew up on 155th St in Manhattan. Went to elementary and middle schools in Harlem. I have NEVER heard a white person call a black that.
I have however, heard blacks toss that word around at each other. Last week, in fact.
nubnubJul 26, 2010
f**k you're racist ass.
chrisvazquez1Jul 26, 2010
"f**k YOU'RE racist ass."? Lawl.
smoove314Jul 26, 2010
It will only happen when we discover aliens. Then we can move on to the fact that we're one human race. Like that's going to happen any time soon...
fenririiiJul 26, 2010
Agreed. Why oppress a race when you can oppress an entire alien species? /s
Seriously, a common fear is the only thing that could potentially unite this planet.
kreatre2007Jul 26, 2010
As long as we have people who make their living from racism, we'll still have racial politics. Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson are rich men because of racism. They're nothing but race peddling poverty pimps.
trentdeuxJul 26, 2010
And not just those two. How about every person whose job title includes the word "diversity". How about every college professor teaching <race>-American studies. How about every civil rights or immigration lawyer. How about the many talking heads on TV spouting off about race. They all have a financial interest in racism or at least the perception of a high degree of racism to exist. Their very livelyhood depends on it so they will do what they can to stoke the flames.
jasmareeJul 26, 2010
You're taking it a bit too far. I don't believe there is much of a problem with <race>-American Studies. It's mostly history and statistics, and you can study those within the context of a race without be racist.
Same goes for civil rights and immigration. There are still civil rights violations and, for those, lawyers must exist. I'm not saying that some don't take advantage of race. Just that they are still necessary.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
It doesn't seem fair that I said the same thing and got dugg down, while you got dugg up. Perhaps I should have been more specific.
chuckdeesJul 26, 2010
There is no comparison between Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Besides that, if you didn't live through the hate that people like Jesse Jackson lived through. You have no room to speak, because you cannot appreciate the perspective people that have lived through it hold.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Comments along the line of "because you cannot appreciate the perspective of someone who has experienced it," are nearly as bad as someone calling someone a racist to attempt to shut down debate. You can still hold an opinion on something without having to experience it first hand.
chuckdeesJul 26, 2010
You can have an opinion about anything. It doesn't mean it is a valid opinion though or an equal opinion.
A plumber could have an opinion about the theory of gravity. That doesn't make the plumbers opinion equal to a scientists.
trentdeuxJul 26, 2010
Whatever Jesse Jackson has lived through does not excuse him being a shakedown artist and making false accusations of racism.
kreatre2007Jul 26, 2010
Well... My ancestors were oppressed too. My lineage is Scot. The English oppressed us for hundreds of years.
Obviously, I'm taking this a bit far, but a lot of blacks insist that we should have reparation payments well over a hundred years since slavery was abolished. My demanding reparation from the UK government for the oppression of the Scots, and other Gaelic peoples would be ludicrous.
At any rate, it doesn't matter what Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton went through. This is a great country. Their vast wealth is proof of that.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
Not while there are still liberals around...
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
Way to prove that you are the actual problem.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
What problem?
chrisvazquez1Jul 26, 2010
How do you define racism? Prejudice of race. What you just showed is prejudice of political parties. I think we can call that partyism. As long as people such as yourself show prejudice, you prove that there is potential for racism.
siszamJul 26, 2010
You need to drop this left/right paradigm you're wrapped up in. Painting a whole group of people from either political spectrum with a broad brush is absolutely, willfully ignorant. Nothing can be done about anything while you stand there like a child, point your fingers and scream "Liberals!" at people like a kid calling someone a do do head. If you pay attention you will see plenty of wrong behavior from both sides. Don't be part of the problem. Broaden your mind and wake up. If you buy into into everything the Right or the Left pushes then you're not a thinking person. You're just a tool to be manipulated.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
I've been a Libertarian for almost forty years. My comments are simply an observation from watching forty years of politics. I agree that both sides have their problems, racial guilt, etc. lives in the in the land of the left, however.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
libertarianslolJul 26, 2010
i'm a white male and where's my free yacht and country club membership?
nidstylesJul 26, 2010
That's all white people do after all right?
drmangrumJul 26, 2010
Not so long as it can be used to bypass debate or used by media whores like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to make a buck.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
Ever see a mob story, like a TV show or movie or something. "We're gonna drop a dime on that guy."
To a conservative, it doesn't mean killing. Killing isn't even implied. To them, it means someone is going to walk over and put change on his head from a higher point.
See, there's a kind of denial that says "Hey, we stopped calling those people gentlemen so we're not racist! Now get the f**k away from my daughter you African American!"
Do you see the difference between explicit and implied? This entire thread is filled with the sort of idiotic denial of people who think that implied racism isn't racism. And because of that reasoning, they can imply racism with impunity and get away with it. And that's why liberals think some conservatives are racist. Some of these conservatives are ignorant of the implied racism and others use it as a tool to be racist. But since there's no concrete evidence, they don't have to be accountable to it because...hey, it could mean anything. Like coin-throwing!
nidstylesJul 26, 2010
Yes, please don't deny your bigotry next time we point it out.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
If I say something bigoted, I deserve to have it pointed out.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
What are you talking about? Are you going to start bloviating about "skin" colored Crayola's being implied racism because they don't match a certain skin color? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawJul 26, 2010
I thought you were smarter than that.
zenmojoJul 26, 2010
When I call a black man a "poverty pimp" I don't actually mean to use some sort of racist stereotype. I would just as easily have called a white man a "poverty pimp..."
/s
user500Jul 26, 2010
we didnt start the fire
the words been burning since the worlds been turning...
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Both political sides are determined keep racism alive for different reasons.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
I'd say the left needs racism more than the right just from observation, while the right needs to convince Christians that gays are going to get married and teenagers are going to have abortions. It's one issue or another that doesn't really matter in the long run that's trotted out before the bases of each party to manipulate and use the non-thinkers to win votes. That's the sad reality of the society we live in.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jcimsJul 26, 2010
Not in our lifetimes, that's for certain.
There will always be a minority that can be leveraged politically. Racial ones are the most convenient, as they absolve the 'subject' of any choice in the matter. Substantial variances in skin color may go away in a few hundred generations, but by then the subtler and more concrete effects of variances in the human genome will come to the forefront. Unfortunately, the consequences of these factors will be more fully supported by scientific inquiry, and 'all men are created equal' will become a policy rather than a presumption.
collinetsJul 26, 2010
Bill O'Reilly has no credibility.
peacefrogsJul 26, 2010
long story short, no
the race card will be played as liberally (and i dont mean democrats) as the card for religion, weight, sexual preference, and which country club you belong to. as long as there is something to be gained through playing it then it will be played on both sides of the issue. no one seems to remember that the use of white slaves was wide spread in rome and greece or that rival african tribes sold their fellow africans into slavery in the first place. they also fail to realize that close nit communities will reject all who arent part of the community unless a need for them arises. strong jewish communities will only hire within the community unless there is no noticeable option, strong poor communities will tend to hire only those from the same neighborhood, and strong redneck communities will tend to only hire rednecks. i am from the south and i have family up north and its the same no matter where you go
all in all prejudice will remain. the people complaining about it however will either be part of the select few who have a legit cause for complaining and then the rest seem to be overly sensitive and are too blinded by their own prejudices to see that they weren't qualified for such and such job or they just weren't good enough to make the team.
perrymJul 26, 2010
the left needs its race-baiting.
99% of the time there is no racism coming from anybody of any political view but leftists groups continue to claim 'racism' time and time again to divert attention from any actual issues trying to be discussed.
its sad that more people cannot see through it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vigrocoJul 26, 2010
The easiest way to discredit your main rivals is not with facts and information, but with supposition and misdirection.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
First there was racism. Then liberals created institutional racism and coded racism. You can only hear it with a dog whistle. - Evan Sayet
chilidogsJul 26, 2010
I don't think that you know what institutional racism is. It is a statistical fact that minorities are treated differently in a variety of situations in this country. Numbers aren't opinions.
http://globalsociology.com/2008/03/23/race-crime-and-punishment-in-the-united-states/
wickliffedraperJul 26, 2010
Yes, they are treated differently. They're eligible for affirmative action programs that exclude whites.
bcronosJul 26, 2010
Of course minorities are treated differently. Affirmative action, race based scholarships, etc. That's how liberals ease their guilt.
chilidogsJul 26, 2010
Minorities are more likely to be sentenced to jail time and death than whites for the same crimes. In studies where a white applicant and a minority applicant apply for loans with identical submissions the minorities are more likely to be turned down.
Since you are clearly unable to read the link that I supplied here is a cartoon. I think that is more your speed.
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0108toon.gif
wickliffedraperJul 26, 2010
"In studies where a white applicant and a minority applicant apply for loans with identical submissions the minorities are more likely to be turned down."
When a white applicant and a minority applicant apply for admission to college with identical submissions the white applicant is more likely to be turned down.
And if all these credit-worthy minorities are getting turned down for loans, then why are default rates higher for minorities than for whites?
Maybe your first point is correct. I don't know. You want to advocate for leniency for black murderers, go right ahead.
buonchuyenbmJul 26, 2010
http://www.thanhlapcongty.net.vn/ lap cong ty</a> cùng babylon.
Xem thêm http://www.giatthamvanphong.com tham van phong</a>
rsmith32Jul 26, 2010
du ma may
johnagainJul 26, 2010
No.
Education is the only way to overcome this, and our education system is just not that good.
Universities don’t really get students to think for themselves;
Some students leave with the same ideologies and morals they showed up with. These usually come from their parents/neighborhood where they grew up.
Other students leave thinking exactly like one of their professors. This is where many of the ultra-liberal freaks come from.
Some carry with them a blended opinion of things from several professors, which serves them pretty well until they enter a debate, then they realize that many of their beliefs clash with one another.
There are precious few that actually think for themselves, have enough information to come to a big picture conclusion about the world and the people in it, and then actually do so.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
There is a vested interest in keeping people ignorant. Education, especially government education, serves to get you to become a functioning member of Society and nothing else. If people were truly educated, about the history of this nation, about how the government works, about how much money is wasted by the gov., about the history of the federal reserve, about personal finance and to not become a debt slave, the entire system would collapse.
The entire history of the world is a case study of the Haves vs Have-nots and the Haves stay in their positions of power by keeping the Have-nots ignorant. What pisses me off is that people don't see it...The tax code that's stacked against people who want to move up in society and the small handouts to keep the poorest of the poor from starving, but not educating them enough to get them ahead will keep them in the serfdom class forever.
chuckdeesJul 26, 2010
I doubt it. It is funny though to hear right wingers say that liberals only bring up race.
The right has been race baiting with the ACORN, Van Jones and now the Sherrod story for the last year.. What have they been saying? Look out white people, there are some radical blacks and they are going to take away what you have.
Like Rachel Maddow said last week this isn't a new ploy. George Wallace did this in the 60's.
It is an interesting spin to see one part of the right wing race bait, then when the left comments on it. The other part of the right wing blames the left for bringing up race.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38353636
originallucid1Jul 26, 2010
The right has called out Van Jones and ACORN for what they are clearly guilty of. It's people like you who are the first to notice their skin color.
chuckdeesJul 26, 2010
They were guilty of nothing. They were made an example of because of race. That is the point of race baiting.
originallucid1Jul 26, 2010
Seriously? Then why Is Van Jones no longer in the Obama Regime? Did Barry let the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy trick him into being a racist? Only an idiot would deny that ACORN is a shady operation. Put down the Kool-Aid and pay attention. Oh wait, was that racist?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theother1Jul 26, 2010
Only if was grape Kool-Aid
labdiscoJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
anachronusJul 26, 2010
Currently racism is an "have you stopped beating your wife" question. The person accused has an automatic presumption of guilt. It is used as a weapon to silence one's opponent. So as long as this remains a factor then no, it will not.
brooklyn11218Jul 26, 2010
Simple answer? No.
urnrgJul 26, 2010
No
northmassJul 26, 2010
not until people stop bringing it up all the time for little reason.
wickliffedraperJul 26, 2010
When when the race hustlers and leftists use the word "racist," they simply mean "conservative white person." Period.
http://www.amazon.com/Racism-Schmacism-Liberals-Obama-Agenda/dp/1452856133/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zenmojoJul 26, 2010
Race hustlers...Poverty pimps...I'm counting and trying to see what ironically turned stereotypes right wingers can run with throughout this article. How about "diversity sharecroppers." That's one I haven't heard yet.
labdiscoJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
shawnfromnhJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
magus_melchiorJul 26, 2010
For that matter, where's the fire held to the feet of newsmen who all but legitimized biggovernment.com?
So far, there are only a handful (ONE on Fox) who called Breitbart "discredited". Unless this changes to a majority of journalists, charlatans like Breitbart and 99% of the NewsCorp enterprise will continue to destroy journalism as a source of reliable information.
Remember: The first step to totalitarianism is not to kill labor, nor to destroy the government, but to control the media.
shawnfromnhJul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
theother1Jul 26, 2010
Not as long as the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, et al are around.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
What and give up our justification for pretty much everything?
RIght
/forced social collectivists
shingoexJul 26, 2010
As long as there is intolerance for ANYTHING in our society, crap like this will continue. I honestly don't see it ever ending (sadly).
dextrampennaeJul 26, 2010
It's all about domination. Anyone who thinks it's all about peace and getting along is a fool.
patrickrossJul 26, 2010
The Race Wars won't end because the Spencer Ackermans of the world won't let them.
battmannJul 26, 2010
I didn't know what racism was until i moved to the South at age 13! What a big difference in hospitality!
fenririiiJul 26, 2010
Same here. I had never been called a 'cracker' or 'yankee' until I hit the south. When someone is racist against you it makes you react the same way back. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
datdamonfooJul 26, 2010
First, yankee isn't racist. Second, if you think being called cracker is the same as being called the n word, then you have no idea how powerful the n word actually is.
abkafJul 26, 2010
Sadly we will always find some feature or characteristic by which to separate ourselves. What saddens me about racism in the US specifically is that poor people of all races stand to collectively gain the most by aligning their interests (which from a socioeconomic standpoint should be similar) and executing on the political side through the simple act of voting. The division and conflict created through this "us vs. them" modern media benefits no one other than those unscrupulous enough to take advantage of people's paranoia and ignorance.
zenmojoJul 26, 2010
The modern media is full of rich people. As the politically late John Edwards said to Stone Philips, "My raising taxes on those making 100,000 dollars a year is going to hit you, not the average American."
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Nope, there's too much money and power to be had in this war.