gee, even videosift is playing the race card nowadays

Its not a question of whether because Tobacco is also a drug shouldn't it be restricted as well, which of course technically it is (18+). Its more that just because it looks like he might be selling weed or coke doesn't mean he actually is. Yes, he very much might be selling to consumers who do consume, but he isn't doing the selling himself (At least no proof is available). Legally there's a line there, much like there is a line between tobacco and cocaine. Its a fallacy.

But in his (community) defence they pulled the race card, when it seemed like police were targeting for the above fallacy instead. That's the point I'm making. Idiots all around.

And I know it might be far too conclusionary, but I literally have no other information to go off of besides this video. The journalist didn't ask why they thought race was involved and not because he could cater to existing drug users (see lecit and illicit can apply here). If the informant is going to do something retarded, let that retardation stand on its own merit against him.

It's a race card.. haha! ha! ...ha..... eh.... eeehr......... yeah.

The media does not cares if blacks kills blacks. They report what is and is not news worthy.

The other week the When the plane went down is San Fran. There were 72 killings / shootings in Chicago and no National Media. From a gun violence point of view and there is a lot of that going around, still no one cares.


The Zimmerman/ Martin issue was made a race issue from the National Race Baiters Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. They went down to Sanford and goated the DA for the arrest of Zimmerman. The circus show had begun. Even during and after the trail, MSNBC is pulling the race card. No wonder the country is divided.

The only defining issue to have is the state of mind of Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger. There was no defining evidence of willful intent or self defense hence he was acquitted.

You need to learn how to read a story. that is not what it said or implied.

The Republican party can only tale a back seat to Democrats on playing the race card.

Your 2005 article indicates:
"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South."

Now where did it say Republican party courted racist for their vote. If that was the case They would have gotten Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to join the Republican.

As you said "appealing to racists to boost their vote" and exploited racial strife are not the same.

The article went on to say:
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

The root of the Southern Strategy"
"Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.



To sum this up: Nixon Blamed Democrats for the racial mess of the mid late 60's in order to pull some white voters to switch from Democrat to Republican in order to gain votes.

And for that you call Republican Raciest??? Don't you really mean Democrats ?

After all Democrats were the south. Democrats kept the plantations. Democrats wanted to keep the salve system in place. Democrats started the KKK to keep blacks and whites from voting Republican.


I am sorry that if for some small amount to years that Republicans used race/ race baiting/ raciest to gain more Republican white votes is it is nothing to what Democrats have done. AT least they did not whip/ chain/ rape/ murder/ or lynch any one to gain or keep their vote.

Its true and YOU know it.

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.

At one time or another I've been an anarchist, liberal, conservative and (card-carrying) Libertarian. Like anyone here, my views are complex because life is complex.

I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.

Many people inherit money and burn through it irresponsibly. Romney worked hard and created value, which brought him more wealth.

Clinton knocked up Hillary, are you going to compare his "natural" abuse of women and dishonoring of his marriage with Romney's marriage?

Laws, for the most part, reflect morality. Plenty of stupid, unjust laws exist and are bent. I believe if anarchy ensued, Romney would still be the same decent square. He could be fooling us all, of course.

The fact is, Obama has been vetted.

Where are his grades and college papers? Does anyone have a timeline of his immigration status? When did he have dual citizenship and for how long? Do you think a boy raised by marxists in a foreign land shares American values? I don't. Obama was a spoiled kid who decided to "forward" himself playing the race card. He had no reason to be bitter about anything except by choice.

And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.

Arch-liberals 'hate' Obama for reasons different than centrists. On many points, we would agree Obama poses a serious threat to liberty, and there are other additional points which make him an unacceptable candidate to me, but not to you. So be it.


>> ^MrFisk:

Careful now, I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. You should try it sometime.
I don't put much merit on any of the attributes you've given Romney. Inheriting money isn't successful -- creating it is; knocking up a your wife isn't noble, it's natural; using laws as a barometer for morality is repulsive; and squares are just fearful of everything everybody but themselves do.
The fact is, Obama has been vetted. And if you want to talk trash, call him out for: not closing Guantanamo; for not using his position to limit Wall Street's power and corruption; for allowing indefinite detention; for allowing citizen executions without a trial; for extending unwarranted wiretapping; for catering to the pharmaceutical industries during negotiations for the Affordable Care Act; etc.
But I know the foam at your mouth hinders any reasoning in your brain. In fact, is Romney the man you put in for during the primary? Or isn't it just anybody but B. Hussein O.?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Romney: successful businessman, family man, upstanding citizen, square.
The irony here is that you, the liberal, have all the facts the libmedia could dig up on Romney, with a huge side dish of bias, of course.
Obama hasn't been vetted to this day, huge gaps remain in his personal history.
What we have now, however, is a 4-year record meriting his firing.
>> ^MrFisk:
Based on Romney's imperformance, he doesn't merit a first term.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

>> ^bobknight33:

Race card? There are just as much poor whites on welfare as blacks.
Democrats pull the race card all the time.
What game is being played?
Chris is such a fool. If Obama was born in America why has he spent millions to stop others from seeing a bonafide original document?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

What you mean this one, took me like 2 seconds to google obama birth certificate.

de·lu·sion/diˈlo͞oZHən/
Noun:
An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality

I can't believe I'm actually walking into this, but although the number of white welfare recipients is nearly equal to the number black welfare recipients, the overall number of blacks in America is about 6 times less than whites which makes it a much higher percentage of people in the black community receiving welfare. So issues of welfare have racial connotations. (and not to mention the fact that over 60% of people receiving welfare belong to some minority group)

And thank you for inspiring others to vote against your candidate with your last remark. Keep spreading "your truth" son, it can only help my side.>> ^bobknight33:

Race card? There are just as much poor whites on welfare as blacks.
Democrats pull the race card all the time.
What game is being played?
Chris is such a fool. If Obama was born in America why has he spent millions to stop others from seeing a bonafide original document?

Race card? There are just as much poor whites on welfare as blacks.
Democrats pull the race card all the time.
What game is being played?

Chris is such a fool. If Obama was born in America why has he spent millions to stop others from seeing a bonafide original document?

This is true, Bob is unburdened with facts...life does get a lot simpler when you don't bother with evidence and critical thinking. Who cares if some colored folk get enslaved in the process. Who do they think they are wanting equal rights and drinking from OUR water fountains. What IS this world coming to?

And is it just me or is Bob's grammar getting worse? He's getting more and more incoherent.

>> ^bobknight33:

I find liberals are always first to pull the race card.
By their standards if you generalize then you are a raciest. Never mind life experiences or facts.

Your at a site the baths in liberalism and they will stab you if you even have thought other that theirs.

>> ^Chaucer:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Chaucer:
It doesnt surprise me that they boo'd that' he'd repeal Obamacare. Most black people just want free shit at the expense of others.

I'm going to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you do realize that that was pretty much the definition of racism right?

Actually, that isnt racism as there is no hate there. Its just an observation that I have formed through my life experiences.

I find liberals are always first to pull the race card.

By their standards if you generalize then you are a raciest. Never mind life experiences or facts.


Your at a site the baths in liberalism and they will stab you if you even have thought other that theirs.


>> ^Chaucer:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Chaucer:
It doesnt surprise me that they boo'd that' he'd repeal Obamacare. Most black people just want free shit at the expense of others.

I'm going to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you do realize that that was pretty much the definition of racism right?

Actually, that isnt racism as there is no hate there. Its just an observation that I have formed through my life experiences.

Once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

You can tell a man by the company he keeps. If the left is going to brand Ron Paul a "racist" for things he didn't write in newsletters bearing his name 30 years ago, then King Obama introducing another kook to the podium is more than fair game.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

It's not racist to shine the light of truth on Obama's well-hidden-by-the-non-FOX-media history.

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

Here's where we kind of agree, at least as far as there being no need to excessively castigate Obama on his shady history when we have his nearly 4 year RECORD OF FAILURE staring us in the face. If the fakeservatives lose it will be for this reason.

once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

The movie Armageddon could be real and Obama could be Harry Stamper and save the entire world and they'd still find a way to hate him.

Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

>>> As I reply in order.

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

>>> The mainstream media has done a far better job creating class resentment, than the handful of conservative commentators have stoking "anti-black resentment", which even if there is such a thing, is dwarfed by anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-big government sentiment.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

>>> Based on the government school education and biased media of the past 50 years, a rational, fact-filled discussion on identifying racism' is just not possible. There's a lot of money in playing the victim. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

>>> The 1% is greedy? Compared to whom? Aren't Black professional athletes and entertainers in the 1%?

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

>>> We have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts, and the FACT is that compared to their percentage of the population, Black males commit far more crimes compared to a similar percentage of Whites. That the libmedia covers up these facts isn't doing anybody any favors.
Where were these unflattering facts about Whites? Besides Ron Paul newsletters?

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness.

>>> But the response would be far different if the racial roles were reversed, wouldn't you say?

What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?

>>> Of course not. But even calling those dummies who stayed to listen to that guy 'dummies' would be met with cries of racism.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

>>> Ron Paul isn't endorsing racial discrimination. Isn't it odd that before the Civil Rights Movement, there had to be laws in place to ENFORCE segregation?

>>> To me, Dr. Paul's criticism about the abuses of power wrought by expanded government is valid.

As I posited earlier to Net, do you believe the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?











>> ^longde:

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.