6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chingalera. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Dammit eric, take a cue from the Nike® advert
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/White-supremacist-discovers-hes-part-black

dupe http://videosift.com/video/White-supremacist-discovers-hes-part-black

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/White-supremacist-discovers-hes-part-black

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by pumkinandstorm.

A Voice for Men?

Fuck this shit, start a fight club you pussy pieces of shit, scared of women having any sort of power losers. I'm tired of getting lectured that my life is being controlled by women and they're destroying it. They're people, of course they're destroying it, it has nothing to do with the fact that they're women.

These sexist fucks should be ignored, get a fucking lawyer and fight whatever you think is going on that's wrong. I can pretty much guarantee that he's full of shit though. It's like White Supremacists saying they just want to defend White Mens rights.

Right up until the last comma I took your comment a completely different way. I thought you meant that if ZImmerman had killed a White boy in self defense, then something totally different would have happened.
1)The media would never have gotten involved.
2) Zimmerman would have been arrested on the site, charged with murder and unless the kid was a tattooed, white trash, white supremacist, gang member, Zimmerman would be in jail.
But you would never have known about it as there would be no cause to stand in the pulpit, no social ire that the Media could try to raise. They would ignore the whole situation, exactly how they would have ignored it if Zimmerman had been Black.
Seems that unfortunately the guy in the video is correct when he says that, "The life of a black man only has value when it is taken by a white man".

To that point it seems that Chicago is perfectly happy to let the violence in their city continue unchecked and unanswered. It seems that what is happening in Chicago barely get's any national media play. Certainly plays into the theory that the media is liberally biased and is trying to protect Rahm Emmanuel and President Obama from any backlash. Especially since they all seemed to project that Rahm could eventually run for President back when he won the mayoral race.

Somehow i get the feeling of white supremacists, keep looking at his tats

I'd respect him if he said "I don't want their support" this clip tells me that he is a neo-nazi and he doesn't want to admit it.

How many neo-nazi or white supremacist groups can their be in the US and are they available for systematic murder? Say Friday?

I wonder if they realize how they sound when it gets played on television. If anything you made his job easier as a journalist. When he says: When confronted about accusations to links with white supremacists, his response was: (plays talking points roll.) He didn't want to talk about it.


I dunno, it just seems silly, answer the question. It is a good one. If he's trolling for a sound clip then call him on that.

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think 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?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

Well said, sir.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I'd say that rape and abortion are important topics in their own right, but there's certainly some truth to what you're saying.

The thing is, as a general rule, I get trolled by Paul supporters, not vice versa. I've been posting here for over 5 years now, and almost all of it has been political videos. I'm an unapologetic liberal. I campaigned for Obama in 2008, both online and offline, and will be doing so again this year.

Can you imagine how many people have come at me with the "Paul is the only choice" crap over the years? I think if I asked siftbot to count, his head would explode.

I'm glad you're starting to reconsider supporting him. I'm sorry if it took the connection with white supremacists thing to do it. I'd have rather just pointed out that his policies are bad, or that he can't deliver what he's promising, but most Paul supporters don't seem to even hear conventional arguments like that anymore.

Lately it seems I'm being trolled by Paul supporters who get hostile with me just because I refuse to accept that Ron Paul is our lord and savior as an article of faith. I've seen Paul and his followers go from being generally respectful towards liberals, to saying we're evil monsters, and repeating all the bullshit lies coming out of the general Republican wurlitzer.

I figure if Paulites are going to tell the worst lies they can about me, the least I can do is tell them the ugly truth about what it is they believe in.

I always try to steer the comment threads on the videos towards fruitful conversations, and away from some tit for tat trading of insults. These are inflammatory accusations, but they also happen to be true ones, and ones worth discussing in detail. Turns out, all this stuff is utterly consistent with Paul's core philosophy, which is really the issue I want to raise with people. It isn't that Paul is a flawed vessel for his philosophy, it's that the philosophy itself is poison.

In reply to this comment by artician:
At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.