Quit your bitchin'.

Stupid, irrelevant threads deserve stupid, irrelevant responses.

 

 

And we can always count on you.

 

Sometimes.

 

Sometimes we can count on you and your sh*tty oh's and ehe's.

 

Devastating.

You claimed that a person plays the race card. You implied that leaders like him are the problem - which is certainly partially true, but offered no balance.

 

 

This is my issue with this thread.

 

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been mentioned as dangerous race-baiters, with no mention of race-baiting that occurs from other races.

Unfortuately for blacks, Sharpton and Jackson are the bigwigs of race-baiting. Therefore they are going to get the most criticism as well. That is nothing against you or any black person except Sharpton and Jackson. I really feel like they are doing the race more harm than good.

What is a problem, rather than acknowledging that they're major and unnecessary thorns in society's side, you are looking to take down another race with them. Because they can't be a problem without somebody else of another race being a problem too.

It's not good enough though, I personally won't be happy until I can share an opinion about a minority race without the fear of being labeled racist unless I actually am racist.

 

 

If you are sharing an opinion about a race, then you are dangerously close to racism because value judgments based upon superficial physical appearance factors can easily lead to discrimination.

 

I think you missed my entire point. Re-read the OP.

 

I want an example. What kind of opinion would you give over an entire minority race? Maybe what you're saying is in fact racist and people are rightfully calling you out.

 

I never called out an entire race. Minority or otherwise.

 

Then why would you even post that? Do you just want the opportunity to be able to share your opinons on minority races???

Then why would you even post that? Do you just want the opportunity to be able to share your opinons on minority races???

 

 

*sigh* You're not paying attention are you?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, it's gone past my original intention.

What is a problem, rather than acknowledging that they're major and unnecessary thorns in society's side, you are looking to take down another race with them. Because they can't be a problem without somebody else of another race being a problem too.

 

 

That's not at all what is happening with my response to the original poster.

 

This thread was seemingly created with the sole intention of pointing out how men black like Sharpton and Jackson have betrayed Dr. King's message. That creates a totally distorted and one-sided view of things.

 

The implication in creating a thread about the dangers of the race-bating natures of black men like Jackson and Sharpton, especially when done in the invocation of Dr. King's famous speech, is that he would only be disappointed in the actions of race baiters in his race. That's ludicrous.

 

I would bet a living Dr. King would find a man running for President with a Ph.D. in history who, in 2012, refers to the first black President in US History as "The Food Stamp President" pretty gross. Why focus on marginal figures like Jackson and Sharpton when someone who is being taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land is doing that?

 

So I reject the very premise of this thread; I don't think the actions of Sharpton and Jackson would be the reason Dr. King would think his "dream" has yet to be fulfilled. Yes, there are black leaders who play "the race card." However pointing at only them is unfair and unconstructive.

 

If you want to argue that race is still an issue in this country, I'm all for it that discussion, no matter what side you take, so long as you're not blaming a single side. Racism is absolutely an issue in this country, and it's not just a white-black thing. My issue with this thread is the invocation of perceived black leaders as a part of the issue with no referenced made beyond them. As if we could only rid ourselves of the poisonous Sharpton and Jackson, Racism would be gone!

Then why would you even post that? Do you just want the opportunity to be able to share your opinons on minority races???

 

 

*sigh* You're not paying attention are you?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, it's gone past my original intention.

Well, your original reply to her made no sense. You avoided the question, but answered another question that didn't exist.

 

 

 

I want an example. What kind of opinion would you give over an entire minority race? Maybe what you're saying is in fact racist and people are rightfully calling you out.

 

 

I never called out an entire race. Minority or otherwise.

 

I think she'd like an answer to the italicized part.

Pop quiz hot shot.

 

People who annoy you.

 

N GGERS

 

O.O

Pop quiz hot shot.

 

People who annoy you.

 

N GGERS

 

That was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

What is a problem, rather than acknowledging that they're major and unnecessary thorns in society's side, you are looking to take down another race with them. Because they can't be a problem without somebody else of another race being a problem too.

 

 

That's not at all what is happening with my response to the original poster.

 

This thread was seemingly created with the sole intention of pointing out how men black like Sharpton and Jackson have betrayed Dr. King's message. That creates a totally distorted and one-sided view of things.

 

The implication in creating a thread about the dangers of the race-bating natures of black men like Jackson and Sharpton, especially when done in the invocation of Dr. King's famous speech, is that he would only be disappointed in the actions of race baiters in his race. That's ludicrous.

 

I would bet a living Dr. King would find a man running for President with a Ph.D. in history who, in 2012, refers to the first black President in US History as "The Food Stamp President" pretty gross. Why focus on marginal figures like Jackson and Sharpton when someone who is being taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land is doing that?

 

So I reject the very premise of this thread; I don't think the actions of Sharpton and Jackson would be the reason Dr. King would think his "dream" has yet to be fulfilled. Yes, there are black leaders who play "the race card." However pointing at only them is unfair and unconstructive.

 

If you want to argue that race is still an issue in this country, I'm all for it that discussion, no matter what side you take, so long as you're not blaming a single side. Racism is absolutely an issue in this country, and it's not just a white-black thing. My issue with this thread is the invocation of perceived black leaders as a part of the issue with no referenced made beyond them. As if we could only rid ourselves of the poisonous Sharpton and Jackson, Racism would be gone!

This post is so full of implications, my head is spinning. I feel like implications are a major reason for false accusation. For example, the "food stamp president". You see that as him making a racist comment aimed at either a somewhat black president (who is as much white as he is black), or aimed at blacks for their dependency on food stamps. I'm not sure which one you think, but both are implications. Race was no where in the comment to the best of my knowledge. Now, that same comment...."food stamp president"...my take: Obama is doing everything he can to increase dependency on big government. This is not racist to blacks, whites, purpes, or greens, however it is a shown track record in obama's policies. That on my part is also an implication, but I am not accusing somebody of being racist. Sharpton accused him of being racist. If MLk was alive, and truely wanted equality, he would not have. Is it fair to accuse somebody of stealing if you have no evidence they were doing so? So, you are helping to prove my point. The big question is though, If something is open to interpretation, why does it have to be racist? Whether you realize it or not, you are currently part of the problem, not the solution.

Then why would you even post that? Do you just want the opportunity to be able to share your opinons on minority races???

 

 

*sigh* You're not paying attention are you?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, it's gone past my original intention.

 

I'd say your original intention of riling people up worked well. You're a solid troll.

It's not good enough though, I personally won't be happy until I can share an opinion about a minority race without the fear of being labeled racist unless I actually am racist.

 

So, you won't be happy until you can stereotype an entire [minority] race without that being considered racist? That's practically the definition of the tetm.

 

If you are making a fact-based analysis, and or you're referring to discrete ascertainable groups or individuals of a race, then that could be more reasonable.

@ mr bobbob : Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant explains in a trailer for his upcoming movie why liberals and black leaders like those we have been speaking of are responsible for the racial divide in America. The entire video is fantastic...as is everything of his that I have watched. I am a tea partier, and I would absolutely vote for this ex-NAACP leader for president of the USA if he would run. My main point is made between the 4-4:30 mark in the movie, but I believe this video will settle nearly every arguement in this thread.

 

@ mr bobbob : Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant explains in a trailer for his upcoming movie why liberals and black leaders like those we have been speaking of are responsible for the racial divide in America. The entire video is fantastic...as is everything of his that I have watched. I am a tea partier, and I would absolutely vote for this ex-NAACP leader for president of the USA if he would run. My main point is made between the 4-4:30 mark in the movie, but I believe this video will settle nearly every arguement in this thread.

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=55aujTwuJY8

 

You say this as if you'd vote for a guy outside your party and should thus be applauded, but he's a standing member of the tea party.

This post is so full of implications, my head is spinning. I feel like implications are a major reason for false accusation. For example, the "food stamp president". You see that as him making a racist comment aimed at either a somewhat black president (who is as much white as he is black), or aimed at blacks for their dependency on food stamps. I'm not sure which one you think, but both are implications. Race was no where in the comment to the best of my knowledge. Now, that same comment...."food stamp president"...my take: Obama is doing everything he can to increase dependency on big government. This is not racist to blacks, whites, purpes, or greens, however it is a shown track record in obama's policies. That on my part is also an implication, but I am not accusing somebody of being racist. Sharpton accused him of being racist. If MLk was alive, and truely wanted equality, he would not have. Is it fair to accuse somebody of stealing if you have no evidence they were doing so? So, you are helping to prove my point. The big question is though, If something is open to interpretation, why does it have to be racist? Whether you realize it or not, you are currently part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

I don't see the "food stamp president" line as him making a racist comment. I see it as him race-baiting and playing to a crowd by playing on assumptions and stereotypes that he obviously is aware of because he's a smart guy. Referring, in a debate in South Carolina, to a black man as "the food stamp president" is an obvious play on negative stereotypes, whether you want to accept it or not.

 

I don't think Newt Gingrich is a racist; I'm simply referring to the fact that the original poster pointed to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exclusively as examples of current Americans whose race-baiting would bother Martin Luther King. I find that ridiculous. He would likely dislike their actions, certainly, however they do not stand alone, nor do they stand above the fray.

 

I'm not saying they aren't a problem. I find them divisive and I wish they didn't have the platforms they do. That's not my point of contention here. My point is that just pointing at them is overly simplistic and one-sided.

@ mr bobbob : Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant explains in a trailer for his upcoming movie why liberals and black leaders like those we have been speaking of are responsible for the racial divide in America. The entire video is fantastic...as is everything of his that I have watched. I am a tea partier, and I would absolutely vote for this ex-NAACP leader for president of the USA if he would run. My main point is made between the 4-4:30 mark in the movie, but I believe this video will settle nearly every arguement in this thread.

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=55aujTwuJY8

 

You say this as if you'd vote for a guy outside your party and should thus be applauded, but he's a standing member of the tea party.

I don't feel that I should be applauded in any way, shape, form, or fashion. What I am pointing out is that he is a tea partier, that used to be an NAACP leader, arguably as far away from the tea party as it gets. Tea party is supposedly racist. Hmmmm...wonder where that came from. He was a Sharpton. He throws facts, statistics, stories, etc in his political stance. He has been on both sides of the fence. He has seen the furthest of the left wing and is making it known the control and the corruption the have over blacks. Ignorance is the reason the liberals have such overwhelming black support.

This post is so full of implications, my head is spinning. I feel like implications are a major reason for false accusation. For example, the "food stamp president". You see that as him making a racist comment aimed at either a somewhat black president (who is as much white as he is black), or aimed at blacks for their dependency on food stamps. I'm not sure which one you think, but both are implications. Race was no where in the comment to the best of my knowledge. Now, that same comment...."food stamp president"...my take: Obama is doing everything he can to increase dependency on big government. This is not racist to blacks, whites, purpes, or greens, however it is a shown track record in obama's policies. That on my part is also an implication, but I am not accusing somebody of being racist. Sharpton accused him of being racist. If MLk was alive, and truely wanted equality, he would not have. Is it fair to accuse somebody of stealing if you have no evidence they were doing so? So, you are helping to prove my point. The big question is though, If something is open to interpretation, why does it have to be racist? Whether you realize it or not, you are currently part of the problem, not the solution.

 

 

I don't see the "food stamp president" line as him making a racist comment. I see it as him race-baiting and playing to a crowd by playing on assumptions and stereotypes that he obviously is aware of because he's a smart guy. Referring, in a debate in South Carolina, to a black man as "the food stamp president" is an obvious play on negative stereotypes, whether you want to accept it or not.

 

I don't think Newt Gingrich is a racist; I'm simply referring to the fact that the original poster pointed to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exclusively as examples of current Americans whose race-baiting would bother Martin Luther King. I find that ridiculous. He would likely dislike their actions, certainly, however they do not stand alone, nor do they stand above the fray.

 

I'm not saying they aren't a problem. I find them divisive and I wish they didn't have the platforms they do. That's not my point of contention here. My point is that just pointing at them is overly simplistic and one-sided.

I understand what you are saying, I guess the difference is that I don't see a problem with leaving things open to interpretation. Ultimately, that could be (and was) taken either way, postitive or negative, racist or not. I actually look at it as good speaking. The person that left it open for interpretation isn't the problem. The problem i the person that interprets it negativley.

It's not good enough though, I personally won't be happy until I can share an opinion about a minority race without the fear of being labeled racist unless I actually am racist.

 

So, you won't be happy until you can stereotype an entire [minority] race without that being considered racist? That's practically the definition of the tetm.

 

If you are making a fact-based analysis, and or you're referring to discrete ascertainable groups or individuals of a race, then that could be more reasonable.

 

THANK YOU. I asked for an example of an opinion he would give, because I can't fathom how this would work.

Pop quiz hot shot.

 

People who annoy you.

 

N GGERS

 

LOLOLOL, I love how happily he answers it too. He's so sure he has the right answer!

Wake up, white people!

 

Wake up, San Francisco.

It's not good enough though, I personally won't be happy until I can share an opinion about a minority race without the fear of being labeled racist unless I actually am racist.

 

So, you won't be happy until you can stereotype an entire [minority] race without that being considered racist? That's practically the definition of the tetm.

 

If you are making a fact-based analysis, and or you're referring to discrete ascertainable groups or individuals of a race, then that could be more reasonable.

 

The second sentence is what I meant to imply, not that I want to sterotype a race.