There is nothing vague about what I said. I specified that I was talking about the Republican Party (not its entire membership), the policies it supports, and statements prominent Republicans have made. I posted a good number of specific examples to back that up: moves made by Republicans in Congress or in Republican-controlled state legislatures, statements by major figures in the party. The problem here is that you’re dense.
“the Republican Party” is vague.
Do you mean official positions by the party? Statements by the leadership? Positions by most of its elected officials? Opinions common among its voters and supporters?
Look, you can take the childish way out and blame me and call me names. That will make you feel good, but it won’t help you. You’re failing to communicate well, and that’s your fault, and it’s only going to hurt you, not me. If I were a Republican, I’d be tearing you apart right now. Consider yourself lucky that I’m helping you strengthen your case and tolerating the stubborn, childish bullshit you’re using to justify your laziness.
This is why you’re hopeless. It’s not at all vague, especially since I posted other qualifiers.
Sure it will. It’s just as productive as attempting a discussion with you, but instead of wondering what’s wrong with you and why you can’t understand simple statements backed up by examples, I can just tell you that you’re being stupid. It’s less stressful and it’s kind of fun.
I’m certainly no fan of the Republican party, but I think that this kind of argument is pretty unconvincing. Postulate someone who is 100% utterly and complete unracist in all ways, is absolutely convinced that all people are equal regardless of race, NEVER makes stereoetypes or judgments based on skin color, NEVER treats people differently in the slightest based on skin color as a whole or as a group.
Could that person hold the view that the minimum wage should not be lowered? Certainly.
Oh, thank goodness. You had me worried for a second.
Thank God the American work ethic is not dead.
You’re a troll who’s only occasionally funny, by the way.
You’re right about one thing - further discussion with me will not be productive.
You’re spoiling all the fun.
I am, thus a big meanie. 
Mind you, it’s only the “tail” of the GoP which is racist, IMHO, but since that “tail” is currently wagging the dog, it’s the whole party that gets tarred.
That’s not an excuse. If you insulted him because you confused him with someone else but refuse to apologize, you have demonstrated a lack integrity that would make debating with you difficult.
He has a legitimate beef with you. If you’d have done that to me, you’d be on ignore, and I wouldn’t be responding to you either. I don’t put up with people who admit to wrongdoing but refuse to apologize. At least magellan thinks he’s doing right. You’ve admitted to doing wrong but don’t care.
I attributed to him something that was actually posted by another member, an error that I see often here, with me occasionally as “victim” (if such a term can be so applied, which I doubt). If he was claiming insult (I don’t recall what his precise response was), he was being disingenuous, and I declined to indulge him.
Hey, magellan01 – you do know Portuguese greasers ain’t white, don’tcha?!
You’re saying “tar baby”* isn’t *a codeword? How very New Republic-an of you.
My reactions on reading this:
(1) To avoid admitting affiliation with the irrational GOP, most right-wing Dopers call themselves “conservative” rather than “Republican.” Who’s afraid to call a spade a spade? Shodan, will you accept the challenge to peruse the SRIOTD thread and comment on your like-thinking politicians? No? Didn’t think so.
(2) He thinks that we think that if 25% of Republicans are racist, then 100% are. Do you deny that a quarter of GOP voters are racist, Shodan? If you do, you’re even stupider than I already thought you were.
(3) Note again that this ilk insists on the repetition “Obama … Obama … Obama.” Obama’s policies are roughly the same centrist policies we’d have from any Democrat. The need to emphasize opposition to this one specific man already implies a racist basis. The emphasis (manifested e.g. in calling this intelligent and eloquent man “the Teleprompter President”) originates for one reason only:
Obama is Black.
At the risk of derailing this amusing Pit thread…
Regardless of whether Joe Wilson was correct or not, illegal aliens are being enrolled under Obamacare at taxpayer expense. Call it an accident or intentional neglect, depending upon your personal views. But its happening. Obama said it wouldn’t.
In Oregon
Cite
There is a further issue with some of the administrative rules put in place under the PPACA to enroll persons when they do not present with all of the necessary documentation to determine eligibility for subsidy entitlements. The presumptive eligibility rules permit enrolling someone in subsidized care, including full taxpayer supported Medicaid, on a temporary basis of up to 90 days without proof of citizenship. Critics call this a loophole that would permit illegal aliens to enroll temporarily in Medicaid and note health care providers may be empowered to enroll such patients (PDF cite, see page 13) in order to receive payment for services.
Now back to the pitting…
I find the notion that one call “sell-out” your own race is a rather racist notion in and of itself. It implies that a racial group should act in a uniform manner, a grossly discriminatory notion.
I tend to believe that the divide is far more on economic class lines though grant that someone people hold racist views and let such views guide their voting. It is just as much a racist view to hold, “I am not going to vote for him because he is <insert race>” than it is to hold “I am going to vote for him because he is <insert race>.”
Isn’t it from the Uncle Remus story? The fox makes a figure out of tar that the rabbit gets into a fight with, and the more he fights it, the more stuck he gets? Kind of like most of the debates on this message board.
I have to admit also that “tar baby” doesn’t strike me as an inherently racist term, since it’s originally meaning is as you describe, akin to “quagmire”. Frankly it strikes me as oversensitive if not disingenuous if metaphors invoking dark or black imagery are assumed racist. If someone says Obama ’ administration is a dark time for America (as was the Great Depression or Pearl Harbor), is that automatically racist?
White racists vote 95%+ Republican. That’s unnatural. Thoughts have not been suspended, they simply do not occur.
“tar baby” has been used both in racist and non-racist contexts. This is why people associate it as an anti-black slur (and as a useful “dog whistle” too).
Well, now, here you are asking for clarity.