Your own cite states:
I’d say the Birther movement got its momentum from that.
Condi Rice is a Democrat?
May I make a radical suggestion? Let’s judge people individually as to whether or not that are racists. Sweeping statements about large groups of people don’t belong in a reasoned debate.
They aren’t racist at all.
In Africa many countries are implementing heavy-handed biometric verification systems for voting. The U.S. voting system is actually very backwards, old school, archaic, and prone to easy manipulation considering our prominence as a major democratic country and first world power.
Immigration opposition has almost everything to do with “they took our jobs!!!” paranoia and virtually nothing to do with “racism.” There is also some fear of “cultural colonization” when you have a lot of people moving up here illegally who refuse to learn our language or integrate with our culture, but that isn’t strictly a racist thing.
If Mexico was entirely white (and actually there are many white Mexicans who the average redneck could not tell was from Mexico and many “visibly hispanic” types also would consider themselves white as well) and all spoke German there would still be people who wouldn’t want them coming up here in the millions illegally, especially if they were not willing to learn our language.
Except that you’d have to phrase it, “Do you believe that white people would be better off if they worked harder?” for the question to have any meaningful equivalence. Unless you think being black is the same as being impoverished. And I guarantee that there’d be a disparity between the two questions, the same as if “Should white people ‘work their way up’ without any special favors?” was asked as a follow-up question.
I guess this illustrates my point. In my example where I support harsher penalties for armed robbery for a legitimate purpose, surely the racists would also support that position for their racist purposes. Why automatically cast me in with their lot?
Just like in Arizona. There is a legitimate interest in curbing illegal immigration. Various proposals have been put forward. Obviously ANY attempt will disproportionately hurt Latinos. Therefore the racists who hate Mexicans will love it. Does it follow that anyone wanting to curb illegal immigration is a racist just because they are on the same side of the issue as the racists?
Hahah, sorry. I meant to include her as an example of a person who is a Republican but not called out for her anti-Semetic remarks by Democrats…grr…I got all caught up in bullet points and formatting that I forgot I’d left her on the list. 
I think my point was a couple of bad apples can’t spoil the whole party barrel. And Democrats are notorious for turning a blind eye to openly racist or anti-Semitic remarks by members of their own group. Jesse Jackson was a prime example - he was the frontrunner in 1988 for quite awhile and secured a large number of votes before being surpassed by Dukakis. But whatever, we Zionists have been controlling American politics for decades. 
But I do think it’s fair to judge people individually for what they do. However, if another person is using a known antisemite, Islamophobe, or racist person to help stump for him on the campaign trail, I think it’s perfectly fine to call him out on it.
I don’t know about that. I think everyone including all the major black politicians in the country would not view it as racist to acknowledge that blacks as a group are much worse off economically than whites. That’s sort of the whole reason there is continued support for affirmative action, various programs that try to help blacks go to college, things of that nature.
Now there is of course going to be massive disagreements about why blacks are economically disadvantaged, even inside the black community. There are prominent black conservatives who have said that blacks need to take greater responsibility and “pull themselves up.”
The question from the study asked if blacks worked harder would they be as well off as whites so it really isn’t the same question to ask “if whites worked harder would they be better off.” The original question basically is trying to get the respondents opinion on why blacks are economically disadvantaged in comparison to whites, not a general question about whether any random group is capable of self-improvement via greater effort.
Do they also favor increased investigation and enforcement of the white people who hire illegal immigrants? They’re breaking the law, too.
In my hometown, for about the first year after the election, I would see (a few) “NOBAMA” bumper stickers, with images of blank white flags printed on them. I don’t think the white flag was a mark of surrender. I expect it was a subtle white power reference.
A lot of Republicans and Movement Conservatives are in the party &/or movement for other reasons. My mother is very pro-life, for example. But at least some of the opposition takes on a racist flavor, whether that’s the primary reason for the opposition or not.
And well before Obama’s election, some state party politics had become as follows: Democrats, party of minorities; GOP, party of traditional white dominance.
So if you go on the internet, other people, not knowing you or the region you live in, will tend to assume that you’re like your co-partisans in states where party identity is typically tied to racial politics. Is this inaccurate and simplistic? Of course! We’re slobs that way.
We should stop assuming that in a huge country, everyone who votes GOP fits the stereotype. And we don’t all really assume that, we’re just trying to shame non-racists out of supporting what is, in much of the country, apparently a white-power party.
Now, that said, anyone who objects to Obama “spending too much money” is being inaccurate and simplistic as well.
Obama spends money much as W Bush spent money. The difference is that the economy contracted severely in the last year of Bush’s term, so Obama’s spending looks like more as a share of GDP. But if the government cut its spending as much as the economy contracted, that would make the depression worse. We call that pro-cyclical policy. Obama gets scorn for doing what he’s supposed to be doing to minimize economic damage, which is keep spending up, even if you have to borrow for a while.
Note that the left are not happy with Obama either. He did not help long-term solvency by signing those tax cuts in his first year, and he has continued the renditions and torture of the Bush administration. Some of us think McCain would have done better on those fronts, even if we vote Democrat over environmental and labor policy.
Your *own *cite says nothing about “HC’s campaign staff”, which is what you claimed. :rolleyes:
Now, can you provide any cite that supports your claim, or will you withdraw it and, possibly, learn from the experience? :dubious:
It does not, but by demanding that context should be ignored you are defending also the racists. If the ones coming with the laws had no such connections then there would be less doubts on their intentions.
As it is, the laws they come with usually come with clearly unconstitutional items (a few were removed in the new law when they took a closer look after the governor had already signed it, then the courts stopped other items from becoming law as they are very likely still unconstitutional)
I’d like to point out that the original post is nonsense. Being angry at Obama for increasing the deficit shows remarkable ignorance.
Obama’s deficits are driven by:
The recession. It lowers tax income and increases outlays, like unemployment insurance.
The stimulus. Which is recognized by the majority of reputable economists are having averted much woe and having kept at least a million people employed.
The Bush Tax cuts. Which Obama tried to remove, but the Republicans were able to obstruct into continuing.
The Wars. Which Bush started (and in one case, unnecessarily) and are still racking up cost.
Medicare part D.
So the people who frown about Obama’s deficit simply have no idea what’s going on and are mislead by partisan liars.
As an aside, here is a nice chart:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
The reason deficits under Obama are rising is largely due to the stupidity of the last administration. The stimulus is a one shot. The Bush tax cuts, Medicare part D and the wars fuck us year after year.
Why the charges of racism? Because it works. And also because you’re an easy target because of the dumb bigots in tea party rallies holding up racist signs.
To steal a Chris Rock, is it called “San Diego” or “Gus Johnson”? Is it a “rodeo” or a “cow show”? A “lariat” or a “rope loop”?
You want direct proof that the email came from a HC staffer or you want reports that it did? Because the latter is easy to find. And I got the same damned emails and saw the same speculations from HC supporters and heard it muttered about at campaign events by staff. Perhaps I should’ve said “volunteers” (believe you me, they can be quite hard to distinguish from staff at times) who led the drive.
I was a volunteer/intern in the 2004 Dean election and everyone thought I was a paid staff. I had access to the candidate, keys to the office, my own desk, you name it. But of course the HC campaign wouldn’t admit it had staff support.
RE: Madrassa: I was perfectly fine with the bogus accusation at that point as I was so fed up with the DNC’s sexist bullshit. Politics is brutal.
I usually don’t respond to people who aren’t making any kind of point at all, but I will say that is a good example of something that is fine for standup but totally fucking pointless in an actual discussion.
Just because I use terms like du jour, hors d’œuvre, je ne sais quoi, matinée, nom de plume, sang-froid or tour de force my language is not French, nor would I be wrong to say a French person who came here not speaking English wasn’t “learning my language.”
Yes, of course. The legitimate interest is “keep those brown people away from me”. Why, what did you think it was?
To the OP, the reason we assume people opposed to Obama are racist is because when we ask them why they oppose Obama, they lie. “He raised my taxes!” Well, no, he didn’t, and in fact is trying to lower them. “His deficit spending is out of control!” Not really; he’s doing less deficit spending than the guy he replaced. “He’s a socialist!” Not by a long shot. “He’s an atheist Muslim!” Even aside from the inherent contradiction, he’s neither. But obviously there’s some reason for the opposition. If the people opposing won’t honestly answer what that reason is, we’re forced to conclude it’s something they’re ashamed of. What are we supposed to think, then?
Not all illegal immigrants are brown. Not even the Mexican ones.
Not all black people are brown. But they still couldn’t marry whites in the racist south.
I don’t think this is much of a debate, much less a Great one, and am declining to participate.
If we can’t agree that racism exists, and who causes it to exist, and what constitutes racist policies, then what are we debating? As far as I’m concerned, the birthers (the vast majority of whom were Republicans–or do you dispute that fact as well?) painted a big red sign reading “RACIST” on their chests, and it is up to you to disassociate yourself from those racists before I give credence to your claims not to have racist attitudes yourselves or to tolerate racism in your associates.Without a firm denunciation of birthers and Tea Party activists, I believe I am conversing with racists unless shown otherwise, and I don’t think a debate with racists in denial about their core beliefs will go very far. But have fun here.