Forums | MacLife

I am going off of what these people are SAYING, what they're posting on their websites, what they're screaming in Town Hall meetings, what they were screaming at McCain/Palin rallies, and what the signs say that they're holding.

Show me where they are saying racist things, posting racist things, screaming racist things, and I'll show you that are rejected by the mainstream opposition.

Just like you claimed the union thugs who used violence to beat that guy up don't represent the left.

Last edited by resedit (2009-09-14 9:15 am)

resedit wrote:

This isn't about race.
Why does the left keep insisting that it is?

Me thinks the left thinks they have the god given right to control the minorities, NO DIFFERENT THAN THE SLAVE OWNERS OF THE SOUTH.

This notion of theirs has come out several times - IE when Barbara Boxer was questioning the CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce.

Do not deny the black man the right to dissent against a President who's policies they disagree with.
We on the right don't.

Why bring ''left" in this discussion? Almost as silly as pointing out ''white'' in this protest.

A reason for not many blacks is that blacks I think got a feeling they betray their roots/color or something for not sticking with Obama?



Look at that white shirt!

Last edited by Proost (2009-09-14 9:26 am)

Here's at least 1 dark colored guy, on page 1 from this thread (wearing a blue cap).

Last edited by Proost (2009-09-14 9:31 am)

There's been plenty of discussion here about opposing views to Obama that haven't involved calling anyone a racist.

This thread for example: http://www.maclife.com/forums/topic/113030

It's just that the 9/12ers and the Tea Baggers have done a very poor job framing their concerns in a way that doesn't attract the racists en masse. I'm sure many of those people have legitimate concerns, but because of the company they choose to keep, those concerns largely get ignored.

Proost wrote:

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadget … _large.jpg

Here's at least 1 dark colored guy, on page 1 from this thread (wearing a blue cap).

It's a shame we can't export stupid. We could balance the trade deficit...

resedit wrote:

Again, what the smurf is up with you essentially calling those who don't like Obama's polices racist by insisting upon inserting a racial indication?

Your news source says nothing about racial breakdown, why do you?

I've actually mentioned this on a few occasions awhile ago. All you have to do is look at the pictures and at least 99% of the people are white, with anger issues towards more than just policies. This is something that is beyond policy as it all started when bush FINALLY admitted that there was indeed an economic crisis and started the ball rolling. You, being partisan, refuse to acknowledge this. I really do not know why being partisan would factor in to the obvious, but it seems to be a factor a lot with YOUR party. You guys just cover your eyes and then defend their actions as free speech as opposed to hatred towards a black man. But we all agree in the right to free speech but can also see the racial overtones that, again, are beyond just policies or ideologies.

Btw, a real Christian would never use the language you do on a regular basis. It is unholy and you have plenty of time to think of what you are writing on a board as opposed to just blurting it out. It doesn't bother me, just pointing this out.

I do think the "we hit Barack bottom" sign is a bit clever. I chuckled...

wellfleation wrote:

resedit wrote:

This isn't about race.
Why does the left keep insisting that it is?

If you break down this country's demographics, you would expect to see these demographics during such marches and you do not. One would naturally think that people across all racial lines would be equally upset, but you do not see this demographic (according to the pix) that shows this. Doesn't this make you wonder why? You do not need a statistical breakdown, just look. If most of the protesters are white, logically what should one assume? I guess Latinos and black people are too busy working to attend such a "rally"? Jeesh

I doubt it. pastor macman has convinced me that latinos and black people are twice as lazy as white people. Maybe that's why they aren't there.

resedit wrote:

We would have the same opposition if Hilary were president and doing those things.
We would have the same opposition if Kerry were president and doing those things.

You have absolutely no grounds for claiming that. We can never know what would be happening in alternate realities.

One may as well speculate about what would be happening now if a Borg collective were to have arrived in 1946.

Tallgeese wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

resedit wrote:

This isn't about race.
Why does the left keep insisting that it is?

If you break down this country's demographics, you would expect to see these demographics during such marches and you do not. One would naturally think that people across all racial lines would be equally upset, but you do not see this demographic (according to the pix) that shows this. Doesn't this make you wonder why? You do not need a statistical breakdown, just look. If most of the protesters are white, logically what should one assume? I guess Latinos and black people are too busy working to attend such a "rally"? Jeesh

I doubt it. pastor macman has convinced me that latinos and black people are twice as lazy as white people. Maybe that's why they aren't there.

Better tell him to read Geraldo Rivera's new book which says the direct opposite with research to back up his facts.

JakeTheTall wrote:

I think resedit is likely correct in that the nutters work to de-legitimatize any Democratic President.

This march was a march against democracy.  ( In fact, there's even a picture of a banner hoping for a coup. )

Some nutters will refuse to accept the legitimacy of any Democratic president; more nutters refuse to accept the legitimacy of a black Democratic president.

For instance one wonders how many Confederate flags one would see with a white president.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

We would have the same opposition if Hilary were president and doing those things.
We would have the same opposition if Kerry were president and doing those things.

You have absolutely no grounds for claiming that. We can never know what would be happening in alternate realities.

One may as well speculate about what would be happening now if a Borg collective were to have arrived in 1946.

While you are correct about alternate realities, res is correct if he means that there's a huge partisan element to these rallies, instead of it being about ideology (but I doubt that is what he means because doing so would make these rallies all the more dismissible).  And I say this because clearly when Bush rang up huge deficits and increased the size of entitlement programs massively with the Medicare prescription program there were no tea parties, so clearly this is partisan in nature.  However, we can't measure the racist component vis-a-vis Obama and Hillary.  There's always been a race-based motive to the entire conservative movement, hidden with implicit instead of explicit racial anxiety appeals.  All anyone has to do is look at the electoral map of 1964 and racial components of any Republican national convention.  Anyone denying this is simply laughable.

Basically these rallies are partisan, with implicit and some explicit racial elements. But in the larger scope of the conservative movement they're all historically connected.  None of this should be surprising except that the explicit elements are being deemed more socially acceptable, and less camouflaged, than in the recent past.  I think that last difference can be chalked up to the Kenyan Muslim factor.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

We would have the same opposition if Hilary were president and doing those things.
We would have the same opposition if Kerry were president and doing those things.

Sorry, I don't believe it.  We would certainly be hearing something, that's true.

Do you not recall the vocal disdain for Pelosi even before Obama was President?