Fact by Fact, Line by Line
 

this article nails it on the head.

There are a lot of folks who wont be able to see the article for all the text... but its there, makes perfect sense, is factual and calls it like it is.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...when_to_h.html

So this is the incident where someone released a tape and said ooolooky what a racist.
people jumped on the bandwagon and said ooh looky what a racist fire them
people then said oooh loky obama won't fire them cos he is a nigre too and a racist
the woman gets fired for buggring around a farmer who ain't got dark pigmentationm and the farmer who isn't a nigre says hold up she helped me , she didn't ******* me of my farm cos I ain't black.
So this story is a pile of bollox where people clamour "why don't you do something, you are evil for not taking us seriously" followed by the same people saying "why did you take us seriously?"

While I agree with a lot of it, I do have to ask where all the "facts" are? I see a lot of opinion, but not much actual verification.

It is full of "facts" because the opinions in the article happen to agree with GR's opinion. :up:

Platapus...

It has nothing to do with my opinion, and everything to do with the fact that racism IS possible and does take place on both sides. Sad thing is... if you're a white guy who drops an N-Bomb or says something derogatory towards blacks in any way shape or form - no matter the severity, society has names for you...

wife beater, white trash, nascar fan, cracker, blanket stereotypical southerner etc.

When a black person says something derogatory or commits a racist act against any other race... what do you call them?





wait for it








a victim


I have not kept up with this whole Shirley Sherrod nonsense because i mostly was not interested in listening to any more garbage being spewed from either side... im so GD sick of it. Average America - IMHO - wants to move on, and the lot of these types of people and organizations mentioned in the article cant... or simply wont.

however, this article summarizes the Shirley Sherrod situation neatly and presents the cast of characters and the events in this effed up little scene nicely and in an orderly fashion.

I thought it was a well written article.

I also KNOW that if this had been a white person who made her comments - their ass would be lucky to find work or respect virtually anywhere on this planet ever again.

While I was no Obama fan during campaign season (still not), I did expect some change out of people when he became POTUS. Like I told my girlfriend the other day; the most powerful man in the world, the one with his finger on the nuclear annihilation button, is black! So why do we have all this racism bs still?

I had something profound to say to include this quote but I can't remember what I was going to say, but here's the quote anyways for your reading entertainment.

A racist, what do you call them?

Really?
Hold on didn't your poor white victim mentality lead you to claim previously that you only paid taxes because you are white and that only people who are not white get government money.

You mean if a white person was wrongly dismissed over someone misrepresenting their actions and it was shown to be misrepresenting their actions the dismissal would still stand as white people are victims.:doh:

So you start off with a false premise that only white people can be racist then play the poor little victim card when you really have no hand to play at all.

When did i say that:06:

Like most people, I pay taxes because i work... welfare is not limited to any particular race. Or did you miss my rant about the white "bubbas" in line at wal mart a couple of weeks back.

guess you missed it, not a big deal though.

this has nothing to do with me being a victim, or a racist, or a tax payer and everything to do with a double standard.

Back in the topic when I said your accountant must be crap for you to be getting stung so bad by the government on federal tax, though it turned out your claim about your taxes wasn't actually true it was just a rant where you had to exagerate your situation to make it seem like it was a justified complaint you were making.

Actually the double standard is in the piece and in Breitbart and Drudge.
You say you have not been keeping up with the incident and have managed to post a piece that either hasn't kept up either or is being deliberately misleading.
The piece now attempts to put the focus on the reaction of the crowd to the comments, but it has already been established that there was nothing wrong with those comments at all and that they had to be edited to make them appear the exact opposite of what they were.
So the pattern is
Oh look she is racist against white people.
Ooooops actually she is attacking racism against white people.
People in the crowd are supprting her racist attack on white people
errrrrrrr....she was attacking racism against white people so that means the crowd was supporting the attack on racism against white people.

So since the pattern is very clear where does it leave your claim about only white people being racist when the NAACP crowd are having a speaker addressing the issue of black racism ?

There are two real idiots in this issue. That is the white house and the NAACP, both jumped up straight away to condemn the racism , even though the "racism" in question was purely an invention of some reactionary hacks....which kinda stumps completely your claim about only whites being called racists as they called a woman with dark skin a racist against peole with pale skin even when she wasn't.

Which means that you managed a great achievement in that you posted a piece and a topic that destroys your own arguement.

Right... so this is just more pointless baiting?

Back to the ignore list for a couple of more months troll. :salute:

If you are unable to touch on issues where your own words undermine the arguements you put forward then that is your problem.
Since it is all relevant to what you have written in this topic it isn't pointless, its just uncomfortable for you views which says a lot about the validity of those views.


Its funny isn't it, when the discussion shows you to be talking nonsense you put your fingers in your ears and run away.

Because having one black person as President does not prevent some bigot in downtown America from discriminating against someone because they are black.

Did anyone think that as soon as one black man becomes President that all the bigots would proclaim "Games over, gotta be nice to them now."?

I don't care of the President and every single member of congress is black, we will still have bigots discriminating against people because of their race.

Racism will exist in this country as long as there are bigots who choose (and it is their choice) to discriminate based on race..

Hmmm.
NAACP calling someone racist?!
Isn't this an organization dedicated to the "advancement of colored people", and colored people only?

The NAACP criticizes the tea party movement for being racist, because they're "too white"?
By the same standard, wouldn't the NAACP be too black?

"Anti-racist" is a code word for anti-white.

For the record, I have no problem with the existence of The NAACP, and have no desire to see it outlawed.
I do however have a problem with the double-standard used against europeans.

Why is any organization for europeans only labeled "racist", while any organization for africans only is not?

exactly.

but is there, or is there not a difference in the amount of persecution and backlash faced by a white bigot vs. a black bigot

both are equally disgusting... yet they dont receive equal disgust. make sense?

Since its charter says its about eliminating racial prejudice amonst American citizens then no.
Since when was the NAACP only for non whites?
Ever since its foundation it has been a mixed bag, but maybe you are right and Albert Einstein was secretly an african instead of being from Germany.

So obviously no white person can be anti-racist then:doh: