Laughing simpleton.

“People are making blanket statements here all the time. But I stand corrected; Many, perhaps a majority of blacks are in favor of legalized discrimination as long as it favors them.”

Here’s a thought for you. It is very likely that you got a job because a more qualified black person was passed over because he was black.

You have benefited from racism, which is why you defend it so much.

Post title:
‘Democrats keep black kids out of pool.’”

You would have an argument if these right-wing racist outbursts were isolated events. They are not.

OK. Here are some counter ‘sweeping statements’:

It’s my opinion that all white racists are angry that blacks are given opportunities that those racist whites have always found an excuse not to provide blacks (and other minorities) except when forced to by law.

It’s my opinion that that’s why white racists are trying to get rid of the laws that force them to consider blacks and minorities for those jobs that those white racists feel should be reserved for themselves.

(It’s also the tactic being used by male patriarchs that think they should be allowed to deny women from jobs as well.)

Torturing the very plain meaning of the Constitution in such a way as to contrue “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” to shall deny is quite a trick.

The Constitution is not really that complicated. It is not a contract written by lawyers designed to have fine print, or gotcha provisions. Your statements about vast numbers of persons better versed in the constitutional law and jurisprudence rings hollow if you actually read both the Constitution and their twisted reasoning for violating the same.

It is my belief that the black community as a whole supports legalized discrimination and the special advantage that affirmative action gives them. Furthermore I beleive that if the question was soley left up to them they would leave it in place. Is it your position that this is not so?

“That way, you’ll only look like an asshole instead of a huge suppurating asshole.” Funniest thing I’ve read all week.

But for you to state that ‘blacks’ — not ‘some blacks’, not ‘radical leftist blacks’, not the ‘lazy and selfish minority within the black community’ but ‘blacks’ plain and simple — ‘hate’ Clarence Thomas because he refuses to give them an illegitimate handout, is to paint that entire segment of the population as craven, venal, indolent, selfish and vindictive. This is insulting, bigoted and unwarranted.

It may be self-evident to you that all diversity programs violate the xiv amendment, but it is far from self-evident to a vast number of people who are far more conversant with constitutional law and jurisprudence than you. So try to avoid ascribing the basest possible of motivations to people who disagree with you. That way you’ll only look like an asshole instead of a huge suppurating asshole.

Quick advice for a.o. and his wingnut comrades on how not to look like a bigot (even if you are): Avoid making statements that characterize an entire race/ethnic group, even positively (‘those blacks sure are good at pickin’ cotton’ is not the sort of thing we want to say).

a.o., first shave your head, then find a nice comfy chair, place a table within easy arm’s reach, lay out on the table the following implements: a drill with a 3/8 inch bit, a couple of vice grips, a soldering iron, a sharp paring knife, a bottle of alcohol (isopropyl, please), some tweezers and a melon-baller. A shot of vodka would probably do you some good at this point, but better not have more than one — you’ll need a steady hand! Lean back in your chair, nestling your head snugly in the cushy backrest and…

…re-read your last post.

Damn straight Wilbur, The majority of blacks that post here along with the majority of liberals who post here think that legalized discrimination is ok as long as it benefits minorities. They do not believe in the 14th amendment which specifically gives each and every citizen equal protection under the law.

If you think I’m wrong about that why don’t you circulate petitions amongst those two communities that demand to uphold the Constitution and throw out affirmative action. Get back to me with the results.

And what pray tell are my bigot eruptions?

Have you all seen this latest right-wing bigot eruption on Fox News?

Well said.

Not that this will make it through all the noise, but for the record –

If every time an incident like this occurs, we say “There’s a long way to go,” we will soon be viewing near-zero tolerance as intolerable.

I wasn’t referring to the kids getting kicked out of the pool, but rather to the odious comments left at the website of the nbc affiliate that first broke the story. That was some of the most vile, racist tripe I have ever had the misfortune to read.

Well, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms come to mind right away. Just about ALL of the segregationist Southern Dem politicians of the 1960s either retired, changed their position, or turned Republican by 1980.

The 1960s and 1970s were also the time of the proliferation of so-called “Christian Academies” throughout Southern Suburbia. These were where you put your kids if you didn’t want them to go to school with black kids. That way they could get a crappy-assed education and grow up to be good little Biblethumpers. But they didn’t have to eat lunch with Tyrone and Shanequa!

Glad to oblige, Haplo9. I don’t personally like the term “uncle tom”, nor have I seen it used very often in recent years (apart from complaining wingnuts putting words into people’s mouths), but when person A refers to person B as an “uncle tom”, he or she usually does so in response to some political or social action or opinion that person B has or does.

In contrast, when someone portrays Obama with a bone through his nose, it says nothing about any action or opinion of Obama’s. All it says is Obama = African = Ooga Booga.

Similarly, when your comrade Amused Observer says that “Blacks don’t like Clarence Thomas because he holds them to the same standard as everyone else.” He is implying that blacks on the whole think they are entitled to be treated better than other individuals. This is far different from criticising the actions or beliefs of a single individual.

Does that help? The latter two are examples of bigotry. The first is an example of criticism. Criticism and bigotry are not the same thing. Likewise criticism and censorship are not the same thing (another elementary distinction that wingnuts often have trouble with).

Now “Haplo9″ is pushing the common right wing caricature of the last two Democratic Presidents: Clinton and Carter.

Though in right winger “Haplo9′s” selectively edited reality, the bigotry that Clinton and Carter received from the right wing as ““redneck rubes in [and from] red states”” never happened to Carter and Clinton (though of course it did), no, in “Haplo9′s” alternate reality, those bigotries were only directed at the right by the left despite the 12 years of evidence that Democratic President Clinton AND Carter received a TREMENDOUS amount of right wing contempt as dumb Southerners.

How do you compartmentalize that reality from your invented fictions “Haplo9″?

News, what is really funny is how much of this thread you have to miss, ignore, or misread in order to make your comment. Do you have any clue as to why you aren’t taken seriously? (Probably not.)

Right wing concern troll “Haplo9″ can’t find any actual prejudice on the left so they invent prejudice and then asks lefties to explain why lefties have the invented prejudices.

And the whole time “Haplo9″ can’t acknowledge, let alone address the myriad examples of right wing prejudice and overt racism.

So Wilbur, can you explain to me how I was mistaken to think that “Uncle Tom” (which black conservatives are regularly called by some on the left) has nothing to do with “black-ness”? I’m really interested to hear your clarification.

>You mean like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter? I know in the blinkered worldview of the reality-challenged community there is no difference between lampooning the racial characteristics of an African-American and any other kind of insult, but those of us with a sense of history know that it is simply not the case.

No, I was more thinking along the lines of “redneck rubes in red states”, to paraphrase the refrain that was commonly heard when Bush won.

I think you meant to use a word other than “bigotry” though, since it isn’t explicit to race. You might do better to move the goalposts and say that what you really meant was white to black racist incidents are greater when the white person is conservative/republican vs when the white person is democrat. That defines out all my examples except for cases where white liberals demean black conservatives as, say, Uncle Toms or race traitors. Not very compelling IMO, since you ignore a lot of bigotry that way, but I think that’s the only way you can make your point – ignore a lot of bigotry. Reality-challenged indeed.