quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The thing is, Obama is demonstrably racist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The thing is, Obama is demonstrably racist.

And when and where was this demonstrated?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Jimmy Carter can make blanket accusations of racism against "many white people" who disagree with Obama without any evidence, and you on the left cheer him on...

Yet, its been well documented that Barack Obama has been intimately acquainted with racists such as Jeremiah Wright and Van Jones for at least the past twenty years, and you act like its an outrage that I would dare to call Obama into question.

How do you guys keep all your double standards figured out. Lets face it, you've got so many of them...

And if these myriads of double standards aren't politically motivated, as you insist, what shall we blame them on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


What is sad is that someone in such a position can be so blatantly racist and yet there are so many who eagerly step up to defend him, and probably just for political reasons.

So to recap, you called Obama racist, and by saying your talking B/s I am politically motivated. 

Seems like spin to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Start the thread at the beginning, rml.

Free clues are everywhere. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The thing is, Obama is demonstrably racist.

And when and where was this demonstrated?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, the way you post I see you as reliably hard to the left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Given that certain groups are genetically predisposed to certain illnesses (sometimes exclusively) and newer genetic advances are revealing other differences which merit being taken into account when formulating treatment plans, I think the broadness of that definition will need some revising.

This is completely untrue.

Granting that "exclusive" is an over-statement in today's world, the occurance of some diseases outside certain populations appears likely to indicate a past relatedness to that population. And beyond that quibble, my post is not "completely untrue" at all.

In almost every ethnic, racial, or demographic group, certain genetic diseases occur at higher frequencies among their members than in the general population.

As for your other point, I'm very aware of how much of our genome we all have in common. But the genetic distinctions that exist between groups have nothing to do with quantitatively large genetic differences.

Racial Groupings Match Genetic Profiles (Stanford University)

Still, that all said, I do agree that we are all more simply human than otherwise.

K.

quote:

And again, I only bring this up because Jimmy Carter has been throwing rocks at Conservatives from the front porch of Obama's glass mansion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Even taking Spinner at his word (and I do), what he is saying - in effect - is that whites have little or no room to complain, and certainly we should spend more time addressing white racism against all other races before we worry about the converse.

I thought an injustice against one, was an injustice against all?

When we start minimizing anyone's injustice simply because they aren't in the "right group", that, in itself is racism ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Second, you and others continue, and I suggest will continue, to miss the glaring point that until there was some hint of racial inequity pointed at them, had nothing at all to say about the "injustice to one is injustice to all" principal. Did I miss all outrage over the systemic racism that exists in this country against people of color from the conservative right? Did I some how skip past them in the posting on this very board? If I have, I would love for someone to point them out to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Based on false assumption. The number of whites affected, really affected not outraged that AA exists etc., is no where near 30%. Charitably I'll concede 0.1%. I think it's likely closer to 1 in 1 million than 1 in 1000 though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

As to proportionality, you're back to arguing guilt by association and now down to arguing how close the association is. You'll need to provide some objective measure of how much association is enough to make someone guilty. I will of course use your standard to condemn the entire right wing. But please continue, your contortions have been hilarious, pathetic but hilarious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

That wont wash Firm. You cant claim that one in three being victimised is ever equal to one out of one, no matter how you spin it. Sure the totals may be the same but no statistician will back your claim, individualist or otherwise.

According to wikipedia:

White alone 74% 221.3 million
Black or African American alone 13.4% 40.9 million

30% of 221.3 million = 66.39 million
100% of 40.9 million = 40.9 million

So, according to you, it is better to discriminate against 66 million, than 41 million?

How about discriminating against none?

Firm

Not quite, according to me your continued claim that racism against 100 % of any one group, is equal to racism against 30% of a larger group is skewed in the extreme.