"Blacks Against Obama" shout down Obama speech!

[BT]

Let me make it easier for you.

Are the statements that:

"Blacks like watermelon" or

"Blacks can't swim"


racist in nature? If not, why not? If so, why so?

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL.....see what I mean?      Grin      Jumped right over the substantive question posed to take pot shots at my color commentary   Priceless.>>

Yet another post from sirs without ANY substantive comment on the issues.  Is anyone counting?  The number of times and the number of ways this guy avoids any kind of substantive argument on the issues or any kind of reasoned response to an opposing position is truly amazing.  If nothing else, you have to admire sirs' resourcefulness.  The CLOSEST he comes to actual argument is simulated laughter ("LOL," "Grin" and the omnipresent "priceless.")

Priceless.

[Michael Tee]

Let me make it easier for you.

Are the statements that:

"Blacks like watermelon" or

"Blacks can't swim"


racist in nature? If not, why not? If so, why so?

=================================================================

Well, in themselves they are neutral.  In context, they could be racist or they could be in the nature of (probably ill-informed) scientific comment, arm-chair anthropology or or arm-chair sociology, so to speak.

IMHO, context is very important in assessing meaning.

What if someone comments that blacks are x times more likely than whites to come down with sickle-cell anemia or x times more likely to have done time if they are male and between the ages of 18 and 26?  Is THAT racist?

[sirs]

Do you think Tee will ever disconnect himself from avoiding any kind of a substantive answer to Bt's questions, and instead simply keep making an arse of himself??

Let's watch

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you think Tee will ever disconnect himself from avoiding any kind of a substantive answer to Bt's questions, and instead simply keep making an arse of himself??

<<Let's watch>>

OK, I admit it - - I lost count.   You're too much for me, sirs.  Let me know when you've got a comment on the issue that consists of anything more than invective and a string of LOLs, "priceless"s, <grin>s etc.

[sirs]

Oh, you've been purposely missing alot, both my substantive comments on the utter hypocrisy you have towards anyone that supports a color blind society, and instead needs to think as one beg herd, or else be branded for daring to think for themselves, and in how you made it painfully obvious in your non answer to BT's: It is interesting that you color those who say skin tone should not require a certain lockstep thought pattern as the racists in this exchange, when applying stereotypical thought patterns and behavior on a group based on their skin color is the very definition of racism. Could you explain to the class why that is?

The silence speaks volumes, but your perseveration at demeaning my commentary, is duely noted

[BT]

What if someone comments that blacks are x times more likely than whites to come down with sickle-cell anemia

I doubt that would be a racist remark because the x times more likely is quantifyable.

Blacks like watermelon is a blanket statement.

Just as blacks who go against their common interest is a blanket statement.

Now if you could show with empirical as well as historical data that position x is the only position blacks should have then you argument would be closer to the sickle cell statement than the watermelon statement.

You haven't.

[Michael Tee]

<<Now if you could show with empirical as well as historical data that position x is the only position blacks should have then you argument would be closer to the sickle cell statement than the watermelon statement.

<<You haven't.>>

You're basically asking me to prove that the Republicans are a white racist party opposed to the interests of blacks or to the interests of most blacks.

I believe they are and I believe most people know they are.

I'm just not going to go over all my old arguments that the Republicans cater to the white racist vote - - they're well-known, they go back to the "Southern Strategy" and the welcoming of so many racist former Democrats into the Republican Party, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms etc.  In a nutshell, Republicans are the party of racism, blacks who support them are Uncle Toms.  End of story.

[BT]

You're basically asking me to prove that the Republicans are a white racist party opposed to the interests of blacks or to the interests of most blacks.

No i am asking you to show me with empirical data what the best interests of a race or any race are.

Please show me empirically why the bests interests of US blacks should be different from the best interests asians living in the US.

[sirs]

<<Now if you could show with empirical as well as historical data that position x is the only position blacks should have then you argument would be closer to the sickle cell statement than the watermelon statement.
<<You haven't.>>

You're basically asking me to prove that the Republicans are a white racist party opposed to the interests of blacks or to the interests of most blacks.  I believe they are and I believe most people know they are....In a nutshell, Republicans are the party of racism, blacks who support them are Uncle Toms.  End of story.

But not the end of the racist rants, of course.  Screw Tee's need to prove anything.  They are, because he says they are.  End of story