Apparently supporting Cain means I'm a racist

[Kramer]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/janeane_garofalo_racist_republicans_support_herman_cain.html

Janeane Garofalo: "Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same.

"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

This makes me not wonder much about whether or not Janeane Garofalo is a racist; she pretty much cleared that one up for all of us with those comments.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Karl Rove is not a racist like Bull Connors, but he favors  using race as a way of manipulating the electorate. Having Cain in the race allows the GOP to disclaim the fact that there are racists in their party.
Cain got 36 % of the vote in the FL primary. At best, this indicates that 36% of the voters in that straw poll are not racists. 

You are, of course, a racist, Kramer. Everyone here has seen ample evidence of that.  But you are also not the sharpest tack in the box, which explains how you feel you can deny your racism.

[R.R.]

I can't believe that all the liberal left has to support Obama now is to call his opponents racists. I mean I knew it would happen, but it is still hard to believe.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not all those who oppose Obama are racists, but that does not mean that there are none who oppose him do so because they are racists.

Obama was given the most difficult term in many years to serve as president. he has receives less cooperation and compromise from the opposition party than any president my life.

It is like tripping a runner and then telling him that he runs poorly.

He has been a far better president than McCain would have been.

[Kramer]

I can't believe that all the liberal left has to support Obama now is to call his opponents racists. I mean I knew it would happen, but it is still hard to believe.

I think what Janeane Garofalo is saying is the Democrat Party owns black people and the Republicans should keep their hands off of other peoples property.

[Kramer]

Karl Rove is not a racist like Bull Connors, but he favors  using race as a way of manipulating the electorate. Having Cain in the race allows the GOP to disclaim the fact that there are racists in their party.
Cain got 36 % of the vote in the FL primary. At best, this indicates that 36% of the voters in that straw poll are not racists. 

You are, of course, a racist, Kramer. Everyone here has seen ample evidence of that.  But you are also not the sharpest tack in the box, which explains how you feel you can deny your racism.

XO you are very predictable.

[Christians4LessGvt]

so let me get this straight

Garofalo is saying that a person that hates blacks will love
a black man so that they can hide the fact they hate blacks?

Makes no sense!
So what else is new?

[Kramer]

so let me get this straight

Garofalo is saying that a person that hates blacks will love
a black man so that they can hide the fact they hate blacks?

Makes no sense!
So what else is new?

You and I didn't understand it but naturally XO fully got it. I think he's thinks just like Garofalo.

[Plane]

Karl Rove is not a racist like Bull Connors, but he favors  using race as a way of manipulating the electorate. Having Cain in the race allows the GOP to disclaim the fact that there are racists in their party.
Cain got 36 % of the vote in the FL primary. At best, this indicates that 36% of the voters in that straw poll are not racists. 

  If white voters had voted 90%+ for the white canadate would this be evidence of racism?

     I think it would have been percieved so , but black voters voting in great purportion for Obama is not perceived so?

     I don't think we have progressed to the point that racism doesn't matter at all , but we have definately progressed to the point that those who complain of racism most display greater racism than their complaints can point to.

      Racism requires hipocracy, less is better .

[Xavier_Onassis]

If we assume that a racist would not vote for a Black man, then the only conclusion we can draw from the single Black candidate getting 36% of the vote is that somewhere between 0% and 64% of the voters could be racists. Not that they are, simply could be.

It does not prove that no Republicans or 'baggers are racists, which was Kramer's erroneous conclusion.

[Plane]

If we assume that a racist would not vote for a Black man, then the only conclusion we can draw from the single Black candidate getting 36% of the vote is that somewhere between 0% and 64% of the voters could be racists. Not that they are, simply could be.

It does not prove that no Republicans or 'baggers are racists, which was Kramer's erroneous conclusion.

   How would you prove Democrats or Liberals include few racists?

     I am trying to imagine what sort of evidence would be enough.

[Kramer]

If we assume that a racist would not vote for a Black man, then the only conclusion we can draw from the single Black candidate getting 36% of the vote is that somewhere between 0% and 64% of the voters could be racists. Not that they are, simply could be.

It does not prove that no Republicans or 'baggers are racists, which was Kramer's erroneous conclusion.

   How would you prove Democrats or Liberals include few racists?

     I am trying to imagine what sort of evidence would be enough.

those wearing white ropes and hoods.

[Plane]

If we assume that a racist would not vote for a Black man, then the only conclusion we can draw from the single Black candidate getting 36% of the vote is that somewhere between 0% and 64% of the voters could be racists. Not that they are, simply could be.

It does not prove that no Republicans or 'baggers are racists, which was Kramer's erroneous conclusion.

   How would you prove Democrats or Liberals include few racists?

     I am trying to imagine what sort of evidence would be enough.

those wearing white ropes and hoods.

   I was thinking of the Democrats who preferred the White canadate last time round , what was it , 48% or so for Hillary Clinton?

     This would not prove that 48% of Democrats are racists , but it makes it possible that 74% or so could be .

     

(48% almost all White Dem voters who prefer Hilleray plus the 26% of Dem voters who are black and voted for Obama are not necessacerily but could be racist.)

[Xavier_Onassis]

If 48% preferred Hillary, then some of all of that 48% could have been racists. But this is unlikely.

In a typical Chinese restaurant, you can have egg drop or won ton.

If you prefer egg drop, it does not mean you hate won ton, or vice versa. It COULD mean that, but the odds are against it.

[Plane]

If 48% preferred Hillary, then some of all of that 48% could have been racists. But this is unlikely.

In a typical Chinese restaurant, you can have egg drop or won ton.

If you prefer egg drop, it does not mean you hate won ton, or vice versa. It COULD mean that, but the odds are against it.

If we assume that a racist would not vote for a Black man, then the only conclusion we can draw from the single Black candidate getting 36% of the vote is that somewhere between 0% and 64% of the voters could be racists. Not that they are, simply could be.

But unlikely?

Don't forget that some of the Obama Voters can be racist because thay would be voting for their own race , this makes it possible that more than 70% of Democrats are racist , possible , however unlikely.