A Word on Guisling Traitor Losers from My Buddy Steve Gilliard

[Mucho]

I have to agree that this is racist trash knute.

I wonder though, would those on the right make the opposite argument? I've seen arguments in here (well, in the old fora) that implied that the majority of the African-American voters who vote for Democrats were voting against their best interests. The argument implied that the Democrats trick and decieve the African-Americans into voting for them which implies that African American voters are somehow not intelligent enough to see this alleged deception for themselves, yet a group of white right wing individuals can clearly see it for them.

I've always found it interesting that those on the right somehow never condemn that line of thought as being racist and patronistic at all.

I guess you can call a black man shaming other  black men for betrayal racist. It is a little like calling a Dave Chappelle who often uses the N-word in his skits racist. He is allowed, ya know.

I agree with the second part and add that they never can see their own racism which is why they are .

[Universe Prince]

Prince, you're becoming unhinged.  You're rambling all over the place and it's hard to answer you concisely but I will try.

Don't patronize me. I answered you directly and clearly. Your lack of a substantive response is not my fault, and you know it. In any case, I really expected better of you.

Black people still have interests as black people in the U.S. today.  The problems of racism have not all gone away.  So there's a common interest they all have in fighting racism and in redressing the injustices of the past, most of which are still present today, although progress has been made.

I mostly agree with that. I'd say we all have have a common interest in fighting racism. But it is not fighting racism to insist there is some sort of racial ideology that is betrayed when someone dares to disagree. It entrenches race as a division between humans. That will never end racism.

It's a phony, straw-man issue to argue that any black man has the right to associate with any political party of his choice.  No one denies that.

No, it isn't a straw man. You and Mucho and Mr. Gilliard are criticizing black men for choosing to associate with a party you don't like, and you're calling them traitors. That they have a right to chose their own political party is a valid point. By calling them traitors you have suggested that they do not have a right to choose for themselves, that they are obligated to remain Democrats, that they are to think only what you have approved for them to think as a race and any dissent is not to be tolerated. If this were not the point of the criticism, you would not call them traitors. You would call them wrong or misguided or some such. But that is not what you call them. You don't say they have come to the wrong conclusions about how to help others or about politics, you call them "Uncle Toms". You call them "quisling traitors". You are, in effect, saying that they do not have a right to decide for themselves to dissent from the liberal view or to associate with whichever political party they please. You deny they have that right every time you call them traitors or insist that they have turned their back on their race.

It's a phony straw man issue to claim that a black man has sufficient intelligence to choose the Party that he thinks best represents his interests.  No one denies that.

I didn't claim anyone was denying that (though I could have), so I'm left wondering if you actually read what I said to you, or if you're just making a blanket reply because you don't want to address what I said.

The question is, what do we (Knute, Steve Gilliard, myself) think of a man who turns his back on his own people and embraces the cause of their enemies, the racists, the white supremacists, the Trent Lotts, the George Allens - - and quite frankly, we don't think much of him, and aren't shy about saying so.   And if you want to call that racism and hatefulness - - I say thanks, because we needed a good laugh and we always can count on your childish rhetorical tricks and faked indignation for that.

Wow. So much stupidity there, I almost don't know where to start.

So now you're saying all Republicans are Trent Lotts and white supremacists? I'm sure folks like BT, Plane and Sirs would be interested in seeing you defend that one. What? You didn't say BT, Plane and Sirs were white supremacists? No, of course not. You merely equated the Republican Party as a whole with "the racists, the white supremacists, the Trent Lotts, the George Allens". And I would be really interested in seeing some evidence that Blackwell, Steele and Swann were embracing racism and white supremacists.

Is it hateful to say that any African-American who leaves the Democrats and joins the Republicans is embracing racists and white supremacists? To say that they are "quisling traitors" to their race? Yeah, it is. You're calling them "Uncle Toms" in the same manner that some people call them "niggers". You talk about joining with white supremacists, but the white supremacists are going to be agreeing with you that blacks should stick with their own race. They will not be agreeing with me that African-Americans should not be criticized about thinking for themselves and finding their own paths as individuals rather than as some piece of a racial collective.

Is it hateful to imply, as Mucho did, that anyone he doesn't agree with politically is oppressing and betraying African-Americans? Sure it is. You and he both tried to claim those who disagree with you were acting like Nazis, as if disagreeing with you is somehow morally evil. And you want me to believe you're not being hateful? My friend, all the "childish rhetorical tricks" are yours. As I said before, you need to take your own advice and "tone down the flaming hypocrisy."

Is it racism to claim, as you have, that people with dark skin should have their political identity defined by their skin color, by who their parents are, by their race? It sure seem racist to me. The way you and Mucho and Mr. Gilliard use language with the intent to shame any one of dark skin who dares to consider ideas other than those you have deemed acceptable for people with dark skin to think, is that racist? If it is not racist it is certainly bigoted. Your sanctimonious condemnations of those who disagree with you politically as all supporting racism certainly fits the definition of bigotry.

Faked indignation did you say? Faked? Since when are you a mind reader? Since when do you get to tell me what I feel about racism? I realize that a popular thing among liberals is to assume that they are the only ones with genuine feelings and everyone else is just callously selfish, but that is a load of horse hockey. You and I may not agree about the proper political response or the proper response of government to racism, but that doesn't mean I am not angered by racism when I see it. Nor does it mean that I do not seek to combat racism and to see it eliminated. Unlike the entrenchment of racial divisions that you seem to want, I want to see the day when skin color means nothing more than eye color or hair color. I want to see the day when words like 'interracial' disappear from the language because they no longer have any applicability. So don't you sit there and judge my response to racism as faked simply because I don't agree with you politically. You don't know me at all if you think I do not despise racism, and therefore you have no grounds to comment on the nature of my indignation.

[Universe Prince]

I've seen arguments in here (well, in the old fora) that implied that the majority of the African-American voters who vote for Democrats were voting against their best interests. The argument implied that the Democrats trick and decieve the African-Americans into voting for them which implies that African American voters are somehow not intelligent enough to see this alleged deception for themselves, yet a group of white right wing individuals can clearly see it for them.

I've seen arguments in 3DHS that anyone middle class voting Republican is voting against his best interests. The argument implies that Republicans deceive all manner of folks into voting for them which implies that Republican voters are some how not intelligent enough to see this deception or to think for themselves, and that Democrats were somehow smarter and better. I'm not saying this justifies the comments you're talking about, because it certainly does not. But sometimes it is hard to be motivated to condemn someone for doing something that someone else is doing to you.

And I'll say that sort of "voting against their best interests" reasoning is wrong all around. And you're right that it is subtly racist to use it about African-Americans in particular.

[Universe Prince]

It is not condescending to understand that there have been and are racial, ethnic religious and others with situations beyond their contrl that are oppressed here

But it is condescending to speak of them as currently helpless.

I do not hate all people that disagree with me only the stupid and arrogant ones that continue to oppress and sometimes murder people either in thought or did. You can use that quote anytime you want and never forget it either.

Murder people in thought? Wow. You're hating people for thoughtcrime? Yes, indeed, I will not forget that.

There are folks that still fight blind hatred and stupidity.

Indeed. That is what I've been doing. Thanks for noticing.

[Mucho]

Indeed. That is what I've been doing. Thanks for noticing.
[/quote]

UPWee Herman strikes again

[Michael Tee]

<<But it is not fighting racism to insist there is some sort of racial ideology that is betrayed when someone dares to disagree.>>

There's another straw man.  Nobody criticized these Uncle Toms for "daring to disagree."  That's a pathetic attempt to make me, Knute, Gilliard and others look like intellectual martinets imposing a uniform code of thought on anyone with a black skin all across the ideological board on every imaginable issue.  Nice try.  They are being criticized for one specific move they made, not for "daring to disagree."   That one move was their support of the party of racism and privilege, a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world.

<<By calling them traitors you have suggested that they do not have a right to choose for themselves, that they are obligated to remain Democrats, that they are to think only what you have approved for them to think as a race and any dissent is not to be tolerated.>>

That's pure bullshit and of course it's a straw-man argument.  They have the right to join any party they like.  They have a right to join the American Nazi Party.  They have a right to turn their backs on their own mothers and insult them.  This is America, there is no opinion they have no right to express, no party they have no right to join.  (Of course if they join Hamas, they'll be executed or thrown in jail for the rest of their lives, but that's another story.)  What you can't seem to stomach is that when they exercise that right to choose and make a really disgusting choice, they are then going to be castigated for it and called some disgusting names.  Well, if the shoe fits . . .

<<I didn't claim anyone was denying that [that blacks have enough intelligence to make their own political choices] (though I could have), so I'm left wondering if you actually read what I said to you, or if you're just making a blanket reply because you don't want to address what I said.>>

Well, it was definitely alleged by ONE of the posters in this thread that to call these black Republicans "Uncle Toms" was to imply that a black man needed a liberal to show him where his best interests lay because he wasn't smart enough to figure it out for himself.  If that wasn't you, my apologies, but the point needed to be responded to in any event.

<<So now you're saying all Republicans are Trent Lotts and white supremacists? I'm sure folks like BT, Plane and Sirs would be interested in seeing you defend that one. >>

If they can stomach being in the same party as Trent Lott and George Allen, they are either racists themselves or their anti-racist sentiment is so feeble as to be practically non-existent.  In other words, if by some technicality they are not racists, they sure as hell don't seem to be all that opposed to racism either.  You're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem.

<<You talk about joining with white supremacists, but the white supremacists are going to be agreeing with you that blacks should stick with their own race. >>

Something else I never said, so they can't be "agreeing with me" about it.  Nice try.

<<They will not be agreeing with me that African-Americans should not be criticized about thinking for themselves and finding their own paths as individuals rather than as some piece of a racial collective.>>

The white supremacists of today can infiltrate the Republican Party and have done so.  The smart ones work from inside the Republican Party like Lott and Allen, while only the losers talk like you think they would talk.

<<You and he both tried to claim those who disagree with you were acting like Nazis, as if disagreeing with you is somehow morally evil.>>

There's another lie, again something neither one of us said.  I never claimed that disagreeing with me in general was acting like a Nazi.  I was quite specific about the Nazi rhetorical trick being used against us, that we, who speak out against racism, who call out a black man who goes over to the racist side, are being denounced as "racist."  As if the act of denouncing racism, and traitors in the racial struggle, could ever be considered the equivalent of racism.  I criticized the similar application of the same Nazi tactic, this time with allegations of "hatred" - - the party of war, racism, torture and militarism - - as hateful and hate-filled as any group of people can possibly be - - has the God-damn fucking gall to label opponents like me and Knute and Gilliard as "hateful" and "hate-filled."  Turning the Republicans at the stroke of a pen into humanitarian do-gooders and benefactors of all humanity.  Preposterous.  Ludicrous.

<<Is it hateful to imply, as Mucho did, that anyone he doesn't agree with politically is oppressing and betraying African-Americans?>>

You are becoming a joke.  Knute (Mucho) never said any such thing.

<<Is it racism to claim, as you have, that people with dark skin should have their political identity defined by their skin color, by who their parents are, by their race? >>

Skin colour is not their whole personal identity and does not define their entire political identity, and nobody - - certainly not me, Gilliard or Knute - - ever claimed otherwise.  But only a moron could claim that it forms no part of their personal identity and has no relationship to the way the political world affects and has affected them and their families and friends.  Anyone who fights racism fights it on behalf of ALL its victims and anyone who turns his back on the struggle turns his back on all its victims.  And that's not a good thing, but the far worse thing is not only to turn one's back on the struggle against racism, but to actually go over to the other side.  To join the Trent Lotts and the George Allens in their under-the-radar fight against blacks and the other untermenschen, to actually undermine and betray that which generations of other blacks fought and died for.  He's free to do it, of course - - but everyone else is similarly free to express their scorn and contempt upon him who does.

<<It sure seem racist to me.>>

Well you're wrong.

<< The way you and Mucho and Mr. Gilliard use language with the intent to shame any one of dark skin who dares to consider ideas other than those you have deemed acceptable for people with dark skin to think, is that racist? >>

I disagree with anyone who espouses racist ideas and policies.  If the person who espouses such ideas and policies happens to be black, I disagree with him AND I show him the particular contempt I feel for one who turns his back on his own people and joins the party of their racist enemies.  Sure that's treating a black Republican different than a white Republican, but only because it would be impossible for me to say the same thing to the white - - who did he betray by becoming a racist?  Certainly not his own people.

You don't get that because you claim to want to live in a colour-blind world.  Nice when the day comes.  But the day didn't come.  The world isn't colour-blind.  People who live in the real world know that.  People who live in the pretend never-neverland of right-wing kook ideology look up their dictionary definitions of racism and try to fit it over anybody (except the real racists in their own party) who recognizes that a black man is not the same as a white man, particularly when considered in terms of victimhood of racism.

<<If it is not racist it is certainly bigoted. Your sanctimonious condemnations of those who disagree with you politically as all supporting racism certainly fits the definition of bigotry.>>

I wouldn't know.  I don't really know the definition of bigotry.  I'm not as focused on affixing labels as you seem to be.  What I just said was right.  If it's right, I don't give a shit what label you can fit to it.  If "bigotry" fit accurately, then all I can say is, bigotry isn't as bad as I thought it was.  More likely it doesn't fit any better than your other labels ("racist," "hateful," etc.) fit.

[Plane]

"If they can stomach being in the same party as Trent Lott and George Allen, they are either racists themselves or their anti-racist sentiment is so feeble as to be practically non-existent.  In other words, if by some technicality they are not racists, they sure as hell don't seem to be all that opposed to racism either.  You're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem."


You would like me better if I were to join the party of Lester Maddox?

Well Phooey!

"...that a black man is not the same as a white man, particularly when considered in terms of victimhood of racism."

Is Victimhood permanant ?

[Universe Prince]

There's another straw man.  Nobody criticized these Uncle Toms for "daring to disagree."

What is funny about this is that you spend the rest of your post criticizing them and defending criticizing them for disagreeing with you.

That's a pathetic attempt to make me, Knute, Gilliard and others look like intellectual martinets imposing a uniform code of thought on anyone with a black skin all across the ideological board on every imaginable issue.

Of course you're not. But you talk as though you want to be.

They are being criticized for one specific move they made, not for "daring to disagree."   That one move was their support of the party of racism and privilege, a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world.

Exactly. They disagree with your politics, or more specifically with the politics to which you believe they should adhere, and so you call them "Uncle Toms", "quisling traitors" and now accuse them of figuratively stabbing in the back "all black people in America and around the world." Your protestations are kinda like saying they're free to disagree, just not to act on their disagreement. You're running around in semantic circles, criticizing them for disagreeing with you while insisting you're not criticizing them for disagreeing with you. That you're willing to say they have a right to disagree does not alter the nature of your criticism.

What you can't seem to stomach is that when they exercise that right to choose and make a really disgusting choice, they are then going to be castigated for it and called some disgusting names.  Well, if the shoe fits . . .

What you can't seem to stomach is that when you and others make the really disgusting choice to start the juvenile behavior of calling people disgusting names and trying to castigate them merely because they chose a political philosophy you don't like, you're going to get called on it. Or are you, Knute, Mr. Gilliard and those like you the only ones who get to comment on what may be considered disgusting behavior? Is this one of those issues where only liberals have the right to speak up?

If they can stomach being in the same party as Trent Lott and George Allen, they are either racists themselves or their anti-racist sentiment is so feeble as to be practically non-existent.  In other words, if by some technicality they are not racists, they sure as hell don't seem to be all that opposed to racism either.

Gibberish. No matter what the individuals themselves may actually believe, they're racists because they're Republicans and some Republicans are racists? You look at the worst of a group, define the whole group by those worst folks, and so apply your definition to all other members of that group. It's racism by distant association, and it is a logically fallible argument. Some Democrats believe that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Some Democrats believe it does not. So which view should we ascribe to all Democrats? Some Democrats favor the "war on drugs". Some Democrats do not. Which view should we ascribe to all Democrats? How about neither one? How about letting individuals speak for themselves rather than trying to insist the mentalities of some represent the opinions of the whole?

You're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem.

I'll remember you said that.

<<You talk about joining with white supremacists, but the white supremacists are going to be agreeing with you that blacks should stick with their own race. >>

Something else I never said, so they can't be "agreeing with me" about it.  Nice try.

Oh, right. African-Americans deciding to be Republicans is "a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world", but you're not saying they should stick with their own race. Right. Sure. Now pull the other one.

The white supremacists of today can infiltrate the Republican Party and have done so.  The smart ones work from inside the Republican Party like Lott and Allen, while only the losers talk like you think they would talk.

And your evidence for this white power movement with in the Republican party is what? Perhaps your evidence is their "seduction" of men like Steele and Swann? Those clever white supremacists, working to put black people in power just to cover up their hidden white supremacist agenda. Well, I did ask you to pull the other one.

<<You and he both tried to claim those who disagree with you were acting like Nazis, as if disagreeing with you is somehow morally evil.>>

There's another lie, again something neither one of us said.  I never claimed that disagreeing with me in general was acting like a Nazi.  I was quite specific about the Nazi rhetorical trick being used against us, that we, who speak out against racism, who call out a black man who goes over to the racist side, are being denounced as "racist."

One of you is confused. I did not say you claimed disagreeing with you was acting like a Nazi. I said you tried to claim those who were disagreeing with you were acting like Nazis. Which you did. In any case, your pious "we, who speak out against racism" is a real nice touch, as if you guys are the only ones who speak out against racism. Pooh yi. Perhaps you can explain why you get to call out someone who engages in behavior you find objectionable, but if some other person does it to you, then that other person is using a Nazi trick. You get to decide that those who do something you don't like "are then going to be castigated for it and called some disgusting names." But when someone decides to call you names you don't like, they're using a Nazi trick. Let's see now, what was it you said? "It's an old Nazi trick to accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you won't admit to doing yourself." Sort of like if you accuse people of racism enough times maybe no one will notice how bigoted you are? I mean, if you really want to start comparing behavior to Nazis, perhaps I should compare yours and Knute's and Mr. Gilliard's objections about African-American Republicans to Nazi objections about those who would sympathize with the Jews. How traitorous of someone to throw in with an enemy of the people, right? Isn't that what you're saying? After all, African-Americans have issues regarding which they need to stand in racial solidarity. Oh yes, I know, that comparison is completely absurd. But then, so is yours.

As if the act of denouncing racism, and traitors in the racial struggle, could ever be considered the equivalent of racism.

Traitors in the racial struggle? Maybe that comparison I made above was not so absurd after all. Anyway, what is this denouncing racism bit? As I recall what was denounced was merely African-Americans who dared to stand with Republicans. And that you claim to be denouncing racism doesn't mean your comments are not bigoted and disgusting. Frankly, insisting there is some sort of ideological solidarity that African-Americans must maintain because they're African-Americans looks racist to me. But let's say that it's not racist. You're still talking about all this in terms of "we who denounce racism" and "traitors in the racial struggle" as if you have the one and only way to fight against racism and all else is racism or support of racism. You're still judging what is an acceptable political stance for someone based on what is his or her racial ancestry. You're still using hateful language, "quisling traitors" (your words), "sell-out evil" (Knute's words), "gollums, chasing a ring you'll never have" (Mr. Gillard's words). Looking at all this hateful talk that smacks of bigotry, I'm supposed to excuse it all because somewhere you've denounced racism? No way.

I criticized the similar application of the same Nazi tactic, this time with allegations of "hatred" - - the party of war, racism, torture and militarism - - as hateful and hate-filled as any group of people can possibly be - - has the God-damn fucking gall to label opponents like me and Knute and Gilliard as "hateful" and "hate-filled."

What a lot of excrement. Most obviously, I am not Republican or a supporter of the war, torture, militarism or racism. And I am pretty sure JS is none of that as well. So even if you set aside the Republican responses, you still have people who are noticing that your comments, Mucho's comments and Mr. Gilliard's comments are hateful. And I might add, I was one of the folks arguing against the Republicans who were supporting a column by Thomas Sowell posted not that long ago. A column that I found hateful and that, if I remember correctly, JS referred to as racist in content. So this outrage of yours is nothing but one of those strawman arguments about which you keep complaining.

Turning the Republicans at the stroke of a pen into humanitarian do-gooders and benefactors of all humanity.  Preposterous.  Ludicrous.

Now who is doing the lying? No one sat around here lionizing the Republicans. Stop blowing smoke.

You are becoming a joke.  Knute (Mucho) never said any such thing.

Perhaps you need a mirror for that plank in your eye.

Skin colour is not their whole personal identity and does not define their entire political identity, and nobody - - certainly not me, Gilliard or Knute - - ever claimed otherwise.

Sure you did. You do it every time you talk about African-American Republicans being "quisling traitors" and "a stab in the back to all black people in America and around the world."

But only a moron could claim that it forms no part of their personal identity and has no relationship to the way the political world affects and has affected them and their families and friends.

And oddly enough, no one made that argument. Hm.

Anyone who fights racism fights it on behalf of ALL its victims

Except those who choose to be Republicans, right?

Anyone who fights racism fights it on behalf of ALL its victims and anyone who turns his back on the struggle turns his back on all its victims.

There you go again, talking as if you have some sort of anti-racism gospel that is the one true way and all else is heresy. You apparently cannot or will not allow for the idea that someone might disagree with you on how to fight racism.

And that's not a good thing, but the far worse thing is not only to turn one's back on the struggle against racism, but to actually go over to the other side.  To join the Trent Lotts and the George Allens in their under-the-radar fight against blacks and the other untermenschen, to actually undermine and betray that which generations of other blacks fought and died for.

Have you any proof, other than that they are Republicans, that Blackwell or Swann or any African-American Republican at all has actually engaged in this sort of anti-black behavior? Yes, I realize that the mere act of joining the Republican Party is enough for you to condemn them, but I'm a little more skeptical, and I'd like to see some evidence of all this anti-black behavior. Not that far back in this thread, JS was complaining about people claiming African-Americans who vote Democratic are voting against their best interest. He was correct to call it racist rhetoric. But you're making almost the same argument, the argument African-Americans who support the Republican Party are acting against their best interests. Hm. I wonder what sort of rhetoric that is.

He's free to do it, of course - - but everyone else is similarly free to express their scorn and contempt upon him who does.

With a position like that, don't you think you're being a tad hypocritical to complain when other express their scorn and contempt of the word of folks like you and Mr. Gilliard? Or is it only you liberals who get to express scorn and contempt?

I disagree with anyone who espouses racist ideas and policies.

What a coincidence. So do I.

If the person who espouses such ideas and policies happens to be black, I disagree with him AND I show him the particular contempt I feel for one who turns his back on his own people and joins the party of their racist enemies.  Sure that's treating a black Republican different than a white Republican, but only because it would be impossible for me to say the same thing to the white - - who did he betray by becoming a racist?  Certainly not his own people.

His own people? That doesn't really require further comment.

You don't get that because you claim to want to live in a colour-blind world.  Nice when the day comes.  But the day didn't come.  The world isn't colour-blind.  People who live in the real world know that.  People who live in the pretend never-neverland of right-wing kook ideology look up their dictionary definitions of racism and try to fit it over anybody (except the real racists in their own party) who recognizes that a black man is not the same as a white man, particularly when considered in terms of victimhood of racism.

Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. You may not believe this, but I do understand exactly the notion of people making a united and unwavering stand against racism. I also fully understand the world isn't color-blind. If I didn't realize that, the asinine "close the border" arguments, the irrational anti-outsourcing arguments and the shameful Dubai Ports World ruckus would be enough to alert me to it. People who live in the pretend world of left-wing kook ideology apparently think that only liberals fight racism and anyone who disagrees with liberal thought is racist or supports racism. This is a fantasy. It would be entirely foolish to think that in a nation of 300 million people or in a world of over 6 billion people that everyone against racism is going to agree on how to fight racism.

You mentioned earlier the old adage that either you're part of the solution or part of the problem. (See, I told you I'd remember.) Seems to me that to shame people for not adhering to some sort of ideological racial purity is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In my opinion, anything that shores up racial divisions is part of the problem, not part of the solution. This doesn't mean I think you're really a racist. It does however mean that I think you're wrong. See how that works? I can disagree with you about the solution and still accept that your intentions are to fight racism.

I don't really know the definition of bigotry.

You could always try looking it up in a dictionary.

I'm not as focused on affixing labels as you seem to be.

Right. That's why you're defending calling African-American Republicans "disgusting names" like "traitor" and "Uncle Tom".

What I just said was right.  If it's right, I don't give a shit what label you can fit to it.  If "bigotry" fit accurately, then all I can say is, bigotry isn't as bad as I thought it was.

Spoken like a true defender of the faith. I'm sure your white supremacist pals would be proud.

[Mucho]

"If they can stomach being in the same party as Trent Lott and George Allen, they are either racists themselves or their anti-racist sentiment is so feeble as to be practically non-existent.  In other words, if by some technicality they are not racists, they sure as hell don't seem to be all that opposed to racism either.  You're either a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem."


You would like me better if I were to join the party of Lester Maddox?

Well Phooey!

"...that a black man is not the same as a white man, particularly when considered in terms of victimhood of racism."

Is Victimhood permanant ?

Lester Maddox was a loong time ago. Allen , Lott et al are now.

Victimhood may pr may not be permanent , but it still exist s today. Try to live in the present. Please.