TRIBE AND RACE: Blow and tribe!


Part 4—What Rush Limbaugh said: “In some cases,” is disrespect aimed at Barack Obama because he’s African-American?

Oprah Winfrey made that claim to the BBC last week. She even said this racial disrespect may obtain “in many cases.”

Commenting on what Winfrey said, Bill O’Reilly used stronger language: “We all know that some Americans do despise Barack Obama because of his skin color.”

After calling such people “bigots,” O’Reilly said this: “The lunatic fringe will hate, no matter what.”

Presumably, race explains “some” of the disrespect aimed at Obama. The problem starts when you tried to say how much of the opposition stems from this source.

In a recent piece in The Nation, Rick Perlstein almost seemed to apply the brakes to the popular liberal claim that Obama is being attacked because he’s black. Presidents Kennedy and Clinton were treated the same darn way, he said:
PERLSTEIN (11/25/13): This time, liberals are also making a new mistake. Call it “racial defeatism.” Folks throw their hands up and say, “Of course reactionary rage is going to flow like mighty waters against an African-American president! What can we possibly do about that?” But it’s crucial to realize that the vituperation directed at Obama is little different from that aimed at John F. Kennedy, who was so hated by the right that his assassination was initially assumed by most observers to have been done by a conservative; or Bill Clinton, who was warned by Helms in 1994 that if he visited a military base in North Carolina, he’d “better have a bodyguard.”
According to Perlstein, the vituperation aimed at Obama “is little different from that aimed at” Kennedy and Clinton. But hold on! As he continues, Perlstein seems to say that the vituperation aimed at those earlier presidents was “soaked in racism.”

To Perlstein, today’s vituperation is no different because all of this vituperation has been based on race. See our earlier post.

Can we talk? We liberals are in love with the claim that Obama is being reviled due to race. Presumably, that’s true in some cases, and maybe even in many cases, just as Winfrey said.

But “many” is a highly imprecise term. Meanwhile, our modern pseudo-liberal R-bombing tends to be sweeping and indiscriminate. When we pseudo-liberals bomb, we tend to employ carpet bombing.

With that in mind, let’s see where Charles Blow went when he discussed Winfrey’s statement.

In Saturday’s column, Blow quoted the heart of what Winfrey had said. As he continued, he asked a very basic question, then began to muse:
BLOW (11/16/13): With that remark, Winfrey touched on an issue that many Americans have wrestled with: To what extent does this president’s race animate those loyal to him and those opposed? Is race a primary motivator or a subordinate, more elusive one, tainting motivations but not driving them?

To some degree, the answers lie with the questioners. There are different perceptions of racial realities. What some see as slights, others see as innocent opposition. But there are some objective truths here. Racism is a virus that is growing clever at avoiding detection. Race consciousness is real. Racial assumptions and prejudices are real. And racism is real. But these realities can operate without articulation and beneath awareness. For those reasons, some can see racism where it is absent, and others can willfully ignore any possibility that it could ever be present.
Perhaps Blow didn’t mean to do so. But as he framed his question, he seemed to assume that opposition to Obama has to be motivated by race, in every instance.

For Blow, the question is this: is race a primary motivator? Or is its influence subordinate—does it merely “taint” the motivations of those who oppose Obama?

That formulation leaves nobody out. According to Blow, the motives of people opposed to Obama have at best been “tainted” by race.

Perhaps that isn’t what Blow meant. Beyond that, his distinction is rather fuzzy. Based on reactions in comments, very few readers noticed the fact that Blow seemed to say that people “loyal to” Obama must be motivated by race too, in every instance.

Perhaps that isn’t what he meant. But that is what he said

Whatever! As Blow proceeds in the passage we have quoted, he lists a set of “objective truths” which sometimes fall short of that designation. But as he closes the passage, he adopts a constructive stance:

Once again, he casts himself in the role of honest broker. Quite correctly, he says that some people “can see racism where it is absent.” (In our view, liberal thought leader should state this fact more often.) He then makes a slightly stronger claim: Some people “can willfully ignore any possibility that [racism] could ever be present.”

To this point, Blow is playing the honest broker; he’s noting the fact that people can err in equal but opposite ways. And then, if we might borrow from Dylan, he throws it all away.

Blow has been playing honest broker—but now, he is swallowed by tribe. As he continues, this is the sole example with which he illustrates his even-handed, two-sided statement about the ways people can err:
BLOW (continuing directly): To wit, Rush Limbaugh responded to Winfrey’s comments in his usual acerbic way, lacking all nuance:

“If black people in this country are so mistreated and so disrespected, how in the name of Sam Hill did you happen? Would somebody explain that to me? If there’s a level of disrespect simply because he’s black, then how, Oprah, have you managed to become the—at one time—most popular and certainly wealthiest television personality? How does that happen?”

No one has ever accused Limbaugh of being a complex thinker, but the intellectual deficiency required to achieve that level of arrogance and ignorance is staggering.

Anyone with even a child’s grasp of race understands that for many minorities success isn’t synonymous with the absence of obstacles, but often requires the overcoming of obstacles. Furthermore, being willing to be entertained by someone isn’t the same as being willing to be led by them.
Blow offers no example of someone “seeing racism where it is absent.” Instead, he offers that statement by Limbaugh as an example of someone “willfully ignoring any possibility that it could ever be present.”

As he does, he directs a very high level of vituperation at Limbaugh. This vituperation inspired the large number of comments which insisted that Those People in The Other Tribe are a pack of stone racists—that the world won’t be safe for democracy until Those People have died.

Tribe overpowered race when Blow gave that sole example. In our view, tribe also swallowed race in Blow’s assessment of Limbaugh’s remarks. Those aren’t the remarks we would have made concerning Winfrey’s statement. But a perfectly sensible point is being advanced in Limbaugh’s comment.

As Bill O’Reilly would later do, Limbaugh assumed that Winfrey was suggesting that there is a high degree of racial reaction in the opposition to Obama. This isn’t a crazy way of interpreting Winfrey’s remarks.

If Limbaugh’s quoted remarks are read literally, he says there is no “level of disrespect” aimed at Obama “simply because he’s black.” Taken literally, that’s what Limbaugh said.

On its face, that claim would seem highly unlikely. It would justify Blow’s assertion that some people “can willfully ignore any possibility that racism could ever be present.”

On the other hand, if we take Blow’s words literally, he has said that any person who is loyal to Obama has motives which are “tainted” by race.

Taken literally, that’s what Blow said. And if we take Winfrey’s words literally, she has said virtually nothing at all. How much is “maybe many?”

When sensible people respond to speech, they don’t always take every statement literally. They may note the literal meaning of what has been said. But they will also listen for the apparent sense of what has been said.

On that basis, Limbaugh is observing a fact about American life that is worth observing: Oprah Winfrey is widely regarded as a good and decent, smart, wise person by a very wide range of white Americans.

That is a very good thing about the drift of American life. Before we start to “see racism where it is absent”—before we possibly start to overstate the amount of race hate aimed at Obama—it isn’t a terrible idea to remember that fact too.

Despite his honest broker framework, Blow doesn’t want to do that. He presents himself as honest broker, then quickly surrenders to tribe.

As he does, he is even willing to bust Winfrey back to the status of “entertainer.” Only a racist would do such a thing! Or so it can seem when demands of the tribe make us overheat.

Dr. Strangelove couldn’t keep his arm from shooting up from his side. In this particular column, Blow couldn’t resist the call of the tribe.

He started out playing it even, noting two ways people can err. But then, he then gave only one example. He forgot about those who see racism when it doesn’t exist. It felt so good and seemed so right to start name-calling Rush.

In this way, demands of the tribe defeat the attempt to stage a full discussion of race. And sure enough! In the very first comment to Blow’s column, he got a pure tribal reaction:

What a wonderful world it will be when “those people” have finally died! Meanwhile, don’t get that commenter wrong: We liberals are stone racists too!

Does this commenter possibly represent the example Blow failed to give? We would be inclined to say so. Meanwhile, variants of her tribal cry litter Blow’s 600 comments.

Her fiery death wish has been recommended by 425 readers. Only two comments have been recommended more.

Tomorrow, we’ll start with them.

Tomorrow: The joy of hate


  1. Why does it matter whether criticism aimed against Obama is racial or not? Any sitting president will be criticized and especially so by the opposition party. Any small or large blunder is fodder for criticism. If the critics focus largely on race doesn't that imply there is less of substance to criticize in that president's performance? I can't see how this matters at all. Further, pointing out that racism exists does nothing to combat it. What works to combat tribalism is working together toward a common goal in mixed groups. If we were invaded by Mars, that might happen in today's congress, but otherwise, I just don't see that happening. A better way to fight racism and other tribalisms would be to form random bowling teams in our nation's capitol.

  2. Charles Blow and Oprah Winfrey are both very, very racist. Have they commented on the Knock Out Game at all? How about Obama, Holder and Michelle Obama? All of them were all over the Zimmerman-Martin affair, casting Martin as some sweet, innocent child. Someone really should ask every darned one of them if its not possible that Trayvon was playing the Knock Out Game and would have taken a cell phone video of a vegetablized Zimmerman and posted it on YouTube.

    Obama is the one who has been antagonistic about his race. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." And his wife meeting with Trayvon Martin's mother at least once, was bad, too. Have either of them met with the families of any white Knock Out Game victims? Of course not because the Obamas don't give a crap about white people getting beat up or killed by black people and THEY are the ones who have made that clear, not Rush Limbaugh. The Obamas are right out in public with their racism.

  3. Outstanding column! Bob's linked Times commenter, Rima Regas, who found racists among liberals as well as conservatives had the following definition of racism:

    [Racist] are the ones with reduced expectations of people of color. Their racism is muted, in the subtext. It's just as ugly.

    As Bob has pointed out, blacks lag behind whites and Asians in school by several years. Also, because of affirmative action, blacks in colleges on average are considerably less qualified academically than whites or Asians. These things might well be temporary, but they are the current reality. The natural result is that as of today blacks coming out of college are less able academically than whites or Asians coming from the same college on average. I repeat, on average.

    We see this in my field. Despite specific outreach efforts to recruit black casualty actuaries, their number is disproportionately low. (Becoming accredited as an actuary is solely based on a serious of anonymous examinations. Neither racism nor affirmative action affects someone's success.)

    According to Rima Regas, anyone is notes this academic difference is a racist. One has to be in denial (or pretend to be in denial) to avoid that label.

    1. I teach at the college level and I do not find that African American students in my classes do worse than white students or lag them in any way. I doubt that is even true "on average" at selective colleges (those with competitive entrance requirements). This assumption is very unfair to those who have worked hard and earned their gpas and degrees. As to your field, I teach statistics and see African American students among the top students in that class too. As an actuary, you may base decisions about individuals on group stats, but when you are hiring you'd better consider the actual test scores and qualifications of the person in front of you or you are imposing your biases on people in a grossly unfair way. I don't care whether you are racist in your heart of hearts, but if you impose your biases on people in the workplace you are breaking the law. As to denial, I prefer to recognize what I see in front of me every day -- hard working students who do well and deserve credit for their accomplishments.

    2. Here in New Jersey, state tax payers have been forced to pour billions and billions every year into trying to educate students in a small number of inner city districts. Set aside that results are awful and its taking money away from other people who are not rich by any means. WHAT IF. we had put that money into education for other kids who would really benefit and benefit all the rest of us.

      I truly, truly believe that we have missed out on cures for horrible diseases because of throwing money away on inner city kids who can't or won't learn. And then when they're 12, 13, 14 and up, they're not interested in school at all. They're interested in the Knock Out Game and other thug culture garbage.

    3. Anonymous @11:41,

      Thanks for your reply to DAinCA, but I'm afraid your point was lost on him. It's tough to deal with someone immune to irony. Ya see, the real racists are the ones with low expectations except for actuaries like him. And anecdotal evidence (aka narrative) is bad thing except for actuaries like him. 'Cause actuaries pass exams. Or something.

      DAinCA, don't you have four simple questions to answer about your claim of the illegality of 2013 ACA waivers?

    4. deadrat -- from a civil liberties POV I am distressed by the increasing acceptance of Presidents failing to follow the law. Recall the Iran-Contra scandal. When Reagan used money for a purpose that the law didn't allow, there was talk of impeaching him. Bush did the same thing when he used TARP money to bail out auto companies. It was too late in his 2nd term to consider impeachment. He received some criticism, but not much.

      President Obama has taken this practice to a new level. He followed Bush's practice of using TARP money wherever he thought best. And, as I've already documented, he has treated the ACA almost like a blank check to take or not take whatever action he likes.

      My guess is that we will never find out whether a court would hold Obama's actions to be contrary to law. I don't expect these actions ever to get to court. But, he (and Bush) have established a precedent that a President has great latitude in how he enforces the laws.

    5. David, your comments here confuse me. I thought the administration was supposed to implement the laws, not the courts and not congress. Also, I think a lot of what you're complaining about comes from being the minority party. When you are the minority, you do not have power and you do not get your way because you don't have the votes behind you. Further, people talk about impeaching the president all the time. That is part of being a powerless minority -- you complain and threaten impeachment and it goes nowhere because you don't have a cause that sufficient people would support.

      Congress doesn't get anything done as it is. If decisions the president is making were delegated to congress too, nothing would happen to implement measures with some time urgency (such as TARP). With ACA the president is breaking new ground. It is the president's job to create that system, whether you like how he is doing it or not. Above you say the president is failing to follow the law -- by implementing the law. No court is going to take such a complaint seriously.

    6. DAinCA,

      Your distress is your own, so I'm not here to tell you how upset to be. I'll just point out again that your distress is based on your ignorance. Now, if you actually took the time to find the facts of the matters that concern you, perhaps you wouldn't be so upset. Or perhaps you'd be more upset. But at least you'd know something about the topic that upsets you.

      None of your examples has anything to do with civil liberties. Odd, don't you think, that you view these things through such a prism? Reagan didn't use money that the law didn't allow; he used money in a way that the law specifically disallowed. The families of the dead in Nicaragua have reason to be upset, but this illegality didn't affect your civil liberties. Neither did the TARP bailout of the auto companies.

      The fact is that you have documented nothing about Obama. As I continually point out, all you do is repeat the talking points of his political opponents. At least have the common courtesy not to lie to me about all you've documented. For instance, I've told you repeatedly that your claim is false that 2013 waivers on substandard insurance are illegal. Yet you continue to insist that Obama acted politically, illegally, unconstitutionally, and in violation of the chain of command. Here are the four questions again:

      1. Have you found the provision in the ACA that allows HHS to grant these waivers?
      2. Have you got evidence that Obama overruled the HHS to grant waivers for political reasons?
      3. How is it that the federal government is bound by equal protection when the 14th Amendment applies to the states?
      4. Assuming equal protection applies for these waivers, what level of scrutiny makes the waivers a violation?

      Why won't you answer them? Do you think I'm bluffing? Do you think the facts don't matter? Do you realize that facts won't change your opinion?

      What is it?

      Here's another fact. There are two types of executive duties, those in which discretion is allowed, and those in which discretion can play no part. The latter are called "ministerial" duties. For example, most states task an official, usually the Secretary of State, to deliver a certificate of election to winning candidates for office whose victory has been established by the state electoral commission after any court challenges have been decided. If you've ever wondered why the Secretary of State from one party doesn't just refuse to deliver certificates to winners from the other party, that's why. The action is considered ministerial, and a court will force compliance.

      The other kinds of actions, those with discretion, are generally left to the executive, and courts won't decide disputes about them. These actions must comport with due process and equal protection, but the how is otherwise left to the President. In particular, the military, foreign policy, and agency administration are all areas left to Presidential discretion. And it's been like that for a very long time. Why don't you know that? How is it that you can feel so confident in assigning a "precedent" to Obama when you don't know that?

      But that's research for another day. How about those four questions? We can't continue with the seder until you answer them.

  4. For obvious reasons, many people have very strong feelings about the historical role played by race, and about its role today. That’s why people should possibly try to be extra thoughtful in the things they say on this subject.

  5. Bob, are you going to address the insane level of CDS Lawerence O"Donnell and his guests displayed on MSNBC last night? O'Donnell was throwing a tantrum about Obama giving Bill Clinton an award and he and his guests pulled out all the 2008 Obot hate memes at both Bill and Hillary. I was so disgusted I clicked over to the Weather Channel for more intelligent television.

  6. As usual, Somerby's argument goes in the same circle, because his commitment to the narrative is unvarying.

    We homo sapiens are all, fundamentally, "racists". This is evidently news to Somerby, but is not controversial among historians, anthropologists and social psychologists.l The question then becomes one of degree.

    Are we, as a mass society, going to enshrine or eliminate discriminatory policies in law or custom? Are we committed to redressing earlier forms discrimination? Is our educational and socialization system dedicated to enforcing racial distinctions, or eliminating them? Do our "national leaders" seek to eliminate these prejudices, or exploit them for gain?

    With this reading, it's possible to concede that the hatred for Obama may be no worse than what was directed at previous Democratic presidents, but that at least some the animus derives from race. And among some people, a lot of the animus derives from race (and all the attributed injustices associated with public policies perceived as favoring a historically disadvantaged race.)

    Again, there is no serious controversy over the exploitation by the Republican party of racial resentment. It's a known fact, if by "fact" we mean a policy clearly in evidence, and to which the principal instigators have themseleves confessed.

    Trouble is, Somerby can't make this concession to reality, and continue to promote his narrative that dastardly liberals see racism under every rock.

    1. Somerby's narrative is that people shouldn't be categorizing and labeling each other (dividing into tribes) and directing animosity toward others in order to make themselves feel good (for entertainment). It doesn't matter whether he is discussing Maddow or Limbaugh, his complaint is the same. He does not want to limit his complaints to just conservatives (sparing liberals) because he does not see this as partisan warfare the way you apparently do. He sees this as a world in which people must cooperate and give each other the benefit of the doubt and find common cause to solve the world's problems. He sees you playing into the hands of the plutocrats who do have the interests of the wider population at heart. He sees dividing people up into liberals and conservatives and then criticizing those others as a fool's game foisted on us by a media controlled by those who want to keep us busy squabbling while they collect more money and power. Bob isn't going to bash conservatives here, but that doesn't make him one, just as being anti-war doesn't make someone an enemy sympathizer.

    2. This should be cut and pasted on just about every single post related to race and politics here:

      "Again, there is no serious controversy over the exploitation by the Republican party of racial resentment. It's a known fact, if by "fact" we mean a policy clearly in evidence, and to which the principal instigators have themseleves confessed."

      Why was there a Southern Strategy? Why did it work for so long? Why did Lee Atwater say what he said? Why did LBJ say the passing of civil rights legislation would cost the Democratic Party the South for a generation, or generations. Of what has Pat Buchanan boasted over the years? Etc.

      “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” --- George Orwell.


    3. Unfortunately, Bob's narrative is just wrong. People divide because they see the world differently. It has always been thus, since this country was founded and before. I think it's genetic. Must be.

    4. Confused,
      And Obama used Martin-Zimmerman to gin up the black vote. It worked. There were lots of old black ladies in Ohio voting multiple times for Obama.

    5. Lionel, you sound like a 14 year old kid making up the kind of statements you think a bigoted conservative would make, to annoy people on a liberal blog. Don't you have homework to do?

  7. Bone-gnawer: "Tomorrow: The joy of hate"


  8. "Do our "national leaders" seek to eliminate these prejudices, or exploit them for gain?"

    In your case, the latter.

    You definitely will go after what you want via the latter,

  9. For some people, even a peanut butter sandwich can be evidence of subtle racism:

    Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

    Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.

    “What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.

    The article goes on to explain that this Principal isn't just a lone nut. Apparently this foolishness is being taught at Glenn Singleton’s “Coaching for Educational Equity,” a weeklong seminar on race.

    1. A teacher uses an example so that students can have something concrete to relate to when understanding an abstract idea. If most students in the class eat PBJ sandwiches the example is appropriate. If many students in the class do not, it is a poor example because it will be difficult for students to relate to. It might be racist to assume that Somali or Hispanic students in a class all eat what the teacher eats (or thoughtless), but more importantly, it would not be effective teaching to make that assumption. The point of a workshop like this would be to make teachers more effective by helping them relate to diverse students. Teachers attending such a workshop should presumably be able to generalize from an example involving sandwiches to one that would be relevant to their particular classrooms and the needs of diverse students in it. I appreciate that you might not understand this David, being an actuary instead of a teacher.

    2. AnonymousNovember 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM -- I understand it, because I lived it. When I started school in the late 1940's, we learned to read from the Dick and Jane seies. In our Bronx, immigrant neighborhood, kids didn't live in cute little private houses. They didn't spend holidays on their grandparents' farm in the country. These books were about a life totally alien to mine and my classmates'. BFD! We all learned to read, do arithmetic, and all the rest. Nobody thought we were so feeble that we'd be devastated by mention of some cultural thing that we didn't share.

    3. Anon@4:06, not all Hispanic people in the US are immigrants. Some were here long before European Americans and were eating tortillas and beans before your ancestors came to the US. Most of the Southwest was part of Mexico before being ceded to the US. The people who lived there for centuries became US citizens at that point. Their culture is Southwestern culture, not an immigrant culture. So, Somali's no doubt came from elsewhere, but not Hispanic children. When you come visit the Southwestern US we expect that you'll adapt to our ways and not expect us to behave like New Englanders, who have a very different but equally American culture.

    4. In other words, you can't just expect the Somalis or native Hispanics to learn as easily as you were able to without having culturally targeted lesson plans. That's the thing you racists just don't get.

    5. No, you can expect better learning when you make an attempt to present information to children in ways that can be linked to their existing experiences. That is true for everyone, not just Somali or Hispanic children. Because kids who do not come from diverse cultures more frequently encounter examples linked to their lives, they have an advantage over other kids. The idea is to spread that advantage around a bit, so people won't make racist assumptions about kids trying to learn under less advantageous conditions.

    6. Anon @ 6:03

      More southwest American Hispanics whose roots predate the Independence of Texas and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo probably better relate to a peanut butter and jelly sanwhich than any Mexican heritage.
      Many still consider themselves "Spanish."

      Texas was part of Mexico all of fifteen years before independence. The rest of the Southwest about twelve years more than that.

    7. OK, the part that was Mexico was part of France and Spain before that, but it was not part of the US, which is my obvious point. People in the part of the country that was formerly Mexico (and before that, part of the territory that became Mexico after being governed by France and Spain), do not eat PBJ and their neighbors from the Eastern part of the US have adopted their habit of eating food with tortillas, and are nearing a majority of the population in states like California. Texas was part of the country that is modern Mexico for centuries before the Texans took it over. A quibble and you know it.

    8. "Texas was part of the country that is modern Mexico
      for centuries before the Texans took it over."

      You mean Texas was part of territory claimed by the King and Queen of Spain for centuries regardless of the wished of the people who actually lived there?

      You mean Texas was part of the territory Spain permitted non-Spanish colonists to settle because
      they couldn't keep one hostile native tribe from sweeping across it into the part of their colony they called Mexico Spanish colonists did inhabit?

      With all due respect, leave France out of this.

  10. Racists? There are several commentators at this site (you know who you are) who fit the bill.
    DinC and Lionel for specificity. Pardon me.
    But hey! They are all like Limbaugh & Bill O.

    Good job Bob. Good J-O-B.

    Limbaugh defended by TDH? Of course. Has it come to this?
    But he was, is, and remains a racist bastard. The "R" word.
    Deal with it.

    Life without music? I can't cope.


    1. The majority of U.S. citizens disapprove of gay marriage so that makes us a majority evil bigoted population. Add in the 50% or so who didn't vote for Obama and that makes half of us evil racists, too. Since we are a lost cause, you should definitely leave the country and find a more tolerant society to live in.

    2. LG -- it's easy to call someone a racist, if all you consider is your (possibly biased) interpretation of his words. In my book, actions count more than words. Limbaugh has chosen to work with a black sidekick for many years. Limbaugh chose to be married by a black judge. LG, have you made comparable choices in your life?

    3. Not sure if Limbaugh is racist or not.
      100% positive he plays to bigots.


  11. People - Reid went for the nuclear option because of the white hot hatred from the neo-confederate GOP for the Obama agenda and you guys are carrying water for bone-gnawer's endlessly repetitive gnawing on liberals.

    WAKE UP.

    1. He doesn't gnaw on liberals, he gnaws on ignorance, because that's what teachers do.

      Why are you gnawing on him?

    2. Anonymous301: I may be wrong, but Bob stopped teaching in 1980.

      Anonymous337: godwinned.

      What a maroon!

  12. Foks, bone-gnawer's all-consuming hate is making him look ridiculous:

    "Things will get better when the last of the racist generation dies."

    Is simply an observation of helplessness - any bad trait (in this case, racism) that older people have (and thes eoldies cannot be persuaded) would slowly diminish as they naturally die off. This has nothing do with a death-wish - simply that drinkers of Postum or subscribers to Readers Digest are old and no young people are acquiring those traits which means that as these oldies die off gently, surrounded by near and dear - these traits would die off too.

    Bone-gnawer is practically lying through his teeth when he sees a death wish here.

    "that the world won’t be safe for democracy until Those People have died."

    "What a wonderful world it will be when “those people” have finally died!"

    "Her fiery death wish"

    are all arrant lies driven by bone-gnawer's hatred.


    How about ZIMMERMAN?

  13. I'm a racist per the latest definition (in that I believe that whites are a more productive race of people than blacks or mestizos), but I'm also a Democrat who voted for Obama twice. However, over the past year or so I've become disillusioned with the President's policies, predominantly due to the details now coming forth pertaining to ACA combined with the actions of the DOJ and recent foreign interventions. Does that mean I now disagree with the President due to my racism or can I be sincerely in opposition to the President as a citizen looking out for his own well-being? I know Oprah's answer but what do y'all think?

    1. I'm a racist per the latest definition (in that I believe that whites are a more productive race of people than blacks or mestizos), but I'm also a Democrat who voted for Obama twice.

      Me too, but I'm racist per the latest definition in that I believe blacks are now more responsible than whites for racist attitudes against blacks, and for huge disparities with whites in a number of measures including income and education.

      Off to my "Racists" Anonymous meeting.

    2. If I go to a conservative blog and claim to have voted for Romney and McCain but say I believe in regulation of the free market economy to take from the rich and give to the poor, do you think anyone will believe I voted as claimed?

    3. If I go to a conservative blog and claim to have voted for Romney and McCain but say I believe in regulation of the free market economy to take from the rich and give to the poor, do you think anyone will believe I voted as claimed?

      If you're a Christian and believe abortion is murder and you oppose gay marriage why wouldn't they? There are innumerable other explanations for how someone might vote for a candidate whose views on even fundamental issues he opposes.

    4. Here's my point, I think you did not vote for Obama twice but are actually a conservative trolling this blog.

  14. No, I thought Obama was intelligent and had good intentions befitting the nominee of the DNC. He was about the only one smart enough to vote against the Iraq war, certainly better than McCain/Palin, and Romney/Ryan sort of frightened me. With race, I've always been a skeptic of lessons of history being a story of white european oppession against the other races and inreasingly going in that direction

    1. Obama came out against the war at the time the WPE was conning the willing dupes in Congress, but Obama hadn't yet been elected to the Senate, so he didn't vote against the war.

    2. Good point, deadrat.

      Question about WPE:

      Wall-plug efficiency?
      Windows Pre-installation Environment?
      Workers' Party of Ethiopia?
      World Parliament Experiment
      The former name of radio station KMBZ in Kansas City, Missouri?

    3. It's kind of like your nickname around here David,

    4. (W)orst (P)resident (E)ver.

  15. My boyfriend broke up with me 2 months ago, because he felt i was cheating on him with a male friend of mine, i tried all i could to explain to him but he paid deaf ears, i was emotionally devastated because i really loved him until i saw a post on the internet about Dr osofo, who helps people gain back their lost lover, at first i doubted if it was real because i never believed in such things but i decided to give him a try,I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me, he restored my relationship within 48 hours and my boyfriend was calling and begging to make up with me again, if you need help to repair your relationship or marriage problem. Here’s his contact, call/WhatsApp him on: +2349065749952, Email him ( )