Prize Winning Column Nailing Racist "Teabaggers"

[Cats Cats Cats]

Heh, I saw that one coming just as soon as I hit "post".

"Ain't that 'bout a b!tch!"

Sorry, I meant to say "you people"

[custosnox]

Oh Bull Sh!t

Ahhhh denial

[FOTD]

Ahhhh denial

Whatever..FOTD does not find it hysterical when Rush Limbaugh calls Obama the magic n*gger nor when Glenn Beck pretends to poison Nancy Pelosi. Ha ha ha!

But often can be found just rolling on the floor laughing at the incredible jokesters from the Right Wing Nut brigade hiding in between the lines at TNF!

[custosnox]

Whatever..FOTD does not find it hysterical when Rush Limbaugh calls Obama the magic n*gger nor when Glenn Beck pretends to poison Nancy Pelosi. Ha ha ha!

But often can be found just rolling on the floor laughing at the incredible jokesters from the Right Wing Nut brigade hiding in between the lines at TNF!

You act as if Racism goes only one way, and that it only shows in open acts of aggression (or verbal abuse).  It can be as simple as someone who the first thing they notice is the color of ones skin.  When someone speaks out against someone that happens to be of a differant ethnic background, and someone instantly claims it's racism without any grounds for such a claim, that, in it'self, is racism.  Of course, these are, as stated before, my observations.  Now, is "Oh Bull Sh!t" your final, eloquent answer?

[FOTD]

There are no final answers unless you have worms crawling through you or are ashes to ashes.

The term "racism" can be "used" in an inappropriate manner. FOTD has seldom directly accused a TNF postie of racism.

But it is quite obvious the underbelly of the south has many proponents of a Jim Crow way of life and the repelling of anything that integrates rather than denigrates.

[buckeye]

...and the forum goes one step closer to becoming a critical mass of ridiculous absurdity...

[we vs us]

Not long back I came across an impressive little tidbit from Lee Atwater, Reagan's political strategist and what I consider one of the founders of modern political discourse. I can't remember where I came across the quote, but it shows up on his wikipedia page, too.  The quote from wiki sums it up pretty well:

As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

    Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964... and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

    Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps...?

    Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N***er, n***er, n***er." By 1968 you can't say "n***er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N***er, n***er."[7]

In a lot of ways it puts some context around the charges of racism.  I think by this point, Nixon's (and by extension, the Republican) Southern Strategy is common knowledge among certain groups of internet smartypants, so it's easier to pinpoint those conservative Republican codewords for what they are, in the Atwaterian sense. 

Is all objection to Obama's policies race-based?  Certainly not.  Is a significant chunk of it race-based?  You bet.

[Conan71]

So based on one quote from Lee Atwater, a huge chunk of opposition to President Obama's policies is racist? Sorry I fail to see the connection. Try it again in "paint by nu
bees" because "connect the dots" didn't work so well for me. There's a very good argument to be made for statements like yours being racism.

[nathanm]

So based on one quote from Lee Atwater, a huge chunk of opposition to President Obama's policies is racist? Sorry I fail to see the connection. Try it again in "paint by nu
bees" because "connect the dots" didn't work so well for me. There's a very good argument to be made for statements like yours being racism.

I don't think the point is that some people are against his policy because he is black. The point is that some people are against his policies because they might help poor black people. I think it's more about hatred of the poor in general these days, not hatred of the color of people's skin.

Whether that is due to black people being disproportionately poor, I won't hazard a guess.

What is overtly racist is a large part of the so-called Minuteman movement. (Way to tarnish a good name, guys!) I'd prefer people immigrate legally also, but the hatred on display often can't be explained by a distaste of how someone arrived here.

Basically I have the feeling that the racists have largely moved on from skin color and have redirected their bigotry to more socially acceptable targets. I don't blame them. When the cargo cult of unfettered capitalism is leaving you behind, you can't very well blame the prophets, so you have to direct your anger somewhere else.

[cannon_fodder]

...and the forum goes one step closer to becoming a critical mass of ridiculous absurdity...

Just self censor the absurdity.  For instance, people claiming that Republicans disagree with this Democrat president because he is black.  Presumably Clinton was somewhat black too, and that's why they treated him the same way.  Additionally, one must assume Bush was treated poorly by the Democrats because he was white.



What?  You don't like his healthcare reform?  You racist bastard!
What?  The government is going to execute old people?  Facists!

Both parties are just playing a stupid game.  It's all BS 2 party politics.  And posting Photoshopped pictures calling for the white president isn't helping the situation.  In fact, slapping the race card down every time someone disagrees with the President isn't helping at all either.

/kill the 2 party system

[Wrinkle]

All I can say is WOW...
So much to say, just trying to find a way to be concise.

But, if I'm reading this right, there's anger at poor people, which happen to be more black, so it's racist. Or, at least anger at the policies which tend to help poor people?

I'd tend to agree there's anger about the policies, which do tend to favor the poor. But, to jump to racism from there requires a leap.

It's not wrong to be angry about policies which promote, reinforce and perpetuate poverty, especially when its one's own money being used to do so.

The US has always had a fairly significant market in what I'll just call 'assistance'. It was designed and originally intended to be a safety net for the unfortunate, not a way of life for those who don't want to do anything.

Politicians have used that leverage to achieve electorate for decades, and today we have a President and a majority of Congress who seems to think it's what we need and is doing everything in their substantial power to make it that way, all in spite of whatever those paying the bill think.

[brianh]

Much to my chagrin, I am inclined to think the majority of people who participated in the Obama origin of birth scandal are racist. Unfortunately the teabag people have many of the former scandal's members among their ranks. You can see this when people at the teabag event still hold that sign with the picture of obama in what appears to be jungle native clothing and everyone else cheers them on.

[Conan71]

I don't think the point is that some people are against his policy because he is black. The point is that some people are against his policies because they might help poor black people. I think it's more about hatred of the poor in general these days, not hatred of the color of people's skin.

Whether that is due to black people being disproportionately poor, I won't hazard a guess.

What is overtly racist is a large part of the so-called Minuteman movement. (Way to tarnish a good name, guys!) I'd prefer people immigrate legally also, but the hatred on display often can't be explained by a distaste of how someone arrived here.

Basically I have the feeling that the racists have largely moved on from skin color and have redirected their bigotry to more socially acceptable targets. I don't blame them. When the cargo cult of unfettered capitalism is leaving you behind, you can't very well blame the prophets, so you have to direct your anger somewhere else.

Well don't lump me in with the poor=black=white rage thing.  When I think of poor people I think of fat white people sitting in their single wide eating pork rinds and spam, smoking generic cigarettes and filthy little kids dragging sh!tty diapers across the floor.

You are incorrect on the Minutemen.  They aren't racist.  Being Mexican is not a race, it's a nationality.  FAIK the whole Minutemen movement is all about legal immigration and protecting the rights of US citizens and our legal immigrants and has nothing to do with the country of origin or a particular ethnic group. 

[custosnox]

Well don't lump me in with the poor=black=white rage thing.  When I think of poor people I think of fat white people sitting in their single wide eating pork rinds and spam, smoking generic cigarettes and filthy little kids dragging sh!tty diapers across the floor.

You are incorrect on the Minutemen.  They aren't racist.  Being Mexican is not a race, it's a nationality.  FAIK the whole Minutemen movement is all about legal immigration and protecting the rights of US citizens and our legal immigrants and has nothing to do with the country of origin or a particular ethnic group. 

Careful now, I fall into the poor catagory right now, I just refuse to show it.  However, in general I agree.  I have a personal rule that I only help those who are willing to help themselves.  Kinda like if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.  The problem we have is too many of the poor have figured out that we'll keep giving them fish, so they refuse to learn to fish.  Until they are willing to do something for themselves, why should we do it for them?

[nathanm]

FAIK the whole Minutemen movement is all about legal immigration and protecting the rights of US citizens and our legal immigrants and has nothing to do with the country of origin or a particular ethnic group. 

No, they're really all about "keep the fuckers out." Which is sad. As I said, I prefer legal immigration. Sadly, our immigration policies are largely to blame. We can build all the fences we like and we'll still have them coming over here. It stands to reason we ought to make it possible for them to do so legally.

The Minutemen, on the other hand, would be just as upset if we increased our immigration quota and made it easier for them to come here illegally as they are about the illegal immigration. There may also be an element of "they took our jobs" also, but it's really about fear of the day when whites are no longer the majority.

Now, I'm not saying it's not possible to have a big problem with illegal immigration and not have a problem with hispanics in general. It certainly is. But those aren't the people who get so upset about it that they feel the need to pull up a lawn chair at the border and sit around with their shotgun hoping to find some illegals making the crossing.

The problem we have is too many of the poor have figured out that we'll keep giving them fish, so they refuse to learn to fish.  Until they are willing to do something for themselves, why should we do it for them?

You really think people don't want jobs? Perhaps a good way to find out is job insurance.

You also seem to be under the false notion that there is such a thing as cash welfare anymore. Food stamp benefits are strictly time-limited with the exception of families with children. Unemployment is insurance. Medicaid again only applies to a small subset of the population. If you are, for example, a single man you can't get assistance, with the exception of a couple of months of food stamps once every few years. (And perhaps housing assistance, I'm not sure about that one)

I think you've fallen for Reagan's "welfare queen" lie.