Obama says US racism 'not cured,' makes point with epithet

[DrTuner]

If Obama wasn't black, that speech would have cost him his job.

It's the PC disease that needs to be eradicated first to get to the point.

[Merzik]

If Obama wasn't black, that speech would have cost him his job.

It's the PC disease that needs to be eradicated first to get to the point.

+ 1

PC is another term for Cultural Marxism and this is destroying what is left of our country as much as the irresponsible fiscal policies of the left are.

[connda]

And again, the well known few racists slime out of the wood work. ggt, I've got a few black friends back in the states I'd just love for you to make that little racist statement to. Oh, but the result wouldn't be pretty...lol.

Cracker, Cracker Jack, honky, marshmallow, Casper, boss, and of course, Whitey: I've had all those pejoratives tossed at me by folk o' color for the simple reason that I have European ancestry, and no other reason. Sly and the Family Stone had it right in the 60s: "Don't call me nigger...whitey!" "Don't call me whitey...nigger!" It goes both ways, and they're both wrong.

It was said in an above post: racism is a two-way street. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s I saw one heck of a lot of White racism directed at blacks; however in the last 3 decades, the thread has reverse on itself, and I've seen, experienced, and have been the object of Black racism directed at Whites, again, for no other reason then skin color.

I don't condone racism - it's ugly. But too many politicos, 'leaders', and news pundits seem to be eager to allow racism directed toward people of European ancestry to stand whenever it happens, as they seem to take a "it serves them right" attitude when it occurs, which of course, is in itself, quintessentially racist.

Edited June 23, 2015 by connda

[MaxYakov]

When obama stops inviting Rev Al Sharpton to the White House; maybe he can be taken a bit more seriously when he speaks of racism. This administration has done more to harm race relations than any other in modern history.

Yes, but only in the sense that for about 30% of the white population in the United States, it was just way too soon to have an elected Black man sitting in the White House. So every day there is a large number of white folks who wake up with a knot in their stomachs, yes a true physical reaction, when they think about the Black president. Thus these people have moved even further to the right politically with their knee jerk responses such as declaring that Obama was the worst president in history, declaring this even before he took the oath of office, or that now we have to "take the country back", or in ridiculous claims such as seen above that Obama has done more to harm race relations than any other. His election sent this 30% over to the Tea Party, radicalizing the right wing as we have never seen before in recent affairs. Now look, I am no fan of Obama's rather tedious and mainstream politics and neither am I a major fan of that self-promoter Al Sharpton. But Obama's relatively rare comments upon race relations have been eloquent and spot on. But again, your claim above is as ridiculous as the attempts at FOX news to spin the recent event that the shootings at the church in Charlotte were an attack on Christianity and not an attack on Black people.

Your avatar says it all. You shouldn't PUI.

[JakeSully]

Another one that does not watch Fox News, but "knows" all about them. Fox News never tried to portray the shootings at the church in Charlotte as an attack on Christianity.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should research to get your facts straight before making extravagant claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIQnjz9JV8

I personally think the most impartial, most fair opinion of the tragedy can be found here:

Edited June 23, 2015 by JakeSully

[Seastallion]

""I will tell you, right after Sandy Hook, Newtown, when 20 6-year-olds are gunned down, and Congress literally does nothing — yes, that's the closest I came to feeling disgusted," he said. "I was pretty disgusted.""

And so was most of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, not the Republicans.

"Don't let 'em take our guns!" Children can die, church congregants can be slaughtered, people gunned down every day, but keep the guns.

This statement is a brilliant example of the thinking of the framers of the Constitution regarding the separation of powers and the mechanism for enacting changes in law, and more importantly, the hurdles necessary to change the Constitution itself. The lower house was always designed to be closer to the people, more emotive, more immediate, where the senate, not having to wrestle constantly with elections and otherwise representing the states as originally designed, were meant to be more deliberative, thoughtful, and apply the breaks of reason to balance the emotional bills of the moment- vox populi. The examples you give clearly represent the point you seek to make as they garnered a great emotional response; they were very palpable examples of a problem in the US. This is what provoked the debate to solve the problem- the shootings.

I make no observation here about right or wrong, yes or no, only that the example you provide is a perfect example of a local/nation horror and the mechanics of legislation, as intended.

If there was no restraint regarding passing of laws in response to outrage or 51% of any population screaming for change we would have... Democracy, aka, Mob Rule. There was never intended any mechanism whereby the majority could vote away the Rights of the minority but the slow, incremental degradation of American intellect and knowledge of their own government has this Representative Republic behaving as a Democracy in any event. Why would smart responsive legislation to gun shootings stop there? Once the outrage or group voice grew so loud why would it only be guns? There are voices in the US calling for disarming only white people; why would that not be on the table if the screams were loud enough? Why not mandate that any family of 3 could have no more assets than $1,000.000? Why not? All the other monies could be redistributed. Indeed, the majority of the populace is way higher than the minority with all the money. Why would the race to change laws because of disgust or rage stop at guns? It would not.

The rage to make change based on crisis is a landmark provision of the progressive form of governing. It is not just Rahm Emmanuel who stated "Never let a serious crisis go to waste," from crisis comes the opportunity to pass legislation that would not otherwise be possible but Hillary Clinton asserted this as well. A basic truth? Perhaps but it is a governing principle for this current executive- to create problems then provide solutions, or race to provide partisan solutions to bipartisan problems.

Note: It is suggestive that it seems necessary to paint an entire group of people as not being disgusted at an event that is universally repugnant- mass murder. This is demonization, a fundamental manipulation of people to cultivate their primitive nature. This is illustrative of why there is division in the US.

Before you get your knickers in a twist about a generalisation, let me point out that it was a generalisation and should have been read as such. Generalisations are generally taken to not mean literally all the people generalised about. Generally speaking.

You and I have similar views about democracy and how in it's purest form is simply mob rule.

I take your point about separating the emotional vox populi of the lower house, and that the senate is supposed to be more deliberative and apply the breaks (sic) of reason. Fine in theory. Until a majority of senators put the desires of those that lobby their party before common sense or "the right thing". The fatal flaw in this type of "democracy" is that lobbyists can hold more sway than the people. Whether it be guns, tobacco, oil, military industrial, pharmaceuticals...all the big money can sway the way things go, regardless of vox populi or the considered deliberation of wise old men.

[sdanielmcev]

And again, the well known few racists slime out of the wood work. ggt, I've got a few black friends back in the states I'd just love for you to make that little racist statement to. Oh, but the result wouldn't be pretty...lol.

How is ggt's statement racist? I've got lots of black friends back home, and I can't think of one of them that would say that was untrue. I guess your black friends are racists. But, then liberals always have to make up stories to satisfy their personal objectives.

[JDGRUEN]

In the very early stages of news coverage -- in the first 10-12-18 hours of the tragedy -- many news organizations posed possible motives or mixed motives - Church - Religion - Racism ...political shooting since there was at least one elected official shot...etc. It was reasonable to thinks of several motives. No direct information of the shooter was known - not to mention his motives. Responsible news organizations do offer possible options as to motive - they cannot in the early hours of a shooting offer conclusive commentary.

I only wish the highest levels of the U.S. Government would exercise such caution. All too often the Obama Administration are labeling police shooting as the murders of blacks -- when evidence shown at a later date showed otherwise...

Only until Roof was Identified as the likely culprit could an exact motive be placed ... Before that racism would have certainly been high on the list - but Church and Religion too. After all it was a Christian Church -- before Roof was identified - it would have been quite reasonable to suspect a Jihadi - Islamic radical as a possible shooter - among a half dozen possible culprits and other motives.

[stevenl]

In the very early stages of news coverage -- in the first 10-12-18 hours of the tragedy -- many news organizations posed possible motives or mixed motives - Church - Religion - Racism ...political shooting since there was at least one elected official shot...etc. It was reasonable to thinks of several motives. No direct information of the shooter was known - not to mention his motives. Responsible news organizations do offer possible options as to motive - they cannot in the early hours of a shooting offer conclusive commentary.

I only wish the highest levels of the U.S. Government would exercise such caution. All too often the Obama Administration are labeling police shooting as the murders of blacks -- when evidence shown at a later date showed otherwise...

Only until Roof was Identified as the likely culprit could an exact motive be placed ... Before that racism would have certainly been high on the list - but Church and Religion too. After all it was a Christian Church -- before Roof was identified - it would have been quite reasonable to suspect a Jihadi - Islamic radical as a possible shooter - among a half dozen possible culprits and other motives.

Exactly the opposite is happening.

The authorities are claiming it was self defense, and only after vdo's emerge those claims are exposed as total lies. Obama has been way too quiet about that and police brutality in general.

[Ulysses G.]

Another one that does not watch Fox News, but "knows" all about them. Fox News never tried to portray the shootings at the church in Charlotte as an attack on Christianity.

Perhaps you should research to get your facts straight before making extravagant claims.

Perhaps you should try watching your video again. A GUEST on Fox News - a black PREACHER - suggests that it is POSSIBLE - that the attack on a CHURCH might have something to do with Christianity, before they knew who the shooter was. There were plenty of guests and hosts on Fox during that time that thought that race was the most likely culprit and said so.

Bill O"Reilly called it an act of racism and terror as soon as the truth came out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVGhyMvnTrU

Edited June 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Another one that does not watch Fox News, but "knows" all about them. Fox News never tried to portray the shootings at the church in Charlotte as an attack on Christianity.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should research to get your facts straight before making extravagant claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIQnjz9JV8

I personally think the most impartial, most fair opinion of the tragedy can be found here:

Your ROFLMAO is very appropriate with your post.

That was exactly my reaction after seeing your proof of Fox News conspiring to make the killings about Christianity along with a video commenting about the murders..

At the time of the interview, little was known about the killer or the reasons behind the killing. They were interviewing a black pastor of a Virginia church. In light of the events from the Muslim world over the past 40 years it might have been a reasonable assumption for all of them to question the motives behind the killings and that would have included the possibility of it being religiously motivated.

Now lets move on to your version of fair and impartial by looking at the youtube put up by a 15 year old girl. I found two parts of her fluff to be somewhat off course.

The first was in her opening bit about police brutality in the arrest of young Mr. Roof and a black suspect (Reic Garner) being manhandled in New York. I would only point out that Roof was reported to have meekly surrendered to police and offered no resistance whatsoever. Mr. Garner had a previous rap sheet of 30 arrests and was known to the police. He resisted arrest and was taken down by force. See the difference?

The real point where your 15 year old fount of knowledge lost me was when she pointed out that Jon Stewart might be her guru. In case you don't know, Jon Stewart is a professional comedian and, outside the ultra liberal left wing base, has no credence for being correct on much of anything. Some people don't even find him funny.

That's when she lost me. Had she cited Krauthammer, it would have at least elevated my interest a little. She didn't...I wasn't.

PS: OK, her biological age is probably more than 15 years, It's her wisdom that is on desplay in the video.

[Seastallion]

And again, the well known few racists slime out of the wood work. ggt, I've got a few black friends back in the states I'd just love for you to make that little racist statement to. Oh, but the result wouldn't be pretty...lol.

How is ggt's statement racist? I've got lots of black friends back home, and I can't think of one of them that would say that was untrue. I guess your black friends are racists. But, then liberals always have to make up stories to satisfy their personal objectives.

His post was definitely racist.

It's OK to say "nigger" when referring to the word. The OP opened that up, but ggt used "nigger" twice to refer to blacks. He was not referring to the word, he was referring to people.

[Merzik]

In the very early stages of news coverage -- in the first 10-12-18 hours of the tragedy -- many news organizations posed possible motives or mixed motives - Church - Religion - Racism ...political shooting since there was at least one elected official shot...etc. It was reasonable to thinks of several motives. No direct information of the shooter was known - not to mention his motives. Responsible news organizations do offer possible options as to motive - they cannot in the early hours of a shooting offer conclusive commentary.

I only wish the highest levels of the U.S. Government would exercise such caution. All too often the Obama Administration are labeling police shooting as the murders of blacks -- when evidence shown at a later date showed otherwise...

Only until Roof was Identified as the likely culprit could an exact motive be placed ... Before that racism would have certainly been high on the list - but Church and Religion too. After all it was a Christian Church -- before Roof was identified - it would have been quite reasonable to suspect a Jihadi - Islamic radical as a possible shooter - among a half dozen possible culprits and other motives.

Excellent post. The obama administration has not only jumped the gun on occasions but continued to label clearly justified police shootings as abusive even after the evidence came out. The Michael Brown case was an example of this. This was clearly a case of self-defense by the cop and yet the obama administration went as far as to facilitate the thug mother of Micheal Brown ( she was arrested for asaulting Michael Brown T-shirt vendors who weren't giving her a cut ) to speak before the UN about police abuse. For anyone looking at the evidence in this case; this is almost beyond belief for its absurdity. While doing this obama and Holder have ignored the massive amount of black-on-white ( and black-on-everybody else) violent crime that is sweeping this country and the MSM is largely ignoring. I guess all those Rev Wright sermons he listened to for years really sunk in. He despises this country and Western Civilization in general.

[arjunadawn]

""I will tell you, right after Sandy Hook, Newtown, when 20 6-year-olds are gunned down, and Congress literally does nothing — yes, that's the closest I came to feeling disgusted," he said. "I was pretty disgusted.""

And so was most of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, not the Republicans.

"Don't let 'em take our guns!" Children can die, church congregants can be slaughtered, people gunned down every day, but keep the guns.

My post edited for space:

Note: It is suggestive that it seems necessary to paint an entire group of people as not being disgusted at an event that is universally repugnant- mass murder. This is demonization, a fundamental manipulation of people to cultivate their primitive nature. This is illustrative of why there is division in the US.

Before you get your knickers in a twist about a generalisation, let me point out that it was a generalisation and should have been read as such. Generalisations are generally taken to not mean literally all the people generalised about. Generally speaking.

You and I have similar views about democracy and how in it's purest form is simply mob rule.

I take your point about separating the emotional vox populi of the lower house, and that the senate is supposed to be more deliberative and apply the breaks (sic) of reason. Fine in theory. Until a majority of senators put the desires of those that lobby their party before common sense or "the right thing". The fatal flaw in this type of "democracy" is that lobbyists can hold more sway than the people. Whether it be guns, tobacco, oil, military industrial, pharmaceuticals...all the big money can sway the way things go, regardless of vox populi or the considered deliberation of wise old men.

It was not a generalization that I responded to and the burden of proof for reading comprehension does not now transfer to me- it was an emphatic statement that Republicans have no disgust regarding the horror of mass murders. The only generalization was in noting the rest of the world did have this disgust! The comment on Republicans, for which I am not one, was exclusionary and specific- no generalization here. It was either a poorly worded point or your point of view, but the problem does not lie with this reader.

I stand by the rest of both our posts- your post was a great example that the framer's envisioned (not the actual depravity) for moving legislation along its course. Yes, as we have noted before, many of us do agree on observations, just not conclusions. I was reading about this again yesterday regarding liberals having less self control than conservatives in a scientific study. This confirms earlier studies how political minds just seem to be wired differently; thus, we actually do see things differently.

[CMNightRider]

""I will tell you, right after Sandy Hook, Newtown, when 20 6-year-olds are gunned down, and Congress literally does nothing — yes, that's the closest I came to feeling disgusted," he said. "I was pretty disgusted.""

And so was most of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, not the Republicans.

"Don't let 'em take our guns!" Children can die, church congregants can be slaughtered, people gunned down every day, but keep the guns.

Maybe if guns are made illegal, no one will get shot anymore. Thats how we stopped everyone from doing drugs, Right?

[Merzik]

""I will tell you, right after Sandy Hook, Newtown, when 20 6-year-olds are gunned down, and Congress literally does nothing yes, that's the closest I came to feeling disgusted," he said. "I was pretty disgusted.""

And so was most of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, not the Republicans.

"Don't let 'em take our guns!" Children can die, church congregants can be slaughtered, people gunned down every day, but keep the guns.

Maybe if guns are made illegal, no one will

get shot anymore. Thats how we stopped everyone from doing drugs, Right?

Yes, we can then live in a crime-free peace such as in countries with strict gun control laws like Mexico and Brazil. Never mind. 555

Edited June 24, 2015 by Merzik

[JakeSully]

Another one that does not watch Fox News, but "knows" all about them. Fox News never tried to portray the shootings at the church in Charlotte as an attack on Christianity.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should research to get your facts straight before making extravagant claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIQnjz9JV8

I personally think the most impartial, most fair opinion of the tragedy can be found here:

Your ROFLMAO is very appropriate with your post.

That was exactly my reaction after seeing your proof of Fox News conspiring to make the killings about Christianity along with a video commenting about the murders..

At the time of the interview, little was known about the killer or the reasons behind the killing. They were interviewing a black pastor of a Virginia church. In light of the events from the Muslim world over the past 40 years it might have been a reasonable assumption for all of them to question the motives behind the killings and that would have included the possibility of it being religiously motivated.

Now lets move on to your version of fair and impartial by looking at the youtube put up by a 15 year old girl. I found two parts of her fluff to be somewhat off course.

The first was in her opening bit about police brutality in the arrest of young Mr. Roof and a black suspect (Reic Garner) being manhandled in New York. I would only point out that Roof was reported to have meekly surrendered to police and offered no resistance whatsoever. Mr. Garner had a previous rap sheet of 30 arrests and was known to the police. He resisted arrest and was taken down by force. See the difference?

The real point where your 15 year old fount of knowledge lost me was when she pointed out that Jon Stewart might be her guru. In case you don't know, Jon Stewart is a professional comedian and, outside the ultra liberal left wing base, has no credence for being correct on much of anything. Some people don't even find him funny.

That's when she lost me. Had she cited Krauthammer, it would have at least elevated my interest a little. She didn't...I wasn't.

PS: OK, her biological age is probably more than 15 years, It's her wisdom that is on desplay in the video.

Your post speaks VOLUMES about your wisdom. Her wisdom is probably a million times yours and Ulys because if you had any real substance, you would not blame the victim (Eric Garner) especially when he was not armed with a weapon and didn't shoot anyone.

But to you black man with a cigarette is more dangerous than a white boy mass murderer with a gun.

Edit: Thank you for demonstrating perfectly well why the white women don't like white boys.. Will you be shooting up a thai bar filled with Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Nigerians next with a confederate flag?

Edited June 24, 2015 by JakeSully

[Merzik]

Another one that does not watch Fox News, but "knows" all about them. Fox News never tried to portray the shootings at the church in Charlotte as an attack on Christianity.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should research to get your facts straight before making extravagant claims.

I personally think the most impartial, most fair opinion of the tragedy can be found here:

Your ROFLMAO is very appropriate with your post.

That was exactly my reaction after seeing your proof of Fox News conspiring to make the killings about Christianity along with a video commenting about the murders..

At the time of the interview, little was known about the killer or the reasons behind the killing. They were interviewing a black pastor of a Virginia church. In light of the events from the Muslim world over the past 40 years it might have been a reasonable assumption for all of them to question the motives behind the killings and that would have included the possibility of it being religiously motivated.

Now lets move on to your version of fair and impartial by looking at the youtube put up by a 15 year old girl. I found two parts of her fluff to be somewhat off course.

The first was in her opening bit about police brutality in the arrest of young Mr. Roof and a black suspect (Reic Garner) being manhandled in New York. I would only point out that Roof was reported to have meekly surrendered to police and offered no resistance whatsoever. Mr. Garner had a previous rap sheet of 30 arrests and was known to the police. He resisted arrest and was taken down by force. See the difference?

The real point where your 15 year old fount of knowledge lost me was when she pointed out that Jon Stewart might be her guru. In case you don't know, Jon Stewart is a professional comedian and, outside the ultra liberal left wing base, has no credence for being correct on much of anything. Some people don't even find him funny.

That's when she lost me. Had she cited Krauthammer, it would have at least elevated my interest a little. She didn't...I wasn't.

PS: OK, her biological age is probably more than 15 years, It's her wisdom that is on desplay in the video.

Your post speaks VOLUMES about your wisdom. Her wisdom is probably a million times yours and Ulys because if you had any real substance, you would not blame the victim (Eric Garner) especially when he was not armed with a weapon and didn't shoot anyone.

But to you black man with a cigarette is more dangerous than a white boy mass murderer with a gun.

Edit: Thank you for demonstrating perfectly well why the white women don't like white boys.. Will you be shooting up a thai bar filled with Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Nigerians next with a confederate flag?

More emotion in your illogical post than reason. The officer supervising the Eric Garner arrest was herself an African -American and the career criminal indeed resisted arrest. His obeisity and poor health contributed to his accidental death . There was no attempt to kill him. It was the local business owners that called the police in the first place because he was bothering customers and a nucience. He was apparently not a violent criminal; but hardly a model citizen and his own foolish behavior led to his accidental death.

As stated previously; Roof surrendered to police meekly and will likely get the justice he deserves. His crime was far worse than that of EG; but he did behave correctly at the time of his arrest. Government statistics show that police are more likely to shoot white criminals than black ones; based on percentages of their arrests and confrontations.

There are plenty of white women who like white men. Perhaps you are basing you perception of reality on Hollywood movies?

Your comment about the bm shooting up a bar is in very poor taste and evoke a common misperception that most mass murders are white. The majority of mass murderers are in fact racial minorities;

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/are_most_mass_murderers_really_white.html

[chuckd]

Another one that does not watch Fox News, but "knows" all about them. Fox News never tried to portray the shootings at the church in Charlotte as an attack on Christianity.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should research to get your facts straight before making extravagant claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIQnjz9JV8

I personally think the most impartial, most fair opinion of the tragedy can be found here:

Your ROFLMAO is very appropriate with your post.

That was exactly my reaction after seeing your proof of Fox News conspiring to make the killings about Christianity along with a video commenting about the murders..

At the time of the interview, little was known about the killer or the reasons behind the killing. They were interviewing a black pastor of a Virginia church. In light of the events from the Muslim world over the past 40 years it might have been a reasonable assumption for all of them to question the motives behind the killings and that would have included the possibility of it being religiously motivated.

Now lets move on to your version of fair and impartial by looking at the youtube put up by a 15 year old girl. I found two parts of her fluff to be somewhat off course.

The first was in her opening bit about police brutality in the arrest of young Mr. Roof and a black suspect (Reic Garner) being manhandled in New York. I would only point out that Roof was reported to have meekly surrendered to police and offered no resistance whatsoever. Mr. Garner had a previous rap sheet of 30 arrests and was known to the police. He resisted arrest and was taken down by force. See the difference?

The real point where your 15 year old fount of knowledge lost me was when she pointed out that Jon Stewart might be her guru. In case you don't know, Jon Stewart is a professional comedian and, outside the ultra liberal left wing base, has no credence for being correct on much of anything. Some people don't even find him funny.

That's when she lost me. Had she cited Krauthammer, it would have at least elevated my interest a little. She didn't...I wasn't.

PS: OK, her biological age is probably more than 15 years, It's her wisdom that is on desplay in the video.

Your post speaks VOLUMES about your wisdom. Her wisdom is probably a million times yours and Ulys because if you had any real substance, you would not blame the victim (Eric Garner) especially when he was not armed with a weapon and didn't shoot anyone.

But to you black man with a cigarette is more dangerous than a white boy mass murderer with a gun.

Edit: Thank you for demonstrating perfectly well why the white women don't like white boys.. Will you be shooting up a thai bar filled with Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Nigerians next with a confederate flag?

Now that little burst of insanity is worth at least one of these...

Maybe even two...

I even "liked" it for you.

Does this mean I am not on your Christmas list this year?

ROFLMAO

[chuckd]

Your post speaks VOLUMES about your wisdom. Her wisdom is probably a million times yours and Ulys because if you had any real substance, you would not blame the victim (Eric Garner) especially when he was not armed with a weapon and didn't shoot anyone.

But to you black man with a cigarette is more dangerous than a white boy mass murderer with a gun.

Edit: Thank you for demonstrating perfectly well why the white women don't like white boys.. Will you be shooting up a thai bar filled with Arabs, Chinese, Indians, Nigerians next with a confederate flag?

More emotion in your illogical post than reason. The officer supervising the Eric Garner arrest was herself an African -American and the career criminal indeed resisted arrest. His obeisity and poor health contributed to his accidental death . There was no attempt to kill him. It was the local business owners that called the police in the first place because he was bothering customers and a nucience. He was apparently not a violent criminal; but hardly a model citizen and his own foolish behavior led to his accidental death.

As stated previously; Roof surrendered to police meekly and will likely get the justice he deserves. His crime was far worse than that of EG; but he did behave correctly at the time of his arrest. Government statistics show that police are more likely to shoot white criminals than black ones; based on percentages of their arrests and confrontations.

There are plenty of white women who like white men. Perhaps you are basing you perception of reality on Hollywood movies?

Your comment about the bm shooting up a bar is in very poor taste and evoke a common misperception that most mass murders are white. The majority of mass murderers are in fact racial minorities;

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/06/are_most_mass_murderers_really_white.html

"There are plenty of white women who like white men. Perhaps you are basing you perception of reality on Hollywood movies?"

Merzik:

My guess is this is more a reflection of his own personal lifetime experiences than anything else.

Some men find rejection a very hard thing to accept.

Edited June 24, 2015 by chuckd

[Gecko123]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, well…a big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

Edited June 24, 2015 by Gecko123

[connda]

And again, the well known few racists slime out of the wood work. ggt, I've got a few black friends back in the states I'd just love for you to make that little racist statement to. Oh, but the result wouldn't be pretty...lol.

How is ggt's statement racist? I've got lots of black friends back home, and I can't think of one of them that would say that was untrue. I guess your black friends are racists. But, then liberals always have to make up stories to satisfy their personal objectives.

His post was definitely racist.

It's OK to say "nigger" when referring to the word. The OP opened that up, but ggt used "nigger" twice to refer to blacks. He was not referring to the word, he was referring to people.

It's this over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the issue.

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!!

Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive in your opinion, and why?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is! Derogatory comments and conduct toward individuals over a different race.

Take "hate laws" in the US.

Hate laws are applied virtually always against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent.

Hate laws are applied virtually never against conduct of individuals of non-European decent against people of European decent.

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotion out of the picture, and really look!!!

Edited June 24, 2015 by connda

[Gecko123]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, wella big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

Apparently you harbor bigoted and narrow-minded views yourself; perhaps racist as well? One reason I left Los Angeles to move to Thailand was to get away from obnoxious PC fascists like you. I get along just fine with Thais and Asians in general and even do quite well with the language. I got laid just fine in the West; two very attractive French wives and one Russian in my younger days. I now enjoy Asian women. I haven't seen any racist posts on this thread; but rather people tired against the racism directed against us.

Anything you say, boss man.

Edit: Wonder why all those wives left.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Gecko123

[Merzik]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, wella big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

Apparently you harbor bigoted and narrow-minded views yourself; perhaps racist as well? One reason I left Los Angeles to move to Thailand was to get away from obnoxious PC fascists like you. I get along just fine with Thais and Asians in general and even do quite well with the language. I got laid just fine in the West; two very attractive French wives and one Russian in my younger days. I now enjoy Asian women. I haven't seen any racist posts on this thread; but rather people tired against the racism directed against us.

Anything you say, boss man.

Edit: Wonder why all those wives left.

One left and I left two! 555

[connda]

And again, the well known few racists slime out of the wood work. ggt, I've got a few black friends back in the states I'd just love for you to make that little racist statement to. Oh, but the result wouldn't be pretty...lol.

How is ggt's statement racist? I've got lots of black friends back home, and I can't think of one of them that would say that was untrue. I guess your black friends are racists. But, then liberals always have to make up stories to satisfy their personal objectives.

His post was definitely racist.

It's OK to say "nigger" when referring to the word. The OP opened that up, but ggt used "nigger" twice to refer to blacks. He was not referring to the word, he was referring to people.

It's this over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the issue.

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!!

Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive in your opinion, and why?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is! Derogatory comments and conduct toward individuals over a different race.

Take "hate laws" in the US.

Hate laws are applied virtually always against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent.

Hate laws are applied virtually never against conduct of individuals of non-European decent against people of European decent.

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotion out of the picture, and really look!!!

Can't edit this now, so had to rewrite it.

I'm tired of the rhetoric. I've lived too long and have seen too much to have most people explain their short-sighted notions of racism to me.

One problem is the over analysis of political correctness that may be the crux of the racism issue. Example:

Nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger!!!!! Honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey, honkey!!!!!

OK, which pejorative is the most offensive to you in your opinion?

I will come back to this again and again and again -- these are both equally racist. Anyone who can not compare and contrast, and see racism as it really is, may not be a racist per se, but lacks the intelligence and human compassion to truly understand the nature of the beast, i.e., you drank the Kool-Aid passed down by your family and predominate culture, and probably at a young age.

Racism's base is grounded in the derogatory behavior and conduct toward individuals of a different race. Pure and simple. If I'm Japanese and refer to non-Japanese as “Gai-jin”, that's racist; if I'm Hawaiian, and refer to individuals of European decent as “Haole”, that's racist; if I'm a South Carolina man and refer to my black neighbor as “Nigger”, that's racist; if a Mexican refers to a neighbor of European decent as 'Gringo', that's racist; if a Thai refers of individuals of Middle Eastern or Indian decent as 'Kaek', that's racist. If deployed military refer to Arabs as 'Sand-Niggers', that's racist. And every pejorative that we personally are called by others not of our race, is racist too. To you 'get it'. Can you understand?

So why can't the majority of individuals in the world see this? Short answer: ethnocentrism, which is quintessentially racist.

But 'racism' in the liberal West is only in the realm of people of European decent against people of non-European decent. Take "hate laws" in the West:

Hate laws are applied virtually universally in Western countries against conduct of individuals of European decent against people of non-European decent; Never against conduct of people of non-European decent against individuals of European decent. Why is that?

I've even taken the 'black' and 'white' out of the equation for everyone. If you even have a semblance of intelligence, you should be able to clearly see. Take your emotions out of the picture, and really look!!! Then ask yourself: why is this agenda to fragment and splinter the racial divide in the US, let alone other countries around the world, almost a universal political agenda, especially in the West?

Edited June 24, 2015 by connda

[JakeSully]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, well…a big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

What pisses me off is that in some bars and shops the Nazi and Confederate flags are highlighted as the main theme to attract customers. I actually saw some bargirls in fetish nazi gear, if only they'd realize Hitler would have had them all gassed for not being aryan.

What brings the racists here is cheap sex. The day Thailand becomes less economical.. they'll go to other places. It's already happening (just ask beach road bars).. 300-500 baht short time 10 years ago.. I have boy so much.. 700 baht today.. I no hab customer long time.

Personally what attracted me was the cheap sex as well but I'll take it without a side of racism on my plate since it doesn't appeal to my palate.

[F430murci]

Speechless, disturbing video. Racism and violence that Obama does not address. Actually, it is people that like act little animal that cause the problems and create negative perceptions or stereotypes, but Obama does not address this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/teen-rips-girl-toddler-hair-video-article-1.2273815

[Publicus]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, well…a big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

The far out right are among the groups of fahlang who have migrated to Thailand but the rightists angrily and bitterly self-deported from their native country because it had changed so much socially and culturally, to include its politics and government.

These right wing ideological puritan pilgrims have sought out the comfort of a quaint feudal society unaffected and unimpacted by 21st century demographics to include immigration to their country especially. The far out right wingers who remain in their native country are too invested to leave, both personally in respect of family and economically and financially in respect of professional career, but they have found an internet home where they can post among fellow traveller racial dogmatists.

The hard core rightists abroad are extreme and harsh in their hostility to modern developments back home and against the ascendant groups that increasingly dominate their society. So the embittered right wingers are aggressive, loud, forceful, dogged and determined to howl against the new majority and mainstream home front.

Many among these sour right wingers are not uneducated or illiterate. They are simply and plainly strident reactionaries of the first order who seriously and profoundly reject diversity, multi-culturalism, religious tolerance, racial, gender or marriage equality, equal justice under law, the black president -- the whole nine yards. It is in fact a great relief to the reactionary right that they have no woman of either political party to support for president.

A lot of them seem to see themselves as "freedom fighters", using the Internet as a battlefield in a crusade to restore a bygone America when the voice of the white male was the voice of god, women never advanced beyond the Mad Men era, and people of color had no authority over anything beyond a mop.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/torraine-walker/dont-feed-the-race-trolls_1_b_7091716.html

[beechguy]

Speechless, disturbing video. Racism and violence that Obama does not address. Actually, it is people that like act little animal that cause the problems and create negative perceptions or stereotypes, but Obama does not address this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/teen-rips-girl-toddler-hair-video-article-1.2273815

Black culture at it's best, and of course it must be the white man's fault.

I don't know really what to say about it. I'm 60 years old, and have been around black people most that time, and never had any problems. But, this generation that they have spawned, is going to cost them everything they have achieved the last 50 years. If they think white people have been intolerant, wait until this type of thing spreads across the neighborhoods.

[sdanielmcev]

What continues to perplex me is what attracts people who harbor racist, bigoted, and narrow-minded views (as are too often expressed on TVF) to a non-white country such as Thailand?

Is it just because you couldn't get laid back home?

And if you're asking yourself what attracted me to Thailand, wella big part of the answer would have to be: "To get away from guys like you!"

The far out right are among the groups of fahlang who have migrated to Thailand but the rightists angrily and bitterly self-deported from their native country because it had changed so much socially and culturally, to include its politics and government.

These right wing ideological puritan pilgrims have sought out the comfort of a quaint feudal society unaffected and unimpacted by 21st century demographics to include immigration to their country especially. The far out right wingers who remain in their native country are too invested to leave, both personally in respect of family and economically and financially in respect of professional career, but they have found an internet home where they can post among fellow traveller racial dogmatists.

The hard core rightists abroad are extreme and harsh in their hostility to modern developments back home and against the ascendant groups that increasingly dominate their society. So the embittered right wingers are aggressive, loud, forceful, dogged and determined to howl against the new majority and mainstream home front.

Many among these sour right wingers are not uneducated or illiterate. They are simply and plainly strident reactionaries of the first order who seriously and profoundly reject diversity, multi-culturalism, religious tolerance, racial, gender or marriage equality, equal justice under law, the black president -- the whole nine yards. It is in fact a great relief to the reactionary right that they have no woman of either political party to support for president.

A lot of them seem to see themselves as "freedom fighters", using the Internet as a battlefield in a crusade to restore a bygone America when the voice of the white male was the voice of god, women never advanced beyond the Mad Men era, and people of color had no authority over anything beyond a mop.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/torraine-walker/dont-feed-the-race-trolls_1_b_7091716.html

Do you ever stop spreading your hatred? Stereotypes and nothing more. Not even on topic.