Well, there's about 12 hours left on the clock for Tiassa to respond, otherwise I will accept his silence regarding my rebuttal as an admission of defeat.
Of course they aren't going to come out and say "we hate the black man in the white house". But the accumulation of evidence makes it obvious that the Tea Partiers and Republicans are exploiting the inherent racism of their base by trying everything they can to portray Obama as an alien, an outsider, and the latest ploy- an anti-colonialist Kenyan! Don't believe it if you want, but I do.
Great. Believe. See if I care, see if I care, see if I care... if you don't like me, then don't look at me.. Tiassa persisted in flailing about because of some point, and specifically asked me to address all those quotes above. I find nothing. If there was this elusive point to be had, then it has been chopped into several pieces and dispersed hither and thither. No proof of racism. No proof of any point.
And this evidence permeates throughout those more than a dozen excerpts of posts Tiassa was whining about? Tell me, what fault do you find in each of my responses in purple? Examples?
The straw men tell the story Actually, the facts of what certain people have said—e.g., that they said it at all—is sufficient. That one disagrees with the perception of racism is its own, and falls under the category of everyone being entitled to their opinion. The problem is the number of times some members, including you, decided to set up straw men and respond to those instead. And those straw men, in the end, are telling.
Good for them! The "facts" I mean... Good for us all, then. You insinuated that I might be racist because I didn't agree with those opinions. Or at the very least, that I sounded racist, whatever that's supposed to mean in the end. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2618309&postcount=214 I think the problem is the number of times you referred to post 184 insisting that people weren't addressing something there. I ran through each of those quotes and summarized the content matter-of-factly. I count many times the references to illegal alien or birth status. I count few the references to racism. Oh, and then there are those "wink wink, say no more" exchanges between you and Bells at something that's so obvious, and how amusing it is that people such as myself don't see it. Oh, yeah, and that point. The Point. Care to tell me what's wrong with my critique of each of those quotations? I did address them, every single one. And now you seem to have better things to do. Raising the bar now? EDIT: And in case you missed it...http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2619028#post2619028 What's really telling are your efforts to milk racism out of those mostly dry bones in post 184 that you felt were so important. And as for this straw man thing, kind of hard not to give some type of context or frame of reference through examples. You can call other effigies straw men if you like.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Try sincerity sometime; you'd be surprised what it gets you Ah, yes, the incredible shifting time frame. Get a new trick. I do, in fact, have better things to do than waste my time on a cheap, dishonest argument. It's not a matter of raising the bar. Rather, there's only so far I can lower it to meet your "argument". I'm sorry if the concept is too difficult for you to understand, but it doesn't start at #184. What I listed at #184 is what people like you, Cowboy, and Madanthonywayne refused to acknowledge. Now that you find yourself face to face with the nature of your own argument, you wish to refocus to a different time frame, another set of posts. • "Notice how utterly and undeniably racist it is???" (#107) • "Notice how racist it isn't???" (ibid) • "Oh, but certainly not a "black" effigy in a white world! Surely you fail to see the obvious?" (#115) • "I didn't know Obama was so racist. And that Indians were equally racist! Damn!!! IS EVERYONE IN THE WORLD RACIST???" (#116) • "It's just that it seems that so much criticism of our dearly beloved President lately seems to devolve into 'You hate him because he's black! Admit your guilt!'" (#133) • "Those are the effigy burnings. First one is the racist one." (#136) • "I, and others, presented other effigies as examples, but only the Obama effigy was considered racist." (#171) • "That's what it seems to be. As long as the skin color is white, the criticism is right." (#172) • "It's about effigies, and whether it's inherently racist to have a black president depicted in the effigy." (#182) • "Isn't it obvious how sexist this is? Do they hate Christians too? Being homosexuals, probably." (#183) • "Criticize a president, all well and good. If it's a black president, however, suddenly previous criticisms are off the table because of skin color." (#187) • "Well, I would assume her gender is what makes it sexist." (ibid) • "And further, anyone who questions Obama is probably racially motivated." (#198) The number of times you missed the point makes your point.
What's that supposed to mean? Oh! There's only so far you can lower it. So you can't meet my knuckles at the ground? Now that I find you delusional, I know how to better approach you. :bugeye: WHAT? I refused to acknowledge something??? I'm positive I addressed some of those "points" before post 184, though I'm not in the mood to go back at this time and fetch examples. However, I just a few days ago addressed each quote in 184, and you're not only ignoring that but telling me that wish to refocus on a "different time frame, another set of posts." What the fuck are you talking about? It is only you who wishes to refocus. If you won't acknowledge my point by point reply to #184, then shut the fuck up.
