If we don't vote or agree with Democrats we are racists!

Listen to the left or democrats in this forum.


  • No. A person who uses racist words and supports racist politicians and policies is a racist.

    If that is you, man up and take responsibility for it. Don't blame someone else.
  • Hahaha

    No this is what you said a few days ago. You said anyone who is a conservative or didn't vote democrats is a racists.

  • It's hard not to notice that political discussion over the last decade has increasingly degenerated into name-calling—and that the insults most often come from the left: "racist," "homophobe," "sexist," "mean-spirited," "insensitive." It has become a habit of left-liberal political argument to use such invective to dismiss conservative beliefs as if they don't deserve an argument and to redefine mainstream conservative arguments as extremism and bigotry. Close-minded and uncivil, this tendency betrays what's liberal in liberalism.

    It undermines two principles crucial to liberal democracy and central to its superiority to other forms of government. Democracy requires a willingness to engage civilly with those you disagree with, recognizing their equality as citizens. Social thinker Michael Novak calls this democratic etiquette the "amity and equanimity proper to a civilized people." To be sure, this noble ideal inevitably takes its knocks in the bruised-knuckle world of real politics; as Frederick Douglass once pointed out, those who look for politics to be unfailingly polite "want rain without thunder and lightning." But calling someone a racist or a bigot says that his ideas have no place in the democratic public square. It's an annihilating gesture, appropriately directed against a David Duke or a Khallid Muhammad, not against the principled beliefs of your conservative fellow citizens.

    n recent public discussion, liberals haven't engaged in much reasoned argument with conservatives or shown much civility toward them. Consider, for instance, how today's left—from mainstream Democratic politicians to far-out radicals—has conducted itself in the debate over affirmative action. Conservatives argue that racial preferences for blacks contravene the basic American ideal that all people should be treated equally under the law—the ideal that inspired the original civil rights movement. Moreover, racial preferences penalize non-blacks who have committed no wrong, conservatives say, and they end up harming blacks by demoralizing and stigmatizing them as somehow in need of special help to get ahead. You might disagree with these ideas, but they're principled, coherent, and democratic. Yet liberals merely dismiss them, and those who hold them, as racist.

    A couple of years ago, for example, then-vice president Al Gore gave a speech to an NAACP convention that perfectly embodies the typical liberal response to criticism of racial preferences. "I've heard the critics of affirmative action," Gore said. "They use their 'color blind' the way duck hunters use a duck blind—they hide behind it and hope the ducks won't notice." Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby incredulously responded: "Hunters use a duck blind to kill ducks. What can Gore be saying? That affirmative action's critics want to kill—blacks?" Apparently so, for Gore went on in the speech to demand to know the reaction of racial-preference opponents to a horrendous crime in Virginia, in which a black man "was doused with gasoline, burned alive, and decapitated by two men."

    Not a week goes by without a prominent liberal stooping to this tactic. "[Liberals'] efforts to . . . stereotype their adversaries as racists have become so routine as to seem unremarkable," laments The National Journal’s Stuart Taylor, Jr. Out of hundreds of examples, a few drawn from the last half decade will have to suffice. President Clinton compared the promoters of the California Civil Rights Initiative—the ultimately successful 1996 ballot measure banning discrimination on the basis of race or sex in state programs—with segregationists. Christopher Edley, a Harvard law professor who served as President Clinton's key advisor on race, referred to Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom's measured 1997 book America in Black and White as a "crime against humanity" for its anti-preferences stance. The late columnist Carl Rowen accused conservative opponents of affirmative action of "apoplectic spasms of bigotry"—as if Bill Bennett and Bull Connor were interchangeable. "Conservative legal groups," asserted Atlanta's black mayor Bill Campbell a few years back, are "a homogenized version of the Klan. . . . They may have traded in their sheets for suits, but it's the same old racism."
  • edited September 2019
    This is what the left has come to. I hear it in this forum too. Factsmatter said if you voted opposite of his or her views or didn't vote Democrats, you are basically a racists.

    The left or Democrats are not the party of JFK. JFK would be considered a conservative by today's Democrats.

    I'm a white Caucasian male who is married to a lovely chuukese women. What i noticed from living in Micronesia for 40 years is that majority of Micronesians are conservatives not by education but by culture.

    And its astonishing and a shame that fellow white immigrants call micronesians racists just because they are not liberal leaning.

    This is the real shame. I as a American white male is a appalled by this.
  • Wrong again, my friend. Read carefully what I stated above.

    "A person who uses racist words and supports racist politicians and policies is a racist."

    I never said, "...if you voted opposite of his or her views or didn't vote Democrats, you are basically a racists. "

    Those are your own words, my friend, not my words.
  • Different explanation but same meaning. And that is if you don't agree with me or have the same views as me you're a racist.

    That is what you said, @FactsMatter .

    The policies you and your party passed and enacted are the exact meaning of what you accused others of: Racists.

    Jim Crow laws: separated people by race in schools and public places was passed and enforced by Democrats.

    KKK: Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats after they lost the civil war to Republicans. KKK was created to terrorize blacks.

    Planned Parenthood: Created by Democrats to control the population of blacks and colored people. .

    These are policies that were created by your side and some of these policies especially planned Parenthood is still in effect.

    Try to dispute these if you can.

  • Wrong again, my friend. Read carefully what I stated above.

    "A person who uses racist words and supports racist politicians and policies is a racist."

    I never said, "...if you voted opposite of his or her views or didn't vote Democrats, you are basically a racists. "

    Those are your own words, my friend, not my words.
  • edited September 2019
    I agree , its becoming a habit of the pothead - man to use his own words to blame someone about . and I agree to sided one what Fact have repeated in bold letters it's just a fact that the others are ignorant s to the fact that those who are supporters of a racist president and his policies, are racist also.
  • Fox News reports no new wall has been built. Liar in chief continues to lead the blind, deaf and dumb. Hahahahah
  • General Mattis: trump is of limited cognitive ability and general dubious behavior. Hahahaha
  • Thank you Anunaki. You have give me hope in believing that not all white leftist democrats are racists. I didn't believe this but now know that not all left leaning DEMOCRATS are intolerable.

    Hope may be fleeting but its all we have to believe that there is a light beyond the dark.

  • Anunaki won't believe this, but his/her view of US political parties was correct before 1964, and after 1964 to today flipped 180 degrees. It is called the Nixon "Southern Strategy," and it has been discussed ad nauseum in this Forum, without apparent effect on the discourse.

    Prior to the enactment of Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Anunaki is correct that Democrats supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. With the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, championed by Lyndon Johnson after the assassination of John Kennedy, the Democrats in the South fled their party and joined with the Republicans in opposition to civil rights and voting rights. The "Southern Strategy" was simply to flip the parties, win the South for the Republicans as the new party of segregation and Jim Crow, and thus win the presidency. You may not believe that, but that is what happened.

    Look it up. The Nixon "Southern Strategy," wherein Republicans became the party opposed to civil and voting rights, and the Democrats, who previously opposed civil rights and voting rights, became the champions of those unalienable rights.

    And s/he is simply lying when s/he says the Democrats created Planned Parenthood to control black populations. Fake News. Just another lie from the lying party of the alt-right.
  • Is you Sarem Chuuk & Factsmater same person?
  • No Dezi. We are different people (FM is much smarter), but we each do believe in facts and the truth.
  • Haha common bro
  • Limited cognitive ability. Hahahaha hahahaha
  • Facts and truth my ass. It's like saying socialists believe in capitalism or atheist believe in God.

  • The parties of switched said the the man who said he is a Jew, who then said he is not a Jew. Hahaha. This is the same person who said Collison between Trump and Russia was real.

    Facts and Truth my ass! Hahaha

    (KKK) Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President
    March 14, 2016
    U.S. News & World Report
    HILLARY CLINTON CAN ADD a new name to her list of endorsements – a prominent Ku Klux Klan member who says he likes her because of her "hidden agenda."
    Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan's California chapter, told the Telegraph Monday that he would be switching his support from Donald Trump to Clinton.

    "We want Hillary Clinton to win," he said. "She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. Once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colors are going to show. Border policies are going to be put in place. Our second amendment rights that she’s saying she’s against now, she’s not against. She’s just our choice for the presidency."

  • Excuse my language @SaremChuuk when i say you have more facts and truth as the sun light ever shining rays or sunlight in your ass. Hahahah

    Its impossible. Hahaha
  • Of limited cognitive ability and general dubious nature. Hahahaha hahahaha hahahahah
  • For a contrary view of Mr. Quigg's "endorsement" of Hillary see:


    For a further understanding of the wonderful organization in which Mr. Quigg claims Grand Dragon status, see:


    Got any corroboration for Mr. Quigg's "endorsement," gun smuggling conspirator? No, of course not. Do you agree with the agenda and views of Mr. Quigg's organization, gun smuggler?

    BTW, your quote, from US News & World Report, is from an article in The Guardian, the sole original source for this piece of bullshit. Quigg tells the Guardian that he has switched his endorsement to Clinton because of her "hidden agenda," and the Guardian reports -- without any corroboration or further investigation -- what Quigg told them. Other media outlets, mostly from the alt-right, pick up the Guardian story and its quote and publish that single source quote as if it has been verified. Quigg refuses to tell the Guardian what Clinton's "hidden agenda" is, because he doesn't want to hurt her campaign, or some bullshit like that.

    So, LSOS, who from the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan other than Mr. Quigg confirmed Mr. Quigg's statement on behalf of the organization? Let me know when you find out. I won't hold my breath. You might find confirmation from within the KKK. When Pigs Fly.
  • Of limited cognitive ability and general dubious nature. Hahahaha hahahaha hahahahah
  • Of limited cognitive ability and general dubious nature.

    I would say that Sarem Chuuk is being too kind. lol
  • Hahaha

    3 racists telling brown micros they are stupid if they don't agree with them.

    Point made.
  • Rats ass man, that is what general mattis said of your orange monkey
  • Hahahaha

    That's his opinion and personal opinions aren't facts.

  • Alabama hit hard but hurricane orange ass clown
  • Not all us think like factsmatter. Just so you know.
  • I know. Not all whites and Americans think as her. She is the racist minority that want to rule by force. Socialism.
Sign In or Register to comment.