What constitutes racist posts?

First- I would challenge you to produce a post or a response to a post that supports your assertion that I am in any way racist or support racist behavior. I find such assertions offensive and an attack on my character.

Second- I apologize to @sooner for replying to such an off topic post in his topic. I will however address it a topic of my own in the future.

Challenge accepted!

Hmmmm...let's see:

Equivocating "white nationalists" with Black Lives Matter.

In which you agree with the sentiment that the only way to stop racism is to get rid of organizations that are fighting racism (NAACP, CAIR, BLM).

In which you exhibit support for noted racist, misogynistic troll Milo Yiannopoulos (trolls gotta stick together I suppose).

In which you assert that "Black Privilege" is a thing that exists, in response to an article about the troubling situation involving an 18 year old black girl falsely accusing 5 young black men of gang raping her.


In which you mock the idea of having future Presidents from underrepresented groups.

That one speaks for itself...

In which you assert Obama has "white privilege."

In which you call "hands up don't shoot" black protesters thugs and gangbangers, and compare unarmed, innocent black men to the Bundy ranchers who were armed to the teeth and willfully violating the law, and question the racial neutrality of the ACLU.


Who could forget that racist gem of a topic, in which you spew all kinds of Muslim stereotypes.


This is a good one, in which you liken "inner cities" to the "Animal Kingdom" and say that sometimes we just have to let nature run it's course.

In which you equate the killing of LaVoy Finicum, an armed militia member, to the killing of unarmed black men.

In which you equate Obama giving amnesty to undocumented immigrants to Trump's proposed Muslim ban.

In which you agree with Trump that Obama is a secret Muslim, and add that he's a threat to America.

In which you laughably claim that there's a double standard in the way Christians and Muslims are treated.


In which you equate pedophilia and homosexuality and stoke racist fears of the imposition of Sharia law.

In which you claim Obama gets a pass on criticism because he's black.


In which you stoke racist fears about Huma Abedin being part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And that's just what I got from searching "black" and "muslim" in your comment history. I'm sure that I am missing plenty. But this should suffice to prove the point!


yes, and in MOST cases i would "equivocate" all over again. George Soros has been funding the out of town violent thugs to violate peoples rights and has supported use of these "protests" to assault American citizens! Yes BLM is a racist organization....next!

Those organizations come to the aide "selectively" and NEVER when it involves a conservative....My stance is neither racist nor do support groups that claim to help end racism but practice soft racism daily.

your point? Obama spends his vacations on the islands of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket! Hzome to the 1% of the 1% playing golf on some of the best courses in the world all the while discussing income inequality! Excuse me if I dont share your views on our commander in chief

While i admit that Trumps speech to African-Americans should not be held in suburban Milwaukee, I also contend that Obama spends very precious little time in Chicago where there is an actual war on minorities taking place! A war that all the "rubbing of elbows" on the Cape will never address nor solve!

And yet, not ONE shot was ever fired from the level headed protesters. Although ONE protester was gunned down by an FBI agent and there is some controversy/coverup in regards to who shot and where the shell casings that were ejected from the firearms actually went proving that there were some nefarious actors on the "Law Enforcement" side of the tragedy

again, what point are you trying to make??

you make a jump way too far and I have no response for what it is you are trying to prove here.

Whether or not Obama is or is not a Muslim matters none. He claims to be a Christian, thats enough for me. Others may have a problem that he spends no time at all in a Christian church or stands up for Muslims (seemingly) at a much higher incidence than Christians...I however have no problem that his father was Muslim as well as his step father.

yes, I do. Walmart in fact chose to bake an "ISIL" cake and refused the service to a patron who requested a "Confederate" cake. Do you see any issues with such a move by Walmart?

Do you support Sharia law and its teachings @populistesq???

She worked for nearly a decade at what can only be called an Antisemitic publication that her mother is still employed by...

You set out to prove a point that has has finally been proven....there is nothing to fear here, but fear itself!

thank you for you obvious interest in my posts, very flattering!


LOL. thanks for proving my point.

Yes, BLM focuses on racism and violence against black people, so if that's "selective" so be it. However, the ACLU has an incredibly long history of protecting people on both sides of the political aisle. The ACLU is pro-Citizens United for instance, and have taken a pro-2A stance of late. They also regularly defend Conservatives in free speech or freedom of religion cases. So if your assertion is that the ACLU doesn't protect Conservatives, you're sorely mistaken.

You're right...that uppity negro should stop vacationing with all those white folk. /s

Again...he was armed to the teeth. And there is no "controversy/coverup" outside of your right wing fever dreams. He got out of the vehicle, armed, and charged a federal officer. Period.

You compared inner city black neighborhoods to the "Wild Kingdom" and said that "we must allow the natural order of things to take place." That's probably the single most racist thing you've ever said in these forums.

That's NOT the Muslim Brotherhood, it's a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, nor is their any connection between the two.


It is something I was not aware of. Regardless of the lack of "proof" I do believe you.

It was not meant to be racist at all.

Here is the entire exchange so that others may view the entire conversation in its proper context so as NOT to be mislead by my true intentions....@populistesq Do you think that I am a racist, really?

I don't know you well enough to make that assessment. The initial challenge was to find racist posts you have made, of which, I have shown, there are plenty.

And putting the "Wild Kingdom" quote in context does not do you any favors. You compared Chicago's "inner city" (GOP code word for "black") to the Wild Kingdom and said that "we must allow the natural order of things take place regardless of how painful it is to watch at times..." Which to me (and assuredly many others here) sounds like "let the blacks keep killing each other, that's the natural order of things."


Have you ever watched the show "Wild Kingdom"? You may be a bit younger than I imagined you to be. As a kid (I am 47 years old) we watched the show that depicted animals in their natural settings that included lions and other predatory animals that would hunt others that were further down the food chain and I often wondered if the camera men ever actually intervened when there were defenseless baby antelope or water buffalo that were easy pray. It is hard to watch sometimes and that was my point. Who is in a better position to help the inner city black community than President Obama himself? It is my feeling he has done very little for the folks of urban Chicago and contend less than he was a "community organizer". Do you find it hard to watch what is going on in his hometown of Chicago knowing there is SOMETHING he can do to help?

What do you imagine him to be able to do? What is that SOMETHING that he should be doing?

What would the harm in say making a speech somewhere in downtown Chicago where a speech of hope and inspiration might make a difference in a few lives. He convinced them at one point of "Hope and Change" but I am not sure given the last 7.5 years that they would much more receptive to him than say Donald Trump. Trump may actually get a bit more interest these days than Obama given the undelivered promises made by this admin. On that point I cant say I disagree with Trump when he says "what have you got lose"????

Do you not think that he has done this? Even if it wasn't in downtown Chicago, do you think he has not made these types of speeches?

Dream. On.

LOL This is America after all!

Thank you for taking the time to call his bluff. Much appreciated.


how many racist posts to equal a racist?

is that too meta?


Thank you, populistesq, for so locating and bringing these to our attention.


You have made a very strong case that 1988ranger is a racist troll. His responses do nothing to refute your evidence.


When it is not possible to even agree on a definition of "racist" there is no point in talking. As is usual for this dynamic, the one person will never stay within the agreed definitions and boundaries, just twists away to a new "What about???".

Given that we are publicly a liberal/progressive/Democratic forum here, contrary views need to offer data and cogent argument. Simply throwing out Breitbart/Drudge stuff achieves zero. If the issue of gun violence in Chicago is raised, presumably to argue that gun laws don't work, the data that refute that are ignored, like the Trump spokesman who responded to the news anchor who asked about the weakening poll numbers, and replied "Says who?".

Given that these contrary opinions will garner negative responses, the sole purpose (in the absence of effective argument) is to either score points for personal satisfaction, or to rile up the rest of us. Neither is a worthy goal. If the poster ever conceded a disputed point I am not aware of it. The particular talent I see is to stay inside the bounds of mostly respectable conversation, which makes it hard to point to an infraction. The gratuitous familiarity is always going to annoy another, and the in-your-face avatar feels intentionally selected to intimidate or aggravate.

The accumulation of annoyances and the turmoil this activity has caused are sufficient to constitute a trolling result even if it is not intended (of which I am not certain). It is one thing to tolerate some difficulty if there is an upside, a contribution. We have some curmudgeons here, and some testy exchanges happen. But there are areas of broad agreement underlying those tussles. I find no common ground on this issue, no positive contribution, and even if the effort is made to be polite, the un-resolvable back-and-forth only clutters the conversation.

I'm done.