White Privilege, White Entitlement and the 2008 Election

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin’ redneck," like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
Article originally posted on Buzzflash.com
Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me (Soft Skull, 2005, revised 2008), and of Speaking Treason Fluently, publishing this month, also by Soft Skull.
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger, Barack Obama, Elections, Joe Biden, John McCain, Race, Racism/Bigotry, Religious Right, Republican Party, Sarah Palin, White House
- October 7, 2008








A little Tuesday Happy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVYoaNRAtR0
Check out the intro. Good stuff.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 7, 2008 - 9:25amThanks for the flashback to the good old days
of the first Raygun recession.
- Email this page
By gt6October 7, 2008 - 9:49amOne other thought
Thank god white privelege means that I can skip most of this article and still be considered well informed.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 7, 2008 - 9:28amFRIst to say...
Well said!
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75October 7, 2008 - 9:31amActually any privilege is the problem.
But good point about the American love affair with whiteness. Indentity through race rather than class is a double edged sword- being a white workingman means you are a few rungs higher on the ladder than most people of color, but The Man on top is still taking a massive dump on all of us.
The ruling class's favorite tactic- divide and conquer.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 7, 2008 - 11:39amThe NEO-COM's favorite Tactic:
Class warfare.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 7, 2008 - 6:43pmthe war's been on for a long time
we've just begun to fight back
- Email this page
By gt6October 7, 2008 - 6:55pmThe French Revolution was class warfare.
Alleging that a bunch of dumb redneck USA-fuckers really are dumb redneck USA-fuckers is not.
- Email this page
By alienuslxOctober 7, 2008 - 8:04pmBuck off, Fuckwheat
Poor little coward. Can't face the FACT that your phony-baloney "flying ace" lost the debate?
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastOctober 8, 2008 - 2:02amClass warfare is a fact, not a tactic, neoCon.
In neocon world class warfare only takes place when working people defend their rights against the bosses.
" I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice, and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation."
" You can't have capitalism without racism. And if you find a person without racism and you happen to get that person into a conversation and they have a philosophy that makes you sure they don't have this racism in their outlook, usually they are a socialist or their political philosophy is socialism."- Malcom X
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 8, 2008 - 11:02amBy thaelmann37October 8, 2008 - 12:02pm
"You can't have capitalism without racism"
How can that possibly make sense? A pure capitalist wouldn't care at all what one looks like, but what one can produce/own/rent-out or otherwise generate revenue with.
I may be willing to buy that all racists are capitalists, as opposed to socialists, but I'm not willing to buy that all capitalists are racists.
One other thought, in a truly capitalistic society how can there be truly oppressed people? If you can scrape together four bucks to buy a 12 pack of soda and sell it at the parade for 12 bucks, and use the 12 bucks to buy 2 more 12 packs of soda and live on 4 bucks you are now on your way to being a successful capitalist. All it takes is a little bit of money and an idea.
Quick story (I like stories). A few years ago I built a factory for a guy that had lost everything about 10 years before. He'd been in the hotel and gas station business. He'd lost his house, his cars, his fat bank accounts, boats, everything. He ended up with a beater car and one hotel (the smallest) that he kept instead of his house. He and his wife and 3 kids lived in 2 hotel rooms. He took the little bit of profit he made from the hotel and used it to buy a couple of machines that he then located in one of the two rooms his family was using. He squeezed all 5 of his family members into 1 room and worked in the other room. And there I was 10 years later building him a sizeable new factory. He came up with an idea and used his last few bucks to put it into motion and made a comeback.
Now, the American dream is that anyone can do that. And many have. If that opportunity isn't equality then what is?
Is it fair and equal when if we give the guy that only wants to work an 8 hour day and didn't risk anything or dream of more gets as much as the guy that worked 15 hours a day, 6 days a week to get his dream off the ground? Should the guy that goes to work with little financial risk of his own have exactly what the guy who barely skirted homelessness in order to use his few dollars to develop his business has?
Now I know that you have a slightly more realistic view of the world that what I'm painting here, but how is equal opportunity not the same as equality? I'm aware that it's easier for the rich white kid than it is for the poor minority, but so what? Wealth rarely makes it past the 3rd generation in America. The patriarch grows up poor and works hard to make a fortune, that he then passes on to his children. Now his children didn't have to work as hard to make it, so it's easier to spend, but they've learned something from dad and at least try to sustain the money. The 3rd generation rolls around, doesn't have to work at all and grows up with wild spending habits and that fortune is toast. Point is that being the generation that works hard for it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Bit of a rant, but this kind of gets to the core of being a real conservative (not a neo-con, in which case you're right, oppression seems to be the norm).
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 12:12pmOh give it a break
You "conservatives" are the biggest socialists this country has ever known. You like to privatize profits, but when your failed economic policies make you lose everything you go running to the govt for a bailout. Pure hypocrisy. You just dont want those damned black and brown people to take part in your socialism.
There are 2 things every right winger has in common. Racism and fear of everything.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 8, 2008 - 12:49pmBy hufflarry2000October 8, 2008 - 1:49pm
Huff, occassionally you come up with some real bits of great info in a coherent fashion. And then other times.......
To say that every "right winger," which I will interpret as right of center, is filled with fear and a racist is so completely bizarre I don't know where to begin.
My mom worked for a banking company for more than 30 years. The owner of the company retired once back in the early 80s. After a few months the guy came back after going a little nuts from having nothing to do. One of the first proclamations he made was that there would be no more loans to people with blonde curly hair because they were all bad risks. That is exactly how ridiculous you sound right now.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 1:14pmIt is not bizarre at all
It is just a fact that you dont like. People like you have destroyed this country and it's economy. A right winger is a fascist anti american extremist. There is a reason you call yourself a Republican and it is not because you are a good and decent person and a true American.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 8, 2008 - 1:23pmBy hufflarry2000October 8, 2008 - 2:23pm
Relative of yours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIovbVUvfa4
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 1:31pmI dont click links
from fascists.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 8, 2008 - 1:43pmBy hufflarry2000October 8, 2008 - 2:43pm
Would you not be a moron. I'm about as much of a fascist as you are a communist revolutionary.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 2:00pmI think Malcom was refering more to the system
of capitalism rather than individual capitalists.
Let's take your soda story and expand on that. You buy a pack of soda and sell it at the Fair for a profit. Great. Now, how does the manufacturer of the soda make his profit? Who makes the aluminum cans? You allready know where I am going with this, so I won't bore you. Malcom didn't have a problem with the guy selling the soda, he had a problem with the manufacturer of the soda. By his day, large manufacturers were allready exploiting labor in the developing world for gathering resources and making products.
If I had the time and space to subject you to the horrors of left wing politics I would do so, but I have to leave it there are as many schools of socialist thought as there are denominations of Protestants.
Some follow Mao's theory that everyone should be made equal, through force if necessary ( unless you were in the party leadership, of course) others, like the party I belong to, think basic necessities should be guarenteed for all and major industries should be held in common ownership but other than that you are only limited by how much talent and work you put into your career.
BTW, putting Malcom on the thread is a good way to piss your more fascistic brethren off. Black, Muslim, and a Red. Friggin' sweet!
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 8, 2008 - 2:44pmBy thaelmann37October 8, 2008 - 3:44pm
So the guy that makes a few bucks selling sodas at the fair is ok. But if that same guy starts to hire his friends to sell the sodas and then starts to set up distribution points to get the soda to his friends and then looks to buy the sodas from a cheaper manufacturer he is suddenly a bad person and potentially a racist because the country he's getting cheap soda from is not an anglo saxon population? How can that make sense?
Let's examine the rush of call centers to India for a second. Numerous US corporations have set up call centers in India for everything from tech help to magazine subscriptions. Now, those Indians working in those call centers are considerably cheaper than the American equivalent. Does that mean that the corporation that is employing those Indians is racist since they're getting cheaper labor? Even though India went from being one of the poorest nations in the world to having an emerging middle class and being an up comer in the realm of world political power? And those professionals working in those call centers are part of what is making up that middle class?
The driving force behind globalization is not a desire for social justice or an altruistic need for human rights for all, but profit. These other countries want to make money providing labor to the US and the US wants to make money selling them Coca-Cola and Ipods (and they can't buy the shit if they don't make anything). Now the reality is that each of these emerging nations is going to have to go through their own industrial revolution, but we're watching that unfold right now in places like China and India.
This is what I find so interesting about political right and left. The left claims the right is racist and wants to exploit minorities because they won't increase funding for higher education and they dislike affirmative action. The right claims the left is racist because they want to provide welfare that the right sees as perpetuating the poverty cycle that many minorities get stuck in. The left claims the right wants to destroy America by taking away rights to free-speech and reproductive choices. The right claims that the left wants to destroy America by doing away with religion and gun ownership. It just gets fascinating to watch.
I would argue Malcolm X is a nut. But interesting nonetheless.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 4:18pmThere is no doubt that Capitalists
have exploited racism as a major part of their strategy, but I don't go so far as to say that it is inherently racist or that all Capitalists are racist, though many are. I see it as far more a class issue than race.
Capitalism is nothing more than an updating of feudalism on a global scale. As financial holdings and ownership in business supplanted land as the primary source and definition of wealth, Capitalism establishes the new heirarchy. This was inevitable when the settling of the USA made it possible for millions to own land and diluted the power held by landowners around the world. An expanding industrial base provided a new arena where only the richest could truly play. Globalization is the next step in reconsolidating the hold that the aristocracy once had.
- Email this page
By gt6October 8, 2008 - 4:37pmBy gt6October 8, 2008 - 5:37pm
So then the next logical question becomes what is the alternative? Human nature is to advance oneself and one's offspring as far as possible. Whether it's owning land, owning a company, providing education, or collecting acorns, the goal will always be to get ahead of others.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 5:39pmPersonally
I think capitalism can be OK as long as there is a healthy dose of control from the Government. The government is the only entity (other than the Church, which is an oligarchy in its own right or rite) large enough to face down the multinational corporate giants. But to do that, it must be made clear the the government works for the people and not for business.
Corporate personhood must be eliminated. A corporation has right DERIVED from those of the individuals that own it, but none of its own.
The government must approach the economy from the point of view of what is best for the people. In many cases, that will still mean what is good for business, but not in every.
The drive to get ahead is fine. Exploitation of the powerless is not. It is even OK to become wealthy. TO A POINT. Thomas Jefferson was a respectably wealthy man of his day. You could put 8 Montecellos into 1 of Mar a Lago (Trump's house in Fl).
- Email this page
By gt6October 8, 2008 - 7:16pmHow did Thomas Jefferson get his wealth?
Not asking in a modern 20/20 hindsight kind of way but he's not the best example for your argument gt. Afterall, Montecello was a plantation.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 9, 2008 - 6:41amGranted
the southern model included slavery and exploitation in the formula. Jefferson had little choice about working within that model. Even so he struggled to remain solvent.
I'm really not talking about how he became rich, just with the extent of his wealth. History has preserved his estate making him one of the best known examples of the leaders of the day. The really big money in pre-revolutionary America went to England. The most wealthy Americans at the time the constitution was written would not be millionaires today except through the current values of their land. 250 years ago, that land had very little cash value as all anyone needed to do to get more was go west a hundred miles.
- Email this page
By gt6October 9, 2008 - 9:30amIs there a gene that I haven't heard about?
Lots of folks are content with taking care of their families and communities rather than spend every moment of their lives trying to get ahead. I've heard of human beings being wired for survival but not stepping on each other to get more than they need. Capitalism is a fairly recent economic model- it is probably the most irrational and unnatural system ever devised. Feudalism had been around for most of human history. Is that the natural state of Humanity?
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 9, 2008 - 6:36amthere isn't a significant difference
between feudalism and capitalism. capitalism is as old as the corporation - at least 600 years.
the crux of capitalism is land ownership. when it went from the "crown" to "fee simple" economics simply went from a feudalism of nobility to feudalism of wealth. i dare anyone to say any other difference exists.
the question of human nature is mixed. the natural state of economics is communal. but, the natural state of humans are wolf-like, pack mentallity. the kings and corporations are man's answer to the alpha wolf.
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 9, 2008 - 4:37pmAgain your wrong.
Marxism is THE most irrational and unnatural system ever devised. As well as one of the most brutal.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 9, 2008 - 8:15pmWell, Jihadism does run a very close second
to communism.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 9, 2008 - 8:26pmYour own argument is flawed...
One, what is "natural?" And how can any social system be "natural" as if no other system is valid? Please explain.
Two, back up your statements regarding brutality. I can name several capitalist societies that were exceedingly brutal.
Three, all of this is theoretical, as there has never been a pure Marxist state. The old Soviet system, and the Maoist government that developed from it, were both state capitalism. The closest thing to Marxism was Allende's Chile, and thanks to Nixon funding the disappearings and death squads, we'll never know if it was going to work or not.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastOctober 9, 2008 - 8:28pmwhy don't you ask thaelman.
I guess if capitalism can be described in those terms, than so can marx ism.The USSR, CHINA, VIETNAM, CAMBODIA,
STalin, pol pot, mao, idi amin.
Are all the result of societies professing the marxist system. Their failure is a testament to the flaws of marxism. It has been tried over and over again, and all that has ever become of it is the brutalization of those countries citizens. You can try to shift the blame by saying it was the failure of its leaders to adhere to strict marxism, but face it, the same thing seems to always happen when that system is tried. Regardless of who those countries leaders names where. Are you willing to trust anyone with that type of power, knowing its history. In theory, it may look good, it practice it is an abysmal failure.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 9, 2008 - 10:20pmI could list just as many
Atrocities for any system.
Abu Ghraib, My Lai, Wounded Knee.
Hitler, Mussolini.
Nero, Napoleon, Polk, PNAC.
Idi Amin, incidentally, was a fascist, not a Stalin-inspired state capitalist. (Though the old Soviet Union did sell him weapons...by that time they needed the rubles).
As usual, you fail to argue the core question. Just what constitutes a "natural" form of society? Is it Social Darwinism, where the strong kill off the weak "naturally?" If you believe that to be so, you are, in spirit, just as brutal as Amin, Hitler and Stalin ever were.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastOctober 10, 2008 - 3:17pmLet it go, Lib.
There comes a time when you have to step away from the drone and leave him to babble on his own.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 10, 2008 - 7:16amYou want him to let it go because you can't answer the question.
You were the one who originally put forth the Natural crap. Answer him.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 10, 2008 - 6:10pmHe's asking you the question, numbnuts.
And I was talking to KW, not you.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 11, 2008 - 7:50amHe's a racist and an exploiter because he can take advantage of
an attitude in this country ( not limited to whites) that people in the developing world are not quite as human as Westerners, thus get away with safety and work abuses that wouldn't fly in this country. And he does this to increase his profit- the soda will be sold at the same price or a few cents less as before.
India does have a growing middle class. But this growth pales to the number of people who were making decent livings as farmers now being forced off of their land to make room for urban expansion.
Indians are also being subjected to ever increasing political violence by the parties of the establishment ( which ironically contains the two major communist parties).
But we agree. This is the necessary stage to industrialization. And because the buorgeosie of India and China will not be able to control the upcoming political crisises their nations, revolution becomes inevitiable. Whether those revolutions take on a fascistic form or a socialist form remains to be seen.
People who speak unpleasant truths are often labled as nuts. Malcom showed he was sane when he renounced the Nation Of Islam.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37October 8, 2008 - 4:50pmBy thaelmann37October 8, 2008 - 5:50pm
"an attitude in this country ( not limited to whites) that people in the developing world are not quite as human as Westerners, thus get away with safety and work abuses that wouldn't fly in this country"
I disagree completely. It has nothing to do with seeing anyone as being less human. It has everything to do with creating a competitve advantage by getting product for less money, thus being able to either increase profitability or sell more units by being cheaper than the competition. You're right that the safety and work abuses would never fly in this country, but the reasons for that are two-fold. First, law mandates it. Second, with healthcare costs and liability issues it's cheaper to prevent accidents than to pay for them after the fact. It has nothing to do with seeing Westerners as more human. Employers that hire Americans aren't any more benevolent or less racist than those that source out to developing nations. They are simply looking for a faster/cheaper/more efficient way to bring product to the market.
I buy a ton of lumber. I don't care if the lumber was logged here in the US, Brazil, or in Siberia or what kind of safety is employed at any location. I care that the lumber is of good quality and that the price is right so that I can provide a palatable price on my product to the end consumer. It's not that I see anyone as less human. It's that I want the consumer to buy my product instead of the one from the guy down the street (cause I want to feed my family too).
Perhaps your point is that at some point I've fed my family and I can afford to buy the more expensive lumber from the US with worker protections in place without any financial risk to myself, but a little less extra. And I hate to admit that I'm sitting here thinking about this as a completely new and foreign concept. I have to admit that I've never gone to work to "get some money." But to advance myself and to be better and to prove myself. Money has always been the byproduct of the desire to advance. Larry Flynt once said that capitalism is a game and money is just how the score is kept.
Now I need to chew on this a bit. I do enjoy the discussions though friend.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 8, 2008 - 6:14pmMaybe in Ohio, but not in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqPGN1eJC6Q
Just for you Huff.
- Email this page
By Kill-WhiteyOctober 7, 2008 - 12:03pmWhite Privilege is...
Hopping on stage with a preacher who just got done an anti-semitic rant so that the witch slayer can bless you, on video, with his touch in order to help you get elected... and palling around with anti-American extremist separatist group members who have professed their hatred for America and renounced their allegiance... and not having any of it mentioned for even the briefest of moments by Traditional Media outlets that, to the contrary, ran on a constant loop snippits of a preacher in a church attended by the African-American candidate in the race.
Add it to the never-ending list...
____________________
John McCain's Economic History: http://keatingeconomics.com/
- Email this page
By SJerseyIndyOctober 7, 2008 - 2:54pmTypical democratic game plan:
Racial politics.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 7, 2008 - 6:44pmTypical Dittohead white racist response:
Allegations of racism are always dismissed as racist.
- Email this page
By alienuslxOctober 7, 2008 - 8:01pmI have been fighting racism on this site for a long time.
I suggest you look at posts from pookie liberaliconclas, newjerseyindy, hufflarry,othello, and a few others, if you don't think racism runs amok on this site.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 7, 2008 - 9:06pmNobody takes your
Nobody takes your allegations seriously. They mock you because they don't believe you are black, and think you took on a black persona to protect yourself from allegations of racism because of previous racist comments. They also think that you are Liberal Holocaust, the ultra-racist right-wing troll. So all you do is make yourself look like a hypocrite.
- Email this page
By MichtouOctober 7, 2008 - 9:27pmThey are not allegations, they are fact.
And I really could give a good flying fuck what you or anyone else believes my racial heritage is. I have never claimed to be anyone but who I am. My racial heritage seems to be only relevant to you racists.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 8, 2008 - 9:45amFuck you
Come talk your smack to my face, coward.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastOctober 8, 2008 - 11:24amAnd again, you keep saying I have made racists comments,
which I have denied doing. I really don't know what the hell you are talking about, and I suspect you are just fabricating this position to alleviate your guilt for not standing up to the racists posting on this site. Just because they hold the same political positions you do, does not make them less racists or you less an enabler by your silence.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 8, 2008 - 10:18amPlease let me know,
If you ever had a cross burned in your front yard, or ever has an racial epitath ever said to you personally? Well I have even though it was when I was younger, and really couldn`t defend against it at the time. I learned how to, and it has served me well. The people that you say are racist are not, or never said anything racist to me. Seeing how I am Native American from the Pawnee nation.
FREE LEONARD PELTIER
www.aimovement.org
www.layoffinhofe.com
www.autismrocks.org
www.andewriceforoklahoma.com
- Email this page
By rlm_dcbOctober 8, 2008 - 10:31amI have had racial epitath's hurled at me on a daily basis,
on this site. And those who have dared hurl racists statements to my face, had cause to regret doing so, minutes later. What makes you say pookie, liberalass, etc aren't racists? Your a member of the pawnee nation? Then how can you support the democrats? Up to and including Clinton, they have an abysmal record in dealing with the NATIONS. And I am not saying the republicans are any better, in this regard, what I do say is the democrats are no saints. Look at Clintons record in New Mexico, as a recent example of how they treat ORIGINAL PEOPLES.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 8, 2008 - 3:06pmOk you are telling me,
That this physical year that it was Clinton`s and the democrat`s fault for the large cut in funds for the tribes. Infact in the past eight years the funds for the tribes have been cut by republicans and not democrats. When it is your party that is the one that craps on every person of color. Now do you want an example. My vote is 1000% times more likely to be "spoiled" and if you are african american then it goes down to 350% and the same for latinos and latinas. Now who changles people of color at the voting both? Well it is not democrats it is republicans.
FREE LEONARD PELTIER
www.aimovement.org
www.layoffinhofe.com
www.autismrocks.org
www.andrewriceforoklahoma.com
- Email this page
By rlm_dcbOctober 8, 2008 - 3:24pmSo, you claim memory loss?
Historically, it has been the democratic party who has systematically keep people of color in economic slavery . I guess you see yourself and your tribe as being unable to sustain itself, and must rely on the generosity of others. I guess the Pawnee nation is a nation of no women.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 8, 2008 - 4:40pmEconomic slavery
is about a lack of good paying jobs, not welfare. The Dems have ALWAYS had a better record of encouraging job growth.
- Email this page
By gt6October 8, 2008 - 4:45pmeconomic slavery
is built in to capitalist theory. scarcity is manufactured to raise prices, create monopolies and cause poverty. poverty is desirable in the capitalist system in order to depress wages.
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 8, 2008 - 5:15pmNope, your wrong. It is built into slavery, and jim crow laws,
both democratic party endeavors. Enforced by the KKK. When Slavery and Jim Crow ended, the democrats switched to welfare to keep people of color dependent on them.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 8, 2008 - 8:26pmDo you have ONE WORD of proof for your bullshit?
Didn't think so. Go play on the 580, cockmaster.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastOctober 8, 2008 - 8:31pmHey liberallunatic: Just do a search: Democratic and the KKK
www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_
nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.
lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/.../an_open_letter_to_the_democrat.html
www.conservapedia.com/Ku_Klux_Klan
www.lindasog.com/archives/2008/03/dear_democrats.html
pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-is-the-black-vote-in-the-democratic-pocket - 114k
www.liveleak.com/view?i=011_1206567568
progressiveu.org/000439-the-democratic-party-the-kkk-two-peas-in-a-pod
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295
Here's my proof. You refute it. Oh, that's right, your a neo-com school brainwasher. You only use revisionists history, to propagate the brainwashing of young minds to your warped and twisted ideology.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 9, 2008 - 10:30amYou get nothing from me, Momotaro,
Except: Get the fuck off this blog until you learn the difference between spam and discussion. I'm going to indoctrinate a few more innocent young souls this week...bet you wish you could stop me!
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastOctober 9, 2008 - 5:56pmmalthusian theory
is what you speak of, ignorant one. he recommended the end of poor laws, or welfare to crush the poor beneath their own vice. he also said that sanitation should be neglected and the contrary encouraged to bring about a plague upon the poor.
kkk, jim crow, democrats - the shit you got doesn't scrape the surface of what you support. these things are limited, little hiccups that have nothing to do with the big picture.
read what malthus said of the poor. read intently the "invisible hand" of smith. realize both these men sucked deeply on the cock of multi-nationals and globalizers. know these men and read their shit, then tell me that democrats are the greatest threat to the poor.
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 12, 2008 - 11:54pmYou don't know me, so don't try to tell me what I support.
I'll give you a hint. I do not support theories. I live in the real world, and as real person, living in the real world, I support myself and my family only. Wrap your theoretical head around that, commiecakes.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 13, 2008 - 2:11pm" I support myself and my family only"
aren't you a welfare fraud? you must be a spy if you're supporting your family by jerking off on aar all day every day.
- Email this page
By commiecakesOctober 13, 2008 - 3:12pmNo, I am not a welfare fraud, never been on welfare
You must have got that from that well known liar and resident lunatic, hufflarry. And according to some of you neo-coms, this is how I earn my living. Again, you know nothing about me, so you really shouldn't be so judgmental.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 13, 2008 - 6:16pmA big lie from Rush Douchbaugh and the rest
has now become the way someone views American history. This is where this idiot has gotten his education.
President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Because of this, the former Confederate leaders (who should have been shot) instead joined The Democratic Party, and for nearly a century, they and their descendants, The "Dixiecrats", as they were termed, ran The South. These are the reactionary bigots that you refer to, who, in Congress, usually got bipartisan with their natural associates, Big Business Republicans.
In the 1950's, after Republican leaders, including Nixon, launched the "Southern strategy", an effort to show Conservative Southern Democrats that The Republican Party was no longer "The Party of Lincoln", Dixiecrats started joining The Republican Party. Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and John Stennis all started their political careers as Democrats. When Texas Governor John Connolly was shot sitting next to Kennedy, he was a Democrat, but when he was Nixon's Secretary of The Treasury, he was a Republican.
This is the reason that Civil Rights legislation, for example, appears to be more divisive within The Democratic Party in the past that it actually was, if one is unaware or, in the case of conservative pundits, willfullly ignorant of the fact that Jim Crow Sons of The Confederacy were Democrats because joining the othher party was unconscionable.
- Email this page
By alienuslxOctober 9, 2008 - 4:52pmNone of which explains why the democratic party
embraced them for so long? And why they died out, after the democrats stopped supporting them.
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 13, 2008 - 2:12pmracial epitaph
here lies Hatemonger
he was a racist.
- Email this page
By gt6October 13, 2008 - 8:18amRIP
RIP--Racist Incognito Pretender
Here lies momofuku
AKA hatenomor, AKA Rashid Runoko, AKA naacprep, AKA LIberal Holocaust, AKA buzz killa, AKA killa buzz
He was a racist
But is no more
- Email this page
By MichtouOctober 13, 2008 - 8:37amdon't forget
wdfard, hatenomore1,...
- Email this page
By gt6October 13, 2008 - 8:40amAre those all the people you tried to get banned,
like the good little marxist you are?
Why do you hate people of color so much?
Why do you believe in censorship?
Why do you believe in hate speech?
Why are you intellectually lazy?
Why do you feel the need to denigrate those you disagree with?
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 13, 2008 - 2:27pmWhy do you accuse others
of everything that you do? One thing you did not mention is that you are a convicted welfare cheat who stole from children to support your drug habit.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 13, 2008 - 4:33pmLook up the word
Look up the word "epitaph."
We're having a laugh at your expense, yes, but we're not censoring you.
Hate people of color? I would hate 75% of my family if I did. I'm one of the few white people in it. And I love every single one of them.
Someone who doesn't know that you don't hurl "epitaphs" shouldn't criticize others for making a joke out of it.
- Email this page
By MichtouOctober 13, 2008 - 7:26pmSo, banning someone is not censoring them?
And if you don't hate people of color, why do you support the democrats/neo-com agenda of economic slavery?
- Email this page
By momofukuOctober 14, 2008 - 2:20pmWhy do 90% of black people
support the Dem agenda? Are you calling black people slaves, you dirty Uncle Tom? Christ, you are stupid, stupid, stupid! You walk right into it.
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000October 14, 2008 - 5:31pmBy gt6October 13, 2008 - 9:18am
LMAO!
Nice catch...
Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.