Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Holder's position strongly suggests that NO MINORITY should ever occupy or seek the office of POTUS. If we cannot evaluate the POLICY and CHARACTER of a president without accusations of "racism" as a reflex attack for contrary views, should a minority president EVER occupy the White House again?
Let us judge presidents not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. When that character deviates from the sentiments of most US citizens and the law, as described by the Constitution, the nation can, and should, be allowed and encouraged to express opposition and dissenting views. If simple opposition views to the policy of a POTUS are reflexively described as "racist", then perhaps the nation, and minorities in particular, are not ready for a minority president.
WAKE UP LIBS- Race does not matter and should not be used as a refuge for incompetent leaders, nor a rationale to dismiss effective leaders. Obama is clearly incompetent and inept and is hiding under the guise of trumped up and disingenuous "racism" to rationalize his incompetence, failed policy, and ineptitude.
"There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus."
Gotta be stirring the pot, don't ya, Eric? Never let a good crisis go by without playing the race card.
Is that you Rufus? Or are you ripping off other's internet comments as well? Did you actually read his words? Of course not. "There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus."
Oh, come on! We could say that about every issue then. They use "for some people" as an out so they can just accuse people of anything they want and they can't be called liars.
Yeah, that's why he said "for some people" but cons like the OP are incapable of reading the actual words. Once race is mention, they automatically assume themselves personally are being called racist. It makes you wonder what they do in their personal lives when they instantly lash out when anybody mentions race about anything with "No, we're not, you are."
How about Holder adding another obvious statement --- 'some' political support and absence of criticism is because Obama is black.
Or let him name the members of Congress, writers, etc. whose opposition is race-based. Boehner, Ted Cruz, Malkin, Koch brothers, Limbaugh, Ben Carson, Palin, McConnell ? Honest discussion about race, Holder, name names.
So all you have to do is add the word "some" and then you can make whatever asinine and moronic comment you like? I don't think so. Eric Holder is in a position of authority. You don't get to make any flat out stupid and insulting remark you like and then make it all okay because you didn't make an absolute statement. That's a completely lame attempt at defending what he said. Try harder.
Lawyers slice, dice and parse their words to create calculated sentences. Each word is open to interpretation when it comes frm any lawyer, especially the one who heads the DOJ and whose word splitting has been the basis of a contempt charge.
Your not talking about a Sarah Palin who is not a lawyer and whose single words are the source of endless criticism.
Your not talking about some guy stopped for an interview on the street. Your talking to the lawyer who heads the DOJ and an administration that has redefined words without mentioning it to intentionally mislead and misdirect. How is that work place violence issue at Ft Hood being resolved?
Words like rich, wealthy, poor, children and now 'some' are the precise tools used by the ruling class of lawyers and social justice advocates who speak a language of exclusivity.
The threshold for racisim has been determined to be ZERO. In theory that is fine, however, in use it equates anyone who utters a banned word to cross burning extremists. No distinction is made. This does a disservice to the the original pioneers of racial equality and spits in their face as racism becomes weaponized.
Saying the words telangectasia, dorsal surface and salpingectomy does not a doctor make.
I think Holder is the actual racist and is just projecting again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
