raydal

You obviously know nothing about history. Look at an election map from anytime before 1980. The South is solidly blue whereas the Northern and Western states are variably red. Even Wikipedia will tell you this. Before 1964, black voters were about evenly split with both parties. If you truly believe the party behind Abolition and Reconstruction simultaneously created the KKK, then you are horribly misguided. You might as well blame Lincoln for "taking jobs away from black people." You claim to be in favor of individual freedom and then bury black conservatives for not thinking monolithically, i.e. using race as an excuse for not succeeding, when they themselves have succeeded by rising beyond race. I'm not telling you so much "vote Republican" as I'm telling you people should have the right to vote for whomever and whatever they want regardless of what they look like and without fear of being ostracized and called racist slurs by you and other race-baiting liberals. Seriously, how is this form of Democrat harassment all that different from Democrat harassment a century ago? Intimidating voters to only vote a certain way is pretty much the same as intimidating them to not vote at all. Furthermore, how is "Uncle Tom" any different from "nigger?" They're both racist and demeaning. Look at what atheism has done to society: children don't respect their elders, degenerate behavior runs rampant and is constantly being promoted, people no longer think they have to be held accountable for their actions, and believers are ridiculed just for saying "Bless you." A 6'4 thief assaulting store owners and even cops is anything but "innocent." You may not want to believe it, but society has changed during your lifetime. Look how long ago the Amadou Diallo shooting was, and how long before that the Rodney King beating was. These events have become so rare since the days of Jim Crow that they do draw much attention when they do happen. Contrary to all the media spin, it's not like they're happening every day like black youths killing each other. Where's the outrage there? Is black on black not newsworthy? How about brown on black? Lord knows black on white never gets any coverage.

I'm not sure if you're really a racist idiot or just a troll. Look at what race-baiting liberalism has done to the black population. They have been voting mostly Democrat for decades yet they still have to deal with proportionately higher crime and poverty within their solidly-blue communities. These three folks you mentioned, along with Allen West and Clarence Thomas, are proof that you don't need government handouts and "race-quotas" (i.e. legalized racism) to make it in America. Instead of being mad, you should admire them. 100 years ago we had White Democrats attacking Black Republicans because they were black, but now we've got White Democrats attacking Black Republicans because they're Republican, or at least that's what these double-standard liberals claim anyway. If you want to complain about racism, go after these race-baiting hypocrites who dictate what party all people of color should vote for under the threat of being called an "Uncle Tom" or "traitor" or "acting white." They'll cry "racism" regarding criticism of Obama but then say the most horrid things about Carson, Cain, Rice, West, Thomas, and any other black conservative who isn't "down with the struggle." There is nothing "white" about being financially and socially responsible. Compare Asia's success to Africa's blight. I'm sure only white liberals think that way about Sharpton. He's nothing but an opportunist who shows up during times of turmoil to stir up tension and grab attention. Of course Sowell and other black conservatives like Armstrong Williams are going to be relatively obscure because they don't get the same media exposure, or positive spin, as liberals like Sharpton or Jackson, which is intentional because it would contradict the notion that all black people vote Democrat and all Republicans are white supremacists. It's ironic given that the GOP was the party of emancipation while the "Solid South" was reliably Democrat well into the 1970s. It's also worth pointing out that the Democrats' policies of banning religion and supporting gay marriage seem to contradict the views of many black voters who, like many whites, are devoutly spiritual and against homosexuality in general. I don't have much to say about Ann Coulter other than her views on the Iraq invasion don't sit well with me, and her swipe at John Edwards, while I don't care much for him, was disgusting. Still, it's interesting to hear her views on other issues, some of which I do agree with.

You really sound like a racist fool. Africa has been in African hands for decades, yet they've had to deal with one criminal regime after another. Those nations could be doing well, yet they stubbornly insist on denying Western values in governance and society, calling it "acting white." Look how well Asia has been doing "acting white." Their economies are rising as Europe declines under Socialist policies. You want to talk about Genocide? How about the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur? Where were the "evil whites" during those times? Do you think Western liberal media cares at all about the farm murders in South Africa? No, because the victims are white and according to race-baiting liberals "whites are evil and racist and deserve it because Apartheid." A mob destroyed an Ebola clinic in Liberia to "free" the patients yet you'll probably blame the white missionaries and doctors for that, too. The media has been obsessing over Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown yet there was never any mention of the deaths of Marley Lion or Jonathan Foster, or the vicious mob assault on Matthew Owens who was admittedly attacked because he was white ("justice for Trayvon"). Black on black violence runs rampant in Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, and everywhere else the Democrats have been in power for decades, yet the liberal media is Hell-bent on burying the accomplishments of the civil rights movement by making it sound like white on black racism and segregation still run rampant, as if Jim Crow is still in effect despite having people of color in business and in government, including the White House. Another thing: Latino is not a race. It is not "an oppressed minority profiled by 'racist whites.'" The biggest racists are the left-wing hypocrites who not only stubbornly bury the racial diversity of Latin America just so they can claim "Latinos are oppressed minorities," but flat-out ignore the millions of White Latins throughout the Americas and Europe. That's right: Italians, Frenchmen, and Romanians, those "evil white demons" you hate so much, are Latino, and those "light-skinned Hispanics" you say only "look white" are White. Are you going to start hating them, too? That's actually the point of illegal immigration: a permanent underclass who will loyally vote Democrat. The high corporate tax encourages businesses to look for cost-cutting measures, including unscrupulous and even illegal practices like hiring cheap alien labor, resulting in citizens either losing their jobs or having to settle for lower wages. They cannot makes ends meet, so they apply for welfare and food stamps, thus increasing the need for higher taxes. With these citizens on welfare, the smug open-border politicians then bury Americans as "lazy and spoiled" while "immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want." All the while, the liberal Democrats purposely leave out the illegal in illegal immigration so they can claim everyone who is against "immigration" is racist and xenophobic and that only they are capable of "compassion." They've alienated so many people with their high tax spending, political correctness, race-baiting, double-standard atheism, and overall pseudo-intellectual arrogance that they now need to import a new voter base under illegal alien amnesty so they can have their permanent underclass as reliable supporters. Black people are still the largest racial minority and are projected to be by mid-century. If you are referring to Hispanics, that is not a race and is not a minority of anything. Blacks, both mulattos and negros, are the majorities in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Equatorial Guinea. The only thing the successful people are trying to separate from is the race-baiting liberalism that holds people down by telling them that they can never succeed on their own, because America is so hopelessly racist and evil that they need the help of government intervention to get anywhere. Case in point, look at the blue states California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan, It's no coincidence that these left-wing strongholds have the worst ghettos. Crime, poverty, and taxes run high in these states, yet the politicians here continue to blame conservatives. Black voters have supported the Democrats for decades but have little to nothing to show for it. The irony in this is how that same party created the KKK and Jim Crow, yet that history has been buried while the GOP, the party of emancipation, is constantly labeled "racist." Before the "war on poverty," black voters were evenly split with both parties and most households had both parents. The welfare state and modern day feminism, the selfish idea that women don't mean husbands to raise children regardless of the children's needs, have made single-parent households more prevalent. Not when it comes to Latin Americans. Anytime a celebrity's or politician's life story is described, politically-correct descriptives like "established" or "well to do" are used if they're white while "racially-oppressed" or "Latino pride" are used if they're Amerindian, black, or mixed. Only white liberals think they're guilty of "white privilege" and that all black people allegedly think and act the same, hence why they expect them all to vote Democrat or else be slandered as an "Uncle Tom" or "traitor." The only plantation is the race-baiting-welfare plantation, which is also owned by the Democrats. I'm not sure if you're being facetious with that whole "white cops are shooting innocent black men 24/7" nonsense, but the idea of blacks looting and rioting and burning down their own communities and then blaming white people for the subsequent moving away of businesses and people is just pants-on-head retarded. The only thing keeping black folks down is the misplaced sense of entitlement and victimization. Mexican is a nationality, Troy. There are Black Mexicans and White Mexicans. The idea that all Mexicans are racially-distinct from blacks is itself racist, and exists on both sides of the border, unfortunately. If we want to discuss anti-black racism, let's look at La Raza. They are openly and unapologetically racist towards whites and blacks, yet they obsessively whine about being victims of "racism" and "profiling" as they slander the U.S. Jamiel Shaw's murder went largely unnoticed by the liberal media because his killer was an Amerindian mestizo and a gang member and an illegal alien. The only news anchor to ever mention it was Lou Dobbs, whom these same liberals viciously slandered as "racist." They only "care" when the story is allegedly white on black because they're nothing more than race-baiting liars who don't want blacks and other people of color to realize that it's not whites or conservatism holding them down but the cynicism, anger, and sense of entitlement and victimization being spun by the relentless left-wing propaganda. They don't want people to realize that they can succeed without government handouts and race-quotas because it would then become clear that such liberal policies are ruinous.

Another insulting habit brought on by politically-correct propaganda and media-sanctioned ignorance is the misuse of "Latino." Every time these politicians and open-border "activists" say it, they always mean Hispanic specifically, and even then White Hispanics are patronized as "light-skinned" if not outright ignored. "Latino" means Latin and includes Portuguese, French, Italian, and Romanian heritage in addition to Spanish, both in Latin America and Latin Europe and even the Latinized regions of Africa (Cote d'Ivoire, DRC, Angola, etc.). It does not mean "Hispanic only" and is certainly in no way indicative of race.

"Other" is most obviously Spain. The only other places are Equatorial Guinea or the Philippines. Even with more descendants than Puerto Rico or Cuba, it's disgusting how the U.S. Census seems to blatantly disregard Spanish ancestry by burying it under "other Hispanic or Latino." White: 72% Black: 13% Asian: 5% American Indian: 1% Two or more/Biracial: 3% Other: 6% http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf Latino is not a race and it never will be, no matter how mad or delusional you may get. All the race-baiting liberals and anti-white racists are constantly trumpeting how whites are going to be a minority as they obsessively deny the existence of White Hispanics by calling them "light-skinned" or "white-looking" or "biracial" or "acting white" or "self-hating" because these self-absorbed, patronizing liars and hypocrites are so Hell-bent on spreading their propaganda of Hispanic meaning "brown migrant race" just so they can have their open-borders, permanent underclass/new voter base, and cheap alien labor. They don't care whose lives they have to disrupt and ruin as long as they get what they want under the pretense of "compassion." Now if that is how you believe as well, then yours is the idiotic statement. The liberal race-baiters and their low-information lackeys have been obsessively promoting "Hispanic" as though it was a race for the sake of affirmative action, illegal immigration, and other divisive, politically-motivated policies. That's been their strategy for years: repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it. This lie is based on a 40-year old stereotype that would have ceased to exist along with most other ethnic stereotypes had it not been for "affirmative action" and multiculturalism preserving it under the guise of "diversity." During the civil rights era, the Chicano movement was in essence an Amerindian movement, but all the political opportunists saw was "Spanish-speaking brown people" and decided that "everything Spanish is nonwhite" should officially be government policy. "Hispanic" never should have been manifested into anything beyond Hispanophone ancestry. Creating a "minority" demographic based on the Spanish language, a language native to Europe and therefore white people, just for the sake of ethnocentric pandering should be as stupid and pointless as creating a "minority" based on the French or Portuguese language. Claiming it to be an "ethnic minority" implies there's an "ethnic majority," which there currently isn't. With all the different ethnic backgrounds, "Anglo" is a plurality at best. Even if the white population does eventually become a minority, it will have nothing to do with "Hispanics." Unless Hispanic in this instance is being used for Spanish ancestry, I also doubt that 90%. Any sizable majority seems difficult to believe considering how rampantly it is portrayed in the mainstream media as a racially nonwhite entity. I honestly find that 2050 projection difficult to believe in its entirety because it's based on current immigration patterns and does not factor in changes like mass deportations, accelerated migrations, or changes in migrant origins. We could very well see a sharp decline in Latin American migration along with a sudden rise in migration from a different region of the world.