On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:04:02 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/5/11 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:54:40 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 9/5/11 8:39 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:54:06 -0400, X ` wrote:

On 9/4/11 6:13 PM, John H wrote:
What was racist about my post, Harry? Or, did it just **** you off? Truth hurts, don't it?


The only truth in your post was your admission of being a racist. And,
as I predicted, you're playing coy now.

You're a racist, Herring. Plain and simple.

I notice you deleted the truth, Harry.

**** you off? You keep shouting 'racist', but can find nothing in the post which fits the bill. Oh,
wait, I did say that voting for Obama because of his color was racist. I reckon the shoe must fit a
lot of you folks.

There are only two possibilities in regard to your racism:

1. You are so ignorant of what racism is, you don't realize that many of
your comments are pure, unadulterated racism.

2. You know very well what you are doing and saying in your racist
remarks, and you enjoy playing coy about them.

You claimed that "liberals" voted for Obama because of his skin color.
That is a racist statement and easy to refute. I am a liberal. I voted
for the Obama-Biden ticket because I believed (and believe) that it was
a far more competent pairing than the McCain/Ditz ticket, because the
Obama-Biden ticket's positions on most of the issues were close to my
positions, and because I thought the Republican Bush Administration dug
this country into a hole from which it may never emerge.

Obama's skin color didn't enter into my decision-making process. I don't
give a damn about skin color.

But you do. You bring it up a whole bunch.

You're a racist. You've been demonstrating your racism for years.

Actually, I did consider Obama's race when I voted for president last
time. I thought 1) I doubt he'll win, because there are so many
right-wing nuts and 2) If he does win, they will go after him with
every racist attack they can think of.


Oh, well, I thought about the right-wing nuts, too, but I voted for
Obama for the reasons I stated. Hillary was my preferred candidate
during the primary season because I thought she would be tougher on the
Republicans than Obama. The idea of a ditz like Palin a heartbeat away
from the Oval Office should have given everyone pause.

In some respects, I wish Hillary had gotten the nomination and the
presidency. She's got more balls (to put it impolitely) than Obama,
and she knows how the right wing work.

I actually have fairly low expectations for his speech this coming
Thursday. I know that he's actually done a lot for this country, e.g.,
some kind of health care in the right direction, DADT, no more
enforcement of the DOMA and calling for its repeal. I was shocked by
his abandonment of environmental issues when he approved the tar sands
pipeline and eviscerated the EPA's tougher smog standards, but it
comes down to who is the lesser of the two evils.

I don't think Romney or Huntsman are viable, because they're not
uber-right wing, which leaves the truly crazy like Bachmann and the
less sounding crazy Perry (NO NEW TEXANS!). But, Obama needs an
energized base to match the energized nut cases. He's not going to get
that by ****ing off the base.