Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (276128)	9/15/2010 5:56:31 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Didn't you hear? This last election moved us beyond race.

To: yard_man who wrote (276128)	9/15/2010 6:00:58 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Actually, to accuse someone of being a racist if they criticize him for any reason would be "playing the race card." The reasoning, such as it is, goes something like this: Tea partiers oppose President Barack Obama's policies. Mr. Obama is (half) black. Therefore, tea partiers oppose Mr. Obama's policies because he is black. This argument is so puerile people with an IQ above room temperature have difficulty believing those who make it are serious. But there are liberals who cannot imagine any reason other than racial animosity for opposing President Obama's policies. MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews asked Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., Wednesday why Republicans in his state would nominate an Indian-American, Nikki Haley, for governor, and a black, Tim Scott, for Congress, even though "they've got a problem with a black president?" It seems not to have occurred to Mr. Matthews that the "problems" South Carolina Republicans have with Mr. Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. post-gazette.com