BF2S Forums Here comes 4 years of accusations racial and cultural attacks

Ive got school.  be back later.

yeah its all the evil conservatives that are racists anyways.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

why do you care so much about race lowing?

I don't, not one bit.

I am interested in the social issues, the double standards, the hypocrisy and the absurdity that is spouted in the name of races.

Race wasn't mentioned at all in the comments his campaign gave to the New Yorker.  "Tasteless and offensive" doesn't equal cries of racism.

You only see what you want to believe.

Exactly what I pointed out earlier in this thread. The New Yorker cover merely reinforces the Obama/Osama connection that people like FOX have been trying to propagate for months now. It also tries to suggest that he is anti-American by having a flag burning in the fireplace. The complaints have nothing to do with race really, they are more to do with Obama being painted as an anti-American terrorist.

But yet again lowing's first reaction is to racialise the whole issue and anyone who pulls him up on this will themselves be accused of 'playing the racist card'. Nice little defence mechanism you've got going on there lowing.

Schittloaf wrote:

Look the Amazing race ...........ist   

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vWwh2-ESR6U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CsmrZ0HJcns
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLQbCmB7cGI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DdNjVezqIvM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2RoNemjcjGE

all in fun guys ..... seriously

That guy's a bit of a cheeky bastard! Reminds me of Ali G, does he have his own show?

A lot of that looks staged though I must say.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-16 15:11:56)

It's definitely staged... dude woulda gotten his ass kicked in that LA video. BTW, that waitress in the last video was hot

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Race wasn't mentioned at all in the comments his campaign gave to the New Yorker.  "Tasteless and offensive" doesn't equal cries of racism.

You only see what you want to believe.

Exactly what I pointed out earlier in this thread. The New Yorker cover merely reinforces the Obama/Osama connection that people like FOX have been trying to propagate for months now. It also tries to suggest that he is anti-American by having a flag burning in the fireplace. The complaints have nothing to do with race really, they are more to do with Obama being painted as an anti-American terrorist.

But yet again lowing's first reaction is to racialise the whole issue and anyone who pulls him up on this will themselves be accused of 'playing the racist card'. Nice little defence mechanism you've got going on there lowing.

To both of you,

                       In the OP I clearly said, "accusations, race and cultural"...............Typical responses from you however, is cherry picking RACE instead of addressing the whole thing to pose an argument......Braddock  I thought I corrected you on this already.

Well you should have just said "accusations and cultural" because race doesn't really have anything to do with that New Yorker cover.

1. How is it racist again?

2. lol lowing.... you are mad at the Obama camp for being mad about that magazine cover.  WOW.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

To both of you,

                       In the OP I clearly said, "accusations, race and cultural"...............Typical responses from you however, is cherry picking RACE instead of addressing the whole thing to pose an argument......Braddock  I thought I corrected you on this already.

Well you should have just said "accusations and cultural" because race doesn't really have anything to do with that New Yorker cover.

LOL, at least you no longer deny that you cherry pick a post and take out of it what you will for your argument instead oftaking the whole post in context....

By the way, I said race because RACE has been an issue in this election and it will be throughout his administration

Lowing, race has NOTHING to do with this argument. Why have you included it as a factor again? Hell, you even managed to get it in the thread title.

You complain that race is going to be a permanent feature of debate while Obama is around...well it probably will be, but only because people like you will drag up the topic at every opportunity and then reverse the race card on anyone who questions you over it.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

LOL, at least you no longer deny that you cherry pick a post and take out of it what you will for your argument instead oftaking the whole post in context....

By the way, I said race because RACE has been an issue in this election and it will be throughout his administration

Lowing, race has NOTHING to do with this argument. Why have you included it as a factor again? Hell, you even managed to get it in the thread title.

You complain that race is going to be a permanent feature of debate while Obama is around...well it probably will be, but only because people like you will drag up the topic at every opportunity and then reverse the race card on anyone who questions you over it.

OHhhhhh I see, race has NOT been an issue in this election UNTIL I meantioned it in this forum...........Damn, I gotta learn to stop influencing national opinion and elections with my posts.

Did I say that lowing?...No I didn't. What I said is that people like you continually bring up the issue of race in any point of discussion regarding Obama even when the issue of race is not relevant. Then whenever anyone questions you on the subject you play the whole "so I can't talk about race now or I'm a racist?" card.

And what have you done in this thread??? Brought up race again when it's not relevant.

If the New Yorker had portrayed Obama as a gangsta, gang-banger then your race card argument might have had a leg to stand on but they didn't, they portrayed him as America's most despised terrorist enemy, a man who happens to have a similar sounding name which several media outlets have tried to play on at every opportunity. Race has nothing to do with this particular controversy, at a stretch you could say maybe religion does because of the Obama Muslim 'smears', but not race.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Lowing, race has NOTHING to do with this argument. Why have you included it as a factor again? Hell, you even managed to get it in the thread title.

You complain that race is going to be a permanent feature of debate while Obama is around...well it probably will be, but only because people like you will drag up the topic at every opportunity and then reverse the race card on anyone who questions you over it.

OHhhhhh I see, race has NOT been an issue in this election UNTIL I meantioned it in this forum...........Damn, I gotta learn to stop influencing national opinion and elections with my posts.

Did I say that lowing?...No I didn't. What I said is that people like you continually bring up the issue of race in any point of discussion regarding Obama even when the issue of race is not relevant. Then whenever anyone questions you on the subject you play the whole "so I can't talk about race now or I'm a racist?" card.

And what have you done in this thread??? Brought up race again when it's not relevant.

If the New Yorker had portrayed Obama as a gangsta, gang-banger then your race card argument might have had a leg to stand on but they didn't, they portrayed him as America's most despised terrorist enemy, a man who happens to have a similar sounding name which several media outlets have tried to play on at every opportunity. Race has nothing to do with this particular controversy, at a stretch you could say maybe religion does because of the Obama Muslim 'smears', but not race.

I didn't say race was an issue with this thread, I said to take note that in the next 4 years race along with other shit, will be the issue with everything negative said about Obama.

You sure like ot jump whenever race is meantioned don'tcha