Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Sure Jim, John made some points and said that the fortune article "invalidates all of that". Your reply to that statement was "unless your a racist". That implies everyone who believes the article has merit is a racist - see, you can't help it with your hate.
|
That's what I thought you were referring to, just wanted to clarify.
Paul, have you ever in your life heard of "sarcasm"? I was not saying that everyone who believes in teh article is a racist. I was poking fun at the fact (irrefutable fact) that many influential liberals are saying those opposed to Holder (and Obama) are racist.
In other words, I was telling Johnny that he must be a racist if he discounted the pro-Holder article.
Paul, one ideological side has an annoying habit of playing the race card when things don't go their way. That would be the liberal side. Your side.
Paul, I often use sarcasm and hyperbole to make my points. Because you didn't realize that, let me clarify...I was most certainly not calling anyone a racist. I was pointing out how absurd it is to label those who disagree with you as "racists". You seem to agree it's absurd to call those who disagree with you a racist. And it's what liberals do all the time. It's exactly what you do with tea partiers.
Paul, you said it was hateful for me to assume those who disagree with me are racists. That's NOT what I was doing, but I agree that would be hate-mongering. Yet that's precisely what you do, when you call tea partiers racists. So why am I hate mongering if I inaccurately call someone a racist, but it's OK for you to do it? Please enlighten me as to why you, and only you, have been bestowed with this right?