Even having a sense of humor is racist ...

[dogtag]

Funny advert but some miserable specimen sees racism
in a white guy proposing to a white girl.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...all-field.html

It seems racism not beauty is now in the eye of the beholder.

[Vern Humphrey]

You know the rule -- in any discussion, the first person to hurl the charge of "racism" is the REAL racist.

[togor]

1903fan used to whip that charge out a lot, before being outed as a Russian troll.

[clintonhater]

Funny advert but some miserable specimen sees racism
in a white guy proposing to a white girl.

Where do see something as shocking as that? Not in the latest TV commercials, where miscegenation is being promoted as the new norm.

[Roadkingtrax]

Where do see something as shocking as that? Not in the latest TV commercials, where miscegenation is being promoted as the new norm.

Com'on, never dated a girl different than yourself?

[togor]

CH doesn't like the idea of racial mixing, because if that goes on long enough, then the line gets really fuzzy and it gets too damn hard to tell "us" from "them". That still leaves "we", but God Forbid it comes to that. I forget--what does the Constitution say about it?

[Allen]

Race used to mean white or black. Then it became white, black, red and yellow. Now it is multiple shades of white, black, red, yellow and probably a hundred shades of brown. The term racism is so overused no one pays it any mind and every culture has become a race rather than a nationality. Accusing someone of racism is usually a coward's or liberal's way out of a conversation that they are losing. The term means absolutely nothing to me and when someone mentions it I quit listening because I know what kind of person is doing the broadcasting.

[clintonhater]

CH doesn't like the idea of racial mixing, because if that goes on long enough, then the line gets really fuzzy and it gets too damn hard to tell "us" from "them". That still leaves "we", but God Forbid it comes to that. I forget--what does the Constitution say about it?

Have you also forgotten what "we" meant to the signers of the Constitution? (Hint: it sure as hell didn't include "them.")

[togor]

I have forgotten!! Please enlighten me!!

[togor]

I wanted to give you a fair chance to reply CH. A plain language reading of the Constitution says nothing about applying the laws by race. Consequently an indian originally from Pine Ridge or Mumbai, or a black man from Alabama or Nigeria, if they hold American citizenship, are as equal before the law as you or me. I don't know why you would have a problem with that but clearly you do. Personally, I don't, nor has anyone ever given me a good reason why I should.

[clintonhater]

I wanted to give you a fair chance to reply CH. A plain language reading of the Constitution says nothing about applying the laws by race.

The question is too profoundly ignorant to deserve an answer--race wasn't specified because it was utterly INCONCEIVABLE, beyond their wildest imaginations, that the white, European-founded, new nation they were making laws for would ever be invaded by the scum of the Turd World. "We" meant, obviously, unquestionably, people just like themselves. Indians weren't US citizens, but citizens of their own "nations." (Allowing them, now, to claim US citizenship while remaining members of a supposedly sovereign tribe makes a mockery of the meaning of citizenship.) And do you really think slaves were included in their use of "we"?

[Roadkingtrax]

CH, enjoy a little history from Ms. Freeman. A compelling argument for the meaning of words as applied by law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Freeman

[togor]

So CH, the plan is to try to get back to the racial attitudes of the late 18th century? Is that what MAGA means to you? In any event, what we know is that racial attitudes at the end of the 18th century were simultaneously less developed, more fluid and more stark.

[clintonhater]

So CH, the plan is to try to get back to the racial attitudes of the late 18th century?

No, but your plan is to change the subject, which was what "we" meant to the members of the Constitutional Convention.

[togor]

The points are interrelated. A fair interpretation would be that "we" referred to the folks living there at the time. A relative measure, which you seem to want to lock in, as if a snapshot, for a demographic quota or similar for all time. Again, a literal reading of the Constitution shows it to be a remarkably liberal document. Thus when I hear folks of certain political stripes go on about how we need judges who will stand by the Constitution, I do find myself wondering if they ever read the thing.