GOP: Party of overt, shameless racism.

[self biased]

Looks like this cost him his job.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...822.html?hp=l2

ah, i love the smell of damage control in the morning.

[Sava]

How can they lose if they rig the elections?

It's the sad, desperate act of a dying party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

During the Daily Show interview, Yelton rejected claims that he is racist.

“I’ve been called a bigot before,” Yelton said. “[And] as a matter of fact, one of my best friends is black.”

[Ben Kenobi]

He sounds like Fun. "I was only kidding".

Fun, telling a joke?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll be honest: i have a difficult time fathoming people who don't have photo identification.

also, we really need to check our collective voting privilege. look at all the hooplah other, less enfranchised nations have to go through: inking of hands? i don't even.

I have worked with and known some. If you have money for booze - you have money to get your ID.

[-Jrabbit]

Still, Yelton stood by his comments on Thursday.

“The comments that were made, that I said, I stand behind them. I believe them,” he told Mountain Xpress, a local alternative paper.

I can respect that measure of consistency and, after a fashion, integrity.

[Sava]

Me too. I love openly racist people. It makes it so much easier to reject them as people.

[Wiglaf]

If it hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything, so be it

lol nothing racist about the difference in how he referred to white people and black people.

Would you say this Gawker tag is racist?

http://gawker.com/tag/rich-white-people

They literally write so many articles stereotyping whites that they have a page for it.

[Wiglaf]

Also, it is stunning that you interpret this guy's "lazy black" line so wildly out of context. He was actually explicitly making a racially neutral observation: The law hurts only lazy people -- and all he said is that that holds true, regardless of whether they are lazy whites/Democrats or lazy blacks. It's not a racially motivated thing. He made that clear (And the reporter himself realizes this, by pointing out that the guy is admitting only the law has a partisan, as opposed to racial, function). But idiots like you hear the two words "lazy blacks," promptly take it all out of context, and go whining online about how victimized blacks are. Worse, you have so twisted an innocent man's words that you have helped destroy his reputation.

I am glad preening liberals get most of the HIV because honestly you all deserve to get it.

[Sava]

preening liberals

Is there any other kind?

[Wiglaf]

Obviously the lazy black ones don't preen, and keep all their gay sex on the down low.

[giblets]

Would you say this Gawker tag is racist?

http://gawker.com/tag/rich-white-people

They literally write so many articles stereotyping whites that they have a page for it.

No and whoever wrote that tag is at no risk of losing their job over it. The articles themselves appear to have nothing to do with stereotyping white people.

Also, it is stunning that you interpret this guy's "lazy black" line so wildly out of context. He was actually explicitly making a racially neutral observation: The law hurts only lazy people -- and all he said is that that holds true, regardless of whether they are lazy whites/Democrats or lazy blacks. It's not a racially motivated thing. He made that clear (And the reporter himself realizes this, by pointing out that the guy is admitting only the law has a partisan, as opposed to racial, function). But idiots like you hear the two words "lazy blacks," promptly take it all out of context, and go whining online about how victimized blacks are. Worse, you have so twisted an innocent man's words that you have helped destroy his reputation.

I am glad preening liberals get most of the HIV because honestly you all deserve to get it.

I didn't take it out of context. It's the context that makes it racist. If he had said "if it hurts lazy whites, so be it. If it hurts lazy blacks, so be it" there wouldn't have been anything racist about what he said. Nice try trying to circle your wagon around your fellow racist. Also I DO NOT HAVE HIV.

[Wiglaf]

No and whoever wrote that tag is at no risk of losing their job over it. The articles themselves appear to have nothing to do with stereotyping white people.

How about this one:

http://deadspin.com/mark-cuban-stars-in-the-official-photograph-of-rich-whi-1449649074

It's a photo with a headline that explicitly mentions the race of its subjects with the intent of arousing anger. What part about that is different from the photos on my blog of "Lazy black people"?

[Sava]

Gawker and it's other sites (deadspin, kotaku, gizmodo, etc) are gossip news sites. They are pure click-bait.

[Wiglaf]

he had said "if it hurts lazy whites, so be it. If it hurts lazy blacks, so be it" there wouldn't have been anything racist about what he said. Nice try trying to circle your wagon around your fellow racist. Also I DO NOT HAVE HIV.

"The law is not racist. If it hurts a bunch of college kids that's too lazy to get a photo ID, so be it. If it hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks, so be it." The obvious point being that, unlike you, he is not a racist and doesn't take race into account when determining whether a lazy person should be punished by the law.