Sarah Palin commented on the New York Times story I discussed yesterday, and here’s what she said:
“Turns out one of Barack’s earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times, and they are hardly ever wrong, was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. Wow. These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes.”
Yes, but Palin’s discussion of the Obama Ayers connection is considered a form of racism.
Forgive me for not understanding, but am I allowed to ask why it’s racist for Palin to comment on a story she read in the New York Times about Obama’s connections with an unrepentant white terrorist?
I mean how if she’s guilty, what does that suggest about the Times?
Comments
5 responses to “The definition of “racism” changes to fit the Times”
She clearly objects to Ayers for being white. That’s the point, right???
P.
All criticism of Obama is now defined as racism. Seriously.
Isn’t going to be wonderful to live in an America where criticizing the President will be prosecuted as a Hate Crime?
People have forgotten what racism is. All they remember is that accusations of it are “powerful”.
It’s RASCIST to ask that question!
Don’t care. Don’t give a damn. I want people judged on the content of their character and O’s sucks. I’d say the same if he were purple with pokadots, if he were a woman, if he were gay — or turned on by martians – if he were disabled (other than morally.)
Evil is evil no matter how protected and plated. And yes, I used the word EVIL. Look at the man’s actions. He’s used charities and things that were supposed to help others to advance himself. And he’s not repentant. It’s always someone else’s fault. EVIL.