Stupid Racist Republicans Don’t Get It

What really pisses me off about Republicans is that they are incapable of complex thought. That’s not entirely fair, some of them are capable of complex thought, they just prefer to avoid it.

For conservatives, every issue has been boiled down to some nugget of horse shit that they can then feed to the chattel that hang on their every word.

Take the George Zimmerman murder case.

The simple Republican version of the story goes like this …

“Zimmerman was protecting his neighborhood when this black kid decided to beat the crap of him one night for no reason. Wild-eyed black man hopped up on goofball. Fortunately Zimmerman had a gun and was able to kill the black kid.”

But even though the victim, Travyon Martin, was black, Zimmerman is hispanic, and therefore this is not a story about race in America, so says conservatives. How can it possibly be about race when the shooter is hispanic and the victim is black?

That’s the idiot’s version of what actually happened that night when this young man was murdered, and it completely misses the bigger picture issue.

You see black people in America are treated like shit a lot. They get pulled over more often while driving. They get looked at suspiciously for no reason other than the color of their skin. There are a lot of racists out there walking the streets, you probably work with a few.

So when a young black man is murdered on the street by a so-called neighborhood watch volunteer, they get it. They get it to the point where they can say to themselves, “Yeah, I can see that happening to me, or my son, or my daughter.”

In fact, the president did that very thing on television when Martin was murdered and when Zimmerman was acquitted.

But whether or not George Zimmerman is himself a racist is not only not known, it’s irrelevant. The greater issue isn’t whether or not Zimmerman is a racist, it’s that Florida has a law that allows an unarmed black man to be murdered on its streets, and for no one to be punished.

Under the old self-defense law, Zimmerman would have been convicted. He was in a truck. He was following Martin. Martin was on foot and unarmed. If Martin had had a gun and shot Zimmerman, he would have had a strong case to make under an old school self-defense law. Martin was the person being hunted down and eventually murdered.

These so-called stand your ground laws have got to go. Any law that makes it easier for people to kill other people is a bad law. And everyone knows who is going to end being killed more often than not, it’s people of color.

That is why this Martin murder case is absolutely about race, but that’s also why conservatives are dismissive of it. They don’t want to delve into the details of this case. They know what we’ll find if we do. We’ll find a bad law, pushed by a bad organization (NRA), supported by the Republican Party.

Remember, when President George W. Bush said that he didn’t do nuance, he was right because it’s in the nuances that you find the Truth. It’s better to keep people in line if you just give them the broad strokes and don’t ask them to think too deeply.



First off, I’m White and I vote Republican most of the time but don’t always agree with Republicans. Anyone that agrees with only one group all the time (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.), is hurting themselves too.

I don’t think it was “fortunate” that Trayvon Martin was killed. When anyone is killed, I find nothing favorable about the situation. Whether or not Martin was the attacker or defender, it’s a tragedy the same. There’s nothing “fortunate” for Zimmerman being acquitted, he’ll still have to live with the fact that another human being died and he pulled the trigger. It’s a tragedy for him as well.

I’m not saying there’s a direct correlation but when someone is accidentally shot (hunting, child finding a gun and shooting a parent..we’ve all heard the stories), that person will live with that for the rest of their lives. Unless there’s pure evil in their heart and malice on their end to commit the crime, the tragedy is theirs as well.

When you say: “There are a lot of racists out there walking the streets, you probably work with a few”, are you referring to black, white, Hispanic, Asian…or are you referring to anyone that believes that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others?

Racism exists in every race, the real threat is allowing that racism to win.

The stand your ground law you’re referring to is designed to help people defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. If the law didn’t exist, would that reduce the amount of blacks that die?

When you look at the demographics of urban areas, you find that the crime rate is higher and the percentage of blacks who live in the area is higher. Why? The crime rate is higher because there are more people in urban areas (~82% of the American Population) in a confined area and when you have more people in a confined area, you are more likely to have crime.

Why are more blacks committing crimes?

They actually don’t but blacks comprise 12% of the overall population and commit almost 50% of the violent crimes which includes any behavior that intentionally threatens, attempts, or actually inflicts physical harm.

People who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. It makes it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can’t be there fast enough. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most.

I’ve heard the argument that police don’t get there fast enough because of their own racism but I believe that’s an excuse that just doesn’t hold water.

In New York, the average time for police to arrive at a crime scene is 8.4 minutes. Atlanta – 11 minutes. Kansas City and Oklahoma City – 9 minutes.

In America, we have one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds.

Would these numbers decrease if we take away the ability to defend ourselves? I can’t think of any scenario where this would be the case.

Would the numbers increase? Currently, approximately 56% of violent offenders in prison are repeat offenders. If the ability to defend yourself were removed, that number would ‘more than likely’ increase but we can’t say this for sure because repeat offenders are generally psychopaths that don’t see anything wrong with their behavior. You may see a few that are not classified as psychopaths that would attempt the same crime again.

And how exactly is the NRA a bad organization? Their purpose is to defend your 2nd Amendment rights and to provide firearms education. How can an organization be bad if its sole purpose is to defend your rights and educate?

You can argue that they’re all about money but what organization isn’t? If it weren’t for contributions, the NRA wouldn’t exist.

Finally, when you say “it’s in the nuances that you find the Truth. It’s better to keep people in line if you just give them the broad strokes and don’t ask them to think too deeply.” I agree. It’s in the nuances that you find the truth and that’s exactly why I started my web site CleverVoter. I believe everyone should think more “deeply” about everything and not rely on subjective reasoning fueled by the media. Research on your own, find the facts and then base your opinion on objective reasoning.

I believe your post is based on subjective reasoning based on your own ‘feelings’ about the subject.

Der Wood

If you don’t think there’s any area to criticize when it comes to the NRA, your entire comment is suspicious. No political organization is beyond reproach. I highly respect the ACLU, but I can be critical of some of their work too.

And the rant about blacks committing most of the violent crime just smacks of racism. Sorry, dude, but you sound like well-educated racist. The issues of crime are far more complex than the color of one’s skin.

And yes, this article is based solely on my opinions.


First off, my “rant” about blacks committing 50% of violent crimes was one sentence. The rest of the “rant” was statistical data based on all crime, not just those committed by one race.

You’ll notice I said “People”, not blacks when I said that “People who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws.”

I will however retract that one sentence because I used statistical data from various cities to come up with the 50% (New York, Altanta, New Orleans, Minneapolis and LA) because I was trying to find data.

Looking at the FBI data, the percentage for all of the US (not limiting to any city or region) is closer to 37%. I was focusing more on metro areas when I made the comment.

I focused more on urban areas where the population is higher for minorities. Why? I honestly can’t say but can offer an opinion. Historically there has been more racism in the south and mostly in rural areas. This forced minorities out of these areas to protect their families. Those that live in rural areas of the south are still subject to racism but I’m hoping the percentage of racists is decreasing.

And as far as the problem with crime and race, I’m not saying that crime is a racial thing, but I do believe location is a major factor.

When I said that blacks have more to lose based on the loss of the stand your ground laws, I was referring to my own opinion when looking at the facts on demographic data and violent crimes in the larger cities.

Secondly, I’m not a racist. Racism is defined as:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I don’t think that there are inherent differences among the human races other than the amount of melanin in someone’s skin, and this alone doesn’t change the content of someone’s character.

I do not believe my race is superior.

I do not discriminate and I don’t think people should be treated differently based on the color of their skin.

I have not hatred or intolerance for another race, as a matter of fact, I believe that hatred is a wasted emotion and I have no room for that in my life.

I’m Christian and believe that, based on where Jesus was from, he was a person of color, and I still love him. Should that matter where he was born, what color he is or what language he spoke? Not to me.

As far as the NRA, I believe every organization can be criticized. I’m not a member of the NRA and I don’t support people owning bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades or automatic weapons. The NRA thinks that all guns should be allowed but that’s where I draw the line. To say that the NRA is a bad organization though is more than I’m willing to go.

I support the ACLU as well because their sole purpose is to defend our rights. The part I don’t like about the ACLU is (from their own site): The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.

Why not defend everyone’s rights?

I do agree with their next statement: If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled… but again I think they should defend our rights based on the Constitution and should not be limiting to select groups.

I won’t get into all of my own personal situation too much but I will say I’m a single father of two. I’ve raised them both and sent one to college. The other is still in high school. Years ago while I was struggling to make it, I tried to get help and was told that if I were a woman or didn’t work or had a disability, I would be able to get help. If I was a woman? Why? Because there are different laws for men and women.

I think the ACLU should say: If the rights of ANYONE are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled.

I agree with parts of the ACLU but not all, but I don’t call them a bad organization. They have the right idea but need to expand to protect everyone.

My issue with your statement was the blanket statement that they NRA is a bad organization. Every organization is not beyond reproach.

Finally, I will say that I’ve read through your site and your post on Walker in Wisconsin is pretty much right on.

I don’t agree with abortion but don’t think they should force anyone to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. I think it is the woman’s decision and it’s not our responsibility to force a medical procedure on someone just to change their mind. I may not agree with their decision but it’s not my decision to make.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *