Racist signs are going up in a Denver neighborhood, and the commenters are fine with that

The Denver Post is reporting on a series of racist signs being posted in a Denver neighborhood. The signs read: “Get rid of the poor Hispanics. White power.”

But the real surprise was in the comments to the post, where most everyone is defending the signs.

Some of the commenters couldn’t figure out what was racist about the message:


A number of the commenters felt that this fell under “freedom of speech,” and was no difference than posting signs around the neighborhood with your political opinions:


Is it just free speech?

I’d argue that this border on, if not is, an attempt to push a minority group, or keep them, out of your neighborhood.  That could run into federal fair housing non-discrimination laws and rules.  For example, here’s a summary of one portion of the law:

It is illegal for anyone to:

  • Threaten, coerce, intimidate or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right
  • Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition against discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act.

Then again, in terms of the gravity of the situation, we let the Nazis march in Skokie all those many years ago, and is this really any different, really any worse, than Nazis down main street in a Jewish suburb of Chicago?

But maybe it depends on the message.  Could the Nazis march and spew their anti-semitic filth so long as they don’t also add, “Jews out of Skokie”?  Is that the kicker that crosses the line – wanting Jews to move, while claiming Jews are genetically inferior, or should all die, doesn’t cross the same line?

I’m not terribly sympathetic to the sign-makers’ freedom of speech here, but the commenters, perhaps unwittingly, raise an interesting question as to when speech crosses the line requiring government action.  Meaning, how far does speech have to go before the police can, and should, get involved?

And, while we tend to accept that someone is permitted to be a racist, and spew all the hate he wants, he can’t do it in a way that infringes on your rights.  And one of those rights is to be able to live where you want, buy a home or rent an apartment where you want.

Of course, some of the commenters thought perhaps this was a “false flag” operation.  False flags are a favorite notion of the conspiracy-minded crowd.  Basically, they’re fake conflicts started by someone (usually the government) with an ulterior motive. So in this case, the false flag might be the government wants to clamp down on whitey, or something, and is trying to provide a justification for that clampdown.



I’ve got a call into a house-lawyer friend to ask about the details of this, and see if this kind of rhetoric and actions get us into fair-housing territory.

I’ll leave you with this comment, which did make me chuckle:


NOTE FROM JOHN: Please share our content on social media, including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Google+, Pinterest and beyond. As I explained the other day, when you share our stories, you help bring us visitors, which increases our ad revenue and helps to keep this site alive. Thanks for your help. JOHN

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

78 Responses to “Racist signs are going up in a Denver neighborhood, and the commenters are fine with that”

  1. Pat Boyle says:

    Yeah whoever wrote this Artie could have just read the federal government’s definition of harassment, which is exactly the category this so called “freedom of speech,” falls under. One can literally be charged for saying f–k you, or even giving someone the finger. This is 100% illegal and, in my opinion, worse than certain felony charges. I’m white, and this is just another embarrassing event that makes us look like pompous assholes as an entire race…embarrassing.

  2. kieraeastedi321 says:

    Caroline . even though Robin `s stori is terrific, on
    thursday I got Chevrolet since getting a check for $8118 this – four weeks past
    and-a little over, $10k last munth . without a question it is the
    most-financialy rewarding Ive had . I began this seven months/ago and pretty
    much immediately earned more than $78 per hour . find out this here

  3. Moderator4 says:

    You, too, can cease hiding behind an alias. Nothing is preventing you from doing so.

  4. Matt Rogers says:

    I don’t think he does. I could be wrong, but I think he knows what the signs are saying, and is only trolling to stir up discord. He has to overlook too much to make the interpretation he’s suggesting.

  5. GJFlash says:

    I live in this neighborhood. It is in the process of gentrification. Which can be ugly.

    That said, the white people moving in are young, progressive, and very, very liberal. Not exactly the racist type. Here are a few more fun facts:

    1. White people don’t say “White Power” anymore. Not even racist white people.

    2. A hateful white person wouldn’t refer to the object of his hatred as “Hispanics”.
    “Hispanics” is the politically-correct term. A racist would call them “Mexicans” or “wetbacks” or something else derogatory.

    3. Bobby LeFebre is a local Latino activist and artist, and he is capitalizing on this incident.

    4. Bobby was at Sunny’s for breakfast just last weekend, talking about “conducting observational ethnographic research” in regards to the gentrification of the Highlands. Again, this was just last weekend. It’s on his Facebook page.

    5. Five days later, some supposed white racist obliges Bobby by posting signs that don’t sound like they were made by a white racist…And suddenly Bobby is all over the news, all weekend long, giving prepared speeches.

    Just saying.

  6. goulo says:

    Seriously? You REALLY think the sign was some well-intentioned slogan intended to be a call to HELP poor Hispanic people advance in society?

    Including the second sentence (“White power”)?

  7. denversucks says:

    The wording of the sign makes me believe it wasn’t a hate group sponsored thing at all but some bored jerk looking to stir up some controversy.

  8. denversucks says:

    It strikes me as a hoax. Bigots wouldn’t use the phrase “poor Hispanics”, IMO. Firstly, why would a bigot make the socio-economic distinction of “poor”? And the word “Hispanic” strikes me as a rather acceptable, virtually PC term for the peoples of Latin America. I’ll bet it’s connected with the Jew/N– letter from last month too. Most likely a bored teenager with a sick sense of humor. He/ she’s getting what they want which is publicity.

  9. Wanda Susie says:


    IMO, as a Hispanic, I am saddened by the sign, and see it as hateful and racist. But if posted on the racist’s property, it falls within free speech parameters, IMO.

    However, if posted on MY property, or painted on my garage door, that’s a hate crime.


  10. HarpoSnarx says:

    F r e e d u m b !!!

  11. cambridgemac says:

    Got it. I suppose it’s a possibility. But I would argue that the issue isn’t the verb. It’s the choice of a direct object.

  12. pappyvet says:

    Black Flag Op? LOL !

  13. sequitur says:

    I’m allowing for the possibility the originator of the posts might not be well educated or perhaps simply not concerned with grammatical precision. One point of my analysis is that reading an intent of violence into the use of the word “rid” is perhaps jumping to a false conclusion. In essence, the slogan identifies an END, not a MEANS. We can have an entirely different debate about what means are justified to achieve that end. But, in fact, no means were explicitly suggested by the slogan (only implicitly in reaction to the post).

  14. sequitur says:

    I can, and do, reject rhetoric which I find distasteful, insulting, immoral, etc. I can’t deny someone the right to express their opinion even if in my opinion it meets any of those criteria. Otherwise I start down the path of suppression, which can lead to oppression. IMHO it seems a number of posts here fall in the category of suppression. Unless I’ve made a misstep, I’ve not condoned what was posted but attempted more so to analyze it.

  15. sequitur says:

    You’re just full of insults, aren’t you? I was merely speculating on possibilities and you bring into question my intelligence and reading ability when neither invalidates CONJECTURE. You’re attitude is SHIT. You even admit a key point in your slander of my abilities: “Denver Goddess might be as terrible at using language…”. You’re assault on me assumes DG is NOT juxtaposing her own thinking against that of someone of a different race. If you have an obsessive need to know or deduce the demographics of the posters so that you can apply your biased labels, why don’t you provide all your pertinent personal facts so we can put your insults in context. Perhaps you need to stop hiding behind an alias and avatar and consider being more civil and judicious. Frankly the content and tone of your response inclines me to dismiss you entirely. You might be a great person behind that mask. I did not bother to read through the comment history of DG, which does not invalidate the general idea I was attempting to get across. My post does not rely upon knowing whether DG is posing as any given race and applies regardless.

    Still, you have not even addressed my main point which, despite the distraction is: a desire to maintain racial / ethnic heritage does not equate to nor necessitate racial / ethnic bigotry. The concepts can be divorced just as easily as they can be married. Both can represent barriers of varying degree and different nature to social behaviors.

  16. mirror says:

    Eliminationist rhetoric should never be accepted. It is fundamentally immoral. One should always be concerned about it and call it what it is in a straight forward forceful manner.

  17. RepubAnon says:

    The key difference is when you burn the cross on someone else’s lawn – it’s no longer speech at that point. If you stand in your own yard and say ‘give me your money”, it’s very different that if you say the same thing to a bank teller.

  18. Indigo says:

    wiederzurück, vieleich

  19. PeteWa says:

    boy are you dumb.
    like, really dumb.
    your reading comprehension is shit.

  20. BeccaM says:

    And the dogs and cats are Furries. ;-)

  21. cambridgemac says:

    nicht zurueck, sondern verrueckt

  22. cambridgemac says:

    Ok. Let’s try this: Do you understand the difference between “End Poverty” and “Get Rid of the Poor!” ? ? Hint: LBJ didn’t name his program War on Poor People. He named it War on Poverty. Ever wonder why?

  23. sequitur says:

    It’s sad to see that’s its still NOT clear to you. Slogans are like video sound bites. Short, often out of context, and intended to elicit an emotional response. And potentially over reaction. It’s a form of baiting which seems rather pervasive on the internet as well. I was not attempting to make any judgments on the merits of the slogan, which you somehow inferred from my analysis of it and your response. Set aside your bias and desire to condemn rather than accept or dismiss. You should not try to force the authors of the slogan to your way of thinking, even if you could. Persuade, perhaps. But not force. Or you become the flip side of the same coin. For my part, I dismiss the slogan.

  24. RepubAnon says:

    If it gets up to the Roberts Court, the line between “free speech” and “hate speech” will depend upon whether the feelings and/or interests of large corporations and/or billionaires were hurt.

    I’d say the signs themselves are indeed speech protected by the First Amendment – but trespassing on someone else’s property to put those signs up is not. You can put up such signs on your own lawn (unless your house is for sale), but not on someone else’s lawn – and certainly not on the lawn of an apartment complex. Hate speech is protected, but not hate-based crimes.

    I’d also beware of the incitement standard. The classic cases come from World War 1, where anyone protesting the war could be arrested because anti-war speeches might incite a listener to resist being drafted – and so were inciting violations of the draft laws. Imagine the life of an environmental activist in, say, West Virginia if anti-incitement laws are deemed valid despite the First Amendment – printing a flyer seeking to enact stricter environmental laws (or enforce existing laws) could lead to arrest and imprisonment because someone reading those flyers might be motivated to join Earth First!

    I again remind everyone – the Roberts Court would be making the call – and anti-incitement laws are typically used to stifle dissent rather than to protect unpopular views.

  25. TheAngryFag says:

    Why are we judging an entire society based on a handful of people in the comment section of a city newspaper? So a handful of presumably racist idiots are dancing around in support of some cowardly moron posting racist sign. Who cares? Take the signs down, call them an idiot, and move on to real problems.

    The worst part in all of this is that Outrage, Inc. (I *love* that term John) gets involved in this to “clean things up” and then pat itself on the back again because it has targeted another piece of overt racism and thinks its making a difference.

  26. TheAngryFag says:

    “Welcome to the Internet – Where Men are Men, Women are Men, and Children are FBI Agents”

  27. mirror says:

    Ok, well then, sorry to be so extreme. I apparently failed to note clearly that they merely wanted to eliminated the untermenschen rabble, not the well-healed hispanics. Glad you cleared that up. Makes it all so much better.

  28. sequitur says:

    rid: to clear or free of something objectionable; to relieve (i.e. to rid the mind of doubt); to deliver or rescue (archaic). Be certain your bias does not lead you to leap to extreme conclusions. there are other ways to be “rid” of poor Hispanics – employment and relocation are a couple. the war on poverty was intended to “rid” us of the poor altogether – but not through violence. another implicit point to be made here, I can infer the person posting the “offensive” statement is okay with Hispanics who are NOT poor. otherwise, why not just say: “get rid of Hispanics” or “get rid of all Hispanics”?

  29. The_Fixer says:

    Well, imtimidation can be verbal, physical, or both, I suppose.

    You’re right, it is complicated. Consider the concept of “fightin’ words” and how it can be used as justification for a physical confrontation. The line is pretty fuzzy. Perhaps the line is drawn when it is physical intimidation, or when speech is taken to a level where someone is likely to carry out an intimidating act based on that speech? A lot of right-wing commentators use “dog whistle” language, and sometimes even outright call for someone to take action that threatens someone’s safety. Apparently, that does not qualify because no action seems to ever be taken against those same right-wing commentators.

    You are also right when you say that the people doing this are assholes.

  30. sequitur says:

    based on your reasoning, it’s just as feasible that Denver Goddess is a black woman who wants to maintain black culture and “purity”. or it could be an Hispanic woman with the same bent. or perhaps a Chinese man who believes in racial purity but poses as a black woman online to really throw people off. the main point is, you are speculating and such a comment could come from the mouth of someone of any race. indeed, wanting to maintain your racial and cultural heritage does NOT mean such a person sees other races as inferior, etc. read what you WANT into what others post and you can always be RIGHT —- at least in your own mind.

  31. mirror says:

    Iniciting people to ethnic cleansing is just an ordinary day for you, huh?

  32. mirror says:

    “Get rid of poor hispanics” is a threat and incite to illegal action. Idiomatically, it suggests ethnic cleansing by forced removal. Anyone seeing that should be starting to ask where it is going to lead, including you, if you care at all about civil rights.

  33. MyrddinWilt says:

    Far more since it is inciting action that is arguably criminal. ‘Get rid of’ means kill or threaten to kill in my view. Thats not free speech, its a hate crime.

    Sterling is now claiming that what he was telling his GF was its ok for her to sleep with black men but don’t bring the guys she was sleeping with to the games. Which is kind of a different spin. Also it does seem kind of Alzheimer-ish so I wouldn’t condemn him on that alone. But the long history of racist actions like not renting to minorities, yep he’s been a pointy hat racist for decades.

  34. cole3244 says:

    the whites don’t want their affirmative action advantage taken away.

  35. Buford says:

    “Intimidation is verbal, not action. Assault is not action, it is a threat”.

    I have no idea what you are trying too say here (?). Intimidation, threats, and assault are legally-defined actions, and that is why they differ from speech, which is protected. Intimidation, threats, and assault all involve a victim… speech does not.

  36. lynchie says:

    I live in Western Pa. last election there was a sign up “vote the nxxxer out”. Some people were pissed but a whole lot of the old whiteys said freedom of speech until someone burnt the sign right on the lawn then they also wanted the person who did it to get hard time.

    There is no tolerance. As far as i am concerned this got out of control under GW remember his “bring it on” crap, my balls are bigger than yours and it is growing. The tea party, Clive Bundy, everywhere you turn someone is trying to bully some one else and as the whites become the minority be prepared because they will use stand your ground and start wacking people

  37. PeteWa says:

    figured it was someone famous – quite obvious it’s used as a distraction from her hateful comments.

  38. Dick_Woodcock says:

    I believe Denver Goddess’ icon/picture is Carmello Anthony, who played for the Denver Nuggets for a while.

  39. PeteWa says:

    it’s the internet, why do you believe that the person posting that it’s okay is really black?
    reading the comments of the person you’re talking to it’s very, very unlikely that’s even remotely close to what “Denver Goddess” looks like in real life… same way I’m not actually a cartoon cat.

    and, if that’s not enough, reading through her comment history, one alights on this gem:
    ‘audrey’ comments that she is embarrassed, as a white woman, to read an article by another white woman who is upset that she keeps seeing white men dating Asian women.
    Denver Goddess responds,
    Audrey, you’re brainwashed and liberal. There is nothing wrong with
    condemning people for engage in dating habits not conducive to the
    longevity of our race and culture.

    it’s pretty clear that Denver Goddess is a white racist, and damn proud of it to boot.

  40. Indigo says:

    Colorado, you say? Didn’t they recently adopt a higher-than-thou legalization whatever thingie? Abandon all reason, they’re stoned,

  41. Indigo says:

    Fair enough. Regardless, we’re on reruns in the socio-political realm. Make of that what suits your taste.

  42. TellMeImDreaming says:

    Actually I don’t….

  43. TellMeImDreaming says:

    Really? You’re focusing on the White Power part of the sign and conveniently ignore the “‘Get rid of poor hispanics”. It’s plainly illegal under the laws cited in the article.

  44. 4th Turning says:

    Problem solved!

    The report breaks out Colorado and the Southwest states, and predicts these impacts in the region:

    • “Future droughts [in the region] are projected to be substantially hotter, and for major river basins such as the Colorado River Basin, drought is projected to become more frequent, intense and longer lasting than in the historical record.”
    • “Streamflow totals in the Sacramento-San Joaquin, the Colorado [river basin], the Rio Grande, and in the Great Basin were 5 percent to 37 percent lower between 2001 and 2010 than the 20th century average flows. Projections of further reduction of late-winter and spring snowpack, and subsequent reductions in runoff and soil moisture pose, increased risks to the water supplies needed to maintain the Southwest’s cities, agriculture and ecosystems.”

  45. Hue-Man says:

    Does ABC have the “absolute right” to begin every show with the HD version of the Denver signs? How are these signs less offensive than broadcast curse-words? How do you determine when a message is “political” or meant to incite hate?

    Your government is certainly deciding what messages are acceptable not only through nanny-state TV/radio censorship but also through the NSA snooping of every telephone conversation, e-mail, web posting. If you don’t believe this to be true, try a Google search of any of a number of words to find out how free your speech is, including a possible visit from your friendly government authorities!

  46. rrgrqr says:

    It’s all steeped in the fear of whites not having superior status in the world.

  47. rrgrqr says:

    Why? Now you’re claiming that a sign saying “motherfucking conservatives” or “conservatives have small cocks” isn’t covered in “Constitution 101”?

    BTW, Jon Stewart isn’t on ABC. He’s on cable.

  48. rrgrqr says:

    Boy o boy. Conservatives sure don’t have any problem with making comments about the rappers, the hip-hoppers and poor people in urban areas. As soon as anyone else makes there thoughts known about their hate speech though, it’s all about “Constitution 101”.

  49. Tallaman says:

    Actually this is more racist than what Donald Sterling said. “Get rid of poor Hispanics. White Power” promotes one ethnicity over another regardless of individuals and impacts housing options for the race. “Stop hanging around with so many blacks, especially Magic Johnson” (Sterling) is simply exercising one’s ability to associate with whomever he/she chooses and only impacts friendly relationships. I find the first to be more racist and offensive.

  50. milli2 says:

    Of course government censorship is wrong, but that’s not the point of this article. The point of this article is that people aren’t exercising their OWN right to free speech by being outraged and telling these sign owners that they aren’t acceptable. My government can’t prevent me from calling someone the n-word, but the person I’m speaking to has every right to call me out on it and tell me that its wrong. THAT’S how free speech works. You can’t say what you want and expect to remain free of the consequences of your words.

  51. rrgrqr says:

    You’re saying that it’s perfectly acceptable for employers to discriminate. That’s a perfectly OK thing so long as you’re a white male under the age of 50.

  52. pogden297 says:

    Saying a curse word on TV or a wardrobe malfunction is not the same thing as conveying a political message, the latter of which enjoys maximum protection under the First Amendment. If ABC wants to run a political commercial to advocate a cause, even one that is offensive, ABC has an absolute right to do that.

  53. quax says:

    A country that also treats money contributions to politicians as “free speech” has been taken the concept way too far.

    I am glad I live in a country (Canada) that can curb hate speech when necessary.

  54. pogden297 says:

    What is frightening is the number of people on here who think the government should be able to regulate or even prohibit a person’s speech based on the content of that speech, in particular that speech that could be offensive or might incite an angry response can be banned or restricted. . That is not the way it works and it’s a great thing that it doesn’t. That would be a horrible slippery slope to go down, where government gets to decide what speech is acceptable. The sign “White Power” in someone’s yard is every bit as protected as one that advocates affirmative action. Because those signs convey a political message they are given maximum protection under the First Amendment and government cannot pick which political message is acceptable based on the content of that political message. Although this is Constitutional 101, it should be a principle taught in high school civics but it apparently is not.

  55. quax says:

    Wrong article, has to be “Der Zeitgeist ist zurück.”

  56. pogden297 says:

    Surely you know that’s not the same thing.

  57. BeccaM says:

    That’s odd, because when I watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert’s ‘Colbert Report’, there’s this high pitched beep that happens every time either of them says ‘motherf*cker’ or ‘c0ck’, as well as a bunch of other words that I don’t get to hear.

    I wonder why that is.

    Here’s a present for you.


  58. BeccaM says:

    There will never be any shortage of those who cheer the oppression of a minority other than their own.

  59. Max_1 says:

    I suppose a good old cross burning on a neighbor’s lawn might be seen as a fire danger instead of a threat to do bodily harm based on race to these commenters…

  60. Max_1 says:

    If a black man posts that it’s ok for someone to express their “WHITE POWER” …
    … I fear of a history repeating itself through sheer ignorance on the behalf of society that tolerates hate speech.

  61. pappyvet says:

    Well. Here we go.
    They have the right to say any jag off thing they want to and I have the right to ridicule the hell out of it.
    And yes there are and should be restrictions. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre for example.
    Daily comments are made on hate radio that are truly disgusting and inciting. But the comments continue. They are disgusting to those of us who are of a more sound mind and humane in our natures.
    They are inciting to those who WANT to be incited in the first place. Often put forth as opinion , or “what if” scenarios or even humor. “I was only joking.” But everyone gets the meaning. Then there are those of the hate group variety who really don’t give a damn what you think. As long as they stay within the envelope they can push it as far as they wish. Luckily we can push back.

  62. LanceThruster says:

    White Flour!



  63. Hue-Man says:

    Do Denver community standards now consider painting symbols on headstones as “free speech”? You know the symbols and the headstones…

  64. Hue-Man says:

    Do you not have access to the government-censored network TV and radio stations? Wardrobe malfunction?

  65. TheOriginalLiz says:

    America has become the nation of as**oles. Every day it seems we sink further into our mean little cesspools.

  66. Indigo says:

    Die Zeitgeist ist zuruck.

  67. caphillprof says:

    I wonder if the sign distinguishes between poor and nonpoor Hispanics? Or is poor just being used to describe all Hispanics?

  68. FuzzyRabbit says:

    I wonder what the Denverites’ comments would be if the signs instead said: “Get rid of white people. Minority power.”

    I’ll bet most “hurting people’s feelings is not illegal” advocates would all of a sudden want to prohibit the signs.

  69. pogden297 says:

    You certainly can’t use “fair housing regulations” to infringe on free speech rights. As obnoxious and reprehensible as the signs are, they are absolutely protected speech. The Free Speech clause that protects offensive and even racist speech also protects the speech of you and me and everyone else who lives in this country. Thank God we live in a country in which government doesn’t get to decide which messages are acceptable.

  70. Strepsi says:

    I think that “action” is too narrow. Intimidation is verbal, not action. Assault is not action, it is a threat. If a Hispanic family feels threatened from the neighborhood, there is a line that may have been crossed…. it is interesting, and complicated. And the people doing it are assholes.

  71. woodroad34 says:

    In Beverly Hills, there are whole neighborhoods of Persian or Indian/Pakistani families (they buy up the houses in the neighborhoods to give to their children). I can’t imagine them putting up signs that say “no white Europeans…Persian Power (Pakistani Power)” The outcry of racism and lawsuits would be great. “White Power” is as incendiary as “Black Power”. I would think that fomenting that kind of schism wouldn’t be in the best interests of the city or society. Those commenters don’t seem to realize that (in the words of Ben Parker/Stan Lee) with Freedom of Speech comes responsibility. Their free speech stops at another person’s nose. They don’t have the right to keep people out of a neighborhood. I can think of many poor white trash that don’t cut their lawns, let their houses fall into disrepair, leave broken cars on the front lawn or any other behavior that could ruin a neighborhood. These commenters just prove that “white power” isn’t as great as it seems.

  72. dcinsider says:

    Actually, the posting on the public property is probably the real legal issue here. If this had been posted next to the “Apartment for Rent” sign on someone’s house, yes, that invokes the housing discrimination issue. Otherwise, this is run of the mill racist literature that while offensive is not unlawful.

  73. heimaey says:

    Hurting people’s feelings isn’t illegal! Brilliant!

  74. The_Fixer says:

    Like Wisconsin where I now live, it appears that Colorado has urban areas that are progressive while the rural farm areas are rather red.

    I lived there in the 1970s and found the people of Denver to be generally progressive. Of course it was a different time, but it seems to me that the idiots who shared their “thoughts”

    on this story are in the minority.

    That’s one thing that is a side effect of the modern Internet age – idiots’ opinions are amplified beyond their real proportion in this society.

  75. The_Fixer says:

    I suspect that the housing attorney would say something to the effect that speech is speech, action is action. Putting up a sign that states your belief that a minority is undesirable for one reason or another is one thing. No matter how foolish it is, one is entitled to an opinion. Taking direct action, including posting a sign that says you, as a landlord won’t rent to a particular minority, is quite another and in violation of fair housing laws.

    Not being a housing attorney, my opinion is just that and carries no weight. But what amazes me is the short-sightedness of the people in that neighborhood. The Hispanic population of this country is growing quickly. By some estimates, white people will be a minority in the future. I’m wondering how these idiots posting these comments will react to the tyranny of the majority when the shoe’s on the other foot and they’re not the majority any longer.

  76. magster says:

    As a Denver resident, the Post’s comment section is almost as odious as youtube’s. Their switch to Disqus this last month from maybe the worst commenting platform on the internet ever was a good thing, but it has allowed more of Colorado’s biggest assholes to comment more easily. Fortunately Colorado’s nicer citizens vote and have turned the state blue.

    As a Disqus user and Denver sports’ fan, that a-hole who uses Carmelo Anthony’s mugshot (Denver Goddess) has his comments routinely deleted by the Broncos’ blog itsalloverfatman.com and Nuggets’ blog roundballminingcompany.com. I’d like to see Disqus excise that butthead from his right to comment on any blog.

  77. cole3244 says:

    white power = white stupidity.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS