Skip to main content

David Marsters believes that the words "Shoot the ni**er" aren't threatening or racist. I believe he's "speshal."

David Marsters lives in Sabattus, Maine, and is a conservative candidate for a town position there. He just recently received a visit from the Secret Service after he posted an article about President Obama on Facebook, along with the words, "Shoot the n****r."

After receiving the visit, Marsters said this:

"[They] didn't see no pictures of Obama with bullet holes in his head. It's not a threatening statement, in my opinion, People take it out of context as a threat."

He also claimed he wasn't a racist, saying, "White people are n****rs, too."

As if this wasn't enough, Marsters told the Bangor Daily News that due to Obamacare, his wife will no longer have health insurance, saying, "I'm pissed off at the system, OK. We're about to lose our benefits because of this a**hole."

First off, that Obamacare myth has been debunked, so Mr. Marsters can refrain from insulting the president - or in his mind, complimenting him.

Secondly, I'd love to know what planet Marsters is from where the words "Shoot the n****r" alongside the first African-American president of the country isn't seen as racist or threatening. It's also almost laughable he believes people have taken those words out of context as a threat, since there wasn't any context to begin with. In conjunction with the article he was posting, the only words Marsters wrote were, "Shoot the n****r." Also, what context would make that non-threatening?

"So, I says to him, I says, take out that squirt gun and shoot the n****r!"

Okay, so while that wouldn't be all too threatening, it would still come across as racist.

To Mr. Marsters, it appears that in addition to threatening words, there needs to be a threatening picture for the post to be seen as an actual threat.

"[They] didn't see no pictures of Obama with bullet holes in his head. It's not a threatening statement..."

Yeah, okay, so when a person tells another on the street, "I'm going to f***ing kill you!," he'll have to then grab a pencil, piece of paper, and show the victim exactly what they're going to do to them for the police to consider it as a legitimate threat? If that were the case, we'd be able to spot criminals fairly quickly, because they'd all be carrying Pictionary chalkboards.

If this man gets elected for anything, I'll be fearful to ever enter the state of Maine, especially since I often times have a writing utensil in my hand and my family enjoys the game of Pictionary. The Rozniecki family would likely be seen by Mr. Marsters as the Manson family. Meanwhile, I just see him as being racist and stupid.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/29/2547811/conservative-posts-shoot-obama-obamacare/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"