Jimmy Carter weighs in on the opposition to Obama

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: SilentRunning
I disagree. If the fringe liberals continue their fear mongering, lies and distortions to make their arguments Obama will most certainly not be re-elected.

We disagree. The "liberals" are not the one claiming that every government proposal is a secret plan to institute some ridiculous type of government/mind control. Nor have they been systematically distorting the content of the various health care proposals. They are not showing up at presidential appearances with guns.
.

Actually, some have been. And they've been showing up with plenty of union "muscle".

Of course, continue to blame the right for a health care not passing anything yet. How many seats do the Democrats hold again?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Judging from his post D-Man is clearly one of the people Jimmy Carter and the others who agree with his statement are NOT talking about. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be critical of Obama. Clearly not everyone who is critical of Obama is racist. It seems the only people that are saying that are those same people who love calling him "messiah." "Some" is not a synonym for "all," "part" does not mean "whole." It's like certain people on the other side of this argument just don't understand how English works.

And here's Joe Wilson refusing to address whether he's racist or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wkEsvhc4EE

Honestly, I don't know enough about the man to accuse him personally one way or the other, but the fact he twice dodges the direct question leads me to believe either 1) he is or, more likely, 2) he doesn't want to deny it and risk alienating constituents.

..or 3) he doesn't want to give any credence to the ridiculous allegation.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doboji

This is a fallacy... you need to go do your research. The North did NOT believe that Black people were equal to Whites... their economy simply didnt run on slave labor the way the South did. The war was NEVER about slavery, they freed the slaves to help win the war, not the other way around.

Having said that I do more often than not... find that when I meet a person who flies a confederate flag... they tend to be more likely to be racist. But the flag in and of itself is NOT a racist symbol.

I never said that northerners believed blacks were equal to whites (as they were frequently quite racist), but the civil war was definitely about slavery. The idea that it wasn't about slavery experienced brief popularity about 70-100 years ago, but most historians now agree that while the civil war was about many things, it was about slavery more than any other.

Your missing the point... it was about economics. The entire economy of the South revolved around the Slave labor and Southern power revolved around this economic strength. The overwhelming majority of people who were looking to end slavery in that century were interested because of it's economic impact NOT because they deemed it racist.

I'm not missing the point at all. Of course economics was the most important aspect of slavery, but it was exactly that: one aspect of slavery. You said that the war wasn't about slavery, and that is incorrect.

My views on the symbolism of the Confederate flag don't have anything to do with the racial biases and motivations of the Union. The Confederacy was a racially based slave state, and their culture explicitly dehumanized black people in the service of that. Flying a flag from that nation implicitly makes a statement about the values that it held, and that was one of the defining ones.

Huh. Prior to 1861, the United States was, as you call ut, "a racially-based slave state". Do you consider Betsy Ross's "stars and Bars" a racially-charged symbol?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
The people here - like Hyabusa, I read the first few posts - who are claimming Carter is wrong, don't understand how racism works (and that they might be affected by it).

<snipped Craig's pompous post about how everybody that disagrees with Obama is a racist>

Wow. You really do have some sort of pseudo-authoritarian complex, don't you?

You lie about what I posted. Sounds to me like you resent the truth.

Based on a pattern of your posts IMO you are a lying ass.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Craig234
The people here - like Hyabusa, I read the first few posts - who are claimming Carter is wrong, don't understand how racism works (and that they might be affected by it).

<snipped Craig's pompous post about how everybody that disagrees with Obama is a racist>

Wow. You really do have some sort of pseudo-authoritarian complex, don't you?

You lie about what I posted. Sounds to me like you resent the truth.

Based on a pattern of your posts IMO you are a lying ass.

Based on your pattern of posts, I (more than just) MO, you're a partisan hack.

Which "truth" is that, by the way? Or is this just a thin-veiled attempt at calling me racist?

 

[0roo0roo]

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President President Bush is based on the fact that they are unpatriotic"
-bizarro carter


seriously, with friends like carter who needs enemies.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President President Bush is based on the fact that they are unpatriotic"
-bizarro carter


seriously, with friends like carter who needs enemies.

You respond to his telling the truth by inventing some 'bizarro' counterpart statement. Weak.

You also demonize his telling the truth by calling him in effect a traitor (who needs enemies, he is the enemy).

Weak.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President President Bush is based on the fact that they are unpatriotic"
-bizarro carter


seriously, with friends like carter who needs enemies.

You respond to his telling the truth by inventing some 'bizarro' counterpart statement. Weak.

You also demonize his telling the truth by calling him in effect a traitor (who needs enemies, he is the enemy).

Weak.

he's telling the truth as much as bizarro carter is telling the truth about liberals being unpatriotic as did happen during bush era when he was criticized, esp near war time.

whats weak is that you can't see beyond your partisanship. if you think calling republican racists is fine, well you'll have to accept that democrats should be labeled as unamerican and unpatriotic as well then. if thats where you want to go i guess thats fine. any rational person can see it goes no where.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he's telling the truth as much as bizarro carter is telling the truth about liberals being unpatriotic as did happen during bush era when he was criticized, esp near war time.
whats weak is that you can't see beyond your partisanship. if you think calling republican racists is fine, well you'll have to accept that democrats should be labeled as unamerican and unpatriotic as well then. if thats where you want to go i guess thats fine. any rational person can see it goes no where.

If criticism of President during wartime was unpatriotic, how is criticism of President Obama during wartime any less so?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President President Bush is based on the fact that they are unpatriotic"
-bizarro carter


seriously, with friends like carter who needs enemies.

You respond to his telling the truth by inventing some 'bizarro' counterpart statement. Weak.

You also demonize his telling the truth by calling him in effect a traitor (who needs enemies, he is the enemy).

Weak.

he's telling the truth as much as bizarro carter is telling the truth about liberals being unpatriotic as did happen during bush era when he was criticized, esp near war time.

whats weak is that you can't see beyond your partisanship. if you think calling republican racists is fine, well you'll have to accept that democrats should be labeled as unamerican and unpatriotic as well then. if thats where you want to go i guess thats fine. any rational person can see it goes no where.

You're not quoting him accurately/honestly. You are the one with the bias that's preventing you from understanding what he said.

And your trying to equate racist with unpatriotic is irrational, desperate and wrong.

You are confused.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he's telling the truth as much as bizarro carter is telling the truth about liberals being unpatriotic as did happen during bush era when he was criticized, esp near war time.
whats weak is that you can't see beyond your partisanship. if you think calling republican racists is fine, well you'll have to accept that democrats should be labeled as unamerican and unpatriotic as well then. if thats where you want to go i guess thats fine. any rational person can see it goes no where.

If criticism of President during wartime was unpatriotic, how is criticism of President Obama during wartime any less so?

thats not the charge right is it. but it could apply just the same, and it would be just as invalid.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President President Bush is based on the fact that they are unpatriotic"
-bizarro carter
seriously, with friends like carter who needs enemies.

You respond to his telling the truth by inventing some 'bizarro' counterpart statement. Weak.
You also demonize his telling the truth by calling him in effect a traitor (who needs enemies, he is the enemy).

Weak.

he's telling the truth as much as bizarro carter is telling the truth about liberals being unpatriotic as did happen during bush era when he was criticized, esp near war time.
whats weak is that you can't see beyond your partisanship. if you think calling republican racists is fine, well you'll have to accept that democrats should be labeled as unamerican and unpatriotic as well then. if thats where you want to go i guess thats fine. any rational person can see it goes no where.

You're not quoting him accurately/honestly. You are the one with the bias that's preventing you from understanding what he said.
And your trying to equate racist with unpatriotic is irrational, desperate and wrong.
You are confused.

oh, its accurate, he was smearing people who disagreed with him by pulling the race card. he might couch his words by saying "some" or some such bs but the reality is you are smearing the entire group with your accusations. he just poisoned the discussion in the worst way possible. equating a smear charge with another is perfectly legitimate. carter might as well have claimed that "some" republicans are pedophiles...oh i'm not saying all, i'm just saying "some are". its a despicable tactic, and only a hack wouldn't see through it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
This pretty much sums it up. It's his policies, has nothing whatsoever to do with race. But keep calling people who disagree with Obama racists, Carter. Just makes us stronger, more resistant and even more vocal.

So you were OK with Bush's big spending policies? Just not Obama's?

<wink wink nudge nudge saynomore>

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
oh, its accurate, he was smearing people who disagreed with him by pulling the race card. he might couch his words by saying "some" or some such bs but the reality is you are smearing the entire group with your accusations. he just poisoned the discussion in the worst way possible. equating a smear charge with another is perfectly legitimate. carter might as well have claimed that "some" republicans are pedophiles...oh i'm not saying all, i'm just saying "some are". its a despicable tactic, and only a hack wouldn't see through it.

Sorry, you are dishonest and way off base, and clearly uninterested in the truth.

Carter cited several *specific* behaviors that are way over the top and being seen a lot and discussed race in terms of those behaviors.

You are the one lying about what he said and trying to shcnage what he said by claiming that his limitations don't count and you get to put words in his mouth what he really meant - which would be ok if you had a reasonable case to make, but you don't. It's just you frothing, not what he said.

There's no comparison with your 'some are pedophiles' claim, which shows how little you understood his comments.

Pedophiles are a rare attribute for people of all political persuasions, there would be no reason to discuss Republicans specifically about them (unless Republicans claimed to be immune). Carter was talking about behavior by many Republicans, and it was not something equally applicable to both sides. When Republicans elect a black president and Democrats make a lot of race-insinuating comments, then we'll talk.

You're a dishonest apologist for the protestors, and your pathetic defense of them falls flat.

 

[jonks]

So a Rep from Va makes this comment:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27417.html

Replied Perriello: ?I conducted over a hundred hours of town hall meetings in my district in central and Southern Virginia, and the vast majority of them were civil; people disagreed passionately on ideological grounds. And there were the rare cases where very racist remarks were made. Sometimes they were called out by neighbors in the audience; sometimes they weren?t. Clearly, race remains a factor in America, but there?s also a lot of disagreement here that is genuine and not based on race, so I think we have to have both conversations.?

Sounds like a fair appraisal of the situation. I think the good Represenatative would know a "very racist remark" at a virginia town hall when he heard it. From the woman in the gen election at the mccain town hall who was afraid of obama because he was an "arab", to the uber-racist signs at tea party rallies, to the videos of people calling him ni88ger, it would take a willfully blind and ignorant organization to claim zero racism existed.

Enter exhibit A:

"The National Republican Congressional Committee pooh-poohed, with a little swipe at Perriello?s Yale education: ?Much like Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi, Tom Perriello is mistaking genuine opposition to the president?s agenda for bigotry. These insulting remarks are yet another indication that Perriello?s Ivy-bred elitism is impeding his ability to represent everyday Virginians.?"

So basically the NRCC claims that absolutly no opposition is based on race. Not a minority, not very rare instances, but NONE. And if you see racism, you're an elitist. It's truly funny to watch the right mock an ivy league education and expect to ever get taken seriously on education, while not mentioning that most of the leaders of their party, their presidents and their Supreme Court picks also went to ivy league schools.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

Link? Context? Was he paraphrasing the racsists' attitude?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

And calling Obama an "Indonesian Muslim terrorist" technically isn't racist. Your point? Mine is there is a lot of hate behind much of the words of the opposition. Be it overtly racist or technically not so.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

Link? Context? Was he paraphrasing the racsists' attitude?

I'm sure if this was Bush talking no one would have batted an eye.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

Link? Context? Was he paraphrasing the racsists' attitude?

I'm sure if this was Bush talking no one would have batted an eye.

Context: Carter was referring to the black boy Obama used to be, raised by a single mother, was later able to become president.

The 'black boy' clearly referred to Obama when he was a boy, immediately followed in the same sentence referencing his upbringing, not calling him a 'boy' now.

While I'm pointing out the misleading in your earlier post, thanks for providing the link.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

Link? Context? Was he paraphrasing the racsists' attitude?

I'm sure if this was Bush talking no one would have batted an eye.

LOL, he is clearly talking about Obama as a child, when Obama was indeed a "black" "boy." Citing this just reaks of desperation.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

Link? Context? Was he paraphrasing the racsists' attitude?

I'm sure if this was Bush talking no one would have batted an eye.

Context: Carter was referring to the black boy Obama used to be, raised by a single mother, was later able to become president.

The 'black boy' clearly referred to Obama when he was a boy, immediately followed in the same sentence referencing his upbringing, not calling him a 'boy' now.

While I'm pointing out the misleading in your earlier post, thanks for providing the link.

You hear what you want to hear. Frankly, I'm not surprised after all this is the party that has welcomed Robert "Sheets" Byrd (and the rest of the KKK) with open arms.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

You hear what you want to hear. Frankly, I'm not surprised after all this is the party that has welcomed Robert "Sheets" Byrd (and the rest of the KKK) with open arms.

No, you are delusional not to hear what he said here. You are off the deep end, both on Carter and your attack on the Democratic party about the repentant Sen. Byrd.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Carter isn't calling Republicans racist. He's calling racists racist. You can protest your government and still be patriotic. You can protest Obama and not be racist. But you can't protest Obama because he's black and not be racist.

Carter also called Obama a "black boy", it didn't offend the left.

Link? Context? Was he paraphrasing the racsists' attitude?

I'm sure if this was Bush talking no one would have batted an eye.

Context: Carter was referring to the black boy Obama used to be, raised by a single mother, was later able to become president.

The 'black boy' clearly referred to Obama when he was a boy, immediately followed in the same sentence referencing his upbringing, not calling him a 'boy' now.

While I'm pointing out the misleading in your earlier post, thanks for providing the link.

You hear what you want to hear. Frankly, I'm not surprised after all this is the party that has welcomed Robert "Sheets" Byrd (and the rest of the KKK) with open arms.

So it's kind of like you wake up one day and realize that you've made a serious error in your association with republicans and want to reconcile your evil ways but are constantly reminded that you once laid with the dogs and are forever damned.

The black boy comment (and any like it) has everything to do with intent. If I call you a republican defender, is it meant purely as a description or as the lowest form on earth?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doboji

This is a fallacy... you need to go do your research. The North did NOT believe that Black people were equal to Whites... their economy simply didnt run on slave labor the way the South did. The war was NEVER about slavery, they freed the slaves to help win the war, not the other way around.

Having said that I do more often than not... find that when I meet a person who flies a confederate flag... they tend to be more likely to be racist. But the flag in and of itself is NOT a racist symbol.

I never said that northerners believed blacks were equal to whites (as they were frequently quite racist), but the civil war was definitely about slavery. The idea that it wasn't about slavery experienced brief popularity about 70-100 years ago, but most historians now agree that while the civil war was about many things, it was about slavery more than any other.

Your missing the point... it was about economics. The entire economy of the South revolved around the Slave labor and Southern power revolved around this economic strength. The overwhelming majority of people who were looking to end slavery in that century were interested because of it's economic impact NOT because they deemed it racist.

I'm not missing the point at all. Of course economics was the most important aspect of slavery, but it was exactly that: one aspect of slavery. You said that the war wasn't about slavery, and that is incorrect.

My views on the symbolism of the Confederate flag don't have anything to do with the racial biases and motivations of the Union. The Confederacy was a racially based slave state, and their culture explicitly dehumanized black people in the service of that. Flying a flag from that nation implicitly makes a statement about the values that it held, and that was one of the defining ones.

Huh. Prior to 1861, the United States was, as you call ut, "a racially-based slave state". Do you consider Betsy Ross's "stars and Bars" a racially-charged symbol?

The entire US was most certainly not a 'racially based slave state' and more importantly the United States was not formed out of its previous governmental entity for the express purpose of the continuance of slavery.