Would have posted this in the "Wilson" thread, but thought maybe it deserved its own.
Carter's latest Papal Bull is stating his opinion that Wilson's outburst was "based on racism" and fear of a black President (apologies to Public Enemy).
Why can't the guy just shut up? He had his chance to be relevant & blew it. Now he has to be an expert on Southern Baptist Convention, psychoanalyzing politicians, global warming, etc. I admired him when he did his Habitat for Humanity thing, but now he's making me wonder if it wasn't just a bid for publicity (not that I'd go so far as to assert that without concrete evidence). Even quite a few normally rabid HuffyPuffy posters seem to think his statement was unnecessary.
Carter should just do the speech circuit, write more memoirs, & stare at his Nobel Prize unless someone really needs his opinion. Can't see that his latest pronouncement does anything to solve the country's problems; if anything, it just serves to exacerbate the hostile atmosphere.
That's MHO.
BTW...Saw Carter weighing in on the legacy of John Wayne during an Encore Western tribute. The guy was incredibly verbose & stilted (in fairness, John McCain was nearly as bad). It's like he was stumbling over himself trying to sound "Presidential" instead of just speaking from the heart (in contrast, noted liberal Norman Lear came across as sincerely eloquent in his heart-felt, simple statements). Sure doesn't sound like the "peanut farmer" from Plains.
Have to admit that (Bill) Clinton & Pres. Obama sound more like intelligent, normal people who aren't trying to impress the audience with their big vocabulary.
Venusian
09-16-09, 09:09 AM
I usually defend him since he's the local boy but playing the race card is a new low.
Jimmy Carter has a disease that is generally associated with the cattle industry.
General Zod
09-16-09, 09:24 AM
It's really just more of this..
If you disagree with Obama - you are racist. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/560575-if-you-disagree-obama-you-racist.html)
Obama can lie. Obama can push bad legislation. Obama can do anything. If you complain or speak out against him someone, somewhere, will claim it is all done because of his race. Especially when the person who did the disagreeing is correct.
slop101
09-16-09, 11:33 AM
I don't think it's as simple as plain racism.
But I am confident in saying that if Obama were white, Wilson would never have disrupted him.
X
09-16-09, 11:37 AM
The sky is blue.
Actually, that's not an equivalent statement because sometimes the sky is grey.
DeputyDave
09-16-09, 11:38 AM
I don't think it's as simple as plain racism.
But I am confident in saying that if Obama were white, Wilson would never have disrupted him.
The only possible way that could be seen as true is if you base it on the fact that a white man with Obama's qualifications would have never been elected president.
CreamyGoodness
09-16-09, 11:39 AM
It's really just more of this..
If you disagree with Obama - you are racist. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/560575-if-you-disagree-obama-you-racist.html)
Obama can lie. Obama can push bad legislation. Obama can do anything. If you complain or speak out against him someone, somewhere, will claim it is all done because of his race. Especially when the person who did the disagreeing is correct.
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech? People holding the confederate flag, yelling 'I want my country back' doesn't smack of racism? (They want their country back from that 'uppity negro' who's in the white house.)
Here's a video from 9/12 of the morons on parade....
Is everyone who disagrees with President Obama a racist? No. But to deny that there is a racist aspect to the people who portray Obama as an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a communist, a marxist and on and on is foolish.
Carter is not an idiot. In addition to all of his accomplishments (none of which involve posting on forums all day), he grew up in the south and as someone who has seen racism, is giving his informed opinion.
classicman2
09-16-09, 11:44 AM
Is everyone who disagrees with President Obama a racist? No. But to deny that there is a racist aspect to the people who portray Obama as an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a communist, a marxist and on and on is foolish.
Carter is not an idiot. In addition to all of his accomplishments (none of which involve posting on forums all day), he grew up in the south and as someone who has seen racism, is giving his informed opinion.
First paragraph - in complete agreement.
I believe Carter is still pissed off because he was only a one-term president. ;)
Brack
09-16-09, 11:45 AM
Wilson just looks like a racist (half joking here).
But this is the great thing about racism today-- hardly anyone is open about it, and if anyone even considers that someone may have some racist tendencies or motivation, others can just scream "race card!" Wilson wasn't arguing facts, just what he believed, there's a difference.
slop101
09-16-09, 12:11 PM
The issue isn't what Wilson's arguing, but how he's arguing them.
And the question is what influenced his "how".
drak b
09-16-09, 12:14 PM
But I am confident in saying that if Obama were white, Wilson would never have disrupted him.
I honestly don't mean to imply anything about you personally but this sort of thinking has always struck me as people projecting their own feelings about race onto the motivation of others. When I read Maureen Dowd's op-ed* that she heard 'You lie!' with "unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!", I was really disturbed by that sentiment. I think that liberal white guilt has finally gone over the deep end and the only way they can function is to project it away from themselves onto others in cries of racism.
Personally, I voted for Obama because I wanted a change in war policy, civil liberties and corruption from the previous administration. Right now, it feels like a continuation of the worst of Bush's policies combined with the worst of liberal excess. Then again, I've always been racist in my thinking like that... -ohbfrank-
The issue isn't what Wilson's arguing, but how he's arguing them.
And the question is what influenced his "how".
It was simply a matter of doing good vs feeling good. I wish Wilson had considered that before doing what he did.
General Zod
09-16-09, 12:30 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech?
People were doing the same thing to Bush. Was it racist?
Tommy Ceez
09-16-09, 12:32 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech?
Um........no
I dont think you know what Hate Speech means
Venusian
09-16-09, 12:32 PM
But this is the great thing about racism today-- hardly anyone is open about it, and if anyone even considers that someone may have some racist tendencies or motivation, others can just scream "race card!" Wilson wasn't arguing facts, just what he believed, there's a difference.
and on the flip side if someone disagrees with anything a minority says, others can just scream "racist" and ignore what they said.
kvrdave
09-16-09, 12:43 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech? People holding the confederate flag, yelling 'I want my country back' doesn't smack of racism? (They want their country back from that 'uppity negro' who's in the white house.)
Sure it is hateful speech, but I understand a little more when some rube says it than when the Speaker of the House does. I don't know enough about the connotations of the confederate flag, personally.
But here is something undeniable....everyone against The Obama has been grouped together as racists. More people are against The Obama according to the polls than are for him. Thus, racists helped get The Obama elected.
We weere told that this was a great sign that racism was on the way out when Obama was elected. Little did we know that disagreeing with him lead to this being the most racist time in our history. They need to give it a rest.
General Zod
09-16-09, 12:46 PM
We weere told that this was a great sign that racism was on the way out when Obama was elected. Little did we know that disagreeing with him lead to this being the most racist time in our history. They need to give it a rest.
I remember hearing that we were going to head into a post-racist America now that we got a black president in. :lol: The ones pushing the racism angle are his own people. He should put a stop to it - but I'm sure he thinks he will benefit from it so .. I doubt he will.
CreamyGoodness
09-16-09, 12:54 PM
People were doing the same thing to Bush. Was it racist?
You ignored the rest of my post, but that's ok.
As for using the image of Hitler - using that in any protest is an insult to the memory of countless millions who fought and died and were slaughtered in WWII.
Um........no
I dont think you know what Hate Speech means
Comparing the president of the United States to one of the most horrible monsters in history... But that's not hate speech. Ok.
CreamyGoodness
09-16-09, 01:00 PM
Sure it is hateful speech, but I understand a little more when some rube says it than when the Speaker of the House does. I don't know enough about the connotations of the confederate flag, personally.
Really? You're how old, and what country did you grow up in?
But here is something undeniable....everyone against The Obama has been grouped together as racists. More people are against The Obama according to the polls than are for him. Thus, racists helped get The Obama elected.
Ah, always quick with a joke when you don't have anything constructive to add. Oh, and if you REALLY believe what you posted above, you need to watch something other than Fox News.
We weere told that this was a great sign that racism was on the way out when Obama was elected. Little did we know that disagreeing with him lead to this being the most racist time in our history. They need to give it a rest.
Again, this can't be serious. So, you have a nice day.
CreamyGoodness
09-16-09, 01:05 PM
I remember hearing that we were going to head into a post-racist America now that we got a black president in. :lol: The ones pushing the racism angle are his own people. He should put a stop to it - but I'm sure he thinks he will benefit from it so .. I doubt he will.
Wow, really?
You must be missing all of the reports about the "I want my country back" protests. Don't see too many black people among the people holding their hate-filled signs. It's a sea of white people. A sea of uninformed, ignorant white people who, hopefully, represent a very small minority of the people in this country.
Brack
09-16-09, 01:06 PM
and on the flip side if someone disagrees with anything a minority says, others can just scream "racist" and ignore what they said.
Prove that Obama was lying, and I'll believe you. No one here has been able to do it besides point out a bill which is not necessarily the bill that will be passed. So, again, how are we ignoring what Wilson said?
Brack
09-16-09, 01:07 PM
Wow, really?
You must be missing all of the reports about the "I want my country back" protests. Don't see too many black people among the people holding their hate-filled signs. It's a sea of white people. A sea of uninformed, ignorant white people who, hopefully, represent a very small minority of the people in this country.
Even better are the signs that say "he's a Kenyan" or "go back to Kenya!" which is the new "go back to Africa."
Pharoh
09-16-09, 01:10 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech? People holding the confederate flag, yelling 'I want my country back' doesn't smack of racism? (They want their country back from that 'uppity negro' who's in the white house.)
Here's a video from 9/12 of the morons on parade....
Is everyone who disagrees with President Obama a racist? No. But to deny that there is a racist aspect to the people who portray Obama as an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a communist, a marxist and on and on is foolish.
I agree that it is hateful and disgusting to compare the President of the United States to a barbaric murderer of millions.
Carter is not an idiot. In addition to all of his accomplishments (none of which involve posting on forums all day), he grew up in the south and as someone who has seen racism, is giving his informed opinion.
And yet he has offered previously that the United States government should have avoided armed conflict and negotiated with the subjugators of Africans, simply because one day all of the slaves would eventually be freed. Does he believe this because he is racist, or just an observation as a southerner?
Venusian
09-16-09, 01:12 PM
Prove that Obama was lying, and I'll believe you. No one here has been able to do it besides point out a bill which is not necessarily the bill that will be passed. So, again, how are we ignoring what Wilson said?
I've said from the beginning I think Wilson was in the wrong. However, that doesn't make him racist. Neither does it make people who disagree with Obama racist.
Pharoh
09-16-09, 01:13 PM
Wow, really?
You must be missing all of the reports about the "I want my country back" protests. Don't see too many black people among the people holding their hate-filled signs. It's a sea of white people. A sea of uninformed, ignorant white people who, hopefully, represent a very small minority of the people in this country.
So there is no other explanation for why these people might "want their country back"? It might not have anything to do with policies and ideology?
How can we then explain people who believed the same thing under both of the previous two administrations?
LurkerDan
09-16-09, 01:20 PM
Are all or even most people who disagree with Obama racist? of course not (and that isn't what Carter said, actually). Are all of the people displaying intense animosity towards Obama racist? No. Are some of them? You bet your ass. And if you think otherwise, you need to pull your head out of the sand. The fact that we elected a black president doesn't mean we don't have racists (of all shapes sizes and colors) still living here.
Does any of this actually get us anywhere? No. :lol:
Sean O'Hara
09-16-09, 01:22 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech? People holding the confederate flag, yelling 'I want my country back' doesn't smack of racism? (They want their country back from that 'uppity negro' who's in the white house.)
Here's a video from 9/12 of the morons on parade....
Political whack-jobs show up to protests, film at 11.
Were you asleep for the last eight years? Did you miss the nuttery that went on at anti-war protests -- Bush as Hitler, evil Joos control the government, 11 September was a set-up? Liberals rightly complained when conservatives tried to portray those protests as nothing but a bunch of commie-pinko Jew-haters.
The 9/12 protests were no more full of racists than the anti-war protests were full of anti-Semites. Both sides need to stop pretending like the other side poops toxic waste while their own butts produce nothing but sweet frosted cupcakes.
Mote, beam, etc.
kvrdave
09-16-09, 01:23 PM
Are all or even most people who disagree with Obama racist? of course not (and that isn't what Carter said, actually). Are all of the people displaying intense animosity towards Obama racist? No. Are some of them? You bet your ass. And if you think otherwise, you need to pull your head out of the sand. The fact that we elected a black president doesn't mean we don't have racists (of all shapes sizes and colors) still living here.
Does any of this actually get us anywhere? No. :lol:
Is there anything that has gone against Obama that hasn't been blamed on racism?
Venusian
09-16-09, 01:32 PM
Are all or even most people who disagree with Obama racist? of course not (and that isn't what Carter said, actually).
I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American
Not exactly that but he thinks "an overwhelming portion" of "animosity" is racist
General Zod
09-16-09, 02:14 PM
So there is no other explanation for why these people might "want their country back"? It might not have anything to do with policies and ideology?
How can we then explain people who believed the same thing under both of the previous two administrations?
Exactly. These people are talking about getting the country once again moving in a capitalist direction instead of a socialist direction. But since most of the people are white and Obama is black - Obama's supporters see this as an opportunity to try to twist it into something it isn't. It's politics and I expected nothing less.
Were you asleep for the last eight years? Did you miss the nuttery that went on at anti-war protests -- Bush as Hitler, evil Joos control the government, 11 September was a set-up?
I'd go with "Willfully ignorant" instead of asleep ;)
chuckd21
09-16-09, 02:22 PM
I have no idea if Wilson is racist or not, and have no way of telling from his childish outburst during the address. BUT, you cannot deny that there are many closeted racists out there who disagree with the President solely because he's half-black. Which to them means he's all black.
I'm not saying that you're racist if you disagree with the President.
SkullOrchard
09-16-09, 02:24 PM
Jimmy Carter :bmonkey:
CRM114
09-16-09, 02:25 PM
Not exactly that but he thinks "an overwhelming portion" of "animosity" is racist
Birthers. People who question his Christianity. Fringe elements. I've heard several references to his race (in an extremely negative way) from opponents of his Presidency myself.
Venusian
09-16-09, 02:26 PM
I have no idea if Wilson is racist or not, and have no way of telling from his childish outburst during the address. BUT, you cannot deny that there are many closeted racists out there who disagree with the President solely because he's half-black. Which to them means he's all black.
I'm not saying that you're racist if you disagree with the President.
Agree with everything you said.
mosquitobite
09-16-09, 02:29 PM
I have no idea if Wilson is racist or not, and have no way of telling from his childish outburst during the address. BUT, you cannot deny that there are many closeted racists out there who disagree with the President solely because he's half-black. Which to them means he's all black.
I'm not saying that you're racist if you disagree with the President.
Okaaaaay. I concede. There are still racists in America :eek:
With that concession I'll agree with Lurker Dan:
Are all or even most people who disagree with Obama racist? of course not (and that isn't what Carter said, actually). Are all of the people displaying intense animosity towards Obama racist? No. Are some of them? You bet your ass. And if you think otherwise, you need to pull your head out of the sand. The fact that we elected a black president doesn't mean we don't have racists (of all shapes sizes and colors) still living here.
Does any of this actually get us anywhere? No. :lol:
So, because there are racists in this country, anyone who disagrees with the President is labeled a racist, because... I guess there isn't ANY VALID reason why ANYONE might disagree with the man. :rolleyes:
By pointing out there is still racism in America, what does it gain? And actually by continually claiming people opposed to Obama are racists, they're going to end up with the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. People are going to drown out the charges, even when they might have merit at some point!
CRM114
09-16-09, 02:41 PM
I never heard anyone claim John McCain was a racist. Or Mitt Romney. Or Mitch McConnell. Or many legitimate opposition leaders to the President. It's only those who cannot deal with the FACT that there are racist opponents of the President who need to stretch it out as a blanket indictment of ALL who disagree. A weak position.
Addison Graves Wilson does have racist tendencies.
For example:
In 2003, Wilson attacked Strom Thurmond’s natural biracial daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, saying her public acknowledgement of her parentage shortly after Thurmond’s death was “a smear” designed to “diminish Thurmond’s legacy.” Wilson launched his political career working as an aide to Senator Thurmond and has continuously held the staunch segregationist as a hero.
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/09/hbc-90005700
And a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans:
Who are the SCV? A once-proud organization of Confederate history buffs and Civil War re-enactors that traditionally spent its money to restore battlefields and Confederate cemeteries. By 2006, however, the SCV had been substantially taken over by an organized cadre of white supremacists (read here for more background) who sought to turn the nation’s oldest Southern historical society into what the veteran white supremacy activist Kirk Lyons called “a modern, 21st century Christian war machine capable of uniting the Confederate community and leading it to ultimate victory,” had seized much of the SCV’s leadership positions, the Southern Poverty Law Center released an extensive list of SCV officials who belonged to “hate groups.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-11/joe-wilsons-rebel-yell/
General Zod
09-16-09, 02:46 PM
Not any more weak or ridiculous than those that cannot deal with the FACT that there are opponents of the president who are NOT racist.
Yet when Joe Wilson or someone speaks up against Obama that's what they get labeled as. So can we agree there's rampant stupidity on both sides and Jimmy Carter is an idiot for being part of it?
Tommy Ceez
09-16-09, 03:20 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech? People holding the confederate flag, yelling 'I want my country back' doesn't smack of racism? (They want their country back from that 'uppity negro' who's in the white house.)
Is everyone who disagrees with President Obama a racist? No. But to deny that there is a racist aspect to the people who portray Obama as an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a communist, a marxist and on and on is foolish.
Carter is not an idiot. In addition to all of his accomplishments (none of which involve posting on forums all day), he grew up in the south and as someone who has seen racism, is giving his informed opinion.
Carter is a disgrace to our country and he's a fool.
Like a dog to its vomit, he returns to his foolishness often.
kvrdave
09-16-09, 04:10 PM
I never heard anyone claim John McCain was a racist. Or Mitt Romney. Or Mitch McConnell. Or many legitimate opposition leaders to the President. It's only those who cannot deal with the FACT that there are racist opponents of the President who need to stretch it out as a blanket indictment of ALL who disagree. A weak position.
Addison Graves Wilson does have racist tendencies.
For example:
And a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans:
Robert Byrd obviously has racial tendancies as well, but it doesn't matter since he agrees with the health care issue.
So what's the point of race again? Oh yeah, to make people believe that there is actually more real support for healthcare and the only reason people are against it is because they are racist.
Pure crap.
Thor Simpson
09-16-09, 04:43 PM
Pure crap.
Nice argument. -rolleyes-
I'm pretty sure this "pure crap" line has been shown to be racist.
You know who craps? Black people. Black people crap and you can't deny it and you can't do nothin' about it, either.
creekdipper
09-16-09, 05:24 PM
If a person makes a statement (verbal or visual) that contains blatant elements of racism, that's fair game. Otherwise, give it a break, since you're not doing your candidate any favors.
I admit to entertaining elements of racism (and gender bias) in actually hoping to see a minority President or perhaps a female President in my lifetime because I thought it would indicate signs of progress for our country. Of course, I also wanted those representatives of other races/genders to represent my political views and to be the best candidate for the job.
The thing I would like to say to knee-jerk protesters who cry "racism" at every criticism of a minority political figure (except Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, etc.) is that they should realize that they are making it harder for the next minority candidate. I'm sure that many liberal ("progressive") voters are cringing or gritting their teeth when they hear these accusations which seem to happen whether they have any credible basis or not. I would think that some, while not regretting their vote for Obama, may be thinking "If this is what is going to happen every time we elect a black President...." These 'supporters' of Obama should stop & think what message they are sending & how it might become counterproductive (the same would have happened if H. Clinton had been elected and supporters had claimed "gender discrimination" every time someone criticized her agenda).
And I do have to wonder if an African-American Republican were elected, would his opponents cry "racism" whenever he/she was criticized.
Personally, I was hoping Dennis Haysbert would be the first black President. Now, THAT would be change I could believe in. Negotiate, hell! Give me an AK & watch me negotiate.
Chuck Norris could have been his VP.
Dr Mabuse
09-16-09, 06:27 PM
Nice argument. -rolleyes-
I'm pretty sure this "pure crap" line has been shown to be racist.
You know who craps? Black people. Black people crap and you can't deny it and you can't do nothin' about it, either.
:lol:
You do realize talking about black people crapping is very racist.
Mabuse
09-16-09, 07:16 PM
People, people can't we all just get along? The truth beneath all of this is that Wilson was right, Obama is a liar. Politician = Liar
You can tell they are lying by watching their lips, when the lips move they are lying.
Obama's a liar, Wilson's a liar, every politician is a liar. Anyone looking for truth shouldn't be following politics.
Ky-Fi
09-16-09, 07:49 PM
The bandying about of the word racist is being used as a weapon all throughout the West, and this piece sums up my position quite well:
The whole thing is worth reading, but it's kind of long---some bits:
********
.....Much of the political Left is simply engaged in outing their opponents as evil, instead of rationally arguing against their ideas. Attaching labels such as “racist” or even “Fascist” to anyone criticizing massive immigration or Multiculturalism has become so common that Norwegian anti-Islamists have coined a new word for it: “Hitling,” which could be roughly translated to English as “to make like Hitler.” The logic behind “hitling” is a bit like this: “You have a beard. Adolf Hitler had facial hair, too, so you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler liked dogs. You have pets, too, you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. You like carrots, you are just like Hitler.”
Any “right-winger” can be slimed with such accusations. Curiously enough, the reverse is almost never true. Although Marxism may have killed 100 million people during the 20th century and failed in every single society in which it has ever been tried out, there seems to be little stigma attached to being a Leftist. The fact that Leftists can get away with this and claim to hold the moral high ground amply demonstrates that we didn’t win the Cold War. We let our guard down after the fall of the Berlin Wall and never properly denounced the ideology behind it. This is now coming back to haunt us.
One member of an anti-immigration party in Britain stated that to be called racist in 21st-century Britain is “the same as being branded a witch in the Middle Ages.” He’s probably right, which means that anti-racism has quite literally become a modern witch-hunt........
In an interview with Danish weekly Weekendavisen, [French philosopher Alain] Finkielkraut said that: “Racism is the only thing that can still arouse anger among the intellectuals, the journalists and people in the entertainment business, in other words, the elites. Culture and religion have collapsed, only anti-racism is left. And it functions like an intolerant and inhumane idolatry.......“I think that the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”
mcnabb
09-16-09, 07:56 PM
Republicans hate Obama because he is a liberal, not because he is black. Does Jimmy Carter remember the Clinton years, the republicans were the same way. Does Jimmy Carter remember the Bush Jr. years, the dems were the same way.
This is all about ideology, not race.
Ky-Fi
09-16-09, 08:05 PM
And another point. When Condoleeza Rice became Secretary of State, I think you could make an argument that she became the most powerful black woman in the history of the US, and maybe the world. Where was the big outcry from all those racist Republicans and conservatives, and the great unwashed white tea-party masses? Surely they must have been enraged that a black person was elevated to this position? Why were they so silent on that issue?
In contrast, I think it's a safe bet that those on the left won't be putting forth the idea of formally honoring Rice's pioneering accomplishments as a black woman any time soon. Instead, she was largely savaged as an "Uncle Tom" or a "house nig**r". And if you want to see racist caricatures, just do a Google search for "political" cartoons of Rice from left-leaning cartoonists.
edit: no mention of Rice is complete without a photo of her in her kick-ass Matrix outfit:
I think that position has always been held by Oprah, but I agree with your point.
Racism is alive because the Democrats are keeping it alive.
dick_grayson
09-16-09, 08:34 PM
And another point. When Condoleeza Rice became Secretary of State, I think you could make an argument that she became the most powerful black woman in the history of the US, and maybe the world. Where was the big outcry from all those racist Republicans and conservatives, and the great unwashed white tea-party masses? Surely they must have been enraged that a black person was elevated to this position? Why were they so silent on that issue?
because.......black Republican is okay, but black Democrat is not.
kvrdave
09-16-09, 08:39 PM
because.......black Republican is okay, but black Democrat is not.
That's how we know it is racism....because it is about ideology, which at its core is racist.
Ky-Fi
09-16-09, 08:39 PM
because.......black Republican is okay, but black Democrat is not.
Exactly. Race isn't the determining factor.
dick_grayson
09-16-09, 08:49 PM
That's how we know it is racism....because it is about ideology, which at its core is racist.
I have no idea what this means.
Rockmjd23
09-16-09, 08:52 PM
because.......black Republican is okay, but black Democrat is not.
Seems like the opposite was the case in Rice's case, at least as far as positive recognition from her own community.
dick_grayson
09-16-09, 08:53 PM
Exactly. Race isn't the determining factor.
it doesn't trump party.....or "winning" but it's definitely a determining factor for those outside that. it's not like there's only one determining factor or having one will negate another.
dick_grayson
09-16-09, 08:55 PM
Seems like the opposite was the case in Rice's case, at least as far as positive recognition from her own community.
own community being Republicans or blacks?
Rockmjd23
09-16-09, 09:02 PM
own community being Republicans or blacks?
I mean women, duh.
7Keys
09-16-09, 09:25 PM
Wow, really?
You must be missing all of the reports about the "I want my country back" protests. Don't see too many black people among the people holding their hate-filled signs. It's a sea of white people. A sea of uninformed, ignorant white people who, hopefully, represent a very small minority of the people in this country.
I think a lot of the "I want my country back" protests = I don't want a socialist country or big government. Not, "I want a white guy in charge again".
classicman2
09-16-09, 09:30 PM
Chris Matthews was talking about racisim on his show today. He quoted the percentage of whites who voted for Obama in 4-5 southern states. I believe 14% was the largest percentage. He said this was a sign of racisim.
The question that should have been asked of Matthews was what percentage of blacks in the country voted for John McCain?
How could anybody possibly think this picture is racist?
jfoobar
09-16-09, 09:53 PM
Chris Matthews was talking about racisim on his show today. He quoted the percentage of whites who voted for Obama in 4-5 southern states. I believe 14% was the largest percentage. He said this was a sign of racisim.
What would be a somewhat meaningful comparison would be to compare the racial voting between the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections in some of these Deep South states.
I grew up in the South also so I can claim, at least somewhat, the supposed perception advantage that Carter is claiming. I believe racism did have an effect on voting in the South in 2008, but I doubt it was that much of one.
That being said, Jimmy's claim that Wilson's "liar" outburst was racially-motivated (and his basis for thinking so) bears a stench that is indistinguishable from that which comes out of a horse's rectum.
Pharoh
09-16-09, 09:57 PM
I also find it funny, in a sad and distasteful way, that an anti-Semite speaks authoritatively on the racist motives of others.
Or can one be, gasp, anti-Israeli but not anti-Semitic?
(I think so, but not in Mr. Carter's case).
classicman2
09-16-09, 10:03 PM
I have suspected Carter of being anti-Semitic for quite a number of years.
He, at he very least, is no friend of the Jewish State.
Ky-Fi
09-16-09, 10:13 PM
As far as the whole "conservatives are racist" schtick, that's actually absolutely crucial to the Democrats maintaining their power base.
As a white man, I can be conservative or liberal or anywhere in between, and there's no significant societal pressure for me to go one way or the other because I'm white. No one is going to be calling Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean a "sell-out" or a traitor to their race for being liberal. But the left absolutely needs to deny that same freedom to blacks. Blacks tend to vote something like 85-90% Democrat? And blacks are what, 12 % of the population? If blacks were to suddenly vote with the same ideological diversity as whites, and split their vote roughly evenly between Democrat and Republican, that would spell disaster for the Democratic party, and they know that. Thus, the narrative of Republicans being racist, and not suitable for blacks to vote for, is crucial for the power of the Democratic party, and whether or not that narrative corresponds to reality or not is irrelevant. Similarly, whenever a black man or woman steps out of line and becomes a prominent conservative, the left will attack them with a savage ferocity with cries of Uncle Tom and "sell-out", for this exact same reason. The left absolutely needs to prop up the narrative of conservatives and Republicans as racist, and they absolutely need to make sure that blacks don't have the same ideological freedoms and political lattitude that whites have.
JasonF
09-16-09, 10:46 PM
As far as the whole "conservatives are racist" schtick, that's actually absolutely crucial to the Democrats maintaining their power base.
As a white man, I can be conservative or liberal or anywhere in between, and there's no significant societal pressure for me to go one way or the other because I'm white. No one is going to be calling Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean a "sell-out" or a traitor to their race for being liberal. But the left absolutely needs to deny that same freedom to blacks. Blacks tend to vote something like 85-90% Democrat? And blacks are what, 12 % of the population? If blacks were to suddenly vote with the same ideological diversity as whites, and split their vote roughly evenly between Democrat and Republican, that would spell disaster for the Democratic party, and they know that. Thus, the narrative of Republicans being racist, and not suitable for blacks to vote for, is crucial for the power of the Democratic party, and whether or not that narrative corresponds to reality or not is irrelevant. Similarly, whenever a black man or woman steps out of line and becomes a prominent conservative, the left will attack them with a savage ferocity with cries of Uncle Tom and "sell-out", for this exact same reason. The left absolutely needs to prop up the narrative of conservatives and Republicans as racist, and they absolutely need to make sure that blacks don't have the same ideological freedoms and political lattitude that whites have.
Black voters, like most other voters, vote according to their perceived self-interest. We could assume that black voters are systematically too dumb to understand that their self-interest does not lie with the Democratic Party (at least, not in greater proportions than white voters' self interest), but that strikes me as a somewhat dubious (dare I say, racist) assumption. Or, we could assume that black voters are just as capable as anyone else of judging where their self-interest lies, and that the positions of the Democratic Party actually do align better with those interests than those of the Republican Party.
Ky-Fi
09-16-09, 10:53 PM
Black voters, like most other voters, vote according to their perceived self-interest. We could assume that black voters are systematically too dumb to understand that their self-interest does not lie with the Democratic Party (at least, not in greater proportions than white voters' self interest), but that strikes me as a somewhat dubious (dare I say, racist) assumption. Or, we could assume that black voters are just as capable as anyone else of judging where their self-interest lies, and that the positions of the Democratic Party actually do align better with those interests than those of the Republican Party.
Very logical, but I really didn't make any judgement as to whether or not voting Democrat objectively IS in the self interest of blacks. I merely pointed out that the Democrats have a vested and specific interest in propogating the "Republicans are racist" line, whether it's true or not.
How could anybody possibly think this picture is racist?
Yeah, the guys that made these probably use to be for Obama until the health care thing. And they must also be guys that voted for him to be president, but are part of the reason that the programs have such low approval. Damn shame that these types of people are leading the discussion, don't you think?
kvrdave
09-16-09, 11:00 PM
I have no idea what this means.
It means that if you disagree with Obama but agree with Dr. Walter Williams, you are still a racist because you have disagreed with Obama.
kvrdave
09-16-09, 11:01 PM
Black voters, like most other voters, vote according to their perceived self-interest. We could assume that black voters are systematically too dumb to understand that their self-interest does not lie with the Democratic Party (at least, not in greater proportions than white voters' self interest), but that strikes me as a somewhat dubious (dare I say, racist) assumption. Or, we could assume that black voters are just as capable as anyone else of judging where their self-interest lies, and that the positions of the Democratic Party actually do align better with those interests than those of the Republican Party.
Unless you are gay, and then black people hate you.....as a group.
How could anybody possibly think this picture is racist?
Of course there is racism out there. I just don't like how everyone who disagrees is getting labeled a racist.
JasonF
09-16-09, 11:15 PM
Yeah, the guys that made these probably use to be for Obama until the health care thing. And they must also be guys that voted for him to be president, but are part of the reason that the programs have such low approval. Damn shame that these types of people are leading the discussion, don't you think?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Nobody is suggesting that the racists were lined up behind President Obama until they woke up one day and realized he's black.
Here's another guy who is not at all racist.
5fymdNxn82M
Tuan Jim
09-16-09, 11:16 PM
Things are happening....and yeah, I think it's pretty dumb to say that a poster comparing Obama to Hitler or anyone else is racist when nobody would raise a single complaint over the hundreds of Bushitler, etc pics over the years of protests.
If you think these pics from 9/12 are "bad", any random gallery at www.zombietime.com will make your eyes bleed....unless of course you actually think Bush was Hitler...
Americans of all political persuasions agree that the nation has problems — big problems.
And here’s where we all part company. The political left, which now controls our government, thinks we need more government — a lot more. Those on the political right see our problems as a result of excess government and want to move things in the opposite direction.
The fact that Democrats, with their man in the White House and control of both houses of Congress, are having difficulty getting their Big Government programs passed says something about the strength of the grassroots push-back now taking place. This stirring is even occurring among blacks.
According to the Pew Research Center, the president’s approval rating nationwide is now 10 points lower than it was in April. Included in this is a three-point drop in his approval among blacks.
<b>Star, you might say, a drop in approval ratings among blacks from 95 percent to 92 percent is trivial. Not so, I say. If we assume this reflects the 16 million blacks who voted for Obama in November, a three-point shift means there are about a half-million blacks who now have buyer’s remorse.</b>
This is meaningful. You take real risks going against the establishment in black America. Psychological risks, professional risks and sometimes risks to personal safety. Peeling off a black who voted for Obama means moving heaven and Earth.
Even a star like Bill Cosby incurred the wrath of the black establishment when he started talking about black families and personal responsibility. As a result, he backed off and toned down his message.
Recall during the campaign that candidate Obama ruffled Jesse Jackson’s feathers when he spoke about personal responsibility among black males. An inadvertently “on” microphone picked up Jackson saying that he wanted to castrate Obama (not exactly in that language).
The black conservative is not that rare freak of nature that so many think.
According to a Pew Research Center report, almost a third of blacks consider themselves conservative. These folks have always been inclined to be quiet because of the social pressures and intimidation. But this is changing.
Despite slurs, intimidation and widely reported physical attacks from union thugs, a few brave black souls have showed up at Tea Party protests.
I’m getting more and more calls from black conservatives around the country running for local office. I see black conservative Web sites popping up, and there are even black rappers rapping a conservative message.
Who, after all, could know more about the lie of government and the pretense of political answers to life’s problems than blacks?
It’s black families that have been devastated by welfare state programs and black kids who are now trapped in hopeless public schools. And, overwhelmingly, it’s black unborn children who never see the light of day.
<b>How can blacks who have their eyes open not have noticed that it was Obama who killed the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship voucher program and sent black children back to one of the worst public school systems in the country?</b>
The Cato Institute reported that, after adjusting for inflation, funds spent on public schools have doubled since 1970, with no improvement in education performance and a decrease in graduation rates. This is government at work.
The Israelites wandered for 40 years after they left Egypt, giving time for the slave generation to disappear and for a new generation to bear the responsibilities of freedom.
Next year marks 40 years since the decade of the 1960s, which gave us the civil rights movement.
I see a new generation of freedom-loving, churchgoing black Americans coming on the scene. Many voted for Obama out of racial pride. But their values and aspirations for freedom are causing a change of heart.
Examiner Columnist Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org). She is syndicated nationally by Scripps Howard News Service.
JasonF
09-16-09, 11:17 PM
Of course there is racism out there. I just don't like how everyone who disagrees is getting labeled a racist.
I don't think everyone who disagrees with the President is being labeled as a racist. Just the ones who are making racist arguments, or are getting in bed with those who make racist arguments.
RoyalTea
09-16-09, 11:24 PM
I don't think everyone who disagrees with the President is being labeled as a racist. Just the ones who are making racist arguments, or are getting in bed with those who make racist arguments.Which category does Joe Wilson fall into?
dick_grayson
09-16-09, 11:27 PM
Which category does Joe Wilson fall into?
getting into bed with the President :confused:
Pharoh
09-16-09, 11:28 PM
I have suspected Carter of being anti-Semitic for quite a number of years.
He, at he very least, is no friend of the Jewish State.
You should have no doubts any longer.
Tuan Jim
09-16-09, 11:36 PM
This could go in any number of threads already open, but might as well stick it here.
I doubt too many of us can disagree with the statements and conclusions regardless of the source.
- note - I'm too lazy to go through and fix italics, etc. too tired to bold at the moment as well ;p
My own contribution has to do with protesters, and perceptions of them. You know how people are saying that the anti-ObamaCare protesters are scary, un-American, dangerous, and so on? You know how these same people said that the anti-Bush, anti-war protesters were noble, patriotic, brave, and so on? That’s what I’m talking about.
I have written a hypocrisy piece, which is a very easy thing to do — political life is rife with hypocrisy, like life in general. But some of the current hypocrisy reeks to highest heaven — even the hypocrites themselves should smell it.
For years — eight years, to be specific — we heard that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” As Michael Mukasey pointed out to me in a recent interview, the Left thought they were quoting Thomas Jefferson. Actually, the words come from Howard Zinn, or so it seems. (Zinn is the contemporary hard-Left historian.)
And what stupid words those are. Dissent can be a form of patriotism, yes, but the highest? Really? As I say in my NR piece, where does that leave what Sergeant York or Audie Murphy did?
One thing was sure during the 2008 presidential campaign: If Obama won, dissent would no longer be the highest form of patriotism. One wag suggested — this was a reader of mine — “No, dissent will be the highest form of racism.” And it is becoming true, as charges of racism fill the air. (See Congresswoman Diane Watson and others.)
As Obama and the Democrats started to spend massively, some citizens got restive. They held what they called “tea parties,” in honor of the original tea party, in Boston. Anderson Cooper, the greatly respected CNN anchorman, said that these protesters were “tea-bagging.” He was alluding to an exotic sexual practice. And I’m afraid the expression caught on. Janeane Garofalo said of the tea-party protests, “This is racism straight up, nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks, and there is no way around that.”
If you say so, Janeane. But I know, personally, many of the tea-partiers, and there’s not a tea-bagging redneck or racist in the bunch. Maybe Janeane should get out more?
Just the other day, a Democratic congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, referred to anti-ObamaCare protesters as “teabaggers.” What a disgusting development. The word has gone mainstream, and I see it even in the columns of conservative commentators. Great.
We’re reading a lot lately about “right-wing rage.” As I say in my NR piece, funny how you never hear about “left-wing rage.” Could be that “left-wing rage” is not alliterative, as “right-wing rage” is. Or it could be that dominant commentators think of left-wing rage as mere righteous indignation.
Orwell observed that you could never be a “rabid anti-Nazi” or a “rabid anti-fascist.” You could only be a “rabid anti-Communist.” The word “rabid” was reserved exclusively for anti-Communism. These days, “rage” seems reserved exclusively for conservatives.
We are also hearing about “the angry white male” — “the return of the angry white males.” Funny how people get all race- and gender-minded on you. There are many non-whites and non-males among the conservative protesters. And what about that terrible word “males”? Have the anti-conservatives ever heard of “men”?
I think back to one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons, ever. It showed a smiling, slightly dopey middle-aged man. And it said (something like), “Carl was an angry white male until he figured out that his pants were two sizes too small.”
They say that “hate” is rearing its head, and that President Obama and the Democrats are the victims of it. Let me make a couple of predictions: I predict that the chairman of the Republican National Committee will never say, “I hate the Democrats and everything they stand for. This [politics, basically] is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”
Howard Dean said that about the GOP: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for. . . .”
I predict that an editor of a conservative magazine will never write a piece called “The Case for Obama Hatred,” beginning, “I hate President Barack Obama.”
A New Republic editor did this, about Bush.
And there is increasing worry about assassination: that someone will take a shot, not just at the president, but at the first black president, which would be extra-catastrophic for the country. A few protesters have carried signs urging violence against Obama, or smacking of violence. Let me make some more predictions:
I predict that a network talk-show host will not show a video of President Obama giving a speech and put the following words on the screen: “SNIPERS WANTED.”
Craig Kilborn of CBS did that to George W. Bush.
I predict that U.S. senators will not joke about killing Obama.
In 2006, Bill Maher had a conversation with John Kerry. He asked Kerry what he’d gotten his wife for her birthday. Kerry said he had treated her to a vacation in Vermont. Maher said, “You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.” Kerry replied, “Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”
This is the same Kerry who, in 1988, said, “Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they’re to shoot Quayle.” Then he said, “There isn’t any press here, is there?”
I predict that a New York official will not tell a graduating class about assassinating President Obama.
Also in 2006, comptroller Alan Hevesi said to students at Queens College that Sen. Charles Schumer, his fellow Democrat, would “put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.”
I predict that no columnist for a leading European newspaper, and leading world newspaper, will write, “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?”
Charlie Brooker of the Guardian did that to George W. Bush.
I predict that no major writer will write a novel debating the morality of killing President Obama.
Nicholson Baker did that to Bush, with Checkpoint.
I predict that no filmmaker will make a “fictional documentary” that fantasizes — and I’m afraid that is the word — about murdering President Obama.
Some Brits did that to President Bush with Death of a President.
Dear readers, I have made very, very safe predictions. If a CBS talk-show host pictured President Obama and said “SNIPERS WANTED,” he would lose his job, of course. He would never work in the media again. I wonder what else would happen to him.
I could go on, but you’ve heard enough.
There is a website called “zombietime,” and its materials make for pretty rough, discomforting viewing. Here (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621), the site has gathered many pictures taken at anti-Bush and anti-war rallies — and Obama rallies. They show signs and such screaming for the murder of Bush. They show pictures of Bush with a bullet through his head. They show depictions of Bush being guillotined. They show Bush being burned in effigy. Etc., etc.
This is awful, vile, jacobinical stuff — stuff you are not supposed to see in this easygoing, constitutional, non-extremist country.
And the collection reminds us, not just of the hatred directed at Bush for all those years, but of the murderous hatred directed at him.
Regular readers may be sick of hearing this story — I think I’ve told it twice — but let me tell it again. I tell the story, not because the person featured in it is evil, but for the opposite reason: She is basically wonderful. She just had a fever, that hate-Bush, kill-Bush fever.
I was at an Upper East Side dinner party, and talk turned to 9/11. I mentioned that the “Pennsylvania plane” was apparently destined for the Capitol or the White House. My hostess said, “I wish President Bush had been killed that day.”
“zombietime” is an amazing site. According to Wikipedia (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombietime)), it is “maintained by ‘zombie,’ a pseudonymous photographer,” and “documents apparent [!] far-left, antisemitic, or anti-American views and public indecency at political demonstrations, street festivals and other public events.”
And the photographer himself, or herself?
“zombie” . . . spells that name with a lower-case “z,” and has never revealed their real name, gender, age or profession. In a winter 2006 interview with the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, zombie states that they did not initially intend to set up a website at all; rather, having been “left-wing” their entire life, and having attended many protests and rallies, zombie decided to go to the anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, bringing a digital camera purchased the day before. The signs carried at the rally “shocked and mortified” zombie.
He or she said, “There were overtly anti-Semitic signs, banners blaming 9/11 on conspirators in the U.S. government, guys dressed up as suicide bombers, and all sorts of craziness. I took out my new camera and started clicking away. By the time the march was over, I was a changed person. If that was what the ‘Left’ had become, then I wanted no part of it.”
This is what may go by the name of being “scared straight.” Something similar — not the same, maybe not as dramatic, but similar — happened to me, years ago, in my hometown of Ann Arbor, Mich. “Liberal” as I was, or thought I was, I knew I did not belong with a nasty and extremist crowd. (I have written about this several times, and will not bore you with autobiography now.)
A final word (for the moment): You remember Cindy Sheehan: big anti-war protester. Had lost a son, Casey, in Iraq. Dedicated herself to hounding President Bush. Attracted a lot of attention. Became a media star, vulgar as that term may seem. All the biggies put her front and center. One of them was Charlie Gibson of ABC News.
The other day, he was asked about Sheehan. She was going to Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama was vacationing, to continue her protests. What did Gibson think? He said, “Enough already.”
And that, it seems to me, is the view of the “MSM” where anti-presidential protest in general is concerned: Enough already. Bush is out, Obama is in. End of protest.
Well, “poo on that,” as a friend of mine used to say.
....
JasonF
09-17-09, 12:17 AM
Which category does Joe Wilson fall into?
Rep. Wilson called it a "smear" when Strom Thurmond's half-black daughter came forward and announced her parentage and he supported flying the Confederate flag even when all but six other Republican state Senators had agreed to a compromise in which it would come down.
I don't know what's in his heart and why he does these things.
kvrdave
09-17-09, 12:30 AM
Rep. Wilson called it a "smear" when Strom Thurmond's half-black daughter came forward and announced her parentage and he supported flying the Confederate flag even when all but six other Republican state Senators had agreed to a compromise in which it would come down.
I don't know what's in his heart and why he does these things.
Yet we know that his views are not substantive because we have decided he takes them based on his racism.
X
09-17-09, 12:48 AM
Rep. Wilson called it a "smear" when Strom Thurmond's half-black daughter came forward and announced her parentage and he supported flying the Confederate flag even when all but six other Republican state Senators had agreed to a compromise in which it would come down.
I don't know what's in his heart and why he does these things.Wow! You must really have been following his career.
How could anybody possibly think this picture is racist?
It's sooooooo helpful that you were able to post these pictures hanging in Joe Wilson's office to support J. Carter's claims. -wink-
Regarding some of your other assertions, I don't see them as absolute proof of racism.
When someone comes forward after years of silence, some may see it as an attempt to "smear" a person's reputation. I think that one can question someone's motive or intent even when speaking the truth. For instance, many Democrats...maybe even yourself...saw the revelation that B. Clinton had been philandering in the Oval Office with an intern as an attempt to smear him regardless of the truthfulness of the claims. I may be wrong, but I think that slander or libel suits may be brought if there is proof of malicious intent regardless of the truth of the statements.
As a protege of Thurmond, Wilson may have thought he was defending his boss from an attack, or he may have been offended by the thought of his boss engaging in miscegenation. If he called her a liar even while knowing the truth, that would certainly indicate a misplaced loyalty at best. Unless you can provide more details, I don't think we can determine that Wilson's motives were racist rather than simply being protective of an old man who had acted as his mentor any more than we know the true motives of Thurmond's daughter.
The Confederate flag thing is a red herring. There are many people who decry slavery yet revere their ancestors who fought for the South. Unless you are going to dismiss everyone who defends states' rights...which were, after all, guaranteed in the Consitution...as racists, I think you are on thin ice. Just as there were people in the North who supported the institution of slavery, there were people in the South who wanted to see slavery end yet didn't want to see the federal government overrunning the people's self-determination. Even today, one can argue that this "work within the system" method is misplaced, but that shouldn't make us automatically jump to conclusions regarding that person's motives. One can acknowledge that some understandably regard the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism while others see it as a sign of their heritage. You could make a good case that Wilson is being insensitive to the objections of a large number of his constituents, but that doesn't make him "racist" simply because he sees the situation in a different context. Some see Lincoln as the Great Emancipator while others see him as the Great Tyrant who shredded the Constitution.
In other words, I don't think your "proof" is clear-cut. Just ask Robert Byrd, whose KKK past would seem to impugn every move he makes if we are going to use one's past to judge the present.
creekdipper
09-17-09, 08:20 AM
Black voters, like most other voters, vote according to their perceived self-interest. We could assume that black voters are systematically too dumb to understand that their self-interest does not lie with the Democratic Party (at least, not in greater proportions than white voters' self interest), but that strikes me as a somewhat dubious (dare I say, racist) assumption. Or, we could assume that black voters are just as capable as anyone else of judging where their self-interest lies, and that the positions of the Democratic Party actually do align better with those interests than those of the Republican Party.
Actually, your statement could easily be construed as being RACIST.
Imagine if someone had posted that 'white voters' voted against Obama out of "perceived self-interest". I imagine that the liberal blogs would have a field day with that.
It's one thing to say that black voters as INDIVIDUALS vote out of 'self-interest'. It's quite another to suggest that an entire racial bloc of voters vote homogeneously. It suggests that that bloc thinks & acts alike (or, at the very least, vote for what's best for THEIR RACE rather than what's best for the country). I don't see the intent as being that much different from KKK members who vote for white candidates to "preserve their culture". Before anyone utters any objections regarding violent methods, etc., remember that we're just discussing intent.
If you are suggesting that black voters vote as individuals and just coincidentally happen to agree more on issues than other racial groups (most whom tend to be all over the map on various issues), the idea you put forth could be perceived as stereotyping (or, in modern parlance, "profiling"). You would need to identify those issues which are "black issues" (as opposed to American issues)...which would seem to indicate that blacks as individuals think just like 95% of other black people. I defy you to randomly round up any other racial group of people and demonstrate that 95% agree on ANY issue.
Just an attempt to demonstrate how easily statements can be be interpreted as "racism".
nemein
09-17-09, 08:26 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/27248
The race from race: Dems rebut Carter
Politico
Jimmy Carter is 84 years old and three decades removed from the White House, but he still has the power to make Democrats run.
Away from him, that is.
From the White House to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Democrats raced to distance themselves from the former president’s claim that racism was behind Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst and other attacks on President Barack Obama.
“Listen, he’s the former president, and he’s entitled to his point of view,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I personally believe President Obama and his administration are focused on the issues, and I agree with that.”
“I don’t see this as a racial issue,” added Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). “There are a lot of people upset about how we on the Democratic side can engage like we have been, and there’s a lot of anger out there. So, I don’t see it as a racial issue.”
“I didn’t agree with it,” Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) said of Carter’s remarks.
Congressional Democrats have no interest in starting a racial argument that could turn off swing district voters whose support the party will need if it plans on keeping its grip on Congress in 2010. And the current occupants of the White House made it clear Wednesday that they have no interest in bringing race back to the fore of any discussion about Obama.
“The president does not believe that criticism comes based on the color of his skin,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters in his Wednesday briefing. “We understand that people have disagreements with some of the decisions that we’ve made and some of the extraordinary actions that had to be taken by both this administration and the previous administration.”
Carter said Tuesday that there’s “an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” and that that feeling drives some of the anti-Obama dissent.
He isn’t the first to suggest that race is driving some of the anti-Obama animus. Reps. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) and David Scott (D-Ga.), among others, have suggested that Wilson wouldn’t have interrupted a white president. And New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that “fair or not,” she heard “an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”
In the hours before Tuesday’s vote, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, predicted that if Wilson’s outburst were allowed to go unpunished, “We will have people with white hoods running through the countryside again.”
But, by and large, congressional Democrats have tried to keep the race factor out of the Wilson debate.
With their resolution Tuesday night reprimanding Wilson, Democrats had sought to refocus their narrative toward their efforts to turn around the nation’s economy and pass a sweeping health care reform bill. Leaders had spent Tuesday trying to prevent anger among black lawmakers from boiling over in that evening’s floor debate about a resolution reprimanding Wilson.
During a caucus meeting just hours before the start of the debate, Democratic leadership aides said that Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, an African-American from Wilson’s South Carolina, pleaded with his fellow Democrats to keep the debate far from the racial issue.
But Carter’s comments brought them right back to it — even as they tried to get away.
“I just think 2010 will be about — as most midterm elections are — the whole economic well-being of America,” said Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who heads up the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “And that’s what the focus should be.”
“We should take our cue from President Obama,” Durbin told POLITICO. As his personal friend for many years, I can tell you, he is the last person to raise this issue.”
Wilson brushed off Carter’s comments Wednesday, telling POLITICO that they were a “distraction” — a point with which some of Wilson’s critics agreed.
Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards, who has represented a conservative, heavily white Texas district for 18 years, said he didn’t believe there was any evidence to support Carter’s assertion that racial factors had motivated Wilson.
“I just don’t want a divisive dialogue on race to become a battering ram of division for our country,” he said.
Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis agreed. “It’s not a productive or healthy conversation,” he said.
creekdipper
09-17-09, 08:37 AM
Re: nemein's post ^^^
President Obama & many leading Democrats are doing not only the politically expedient thing but the RIGHT thing (IMHO) by shunning the race card.
Carter placed Obama in a tough spot of having to distance himself from Carter's statements without appearing to diss the former Prez. I thought the official statement did a good job.
He probably wanted to call Carter a "jackass" but thought once a week was enough.
I would say "Jimmy crack corn & I don't care", but the rest of that verse would sound pretty racist. Anyway, good job on this one, Mr. President.
cpgator
09-17-09, 08:58 AM
Rep. Wilson called it a "smear" when Strom Thurmond's half-black daughter came forward and announced her parentage and he supported flying the Confederate flag even when all but six other Republican state Senators had agreed to a compromise in which it would come down.
I don't know what's in his heart and why he does these things.
:lol:
Good thing the Obama's haven't ever said anything that could be considered racists against the whiteys.
Venusian
09-17-09, 09:08 AM
Also good that he doesn't associate with those who might make racist arguments ;)
nemein
09-17-09, 10:56 AM
Too many overlapping threads, but heaven forbid I do a "one and only" thread ;)
Anyway this seems to be the most applicable thread since it's more about the discussion of race than the protest itself.
September 16, 2009
Black Tea Party Express Tour Team Member Experienced Racism
By Lloyd Marcus
I traveled on the Tea Party Express tour bus as a singer/songwriter, entertainer and spokesperson; 16 states, 34 rallies in two weeks. I experienced vicious racial verbal attacks, not from the tea party protesters. The racial hate expressed against me all came from the left, people who support President Obama's radial socialist agenda.
Unfortunately, my deleted email box is littered with numerous messages expressing the following:
"You are the dumbest self hating f****** n***** I have ever seen!"
These racists are outraged by my opening lines I boldly proclaimed at each rally. "Hello my fellow patriots! I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERCIAN!"
At every rally, my proclamation inspired great applause and cheers of joy and approval from the audiences. After each rally many came to me with tears in their eyes. They said, "I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you said. I am Irish (or Italian, or Asian) American. And yet, I would never hyphenate. I feel hyphening divides us. While it is fine to honor one's origin, let's all be American first".
The tea party audience's passionate response to my proclamation was a surprise to me. I did not know so many Americans disapproved of hyphenating pushed on us via political correctness.
I rejected hyphenating years ago. One day I woke up and heard I was no longer black, I was African American. Anyone rejecting the new term was called ignorant, insensitive and an Uncle Tom -- if you are black. Not intending to be provocative or controversial, I casually stated that I am not a hyphenated American, but simply an American at a tea party. The audience's cheers of approval were surprising and heartwarming.
[Editor's note: See also "Why I am no longer an African-American", published on 9/12, the day Lloyd performed in DC]
As I said, I am a singer, songwriter, entertainer and columnist using my gifts to spread the message that conservatism is best for all Americans. Liberals' response to my YouTube videos, columns and performances on the Tea Party Express have been extremely racist, vicious and hate-filled. In their incredible arrogance, they vilify me for loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim of white America. In the sick minds of liberals, as a black man in America, I must support President Obama regardless of his policies. I must resent white America. I must feel entitled to the earnings of other Americans. My belief that my success or failure is totally in the hands of myself and my God is anathema to them.
As to the claim that the tea party protesters are racist, they are not. Quite the opposite. At every rally, with thousands in attendance, I was overwhelmingly showered with affection and thanks for standing up for America. At one rally, a sign read, "Lloyd Lloyd for presidentMarcus for President". These protesters are not racist. They are decent hard working ordinary Americans who love their country and disapprove of the radical changes planned by the Obama administration. Race is not an issue with them. They have deep concerns for their country.
Disgustingly, Obama-ites use race to silence the protesters. They know it is an effective weapon to use against decent people. Ironically, the people the Obam-ites call racist are the same people who hate hyphenating. They want to be united as Americans.
The grand finale of the Tea Party Express Tour took place Saturday, September 12 in Washington DC at the U.S. Capitol. I performed my song, Twenty Ten. The crowd of over a million loved it. C-Span posted my performance on YouTube. Shamefully, C-Span had to delete the hate-filled racist comments posted by Obama supporters in response to my performance. Why do so-called tolerant and compassionate liberals think it is OK to freely use the "N" word when referring to blacks who escape the "liberal plantation"?
Despite Obama-ite's hideous charges of racism, this amazing tea party movement is driven by passion, concern and love of country by the American people. A Tea Party Express "whistle stop" in Mt. Vernon, Texas epitomized the mood of the movement.
We were late leaving our Dallas, Texas rally. We would arrive late at our rally in Memphis, Tennessee. The decision was made to cancel the road side "whistle stop" in Mt. Vernon, Texas. Besides, it was only suppose to be a brief stop for a few folks to tour the bus, take pictures and give us homemade treats. Then, we received the call, "You MUST stop. There are a lot of people here!" The State Police lead our Tea Party Express Tour bus into a crowd of 500 to 800 cheering excited people. They treated us like rock stars. Totally unprepared, the truck with our sound system was on its way to Memphis. We did not have a sound system or a stage.
We made our way through the crowd to the bed of a pick up truck. National radio talk show host Mark Williams, blue star mom Deborah Johns, singer Diana Nagy, the Rivoli Revue (Ron and Kay) and I climbed on board. Someone handed Mark a bull horn which he used to encourage the extremely enthusiastic crowd. We said the Pledge of Allegiance and Diana lead in the singing of "God Bless America". Many in the crowd were sobbing. Then they showered us with thanks, hugs, bottled water, bags of shacks and homemade treats. I thought, "How many angry racist mobs bake and bring brownies and overwhelm a black guy with affection and hugs?"
Once back on the bus, our team struggled to hold back tears. We felt humbled, honored and blessed. Though extremely well received at each rally, this "whistle stop" drove home the passion, love of country, and importance of our mission to preserve and Take Back America!
The Tea Party protesters are hard working decent people who love their country and want us all united as Americans. I am highly offended that this evil administration seeks to divide us, not just by race, but also by class envy. As I said to many of the audiences along the Tea Party Express bus tour, "I love you. Stay strong. Do not allow their calling you a racist to shut you up! Stand up for America. God bless you. And God bless America!"
Another interesting one by the same person http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/youre_a_racist_the_ultimate_em.html
kvrdave
09-17-09, 12:31 PM
:lol:
Good thing the Obama's haven't ever said anything that could be considered racists against the whiteys.
According to Jessie Jackson, that can't be racist because the black man doesn't have the power. You know, other than the presidency.
General Zod
09-17-09, 12:35 PM
I don't know if this goes in the Wilson thread or not.. I'm not sure where anything is supposed to go anymore :( But ..
When Wilson apologized after his "outburst" Pelosi said she thought it was all a done deal and she wanted to move on. The congressional black caucus DEMANDED that the house vote on a formal reprimand for Wilson. That is the first time "race" had any involvement in this whole fiasco and it was started by the Democrats. It just astounds me how they continue to beat the drums of racism while at the same time accusing others of being racist. I take it back.. it doesn't really astound me.
kvrdave
09-17-09, 12:54 PM
The Black Caucus can't be racist because they don't have any power...oh wait.
Another interesting one by the same person http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/youre_a_racist_the_ultimate_em.html
They showed a clip on Beck last night from MSNBC talking about white people with guns at a town hall in Arizona. They implied it was racist and the person they showed a guy with a rifle and a pistol. However the same guy was filmed by fox at the same rally and it was a black guy not a white guy.
They showed a clip on Beck last night from MSNBC talking about white people with guns at a town hall in Arizona. They implied it was racist and the person they showed a guy with a rifle and a pistol. However the same guy was filmed by fox at the same rally and it was a black guy not a white guy.
According to Jessie Jackson, that can't be racist because the black man doesn't have the power. You know, other than the presidency.
One of the many silly statements made by Jackson.
JasonF
09-17-09, 05:35 PM
Ta-Nehisi Coates on racism and the President and Rev. Jackson and Sharpton:
Andrew [Sullivan] on Malkin and Limbaugh's dishonest white fear-mongering:
These people are going off the deep end entirely: open panic at a black president is morphing into the conscious fanning of racial polarization, via Gates or ACORN or Van Jones or a schoolbus in Saint Louis. What we're seeing is the Jeremiah Wright moment repeated and repeated. The far right is seizing any racial story to fan white fears of black power in order to destroy Obama. And the far right now controls the entire right.
Do they understand how irresponsible this is? How recklessly dangerous to a society's cohesion and calm? Or is that what they need and thrive on?
Yes. Yes. And yes.
I got a note from a good friend yesterday expressing shock, and anger, about Drudge and Malkin's usage of that alleged racial beat-down on a school-bus. On some level, I wonder if something's wrong with me. I'm neither shocked, nor angry. This is exactly how I expected these fools to respond to a black president.
If anything, I'm a little giddy. For black people, the clear benefit of Obama is that he is quietly exposing an ancient hatred that has simmered in this country for decades. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of us grew tired of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, mostly because they presented easy foils for Limbaugh-land. Moreover, again rightly or wrongly, they were used to define all of us.
It's intensely grating to live say, in Atlanta, and have some dude in Harlem crowned as your unelected leader. It's even more grating if said dude's agenda seems, in large measure, come down to standing in front of cameras and tweaking his opponents. It's no mistake that O'Reilly and Sharpton would break bread together at Sylvia's--they feed each other.
But Barack Obama, bourgeois in every way that bourgeois is right and just, will not dance. He tells kids to study--and they seethe. He accepts an apology for an immature act of rudeness--and they go hysterical. He takes his wife out for a date--and their veins bulge. His humanity, his ordinary blackness, is killing them. Dig the audio of his response to Kanye West--the way he says, "He's a jackass." He sounds like one of my brothers. And that's the point, because that's what he is. Barack Obama refuses to be their ******. And it's driving them crazy
:lol: What a load of crap. I admit that living in the Pacific NW that I may be out of touch with much to do with racial issues, but there seems to be no justification for anyone to disagree with Obama's ideas. They have to call it racism because they can't imagine that anyone wouldn't want an expansion of government and higher taxes and "free" healthcare.
Nausicaa
09-17-09, 06:03 PM
Read that today, great post. Ta-Nehisi Coates is one of the best culture bloggers out there.
Dr Mabuse
09-17-09, 06:03 PM
Our taxes are going to get higher with or without health care reform
We have all the spending we've done to pay for. Within a few years taxes are going up. Probably quite a bit and new taxes are coming too. Again with or without health care reform.
The costs of health care now guarantees we will go bankrupt as a nation in not too many years.
But that's better than reform of any type; the guaranteed failure thing we have now that is.
General Zod
09-17-09, 06:05 PM
:lol: What a load of crap. I admit that living in the Pacific NW that I may be out of touch with much to do with racial issues, but there seems to be no justification for anyone to disagree with Obama's ideas. They have to call it racism because they can't imagine that anyone wouldn't want an expansion of government and higher taxes and "free" healthcare.
What demographic would benefit the most from higher taxes and free health care? And, so, if you are against those things are you against them?
Pharoh
09-17-09, 06:47 PM
Ta-Nehisi Coates on racism and the President and Rev. Jackson and Sharpton:
I guess I don't understand what this has to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, are you seriously simply going to post a blog entry? And this blog entry?
I think blogs have overtaken wikipedia as my biggest source of frustration concerning the internets.
kvrdave
09-17-09, 06:48 PM
Our taxes are going to get higher with or without health care reform
We have all the spending we've done to pay for. Within a few years taxes are going up. Probably quite a bit and new taxes are coming too. Again with or without health care reform.
The costs of health care now guarantees we will go bankrupt as a nation in not too many years.
But that's better than reform of any type; the guaranteed failure thing we have now that is.
OR we could actually spend less, tax less, and let revenue increase as a result.
greymatter
09-17-09, 06:55 PM
Our taxes are going to get higher with or without health care reform<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="0" height="0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.photosnag.com/pages/4210//info.html"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.photosnag.com/pages/4210//info.html" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="0" height="0"></embed></object>
We have all the spending we've done to pay for. Within a few years taxes are going up. Probably quite a bit and new taxes are coming too. Again with or without health care reform.
The costs of health care now guarantees we will go bankrupt as a nation in not too many years.
But that's better than reform of any type; the guaranteed failure thing we have now that is.
Indeed, I dont think congress or any other elected body is capable of reeling in the crazies running the world
JasonF
09-17-09, 06:57 PM
I guess I don't understand what this has to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, are you seriously simply going to post a blog entry? And this blog entry?
We were discussing -- apart from the specifics of President Carter's statements -- the intersection of race and criticism of the president, as well as Reverend Jackson. Coates had a post that addressed these issue and I found it to be cogent and thoughtful, so I figured I would pass it along.
I think blogs have overtaken wikipedia as my biggest source of frustration concerning the internets.
The Politics and World Events subforum at DVDTalk is still number one for me. ;)
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 06:58 PM
:lol: What a load of crap.
Agreed. The only fear-mongering is coming from people like that who claim that the racist right wing are out to destroy his presidency and stop teh change! "quietly exposing an ancient hatred" :lol:
Dr Mabuse
09-17-09, 06:58 PM
OR we could actually spend less, tax less, and let revenue increase as a result.
In the magical land of fairy tales and glitter-coated ponies I guess.
Until we do away with career politicians and set two term limits we will not restrain the encroachment and growth of the government, including spending. Unfortunately many people just... aren't able to see that let's say.
The American public has become so apathetic and 'Idiocracy' like all the money spent in an election is for like 6-7% of the vote IIRC. No way the American people will vote in representatives who would pass term limits and stop this corruption that's going to destroy us.
Norm de Plume
09-17-09, 07:11 PM
Carter said a stupid thing when he claimed the opposition to Obama is "overwhelmingly" due to racism. There's no question that some Obama haters are racist, but for the majority it's just right-wing rage over their political impotence, not racism.
You're right. There's absolutely no racism in America any more. Silly liberals claiming there is.
Apropos of nothing, did anybody hear Limbaugh's response to the horrific incident earlier this week in which a couple of black kids beat up a white kid on a school bus? Here's Limbaugh's reaction:
Meanwhile, a pundit by the name of Dan Riehl uses this incident as an excuse to blog about the fact that when he was coming back from the 9-12 rally, there were a bunch of uppity negro kids on his Metro train and he totally could have beaten the shit out of them if he had needed to.
Riding out of DC on the Metro, 9/12, there were some folks from South Dakota and also another Mid-West state I can't recall in the same Metro car. We were talking, nothing special, really - politics, of course.
In the back were maybe ten or so black kids taking up that section of the car. There was no confrontation, just one or two of them talking loudly enough to make sure they'd be heard.
Without resorting to the poor diction it was along the lines of, these are the people who think Obama is the anti-Christ. That McCain he wasn't chit. Obama's going to be president as long as he wants, so these people better get used to it, etc. It went on but not really to a level that was so loud, or so confrontational that it needed to be addressed.
We just ignored them without much trouble at all.
Yeah, they were technically thugs. But the reality was they were still wannabes really, pretty young, not that big, or many. And if the several adults there for 9/12 actually needed to do something about it, the kids wouldn't have lasted very long. Maybe if they were bigger, or more numerous, it might have been worse. Or it may not have happened at all. Who knows?
Now, I don't know who the fuck Dan Riehl is, nor do I care. But he's obviously someone with enough clout that he gets air time on CNN to spout his noxious opinions. And he's spouting shit like this.
Is Rush Limbaugh calling Barack Obama a n*gg*r? Is Dan Riehl saying that blacks should be subservient to whites? Of course not. These people are not stupid. They know what is and is not acceptable in society. They know where the lines are, and how to walk right up to them and still maintain plausible deniability. There's always a way to explain "Oh, that's not really what they meant. You're just reading racism into it because you love your Obamessiah so much." But each excuse strains credulity that much more, and there are plenty of voices from the right that have strained credulity far beyond the breaking point.
None of this means that you can't have legitimate policy disagreements with the President. Of course you can. But you're fooling yourself if you think that alongside those legitimate policy disagreements, you've got people freaking out over the fact that the President is a black man and expressing that freak out in every way they can think to do it.
JasonF
09-17-09, 07:19 PM
Carter said a stupid thing when he claimed the opposition to Obama is "overwhelmingly" due to racism. There's no question that some Obama haters are racist, but for the majority it's just right-wing rage over their political impotence, not racism.
I agree.
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 07:21 PM
But you're fooling yourself if you think that alongside those legitimate policy disagreements, you've got people freaking out over the fact that the President is a black man and expressing that freak out in every way they can think to do it.
I can agree with that :shrug:
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 07:27 PM
You're right. There's absolutely no racism in America any more. Silly liberals claiming there is.
I'm trying to find the post that this is responding to :lol:
If you want to stretch the "monkey see, monkey spend" as racist, I can live with that, but how are the others possibly considered racist?
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 07:29 PM
The monkey one is definitely racist. The other four are just ignorant.
JasonF
09-17-09, 07:35 PM
I'm trying to find the post that this is responding to :lol:
These two, mainly.
:lol: What a load of crap. I admit that living in the Pacific NW that I may be out of touch with much to do with racial issues, but there seems to be no justification for anyone to disagree with Obama's ideas. They have to call it racism because they can't imagine that anyone wouldn't want an expansion of government and higher taxes and "free" healthcare.
Agreed. The only fear-mongering is coming from people like that who claim that the racist right wing are out to destroy his presidency and stop teh change! "quietly exposing an ancient hatred" :lol:
Obviously, given that you agreed with my ultimate point, you weren't saying what I thought you were saying. From my perspective, I see people on the left saying "You know, there's a lot of racism motivating some of these critics" and people on the right responding "Oh, so now we can't disagree with the president without getting called racists!?" If that's not what you're saying -- if what you're saying is simply "Not every criticism of the president is racially based" -- then you and I (and even President Carter, I think, though I won't pretend to speak for him) are on the same page.
kvrdave
09-17-09, 07:37 PM
Apropos of nothing, did anybody hear Limbaugh's response to the horrific incident earlier this week in which a couple of black kids beat up a white kid on a school bus? Here's Limbaugh's reaction:
I actually had to drive to the big city and found a station and listed to this show. I don't think it is what you think it is. But then, I heard 2 hours of the show.
Is Rush Limbaugh calling Barack Obama a n*gg*r? Is Dan Riehl saying that blacks should be subservient to whites? Of course not. These people are not stupid. They know what is and is not acceptable in society. They know where the lines are, and how to walk right up to them and still maintain plausible deniability. There's always a way to explain "Oh, that's not really what they meant. You're just reading racism into it because you love your Obamessiah so much." But each excuse strains credulity that much more, and there are plenty of voices from the right that have strained credulity far beyond the breaking point.
And there is always a way to show how everything is racist. Surely you have noticed that the "racist talk" has ramped up recently, despite the fact that there has been opposition for months. Do you think the media just ignored it for a long time because it didn't seem important to show racial issues with the opponents, or do you think it became talking points to refute criticism by not having to address any points? I think it is obviously the latter.
None of this means that you can't have legitimate policy disagreements with the President. Of course you can. But you're fooling yourself if you think that alongside those legitimate policy disagreements, you've got people freaking out over the fact that the President is a black man and expressing that freak out in every way they can think to do it.
Much like the hippies with signs that said, "We support our troops who frag their commanders" and every similar thing, I have no doubt that there is a tiny segment that hates Obama because he is black. However, I don't for one minute think that all the talk about racism has anything to do with racism and has everything to do with trying to paint all opposition as racist. Do you think that the pundits are not trying to paint the entire opposition this way? I think it is obvious. Marginalize the masses by focusing on the fringe.
dork
09-17-09, 07:40 PM
You're right. There's absolutely no racism in America any more. Silly liberals claiming there is.
I'm trying to find the post that this is responding to :lol:
Sorry, I deleted my post that came immediately before. Here it is:
There's absolutely no racism in America any more. Who claiming there is?
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 07:46 PM
Obviously, given that you agreed with my ultimate point, you weren't saying what I thought you were saying.
Reread what I agreed with. I think you left out a 'don't' somewhere. ;)
From my perspective, I see people on the left saying "You know, there's a lot of racism motivating some of these critics" and people on the right responding "Oh, so now we can't disagree with the president without getting called racists!?"I didn't get that impression from the blog.
I read it more like "You know, the far right (that is the entire right) is demonstrating deep-rooted racism in their criticisms of the President", and people on the right responding "wtf?!" Plus the whole "Barack Obama refuses to be their ****** and it's driving them crazy" sentence is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I agree with the comment that it's more like the right is becoming desperate because of its impotence.
That's blatantly false. Just as he is fervently opposed to a single-payer healthcare plan, Obama has specifically said that he believes legal marriage should be between a man and a woman.
dork
09-17-09, 07:59 PM
It also looks like the reason he's so into health care reform lately is that he seems to have hurt his head???
Tracer Bullet
09-17-09, 08:06 PM
:lol: at everyone falling all over themselves to prove that no criticism of Obama originates from racism.
astrochimp
09-17-09, 08:06 PM
So people protesting holding signs portraying Obama as Hitler isn't hate speech? People holding the confederate flag, yelling 'I want my country back' doesn't smack of racism? (They want their country back from that 'uppity negro' who's in the white house.)
Here's a video from 9/12 of the morons on parade....
:lol: at everyone falling all over themselves to prove that no criticism of Obama originates from racism.
Link?
Is anyone anywhere actually trying to prove that no criticism of Obama originates from racism, or is this just a good line to make fun of people that don't exist?
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 08:22 PM
Maybe dork deleted another post where that line would make sense?
Tracer Bullet
09-17-09, 08:24 PM
Why exactly did we fight the Civil War, again?
Tracer Bullet
09-17-09, 08:26 PM
Link?
Is anyone anywhere actually trying to prove that no criticism of Obama originates from racism, or is this just a good line to make fun of people that don't exist?
Racism is alive because the Democrats are keeping it alive.
Rockmjd23
09-17-09, 08:33 PM
That was like 4 pages ago ;)
Why exactly did we fight the Civil War, again?
Because Obama wouldn't be our ****** and it's driving us crazy?
kvrdave
09-17-09, 09:11 PM
Racism and its involvement in this debate are greatly overstated. There, I said it.
crazyronin
09-17-09, 09:27 PM
I actually had to drive to the big city and found a station and listed to this show. I don't think it is what you think it is. But then, I heard 2 hours of the show.
Umm, Maybe you've heard of this new thing called the Internet. One of the neat things on it (besides porn) is radio streaming. (http://streamingradioguide.com/streaming-radio-shows.php?sformat=1&radio-format=Political%20Opinion)
Tracer Bullet
09-17-09, 09:35 PM
Umm, Maybe you've heard of this new thing called the Internet. One of the neat things on it (besides porn) is radio streaming. (http://streamingradioguide.com/streaming-radio-shows.php?sformat=1&radio-format=Political%20Opinion)
The internet hasn't reached kvrdave's neck of the woods yet. He actually uses packet pigeons to post here. Although with his penchant for shooting animals, he'll probably have to lobby the federal government to subsidize broadband for his area soon.
I could have sworn there was something similar to this w/ Bush instead of Obama.
Pharoh
09-17-09, 11:04 PM
We were discussing -- apart from the specifics of President Carter's statements -- the intersection of race and criticism of the president, as well as Reverend Jackson. Coates had a post that addressed these issue and I found it to be cogent and thoughtful, so I figured I would pass it along.
Okay. I guess my failure to find it cogent or thoughtful biased my view. But that is just my take, so...
The Politics and World Events subforum at DVDTalk is still number one for me. ;)
I kept waiting for your thoughts on the absurdity of an anti-Semite accusing others of racism.
:shrug:
Though I agree with much of what has passed for topics of discussion lately.
Tracer Bullet
09-17-09, 11:10 PM
State's rights vs. expansive Federal control (mainly in the context of slavery but not entirely is my understanding).
Yeah thanks I know that :lol:
dick_grayson
09-17-09, 11:12 PM
Okay. I guess my failure to find it cogent or thoughtful biased my view. But that is just my take, so...
the thread title doesn't 'do' it for you?
kvrdave
09-17-09, 11:13 PM
I could see your point for the first three... but the last two? Really?
How is the last one racist. Certainly it is trying to associate him with Muslim extremism, but I don't see how his race is at issue.
As for the monkey one, we have already had a editorial cartoon that was found to be racist, when no one knew it was initially. Because of the history of disparaging images of black people with monkeys, etc. I can understand that, but if that is the best proof of racism running around, it is pretty freaking weak.
Pharoh
09-17-09, 11:15 PM
Yeah thanks I know that :lol:
Well, it's not like we have ever discussed that issue here before, so...
:)
nemein
09-17-09, 11:16 PM
Well, it's not like we have ever discussed that issue here before, so...
:)
-ptth-
JasonF
09-18-09, 12:19 AM
I kept waiting for your thoughts on the absurdity of an anti-Semite accusing others of racism.
:shrug:
Though I agree with much of what has passed for topics of discussion lately.
I haven't paid enough attention to President Carter's statements on Israel to know whether he is an anti-semite, anti-Israel, or simply in line with the Israeli left. Obviously, if he is an anti-semite, he has zero credibility in terms of accusing others of racism.
wmansir
09-18-09, 03:48 AM
Since the seems to be the place to discuss delusional liberals and their rhetoric:
Pelosi warns right of inciting "violence" — invoking Harvey Milk murder (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Pelosi_warns_GOP_of_inciting_violence_Was_she_invoking_Milk_murder.html)
An uncharacteristically emotional Nancy Pelosi is warning Republicans — and other groups getting whipped up over the health care debate — not to incite unstable supporters who might repeat acts of violence that struck San Francisco in the 1970s.
A top Pelosi aide later confirmed reporters' suggestions that her statement was a reference to the City Hall murder of gay rights activist Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in November 1978 — an earth-shattering experience for Bay Area Democrats like the speaker.
Pelosi stumbled when asked about Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst and its impact on civility in the House, momentarily overcome by emotion.
"I think we all have to take action and responsibility for our words — we are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we, um, have to carefully balance," said Pelosi, who made no direct mention of Republicans.
A House leadership aide later told me that Democrats have become increasingly concerned by the ratcheting up of rhetoric on both sides — and particularly alarmed by the recent hanging in effigy of Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) by a tea party activist on the Eastern Shore.
"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco, this king of rhetoric. ... It created a climate in which violence took place. ... I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statements may assume."
Pelosi, according to her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, was referring to Supervisor Dan White's murder of Milk and Moscone, the basis for last year's film "Milk."
She added: "You have to take responsibility for any incitement that [the speaker's words] may cause."
The speaker, who served as California state party chairwoman before being elected to the House, was a gay rights advocate who attended Milk's funeral.
Ironically, the most notorious act of violence to afflict the health care debate was the recent scrum between a pro-reform protester and a tea party activist in which the liberal bit off part of the conservative's finger after being punched in the face.
The Pelosi scrap mirrors an earlier fight. In April, the Department of Homeland Security set off a firestorm of protest when it acknowledged it had produced a report titled: "Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," which warned that right-wing groups could be spurred to violence by the election of the nation's first African-American president.
Republicans — still upset at Pelosi's charge that disruptions by town hall protesters were "un-American" — were quick to take issue.
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) is the first House GOPer to take issue with Pelosi's contention that the vehemence of anti-health care reform rhetoric could lead to a wave of violence akin to that which hit San Francisco in the '70s:
“Speaker Pelosi is right that the American people are upset, but it is her own words that continue to fuel voter frustration in America," Sessions said in a statement sent to POLITICO. "No longer content with criticizing concerned citizens for being ‘un-American,’ the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda."
Sessions, who raised eyebrows earlier this year by suggesting the House GOP minority needed to adapt the insurgent politics of the Taliban, added: "During one of the most important policy debates of our time, the American people have been completely abandoned by those elected representatives under her control. Voters are justifiably frustrated with Washington, and the Speaker's verbal assault on voters accomplishes nothing other than furthering her reputation for being wildly out of touch with the American people.”
What does democrat Dan White's killing of fellow democrats, largely over internal politics/personal reasons, have to do with opposition to health care?
Bandoman
09-18-09, 07:33 AM
What does democrat Dan White killing of fellow democrats, largely over internal politics/personal reasons, have to do with opposition to health care?
It's simple, really. If we don't go along with health care reform, people will be slaughtered in the streets. Is that so hard to understand? :rolleyes:
:p
crazyronin
09-18-09, 07:42 AM
Since the seems to be the place to discuss delusional liberals and their rhetoric:
What does democrat Dan White killing of fellow democrats, largely over internal politics/personal reasons, have to do with opposition to health care?
Looks like the Botox has finally paralyzed her thought processes as well as her face.
X
09-18-09, 07:52 AM
He added, “And the outbursts that we see, the scatological language, the sign that I saw on television last night, “We should bury Obama with Kennedy,” for instance, and “Obama is a Nazi,” and Obama’s picture with Hitler’s moustache on it—those kinds of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate over whether we should have a national program in health care. It’s deeper than that.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/I'm afraid Jimmy Carter's ability to accurately size up a situation hasn't improved in these 30 years. While not in very good taste, there's quite a difference between what he thinks he saw and what everyone else saw.
I'm afraid Jimmy Carter's ability to accurately size up a situation hasn't improved in these 30 years. While not in very good taste, there's quite a difference between what he thinks he saw and what everyone else saw.
I would agree with you if people didn't argue that the not doing everything possible to stop illegal aliens to take part in health reform is the same as giving them a open door to take part in it. I can't see how the same people can then argue that sign doesn't mean bury obama with kennedy.
X
09-18-09, 08:16 AM
Huh? :confused:
classicman2
09-18-09, 08:42 AM
I can't see how the same people can then argue that sign doesn't mean bury obama with kennedy.
Surely thou doth jest!
sracer
09-18-09, 08:50 AM
I would agree with you if people didn't argue that the not doing everything possible to stop illegal aliens to take part in health reform is the same as giving them a open door to take part in it. I can't see how the same people can then argue that sign doesn't mean bury obama with kennedy.
You are misrepresenting the opposition's view. They aren't complaining about "not doing everything possible" and you know it. There was no provision at all to check citizenship status. It's not about "doing everything possible" it is about "doing something, ANYTHING".
THIS is why, in part, this country will continue a downward spiral. When discussing differences of opinion involves mischaracterizing the opposing view, communication has broken down to a point of ineffectiveness. When Maureen Dowd can slam Joe Wilson for something he DIDN'T say by injecting a word that only she heard in her head... then the show is over.
chuckd21
09-18-09, 09:18 AM
gay?
Yep.
creekdipper
09-18-09, 09:26 AM
I would agree with you if people didn't argue that the not doing everything possible to stop illegal aliens to take part in health reform is the same as giving them a open door to take part in it. I can't see how the same people can then argue that sign doesn't mean bury obama with kennedy.
To simplify:
(1) "Bury Obamacare" means to scuttle his agenda.
(2) "Bury Obama" means to plant him six feet under.
I saw the video clip when Carter misquoted the sign (as did James Carville & other "truthers"), and there was an audible gasp from the audience. I don't think their shock was in response to realizing that some were opposed to Obama's plans.
One can argue that the real sign was in poor taste (although one could equally argue that it's some prominent Democrats who kept trying to use the aftermath of Kennedy's death for political purposes by attaching his name to health care discussions), but that's a far cry from signs wishing death upon Obama (presumably by violent means).
BTW...in case this hasn't been mentioned...during the same discussion Carter remarked that, although the British Prime Minister's address is often interrupted with catcalls & such, he had never heard anyone boo the Queen. His comparison between "The Queen" as (titular) Head of State with Obama left me a little aghast. I couldn't believe that he was actually implying that we treat Obama as our royal monarch & suggesting that their functions are similar.
creekdipper
09-18-09, 09:35 AM
:lol: at everyone falling all over themselves to prove that no criticism of Obama originates from racism.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that NO criticism of Obama originates from racism, just as it would be ludicrous to suggest that NO criticism of Bush originated from racism.
Obama commented that Kanye West is "a jackass". :up: Given West's pronouncements upon Bush ("don't care about black people") & his interruption of a white singer's award, Obama could just as easily pronounced West to be a "racist".
However, Obama did the smart thing & just acknowledged the obvious. It was enough to dismiss West's antics as the result of stupidity rather than being racially-motivated.
Venusian
09-18-09, 09:38 AM
There seem to be a lot of strawmen hanging out in this thread.
creekdipper
09-18-09, 09:45 AM
As for the monkey one, we have already had a editorial cartoon that was found to be racist, when no one knew it was initially. Because of the history of disparaging images of black people with monkeys, etc. I can understand that, but if that is the best proof of racism running around, it is pretty freaking weak.
Which may explain why there were no reported riots or deaths resulting from its publication, as opposed to the reaction to cartoons published in some Scandinavian papers.
My guess is that any book published by Yale Press that discusses racism in editorial content will probably decide not to delete the monkey cartoon.
creekdipper
09-18-09, 09:46 AM
There seem to be a lot of strawmen hanging out in this thread.
That sounds pretty racist to me.
Now, if you had said "cowardly lions" or "tin men", you would have been okay.
creekdipper
09-18-09, 09:47 AM
Why exactly did we fight the Civil War, again?
Cheap tobacco & moonshine?
creekdipper
09-18-09, 10:00 AM
Surely thou doth jest!
A kindler, gentler way of saying, "You lie!"
General Zod
09-18-09, 10:11 AM
Surely thou doth jest!
See? If Wilson had simply shouted that at Obama it never would have blown up into what it did. None of those words are covered in the house rules ;)
Oops Creekdipper beat me to it :lol:
kvrdave
09-18-09, 11:58 AM
Since the seems to be the place to discuss delusional liberals and their rhetoric:
What does democrat Dan White killing of fellow democrats, largely over internal politics/personal reasons, have to do with opposition to health care?
I find it ironic to invoke a gay person's death when trying to accuse others of racsim, especially given that Obama has thrown gays under the bus and the same sex marriage thing in California was opposed (and went down as a result of) by the black vote.
HEY GAY PEOPLE...WE WANT YOU TO BE OUTRAGED AND SO WE HAVE USED THIS EXAMPLE. NOW PLEASE DON'T GET MARRIED OR LET US KNOW YOU ARE GAY....OR YOU ARE RACIST!
crazyronin
09-18-09, 01:09 PM
Sigh, it's too bad that a former President (and several people on this board) want to conflate bigotry with racism.
Stupid fucking cracker, he should have stuck with nookyooler engineerin'. :grunt:
Norm de Plume
09-19-09, 01:18 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef0120a5680be4970b-800wi
Wow, is that ever in vile taste, and then to top it off you have your kid holding the sign more or less celebrating a person's passing! Good to see some parents demonstrating to their children how they too can grow up to be deliberative, prudent, temperate adults.:rolleyes:
kvrdave
09-19-09, 02:00 AM
I also think it is in poor taste. But Ted did kill innocent people and never pay for it. That makes it easier for me to handle.
Rockmjd23
09-19-09, 02:54 AM
Is that guy wearing a cape?
Hank Ringworm
09-19-09, 02:56 AM
Wow, is that ever in vile taste, and then to top it off you have your kid holding the sign more or less celebrating a person's passing! Good to see some parents demonstrating to their children how they too can grow up to be deliberative, prudent, temperate adults.:rolleyes:
It's called realism. It once was the driving force behind politics. You know, before post-rationalism came into vogue.
Hank Ringworm
09-19-09, 02:57 AM
Is that guy wearing a cape?
He is. And it's orange. Not good.
Nugent
09-19-09, 03:23 AM
Wow, is that ever in vile taste, and then to top it off you have your kid holding the sign more or less celebrating a person's passing! Good to see some parents demonstrating to their children how they too can grow up to be deliberative, prudent, temperate adults.:rolleyes:
Sort of like this fine upstanding young man? :rolleyes:
<img src="http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg" alt="http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg" style="cursor: -moz-zoom-out;"/>
Or perhaps this productive member of society.
<img src="http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg" alt="http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg" style="cursor: -moz-zoom-out;"/>
"you look like someone evil!" "no, you look like someone evil!" the level of propaganda there is not of the highest order.
as to the lack of citizenship tests (how very 1984) in the proposed healthcare bill, isn't that what the process of discussion is supposed to address? areas that are felt to be deficient. i realise it's just used these days as an opportunity to attack the other "side" and suggest the worst about their motives (and all political parties are guilty of this) but it's sad to see so many seemingly sane and intelligent posters on this board falling into their spin cycle.
Tracer Bullet
09-19-09, 12:16 PM
Do people really not understand that comparing a black man to a monkey is different than comparing a white man to a monkey? I'm sorry if reality upsets you, but somethings things just suck for our worldviews.
X
09-19-09, 12:27 PM
Wow, is that ever in vile taste, and then to top it off you have your kid holding the sign more or less celebrating a person's passing! Good to see some parents demonstrating to their children how they too can grow up to be deliberative, prudent, temperate adults.:rolleyes:Do you think that means the same thing Jimmy Carter said it did, "We should bury Obama with Kennedy"?
X
09-19-09, 12:29 PM
Do people really not understand that comparing a black man to a monkey is different than comparing a white man to a monkey? I'm sorry if reality upsets you, but somethings things just suck for our worldviews.In a post-racial world would people think that a monkey is just a monkey?
Nugent
09-19-09, 12:52 PM
Do you think that means the same thing Jimmy Carter said it did, "We should bury Obama with Kennedy"?
I think I missed the part in the sign where it said "bury Obama with Kennedy"?
Sort of looks to me like it says "Obamacare"? Wouldn't that be his plan and not actually threatening to kill Obama?
X
09-19-09, 12:58 PM
I think I missed the part in the sign where it said "bury Obama with Kennedy"?
Sort of looks to me like it says "Obamacare"? Wouldn't that be his plan and not actually threatening to kill Obama?You evidently didn't read my post where I originally posted this picture.
This is the "Jimmy Carter Is An Idiot" thread afterall.
Nugent
09-19-09, 12:59 PM
Do people really not understand that comparing a black man to a monkey is different than comparing a white man to a monkey? I'm sorry if reality upsets you, but somethings things just suck for our worldviews.
But you’re cool with the righteous indignation coming from the left because Obama is being referred to as a Nazi and that is somehow “racist” but it was cool to refer to Bush as Hilter since he was just some white hick from Texas?
What a cozy little “worldview”.
Nugent
09-19-09, 01:04 PM
You evidently didn't read my post where I originally posted this picture.
This is the "Jimmy Carter Is An Idiot" thread afterall.
My bad, I found it and re-read it. It was late.
Well since Jimmy said it was true it's now a fact.
The big difference between the extreme attacks on Bush and Obama for the two sides is that the ones against Bush didn't really happen until a few years into his term - not saying that justifies calling him a nazi, but a lot had happened and he had the time to pull plenty of shenanigans. With Obama, they started this shit just months into his term, after only suggestions of policy implementations - things are pretty much the same all around now as they were on Bush's last day in office. So while the attacks on Bush were far too over the top and retarded, it was in the heat of Iraq's quagmire among other things, but these attacks against Obama, which are just as vitriolic and just as lame, don't seem to have sprung from anything he did - because he really hasn't done much, if anything. I just want to know what all these people are so angry about, since so little has actually changed.
sjrab16
09-19-09, 01:34 PM
The sad thing is that all of major discussion regarding politics is about the people discussing (ie fox, msnbc), what we should be discussing is how both Bush and Obama have basically the same policies. The democrats have control over the executive and legislative branches of government, and I cannot tell the difference between major policies. My life has not changed one bit. Oh Gitmo still open, still in Iraq and Afghanistan, missile defense shield still not up regardless if a leader wants it or not. Health care still not reformed in fact watching the left leaning Maher last night this health reform caters to the insurance companies anyway. Isn't that who the dems usually say the GOP are bending over backwards too.
Face it both parties are the same on major issues. Yeah one is against abortion and against gay marriage, but abortion will never be overturned even with a GOP president and legislative branch...we had that in the early 90's. Gay marriage because it will be decided by the people will eventually be allowed too.
Tracer Bullet
09-19-09, 02:15 PM
But you’re cool with the righteous indignation coming from the left because Obama is being referred to as a Nazi and that is somehow “racist” but it was cool to refer to Bush as Hilter since he was just some white hick from Texas?
What a cozy little “worldview”.
Thank you for putting words in my mouth!
Actually, there's nothing racist about comparing Obama (or Bush) to Hitler. It's asinine, but it's not racist.
Birrman54
09-19-09, 02:22 PM
The big difference between the extreme attacks on Bush and Obama for the two sides is that the ones against Bush didn't really happen until a few years into his term - not saying that justifies calling him a nazi, but a lot had happened and he had the time to pull plenty of shenanigans. With Obama, they started this shit just months into his term, after only suggestions of policy implementations - things are pretty much the same all around now as they were on Bush's last day in office. So while the attacks on Bush were far too over the top and retarded, it was in the heat of Iraq's quagmire among other things, but these attacks against Obama, which are just as vitriolic and just as lame, don't seem to have sprung from anything he did - because he really hasn't done much, if anything. I just want to know what all these people are so angry about, since so little has actually changed.
You're not actually claiming that Congress / Obama have done so little that Americans couldn't possibly have anything to be upset about?
SkullOrchard
09-19-09, 02:40 PM
The big difference between the extreme attacks on Bush and Obama for the two sides is that the ones against Bush didn't really happen until a few years into his term - The attacks against Bush started before he even took office. The post Florida recount insults were as nasty as anything that happened during the rest of his two terms in office.
kvrdave
09-19-09, 03:41 PM
The big difference between the extreme attacks on Bush and Obama for the two sides is that the ones against Bush didn't really happen until a few years into his term -
rotfl
Yes they did.
slop101
09-19-09, 04:00 PM
rotfl
Yes they did.Yes, I say that the extreme stuff like the hitler-comparisons didn't start in untill later - you think they started earlier, say before 2002? Well, I disagree. Now what?
Norm de Plume
09-19-09, 04:30 PM
Sort of like this fine upstanding young man? :rolleyes:
<img src="http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg" alt="http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg" style="cursor: -moz-zoom-out;"/>
Or perhaps this productive member of society.
<img src="http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg" alt="http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/Bush_is_the_disease.jpg" style="cursor: -moz-zoom-out;"/>
Those folks are just as stupid. Personally, I don't wish death on anyone (truly), even someone I consider a war criminal. Justice, yes; death, no. Even Bin Laden I would rather see brought to justice than blown to pieces (that would be too easy for him). The guy with the "Osama bin Bush" sign was likely trying to point to the suspiciousness of the intimate ties between the Bush and bin Laden families, but any such poster that distills a potentially valid criticism/line-of-inquiry into cartoon form is unwise at best.
I also think it is in poor taste. But Ted did kill innocent people and never pay for it. That makes it easier for me to handle.
People, or the person who died when he piloted his car into Nantucket Sound? He should probably have been charged with something, I agree, although there's no proof he drove drunk. Accidents happen, but there was always a whiff to the Chappaquiddick incident of the immunity of the privileged and powerful.
Do you think that means the same thing Jimmy Carter said it did, "We should bury Obama with Kennedy"?
No. My take on it is that most of these protesters are not racist. Many are still infuriated that "their side" lost the election, and their fury is fomented by the media they watch and hear. A few sensible ones are well-versed in the issues, not meatpuppets of right-wing media, and simply have strong ideological differences with Obama's policies.
X
09-19-09, 04:35 PM
No. My take on it is that most of these protesters are not racist. Many are still infuriated that "their side" lost the election, and their fury is fomented by the media they watch and hear. A few sensible ones are well-versed in the issues, not meatpuppets of right-wing media, and simply have strong ideological differences with Obama's policies.I think it's pretty hard to make the case that many people are infuriated that Obama won and McCain lost. There was very little enthusiasm for McCain.
I believe the infuriation is, by far, primarily over the proposed Obama policies.
SkullOrchard
09-19-09, 04:54 PM
I think it's pretty hard to make the case that many people are infuriated that Obama won and McCain lost. There was very little enthusiasm for McCain.
I believe the infuriation is, by far, primarily over the proposed Obama policies.The fact I voted for McCain demonstrates how much I distrust Obama. McCain makes me want to puke.
Norm de Plume
09-19-09, 05:51 PM
I think it's pretty hard to make the case that many people are infuriated that Obama won and McCain lost. There was very little enthusiasm for McCain.
I believe the infuriation is, by far, primarily over the proposed Obama policies.
What I meant by "their side lost" didn't necessarily refer to McCain, but more to the fact that the right-wing agenda was defeated.
What I don't understand, and maybe I'm just being naively optimistic about human nature, is why people, even those few on the right who are open-minded about Obama, don't give the guy a longer-term chance. He's nine months in and already these mass demonstrations calling him Hitler and so forth. With last year's financial collapse and the continuing, though improving, recession, have folks already forgotten that maybe "change" deserves a more sustained chance? Instead they want to go forward with the "hands off the market, little government, low taxes" mantra that largely brought about that breakdown and turmoil.
Take healthcare, for instance. The U.S., the only developed country without some form of a universal system. The opposition to a universal system (which Obama isn't even pushing!!!) would be logically - though not morally, in my view - defensible if the situational economics were on the side of the protesters. But the U.S. spends far more (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) per capita (almost double) on healthcare than any other relevant nation, yet is 50th in the world in terms of life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy), exceeded by an idyllic place like Bosnia/Herzegovina, and just edging out other paradisiacal places like Albania, Kuwait, and Libya.
So this propaganda about universal healthcare leading to inferior care, "death lists", and whatever other nonsense is being propagated, is demonstrably a lie. To be sure, I can tell you that healthcare in places like Canada (the only system to which I can personally attest) is not perfect, but where is it perfect? Where is anything perfect? Nowhere, never. The healthcare system is very good here, though.
Sure, the very rich are unquestionably better off under a private system, where they can immediately get the best of care at the hand-off of a credit card, but I'm much more interested in the other 99% of people getting good healthcare without landing in the poorhouse, if they get it at all.
X
09-19-09, 05:59 PM
What I meant by "their side lost" didn't necessarily refer to McCain, but more to the fact that the right-wing agenda was defeated.I also don't think there were that many who were infuriated that the "right-wing agenda" was defeated. A large majority of the country felt that we were on a wrong track. Bush was hardly a right-winger and both Houses of Congress were already controlled by the Democrats.
What I don't understand, and maybe I'm just being naively optimistic about human nature, is why people, even those few on the right who are open-minded about Obama, don't give the guy a longer-term chance.It works both ways and many people are wondering why Obama doesn't give the country a longer-term chance. Some of the things Obama is trying to rush into are fundamental changes in the structure of this country that deserve lengthy deliberation before being enacted. But Obama doesn't want to give people a chance to think about it. There's probably a reason why.
SkullOrchard
09-19-09, 06:27 PM
What I meant by "their side lost" didn't necessarily refer to McCain, but more to the fact that the right-wing agenda was defeated.
:lol: at the notion that McCain had a right-wing agenda.
Brack
09-19-09, 06:58 PM
Here's the thing about the Bush bashing: that was earned, after years of his failed policies. Obama's been in office how long, and done what exactly?
Red Dog
09-19-09, 07:04 PM
Here's the thing about the Bush bashing: that was earned, after years of his failed policies. Obama's been in office how long, and done what exactly?
Continued many of the Bush policies.
Norm de Plume
09-19-09, 07:16 PM
I also don't think there were that many who were infuriated that the "right-wing agenda" was defeated. A large majority of the country felt that we were on a wrong track.
I think there's an element of this nonpartisan blame that you're talking about, but most of what I'm hearing coming out of the mouths of the protesters is the same tired right-wing sloganeering about taxes that are too high, the dreaded socialism, etc., with Canada often cited as a place to avoid because of astronomical taxes. Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg) don't bear that out that accusation.
Bush was hardly a right-winger and both Houses of Congress were already controlled by the Democrats.
Bush was a neocon, which is in some senses - though not in a fiscally astringent one - an extreme right-winger. The high spending was largely on the military end, in the service of spreading U.S. influence and globalism, not on progressive social programs.
It works both ways and many people are wondering why Obama doesn't give the country a longer-term chance. Some of the things Obama is trying to rush into are fundamental changes in the structure of this country that deserve lengthy deliberation before being enacted. But Obama doesn't want to give people a chance to think about it. There's probably a reason why.
That's a fair argument, and he does seem to be doing a lot (perhaps too much) at one time. I agree that major changes deserve deliberation and should not be forced through expeditiously. On the other hand, the crisis brought about a certain urgency to make changes and spend, spend, spend oneself out of the muck. Bush did it first with his stimulus, and conventional wisdom is if he hadn't, you (and by extension all of us) might be in an unprecedented depression right now, not just a faltering recession.
It's refreshing to see someone want to tackle so many massive problems, but I can understand that it is frightening to people who want things done more deliberately, or who want to maintain the status quo or even dismantle government to a greater degree.
classicman2
09-19-09, 07:31 PM
Continued many of the Bush policies.
And put forward the worst energy policy I've ever seen. A policy that will do nothing to alleviate our principal problem.
Brack
09-19-09, 07:33 PM
Continued many of the Bush policies.
Which makes the outrage from the extreme right even more questionable.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 07:37 PM
Which makes the outrage from the extreme right even more questionable.
They'd be bitching no matter what (and except for those who were neocons, did during Bush). Just like the extreme left did for the 8 years previously (and still do).
sjrab16
09-19-09, 07:49 PM
Which makes the outrage from the extreme right even more questionable.
Wouldn't that also go for the left that hated the Bush policy but now love what Obama is doing? All though it seems like the far left are now starting to realize that he is almost an exact continuation of the Bush administration.
Brack
09-19-09, 07:53 PM
They'd be bitching no matter what (and except for those who were neocons, did during Bush). Just like the extreme left did for the 8 years previously (and still do).
They wouldn't be bitching if a Republican was in office.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 07:56 PM
They wouldn't be bitching if a Republican was in office.
Sure they would. Many did, particularly fiscal conservatives. Were they protesting? No. Just like you don't see liberals protesting Obama's continuation of many of the Bush policies they protested against.
Brack
09-19-09, 07:56 PM
Wouldn't that also go for the left that hated the Bush policy but now love what Obama is doing? All though it seems like the far left are now starting to realize that he is almost an exact continuation of the Bush administration.
Here's the thing, Obama said all along during his campaign that Afghanistan was the "good" war. Most liberals don't support this and never will. However, there's nothing to indicate that anyone thinks his administration is just like Bush's, except if you don't take into consideration context, which is something that I find interesting that people don't seem to want to consider anymore when making arguments, just that's it's all the same. It certainly is not.
Brack
09-19-09, 07:58 PM
Sure they would. Many did, particularly fiscal conservatives. Were they protesting? No. Just like you don't see liberals protesting Obama's continuation of many of the Bush policies they protested against.
Oh yeah, they were really up at arms with Bush and the rest of the Republicans who were for out of control spending. Fox News covered this almost on the daily for years. Oh wait.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:01 PM
Oh yeah, they were really up at arms with Bush and the rest of the Republicans who were for out of control spending. Fox News covered this almost on the daily for years. Oh wait.
You're right. The Fox News argument sold me.
Brack
09-19-09, 08:04 PM
You're right. The Fox News argument sold me.
Sold you on what? I don't even think you know what you're talking about, other than "well, some conservatives did not like Bush, it was just that they kept quiet." And how do you compare this to what the left does about something else, imagined or otherwise?
Dimension X
09-19-09, 08:08 PM
I think there's an element of this nonpartisan blame that you're talking about, but most of what I'm hearing coming out of the mouths of the protesters is the same tired right-wing sloganeering about taxes that are too high, the dreaded socialism, etc., with Canada often cited as a place to avoid because of astronomical taxes. Facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg) don't bear that out that accusation.
I just want to point out, since I clicked on that link, that the graph on that page only covers income taxes. Canada also appears to have a federal sales tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_Canada) and health and prescription insurance taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada) that should be taken into account as well.
Also, looking at the table at the bottom of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada) (from the same source as the graph), while there's not a big difference between "taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage" for single taxpayers with no children (31.6% - Canada versus 29.1% - US), there looks to be a pretty big difference between married taxpayers with two children (21.5% - Canada versus 11.9% - US).
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:10 PM
Sold you on what? I don't even think you know what you're talking about, other than "well, some conservatives did not like Bush, it was just that they kept quite." And how do you compare this to what the left does about something else, imagined or otherwise?
I thought I was rather precise with my language. I didn't say "conservatives." I specifically said Republicans ("fiscal conservatives") for disatisfaction and that neocons were on Bush's side.
This forum has gotten ridiculous in the last few weeks, which is why I haven't posted much. You can't go 5 posts without anyone saying Fox News this or Glenn Beck that. It's beyond frustrating, particularly since I don't watch him.
I'm really beginning to wonder if this forum is even worth my time anymore.
Rockmjd23
09-19-09, 08:12 PM
The length of time a person is in office has nothing to do with how they are being criticized. It has to do with controversial actions. Bush started getting it really bad after the decision to go to Iraq. Before that he didn't do a whole lot that was extremely controversial (besides being declared the winner in 2000, of course). Obama is getting it now because it just so happens that he's tackling a divisive issue (health care) early on in his presidency.
Rockmjd23
09-19-09, 08:13 PM
I'm really beginning to wonder if this forum is even worth my time anymore.
Glenn Beck told you to say that.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:16 PM
Glenn Beck told you to say that.
Evidently.
Seriously, it really seems like the forum has become the Obama supporters fighting against those they want to put in one box - the Glenn Beck box. I can see why they do it. It's an easy argument to win.
Brack
09-19-09, 08:17 PM
I thought I was rather precise with my language. I didn't say "conservatives." I specifically said Republicans ("fiscal conservatives") for disatisfaction and that neocons were on Bush's side.
This forum has gotten ridiculous in the last few weeks, which is why I haven't posted much. You can't go 5 posts without anyone saying Fox News this or Glenn Beck that. It's beyond frustrating, particularly since I don't watch him.
I'm really beginning to wonder if this forum is even worth my time anymore.
It's not ridiculous. You claim that there were plenty on the right that were angry about Bush, and would be up at arms with McCain if he had won the election. I completely disagree, we wouldn't be seeing these protests from the left. I don't see the point of getting pissy at this notion.
Rockmjd23
09-19-09, 08:20 PM
It's not ridiculous. You claim that there were plenty on the right that were angry about Bush, and would be up at arms with McCain if he had won the election. I completely disagree, we wouldn't be seeing these protests from the left. I don't see the point of getting pissy at this notion.
If McCain was trying to introduce major legislation that was contrary to the left's platform, they would surely be protesting.
Brack
09-19-09, 08:20 PM
Evidently.
Seriously, it really seems like the forum has become the Obama supporters fighting against those they want to put in one box - the Glenn Beck box. I can see why they do it. It's an easy argument to win.
I'm not sure why conservatives seem to get defensive like this when no one where made such claims, but whatever, I know conservative who like to paint themselves as victims like this almost on the daily, yet they tend to make generalizations about others who are not like them ("Obama supporters").
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:22 PM
It's not ridiculous. You claim that there were plenty on the right that were angry about Bush, and would be up at arms with McCain if he had won the election. I completely disagree, we wouldn't be seeing these protests from the left. I don't see the point of getting pissy at this notion.
I completely disagree too since I never said "up in arms" at any point, particularly regarding a hypothetical President McCain. That doesn't negate my point that many Republicans, particularly fiscal conservatives, were upset with Bush's policies.
Brack
09-19-09, 08:24 PM
If McCain was trying to introduce major legislation that was contrary to the left's platform, they would surely be protesting.
So when they say they're sick of big government and big spending, they really just mean the left's agenda, but it's fine when the right does it. Again, don't go into this "not all of us on the right felt that way," because it doesn't change the fact that most do.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:24 PM
I'm not sure why conservatives seem to get defensive like this when no one where made such claims, but whatever, I know conservative who like to paint themselves as victims like this almost on the daily, yet they tend to make generalizations about others who are not like them ("Obama supporters").
Sigh. I'm not a conservative. Unless you think a conservative would have voted for no Republicans (while voting for his 2 current Democrat Senators) in the last 10 years.
Brack
09-19-09, 08:26 PM
I completely disagree too since I never said "up in arms" at any point, particularly regarding a hypothetical President McCain. That doesn't negate my point that many Republicans, particularly fiscal conservatives, were upset with Bush's policies.
But not most.
Pharoh
09-19-09, 08:27 PM
Just wanted to point out that actual neoconservatives were against the prescription drug bill, amongst other things, and that they are often the most socially liberal "conservatives".
Just saying.
Red Dog,
I've asked the same question about the forum recently. I try to avoid it mostly, and am hoping it is a phase that will soon pass.
classicman2
09-19-09, 08:27 PM
There were a bunch of conservatives pissed-off at Bush over his position on immigration. They weren't all that fond of McCain either.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:27 PM
But not most.
I disagree. I think most were pissed that he was a big spender. The problem is that the other option to them is worse.
Rockmjd23
09-19-09, 08:29 PM
So when they say they're sick of big government and big spending, they really just mean the left's agenda, but it's fine when the right does it. Again, don't go into this "not all of us on the right felt that way," because it doesn't change the fact that most do.
It's not that hard to understand. Obama's two big things so far as president are the stimulus and health care, both of which bring out divisions between the right and the left, thus the right protests.
When Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, the right supported and the left didn't (generally speaking), so the left protested.
classicman2
09-19-09, 08:29 PM
I think there is less real discussion on the forum that in the past.
I think it's time to petition bhk for his return. ;)
X
09-19-09, 08:38 PM
I find it interesting that people say they don't like the direction the forum is going, yet they keep responding to the people who are dragging it that way.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:40 PM
I think there is less real discussion on the forum that in the past.
Here are the top threads....
Rick Sanchez delivers new salvo in the war between the "news" networks
Jimmy Carter Is An Idiot (racism discussion) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last Page)
Glenn Beck is an idiot ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last Page)
If you disagree with Obama - you are racist. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last Page)
FCC to enact "Net Neutrality"
9/12 March On Washington ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last Page)
Wilson calls Obama a liar ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last Page)
Props to the net neutrality posters.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 08:44 PM
I find it interesting that people say they don't like the direction the forum is going, yet they keep responding to the people who are dragging it that way.
Responding only to JasonF would get boring rather quick. I'm on the same 'side' as you and Pharoh now. I'm as crabby as c-man now. What's left?
stp115
09-19-09, 08:53 PM
Responding only to JasonF would get boring rather quick. I'm on the same 'side' as you and Pharoh now. I'm as crabby as c-man now. What's left?
Brack and CRM114? ;)
JasonF
09-19-09, 09:11 PM
Just wanted to point out that actual neoconservatives were against the prescription drug bill, amongst other things, and that they are often the most socially liberal "conservatives".
Just saying.
I don't think neoconservatives, as a group, really took a consistent position on the prescription drug bill. Certainly the ones within the administration supported it. But it makes sense that they wouldn't -- doemstic health policy is really orthogonal to the issues that define neoconservatism. I wouldn't expect a consistent neoconservative position on prescription drug benefits any more than I would expect a consistent position on the Iraq War from the pro-choice movement.
Red Dog,
I've asked the same question about the forum recently. I try to avoid it mostly, and am hoping it is a phase that will soon pass.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm having the same disgust with this forum from the left.
Pharoh
09-19-09, 09:31 PM
I don't think neoconservatives, as a group, really took a consistent position on the prescription drug bill. Certainly the ones within the administration supported it. But it makes sense that they wouldn't -- doemstic health policy is really orthogonal to the issues that define neoconservatism. I wouldn't expect a consistent neoconservative position on prescription drug benefits any more than I would expect a consistent position on the Iraq War from the pro-choice movement.
Particularly given the death yesterday of Mr. Kristol, I think it fitting to point out the true genesis of neoconservatism was a focus on domestic issues, specifically on welfare and education reform. Ultimately though, perhaps you are correct in that even amongst neoconservatives there would not exist a consistent stance.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm having the same disgust with this forum from the left.
It does, a bit. Ultimately I suppose it is our responsibility to do something about it. Or we stop complaining.
:shrug:
slop101
09-19-09, 09:36 PM
Continued many of the Bush policies.touchè. That's pretty funny 'cause it's kinda true.
Which begs the question, why are all these people (the Tea-Baggers, the 9/12 Marchers, etc.), who were mostly Bush supporters/apologists, so pissed off and angry for?
Jason
09-19-09, 09:38 PM
Evidently.
Seriously, it really seems like the forum has become the Obama supporters fighting against those they want to put in one box - the Glenn Beck box. I can see why they do it. It's an easy argument to win.
Well, they're the ones who jumped in the box in the first place.
Which begs the question, why are all these people (the Tea-Baggers, the 9/12 Marchers, etc.), who were mostly Bush supporters/apologists, so pissed off and angry for?
I asked that question in the first tea-party thread several months ago.
Which begs the question, why are all these people (the Tea-Baggers, the 9/12 Marchers, etc.), who were mostly Bush supporters/apologists, so pissed off and angry for?
I asked that question in the first tea-party thread several months ago.
Cap and trade, massive health care "reform", and a huge stimulus bill without any stimulus are continuations of Bush policies?
(And these don't even include many of the things I am personally most "upset" about, such as the abandonment of our allies.)
Red Dog
09-19-09, 09:53 PM
Cap and trade, massive health care "reform", and a huge stimulus bill without any stimulus are continuations of Bush policies?
(And these don't even include many of the things I am personally most "upset" about, such as the abandonment of our allies.)
I think the first tea-party protests (the thread where I asked the question) were prior to C&T and the health care push.
It was definitely after the stimulus though, but that's what begged my question then - they didn't bitch (enough to protest) at Bush's spending/stimulus plans.
Pharoh
09-19-09, 09:58 PM
I think the first tea-party protests (the thread where I asked the question) were prior to C&T and the health care push.
It was definitely after the stimulus though, but that's what begged my question then - they didn't bitch (enough to protest) at Bush's spending/stimulus plans.
To be fair, I am sure there was some partisan hypocrisy involved. (Remember, I think the whole protest parties to be useless).
But it is also not fair to equate the two "plans", in either their scope or methods. For partisans on either side, it is quite logical and consistent to support one and oppose the other.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 09:59 PM
For partisans on either side, it is quite logical and consistent to support one and oppose the other.
Well, sure. It's consistent to be inconsistent (in the name of degree). That's the very definition of partisanship, but you know what I think of that.
Pharoh
09-19-09, 10:08 PM
Well, sure. It's consistent to be inconsistent (in the name of degree). That's the very definition of partisanship, but you know what I think of that.
Yes, I do. But the plans were different enough that a completely objective non-partisan could favour one and oppose the other. There is nothing inconsistent involved.
Norm de Plume
09-19-09, 10:11 PM
I just want to point out, since I clicked on that link, that the graph on that page only covers income taxes. Canada also appears to have a federal sales tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_Canada) and health and prescription insurance taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada) that should be taken into account as well.
Yes, we have a 5% federal sales tax (down from its original 7%), and 7 of 10 provinces have provincial sales taxes ranging from 5-10%. Although there exists no national consumption tax in the U.S., most states have sales taxes that are comparable to our provincial sales taxes, and some are in fact supplemented by local surtaxes, up to a combined high of 11.5%.
The health tax (http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/tax/healthpremium/rates.html) was introduced here in Ontario (not Canada as a whole) about five years ago to great controversy, and ranges from $0 for those who earn $20,000 and under up to a high of $900 annually for those who earn over $200,600. One of the reasons the provincial government introduced this tax was because of something called Equalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments#Canada). The Feds collect payments from the wealthy provinces and redistribute the money to the poorer ones in order to create a uniform standard of services.
Fine, but it has become inequitable when Ontario finds its cupboards bare and must introduce something like a health tax. The problem for a long time was that Ontario was the country's main breadwinner. Ontario and Alberta were for years the sole "have" provinces (those with a budget surplus), so Ontario was paying $23 billion more annually to the feds than it was getting back in services or payments. Since last year, due largely to the decline in manufacturing, Ontario has slipped into "have not" status for the first time in its history, but the irony is that it still pays billions into the program while receiving a measly $347 million this year. A pittance compared to its infrastructure deficit of $120 billion.
The premier of Ontario has been trying to get his public up in arms over this vast "Equalization" inequity for years, with no success.
Also, looking at the table at the bottom of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada) (from the same source as the graph), while there's not a big difference between "taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage" for single taxpayers with no children (31.6% - Canada versus 29.1% - US), there looks to be a pretty big difference between married taxpayers with two children (21.5% - Canada versus 11.9% - US).
21.5% is not a substantial income tax rate, even for a family, although I'll grant you that the American rate is obviously more favourable. However, we have something called the National Child Benefit (http://www.nationalchildbenefit.ca/eng/06/cctb_children.shtml), which is an annual $3000 (roughly) per child for those with the lowest incomes. The amount of the NCB decreases the more you make. With an income over $100,000 (roughly), you get no NCB, unless you have a large family.
I don't know about the other provinces, but in Ontario there's an additional provincial child benefit (http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/programs/ocb/howmuch.aspx) that decreases incrementally from an annual $1100 yearly per child for those earning under $20,000 to $0 for those who don't need it.
So, these child benefits go some way toward mitigating the disparity in "family" income tax rates between the two countries. But they benefit primarily those on the low-income end, which is how it should be. Well-to-do marrieds with children will pay somewhat higher taxes here.
Anyway, the above is far, far off-topic, but I wanted to answer the points raised by Dimension X. I didn't mean to turn this into a pro-Canada, anti-U.S., or vice versa, discussion.
I find it interesting that people say they don't like the direction the forum is going, yet they keep responding to the people who are dragging it that way.
Just out of curiosity, who are the people dragging the forum a certain way, and in which direction is it being dragged? Toward more sensationalism and vitriol and away from substance? I don't hang out here much normally, so I don't have the inside scoop.
Red Dog
09-19-09, 10:19 PM
Yes, I do. But the plans were different enough that a completely objective non-partisan could favour one and oppose the other. There is nothing inconsistent involved.
A completely objective non-partisan is me and I opposed both. :lol: Now I'm sure there were people who share many of my views in those first tea-party protests. I happen to think there were a lot of sore-loser Republicans too. It was my wish that they bitched louder earlier in the decade.
Pharoh
09-19-09, 10:39 PM
A completely objective non-partisan is me and I opposed both. :lol: Now I'm sure there were people who share many of my views in those first tea-party protests. I happen to think there were a lot of sore-loser Republicans too. It was my wish that they bitched louder earlier in the decade.
But not all did, nor did it necessarily follow that they had to. The only point being, the plans weren't that similar.
JasonF
09-19-09, 10:54 PM
(And these don't even include many of the things I am personally most "upset" about, such as the abandonment of our allies.)
I don't think we've abandoned any of our allies, although the current administration is certainly taking a different approach than the prior one. But look at the recent decision to scrap the missile defense shield, for example. Some of the President's critics are characterizing that as an abandonment of our Eastern European allies. However, polling in Poland shows support for the decision significantly outweighs opposition.
Pharoh
09-19-09, 11:25 PM
I don't think we've abandoned any of our allies, although the current administration is certainly taking a different approach than the prior one. But look at the recent decision to scrap the missile defense shield, for example. Some of the President's critics are characterizing that as an abandonment of our Eastern European allies. However, polling in Poland shows support for the decision significantly outweighs opposition.
Polling of the populace proves whether it was the right decision?
I am glad that we listened to protesters and polls back in 1983 in Greenham Common.
kvrdave
09-19-09, 11:59 PM
21.5% is not a substantial income tax rate, even for a family, although I'll grant you that the American rate is obviously more favourable. However, we have something called the National Child Benefit (http://www.nationalchildbenefit.ca/eng/06/cctb_children.shtml), which is an annual $3000 (roughly) per child for those with the lowest incomes. The amount of the NCB decreases the more you make. With an income over $100,000 (roughly), you get no NCB, unless you have a large family.
I don't know about the other provinces, but in Ontario there's an additional provincial child benefit (http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/programs/ocb/howmuch.aspx) that decreases incrementally from an annual $1100 yearly per child for those earning under $20,000 to $0 for those who don't need it.
So, these child benefits go some way toward mitigating the disparity in "family" income tax rates between the two countries. But they benefit primarily those on the low-income end, which is how it should be. Well-to-do marrieds with children will pay somewhat higher taxes here.
Just a guess, but has this lead to lower income families having more children on average?
Buy: