[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so that I can understand you as an individual...

1) Do you think that Obama can be accurately compared to Hilter?

On what basis? On their fashionable facial hair? No. I myself can't see any real comparison. You'd have to make a really compelling argument to get me to buy any genuine negative comparison on any important area of concern. Though they both are very good at saying one thing, but doing another. I'm not sure that's not the case with lots of politicians though.

2) Do you think Obama has personal connections to terrorists organizations and plans to do harm to America by way of terrorism?

Not that I'm aware.

3) Do you think Obama is a Muslim?

Not currently. It doesn't appear that he's particularly religious in general.

4) Do you think Obama's plans are literally to destroy America?

Destroy? That's kind of extreme. I think his intention is make it better by his standard, which is very different from the standard our founding fathers had. You could say he plans to destroy America as it was intended to be, to make it something different I suppose. You know..that "change" he wanted. I think just generally "to destroy America" is a little bit too much hyperbole. I don't think he has any problem with destroying parts or certain aspects of America if it's going to result in the type of "change" he thinks is necessary.

5) Do you think that Obama literally has plans to turn America into a socialist country? (I think I know the answer to this one!) If so, how does he intend to do so?

I think he would most definitely like to change it into more of a European-style socialist utopia that would bow to international "one world government" type pressure as those on the far-left have endorsed from some time. I do however think he knows he can't do it all in one fell swoop and needs to enact it via incrementalism. I know he supports socialist healthcare policies and has no problems with government take-overs and direct control of industry.

6) Do you think Obama wants to form death panels?

If you define "death panels" as government provided efforts to help people make decisions to end their lives instead of requesting expensive healthcare options when they likely won't be granted them in the first place, then yes. He and his advisors already have said that some people just aren't productive enough or valuable enough for the government to cover, and have requested efforts to help move that along.

If you define it as a chamber a person enters into when they get old, with 5 television monitors displaying faces lit from below, where the faces pronounce LIFE or DEATH depending on whether they think the person in question is worthy of living or not, then no.

7) Do you think that Obama was born in the United States?

Yes.

I think he may be hiding something though, otherwise there would be no reason to keep his original birth certificate hidden from public view. It makes no sense. It only serves to further fuel conspiracy theories.

8) Do you think Obama is secretly a communist/facist/socialist?

I don't think he's "secretly" anything. I think he makes it perfectly clear what he is by the policies he promotes.

9) Do you think that Obama literally wants to take over health care?

He does want the government to take over health care, even if he does not support a complete takeover with current legislation. He himself has said publicly that he prefers a socialist "single payer" system. I'm not sure I'd believe him even if he came out and said he'd changed his mind from just a few years ago and though that government take-over of health care would be a bad idea when everything he's supporting would appear to be a incremental step to that socialist "single payer" system he prefers.

So in conclusion, I don't believe anything negative about Obama that can't be supported directly by his words, actions or verifiable facts. I'm not going to read into his intentions any further that what his policies seek to do, or what he himself has claimed.

While I don't mind placating you in regards to your questions, I'm pretty sure people can see this for the distraction and change of subject it is. I'm pretty sure if you polled America you would get results that aren't too far off from what I've provided. I'm pretty sure however if you polled America with questions regarding the wacky far-left conspiracy theories and accusations that ELECTED LEADERS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY have forwarded, you aren't going to find the same level of agreement.

There's a big difference between believing someone thinks or will do something when there is direct evidence that's their intentions, and imagining implausible conspiracy theories where there is no real evidence and making accusations where there's no credible reason to do so, and being supported and lauded by your party while doing so.

[ebuddy]

Add Bill Cosby to the mix of those who believe opposition to the policies of this Administration (at last check equally white as it is black ) equates to racism.

- Are the black people who oppose the policies of this Administration also racist against Obama or does this refer exclusively to white-skinned people? Wouldn't this notion in and of itself be racist?
- Is the racist element of opposition to Obama the exception or the norm?
- Can we have civil disagreement without it being opposition to someone's skin color? Yes? Then tell me why this is of any consequence whatsoever. Otherwise, it is a predictable and shameless attempt at defending the indefensible. Argue on the merits of your platform. You have more money than the opposition, more resources than the opposition, the majority in Congress, and the bully pulpit of the Presidency. Argue the friggin' merits of the platform or kindly stfu.
- Is it likewise possible that there is a racist element indicting the opposition to the Obama Administration policies? Take Jimmy Carter for example; is he merely projecting his own bigotry onto the opposition?

Let's please elevate our discourse beyond that of skin color because as you can see, there's no end to the hyperbole. It is unprovable, unproductive, and downright unsafe. Knock it off.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Conservatives know their own tactics really well.

Let's call Pres. Obama a racist first. Okay Liberals, you can know shut-up about racism now cause we already used it on Pres. Obama.


Let's call Pres. Obama un-American, un-patriotic, Hitler, Nazi, Muslim, Terrorist, Arab, foreign-born, Fascist, Communist, Marxist, Socialist.


People who protest against Bush. Conservatives and FOX news calls them:

Traitors! SHUT-UP!
Un-patriotic! SHUT-UP!
Un-American! SHUT-UP!
Communist! SHUT-UP!
Terrorist! SHUT-UP!
Cry-Babies! SHUT-UP!

By the way, does this guy even know what Net Neutrality is?

0bama played the race card even during his campaign. He was using hypothetical terms like "what if they called me a ..." The press of course missed the hypothetical part.
The libs short term memory problems may make it hard for some to remember back to last year.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Irony is you thinking making baseless accusations will score you some points, when all it does it make you look like another of those "litany" providers.

Stop, you're killing me.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

0bama played the race card even during his campaign. He was using hypothetical terms like "what if they called me a ..." The press of course missed the hypothetical part.
The libs short term memory problems may make it hard for some to remember back to last year.

Please cite reference, because I didn't follow his campaign that carefully.

They only thing I remember was the press asking him about his race being a factor, and he said no.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Add Bill Cosby to the mix of those who believe opposition to the policies of this Administration (at last check equally white as it is black ) equates to racism.

Just when I start to think that there's hope for you .... you go and say something silly and totally unsupportable like that.

How about we actually look at what Bill Cosby said shall we?

Originally Posted by Bill Cosby

I agree with President Carter that racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama. During President Obama’s speech on the status of health care reform, some members of congress engaged in a public display of disrespect. While one Representative hurled the now infamous “you lie” insult at the President, others made their lack of interest known by exhibiting rude behavior such as deliberately yawning and sending text messages ....

Various polls prior to the election indicated that between five and ten percent of Americans would never vote for an African American president. That number, of course, only includes those who actually admitted to their prejudice. How many others harbored such feelings but did not respond honestly when asked the question? And how many people oppose Obama’s plan because the President is African American?

In "Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith used white actors in black face to portray black legislators as having low intelligence and acting like fools. Today, we have a band of real life congressional fools seemingly bent on blocking any meaningful reform of the health care system. But if we allow even one American to die simply because he or she cannot afford treatment, we are creating a shameful scenario that could aptly be called “Death of a Nation.”

Now Bill Cosby weighs in on Carter's side of race issue - War Room - Salon.com

Now this is coming from someone who has been a "darling" of conservatives recently for his stance on issues facing the African-American community. Yet when he states the obvious and says something that conservatives don't want to hear ... then all of a sudden it's a problem!

Oh and BTW ... how exactly do you get "opposition to the policies of this Administration equates to racism" out of "racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama"? Especially in light of sh*t like this ......

:::::::repost from the "Great White Hope" thread::::::::::::

Perhaps.

But in light of the rash of "questionable" comments from Republicans lately directed at President Obama I'm not so sure.

South Carolina GOP Operative Apologizes For Racist Tweet Against Obama | TPMDC

Daily Kos: TN Republican Staffer Caught Forwarding DISGUSTING Racist Picture (Updated x2)

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis to Obama: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button | Crooks and Liars

New GOP "Racist" Headache - Page 1 - The Daily Beast

GOP activist says escaped gorilla was "ancestor" of Michelle Obama - WIS News 10 - Columbia, South Carolina |

And my personal "favorite" .....

Inland GOP mailing depicts Obama's face on food stamp | Inland News | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And what about crap like this being blatantly and publicly displayed at "Tea Parties" all over the country?



And what about "Tea Party" leaders getting on CNN and blatantly and publicly calling President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim Turned Welfare Thug"?

The list goes on and on. So are you actually going to sit there and try to pretend that racism is NOT playing a role in some of the opposition to President Obama? I mean .... does the denial run that deep for you? Like ... really? For real for real?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Are the black people who oppose the policies of this Administration also racist against Obama or does this refer exclusively to white-skinned people? Wouldn't this notion in and of itself be racist?

The issue isn't the "opposition to Obama". The issue is the racist comments and signs being directed against President Obama. Now it just so happens that the people doing that oppose his policies as well. But that's not the issue ..... it's only conservatives who are trying to duck and dodge the fact that there is a significant racist element in their ranks who say that. And the last I checked we haven't seen any black people sending out racist jokes or holding racist signs at "Tea Parties" now have we?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Is the racist element of opposition to Obama the exception or the norm?

Personally I think it's the exception. I would say that it's probably a larger element than our friends on the right would like to admit ... but the exception nevertheless. Let's face it .... there are conservatives who will oppose anything that a Democratic Administration tries to do just on GP. Regardless of skin color. But let's keep it real here. Conservatives had a field day over the Rev. Wright controversy. Went on and on about it for weeks. And it didn't seem to matter that the snippets from his sermons they kept playing over and over on Fox News was the "exception" to what the man had to say over a decades long career as a pastor ... n'est-ce pas? And furthermore, what we don't see is the racist element on the right being repudiated or denounced in any significant manner. And when they are, the guy then turns around and calls President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare Thug". So that was a "denunciation" with a wink and a nod at best. Again, the people carrying the blatantly racist signs at "Tea Party" rallies may be in the minority .... but they are a minority that is being tolerated. No one is challenging them to not go there out there in those crowds. They are out there high-fiving and back slapping with everybody else. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are on the airwaves on the regular .... egging these nutjobs on with their thinly veiled race-baiting ... but that's cool I suppose?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Can we have civil disagreement without it being opposition to someone's skin color? Yes? Then tell me why this is of any consequence whatsoever. Otherwise, it is a predictable and shameless attempt at defending the indefensible. Argue on the merits of your platform. You have more money than the opposition, more resources than the opposition, the majority in Congress, and the bully pulpit of the Presidency. Argue the friggin' merits of the platform or kindly stfu.

Well that's the thing right there. There is a great degree of "incivility" going on out there. And it's mainly coming from our friends on the right. Didn't see very many people on the left acting a fool at town hall meetings over the summer now did we?

Additionally, President Carter made a comment about Rep. Wilson (which I disagreed with) and about the larger issue of race playing a role in a lot of the opposition to President Obama (which I did agree with). The OP took issue with his comments and created this thread. So I'm not sure where you are going with this because 1) Rep. Wilson's comments may not have been racist ... but it was undoubtedly uncivil. And 2) the racist element clearly exists and is being quite blatant about it. Which is the entire point of this thread. "Arguing the friggin' merits of the platform" isn't the topic of this particular thread the last time I checked.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Is it likewise possible that there is a racist element indicting the opposition to the Obama Administration policies? Take Jimmy Carter for example; is he merely projecting his own bigotry onto the opposition?

"Bigotry" about what exactly? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let's please elevate our discourse beyond that of skin color because as you can see, there's no end to the hyperbole. It is unprovable, unproductive, and downright unsafe. Knock it off.

Agreed.

But again, the people you need to be saying that to are the ones carrying "witch doctor" signs at Tea Parties. They are the people calling the President an "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare Thug". They are the people saying that "You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.". They are the people who have made the number of death threats against a US President go up 400% higher than ever before ... seriously stretching the resources of the Secret Service. They are the people saying that the Republican party is "looking for a Great White Hope". They are the people saying "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless." after a gorilla escaped a local zoo. They are the people who refuse to believe that fat meat is greasy and insist that President Obama is "not born in America". despite the plethora of evidence that he was. They are the people who go to "Tea Parties" carrying crap like this ....













But then again, you could resort to the typical conservative playbook and downplay all of this and try to act like those of us who call these fools out on this BS are someone the ones that are tripping.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

On what basis? On their fashionable facial hair? No. I myself can't see any real comparison. You'd have to make a really compelling argument to get me to buy any genuine negative comparison on any important area of concern. Though they both are very good at saying one thing, but doing another. I'm not sure that's not the case with lots of politicians though.

[snipped]

Okay, so most of those stances you do not agree with or have some problems with. One thing you could do to buy yourself a little credibility with these debates is to make this known. Up until now you have seemed like one of those people that would let any of this stand if it were to hurt Obama in any way. If somebody were to come on here and say these things, would you let it go or would you state your disagreement with it?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay, so most of those stances you do not agree with or have some problems with. One thing you could do to buy yourself a little credibility with these debates is to make this known.

I have. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

I spent much time for instance, in the "birther" thread explaining what I just said above. Like most other mainstream conservatives, I've never shown any kind of support for people on the far fringes who would say or do really crazy stuff that can't be supported with real evidence.

Up until now you have seemed like one of those people that would let any of this stand if it were to hurt Obama in any way. If somebody were to come on here and say these things, would you let it go or would you state your disagreement with it?

If asked, I'd state my disagreement as I've already done. I'm not going to spend a lot of time though assisting those who can fight their own battles, and in winning those battles use their newly acquired strength to do me or issues I consider important, harm. I've got better things to do

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I have. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

I spent much time for instance, in the "birther" thread explaining what I just said above. Like most other mainstream conservatives, I've never shown any kind of support for people on the far fringes who would say or do really crazy stuff that can't be supported with real evidence.

Whatever you have said or done in the past is almost always nullified by your lack of restraint in simultaneously getting in a little dig about the left. People deal with dogmatic people who can not demonstrate any awareness of shortcomings with their own ideology much differently than those who can recognize that a balance does exist, whatever side they come down on. I think everybody here understands that no ideology or especially political party is perfect, including your own. You don't always have to get your digs in.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But again, the people you need to be saying that to are the ones carrying "witch doctor" signs at Tea Parties. They are the people calling the President an "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare Thug". They are the people saying that "You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.". They are the people who have made the number of death threats against a US President go up 400% higher than ever before ... seriously stretching the resources of the Secret Service. They are the people saying that the Republican party is "looking for a Great White Hope". They are the people saying "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless." after a gorilla escaped a local zoo. They are the people who refuse to believe that fat meat is greasy and insist that President Obama is "not born in America". despite the plethora of evidence that he was. They are the people who go to "Tea Parties" carrying crap like this ....

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0072_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0093_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0078_large.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/.../signcomp1.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0035_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0075_large.jpg

But then again, you could resort to the typical conservative playbook and downplay all of this and try to act like those of us who call these fools out on this BS are someone the ones that are tripping.

OAW

There will always be those who push the envelope on both sides. we we treated to signs like these during W's admin.







from our friends at The Peoples Cube

[besson3c]

And what makes you think that we approve of those anti-Bush images? I most certainly don't. When has "they did it so it makes it right" argument ever worked with adults?

[OAW]

Chongo,

I see your point. And I agree with you. Having said that, you will notice that I did not cite any of the "pushing the envelope" imagery that's been calling Obama "Hitler", "Communist", etc. The reason is because there have been idiots on the left who did the same thing to Bush as you have pointed out. I mean seriously ... Bush screwed up enough on his own that it simply spoke for itself. All of that foolishness was sooooooo unnecessary. In any event, the images and other reports that I did post were the ones that were blatantly racist against President Obama. And that, my friend, is a separate and distinct phenomenon from what you have posted above IMO. IOW, what you posted has a parallel on the left AND the right. The type of stuff that I posted you just don't see a parallel to on the left anywhere near the degree that you do on the right .... if at all.

OAW

[hyteckit]

People were protesting against Pres. Bush because he invaded another country based on the false premises that Iraq has WMD.

People were protesting against Pres. Obama because he is Black.

[The Final Dakar]

Oh come on.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh come on.

They have that covered too:

[olePigeon]

The difference between Democrats calling Bush Hitler and Republicans calling Obama Hitler is that FOX News calls the former raving lunatics, and the latter courageous patriots.

[ironknee]

and fox news promoted the tea party

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

and fox news promoted the tea party

And FreedomWorks - Dick's Army

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

People were protesting against Pres. Bush because he invaded another country based on the false premises that Iraq has WMD.

ask the Kurds
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimage...pw_sign_26.gif

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

ask the Kurds
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimage...pw_sign_26.gif

Ask the Vietnamese who were massacre by American soldiers

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~walter...s%20my_lai.jpg

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Ask the Vietnamese who were massacre by American soldiers

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~walter...s%20my_lai.jpg

That was on LBJ's watch.

[ironknee]

^^

and JBJ was a liberal favorite?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

^^

and jbj was a liberal favorite?

jbj?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Just when I start to think that there's hope for you .... you go and say something silly and totally unsupportable like that.

Pardon my lack of disappointment for the fact that I was never trying to instill your hope in me to begin with.

Now this is coming from someone who has been a "darling" of conservatives recently for his stance on issues facing the African-American community. Yet when he states the obvious and says something that conservatives don't want to hear ... then all of a sudden it's a problem!

You have this knack for capturing the negative in a thing, then basing an entire philosophy or conclusion without assessing its value in the much bigger picture. Throughout this post I'll be indicating areas where I believe this to be the case.

Originally Posted by OAW

Someone who has been a "darling" of conservatives recently for his stance on issues facing the African-American" community.

This is an incredibly myopic argument out of the gate and founded entirely on pessimism. Someone is the "darling" of someone else if they happen to find solidarity with a statement of theirs? Then, this fact somehow restricts their ability to criticize this person's statement? Is that really logical to you?

Oh and BTW ... how exactly do you get "opposition to the policies of this Administration equates to racism" out of "racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama"? Especially in light of sh*t like this ......

OAW, what is the net interpretation of "racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama"? I could say racism is playing a role in the leftist policies that have failed our nation's poorest inner-cities for decades, but what does that solve?

Do you recall what the recent outburst was? It was Wilson's irresponsible outburst of course. Is there anything Wilson could do to convince people who think he's racist otherwise short of becoming a liberal Democrat?

But in light of the rash of "questionable" comments from Republicans lately directed at President Obama I'm not so sure.

You recall the depictions of Condi Rice OAW? No? Why not? Wasn't Colin Powell also represented in a racist fashion by those who would later befriend him upon his "enlightenment"? Again, I'm showing you the only conclusion your logic could produce; zilch. It's human nature. It's ugly and weird and backward and everything people are from all walks of life. Yayy! Next?

Originally Posted by OAW

And what about crap like this being blatantly and publicly displayed at "Tea Parties" all over the country? *Obama depicted as witch doctor over ObamaCare

I hate 'em OAW. They represent the absolute lowest common denominator of any movement. They were prevalent and reprehensible during Bush's time up to and including the suggestion that he willfully neglected black folks in New Orleans to let them die in Katrina, and they are prevalent and reprehensible against this President today. I've already pointed out examples where I thought racism was playing a role, but I sometimes wonder what you think that role is. Do you suppose it's a productive role? I can assure you it is not. That's the main reason I don't like it. I believe the spirit of the statements by Carter and possibly Cosby will accomplish nothing other than defaming opposition to the policies of this Administration. That's the main reason I don't like it.

And what about "Tea Party" leaders getting on CNN and blatantly and publicly calling President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim Turned Welfare Thug"?

This is a miniscule "role" of the teabaggers and the "role" is destructive. It doesn't surprise me that CNN would want to feature them early and often.

The list goes on and on. So are you actually going to sit there and try to pretend that racism is NOT playing a role in some of the opposition to President Obama? I mean .... does the denial run that deep for you? Like ... really? For real for real?

Laugh it up chuckles. In time you may actually consider what that role is. Until then, I'll assume the importance of this is not as much social justice as it is strategic politically. That's just the perception of a non-racist white Republican guy anyway. You can take it or leave it I suppose.

The issue isn't the "opposition to Obama". The issue is the racist comments and signs being directed against President Obama. Now it just so happens that the people doing that oppose his policies as well. But that's not the issue ..... it's only conservatives who are trying to duck and dodge the fact that there is a significant racist element in their ranks who say that. And the last I checked we haven't seen any black people sending out racist jokes or holding racist signs at "Tea Parties" now have we?

No. Instead we had a black man holding an Obama cabinet post who went on speaking engagements discussing white corporate/environmentalist america's effort to pollute and poison blacks and latinos and believed Bush facilitated 9/11 on the US.

Personally I think it's the exception. I would say that it's probably a larger element than our friends on the right would like to admit ... but the exception nevertheless. Let's face it .... there are conservatives who will oppose anything that a Democratic Administration tries to do just on GP. Regardless of skin color.

Of course?

But let's keep it real here. Conservatives had a field day over the Rev. Wright controversy. Went on and on about it for weeks. And it didn't seem to matter that the snippets from his sermons they kept playing over and over on Fox News was the "exception" to what the man had to say over a decades long career as a pastor ... n'est-ce pas? And furthermore, what we don't see is the racist element on the right being repudiated or denounced in any significant manner. And when they are, the guy then turns around and calls President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare Thug". So that was a "denunciation" with a wink and a nod at best. Again, the people carrying the blatantly racist signs at "Tea Party" rallies may be in the minority .... but they are a minority that is being tolerated. No one is challenging them to not go there out there in those crowds. They are out there high-fiving and back slapping with everybody else. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are on the airwaves on the regular .... egging these nutjobs on with their thinly veiled race-baiting ... but that's cool I suppose?

Yeah as a matter of fact it is; it is freedom of speech OAW. I appreciate the frustration in having to tolerate reprehensible speech, but there is the freedom to express it. They also have the freedom to express it in and amongst people who aren't. When you point to the rallies that produce these horrible images, they are amongst a great many people from virtually all walks of life.

Well that's the thing right there. There is a great degree of "incivility" going on out there. And it's mainly coming from our friends on the right. Didn't see very many people on the left acting a fool at town hall meetings over the summer now did we?

No, they're doing all their clownin' in office right now. Besides, I think a definition of "acting a fool" is in order because I gotta tell ya; I think it's foolish as hell to even host a townhall meeting without any facts to back your ideal.

Additionally, President Carter made a comment about Rep. Wilson (which I disagreed with) and about the larger issue of race playing a role in a lot of the opposition to President Obama (which I did agree with). The OP took issue with his comments and created this thread. So I'm not sure where you are going with this because 1) Rep. Wilson's comments may not have been racist ... but it was undoubtedly uncivil. And 2) the racist element clearly exists and is being quite blatant about it. Which is the entire point of this thread. "Arguing the friggin' merits of the platform" isn't the topic of this particular thread the last time I checked.

I'm heartened to see you disagree with what Carter said about Wilson. I don't see why indicating a racist element among one movement without ever acknowledging it within the other is productive. Again, makes me think this is much less about social justice than political strategy.

"Bigotry" about what exactly? How does that make any sense whatsoever?

I'm curious if Carter is projecting.

But again, the people you need to be saying that to are the ones carrying "witch doctor" signs at Tea Parties.

So... you're telling me I need to go to a teabagger rally to oppose the minority racist element within it? You need to go find voting precincts with black panthers in front of them and remove them. WIth all due respect OAW, that's asinine. If you can point to some here holding those signs, I'll promptly tell them what I think of them. Deal?

They are the people calling the President an "Indonesian Muslim turned Welfare Thug". They are the people saying that "You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.". They are the people who have made the number of death threats against a US President go up 400% higher than ever before ... seriously stretching the resources of the Secret Service. They are the people saying that the Republican party is "looking for a Great White Hope". They are the people saying "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless." after a gorilla escaped a local zoo. They are the people who refuse to believe that fat meat is greasy and insist that President Obama is "not born in America". despite the plethora of evidence that he was. They are the people who go to "Tea Parties" carrying crap like this ....

Just so you know, this entire rant is founded on a logical fallacy. Can you tell me which one it is?

Originally Posted by OAW

**a whole slew of articles I couldn't possibly hope to keep up with on Friday night

How do you get so big eating food of this kind?

But then again, you could resort to the typical conservative playbook and downplay all of this and try to act like those of us who call these fools out on this BS are someone the ones that are tripping.

How about I simply tell you that you are taking the absolute worst examples of human nature and assigning them a political affiliation because you oppose it. Again, that's the only possible good that could come from making these debates about race in any capacity. Racism exists on both sides, period. It is not noteworthy IMO that out of a million people, You, Cosby, and Carter were able to find some psychos.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That was on LBJ's watch.

So?

Liberals protest against both the Vietnam and Iraq War.
Catholics protest against both the Vietnam and Iraq War.

Both wars were a mistake for the US to get involved in.

You can try justifying invading Iraq all you want. But we went in there because we were told there was WMD and turns out there were none.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You can try justifying invading Iraq all you want. But we went in there because we were told there was WMD and turns out there were none.

There was no war when Hussein had entire Kurdish villages gassed. Let's not derail this thread any further.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You can try justifying invading Iraq all you want. But we went in there because we were told there was WMD and turns out there were none.

You mean like how we're ramping up efforts in Afghanistan because OBL is in there somewhere?
mmhhmm. Yeah... right.

- Previous Admin's gitmo = this Admin's gitmo
- Previous Admin's wiretapping = this Admin's wiretapping
- Previous Admin's torture = this Admin's rendition
- Previous Admin's WMDs = this Admin's boogeyman (Obama lied, people died)
- Previous Admin's spending = this Admin's spending

Show me the difference. Other than of course the relative sloppiness with which this Administration functions such as scrapping a missile defense program in Poland on the 70th Anniversary of the Soviet invasion. It is no wonder an ally of ours will now not answer the phone when Hillary calls.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Pardon my lack of disappointment for the fact that I was never trying to instill your hope in me to begin with.

NP

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have this knack for capturing the negative in a thing, then basing an entire philosophy or conclusion without assessing its value in the much bigger picture.

Sort of like claiming that Bill Cosby's comment means that he "believe(s) opposition to the policies of this Administration (at last check equally white as it is black ) equates to racism."? Even though that's NOT what he said. As I demonstrated by posting his ACTUAL STATEMENT.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is an incredibly myopic argument out of the gate and founded entirely on pessimism. Someone is the "darling" of someone else if they happen to find solidarity with a statement of theirs? Then, this fact somehow restricts their ability to criticize this person's statement? Is that really logical to you?

You are free to criticize all you want. And I am free to point out exactly how your criticism was BS. You were the one who decided to take Cosby's statement well above and beyond what he actually said and come to some sweeping conclusion. I just find it ironic that you would do that with Cosby since many of his statements recently have been so "strategic politically" to the right.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

OAW, what is the net interpretation of "racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama"? I could say racism is playing a role in the leftist policies that have failed our nation's poorest inner-cities for decades, but what does that solve?

Net interpretation? How about simply acknowledging the obvious? As opposed to dismissing it or pretending that it doesn't exist? How about recognizing the simple fact that because it may not be the motivation behind your opposition to Obama personally, that doesn't mean that it's not playing a role in said motivation for others?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you recall what the recent outburst was? It was Wilson's irresponsible outburst of course. Is there anything Wilson could do to convince people who think he's racist otherwise short of becoming a liberal Democrat?

Again. I disagree with President Carter's statement about Rep. Wilson. Not because I think he was incorrect. Rather, because that statement in and of itself doesn't warrant an accusation of racism. If you are going to go there then you should be able to say that definitively about the statement itself as opposed to speculating about the motivation behind the statement. Now considering how Rep. Wilson is a conservative, white male from S. Carolina who's a member of the Sons of the Confederacy and accused Sen. Strom Thurmond's out-of-wedlock black daughter of "smearing" Sen. Thurmond when she publicly revealed the "open secret" of her parentage? Well let's just say that Wilson is "suspect" IMO. But I think most people will give him the benefit of the doubt on whether or not he is racist.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You recall the depictions of Condi Rice OAW? No? Why not? Wasn't Colin Powell also represented in a racist fashion by those who would later befriend him upon his "enlightenment"? Again, I'm showing you the only conclusion your logic could produce; zilch. It's human nature. It's ugly and weird and backward and everything people are from all walks of life. Yayy! Next?

Not sure what depictions you mean? By whom?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I hate 'em OAW. They represent the absolute lowest common denominator of any movement. They were prevalent and reprehensible during Bush's time up to and including the suggestion that he willfully neglected black folks in New Orleans to let them die in Katrina, and they are prevalent and reprehensible against this President today. I've already pointed out examples where I thought racism was playing a role, but I sometimes wonder what you think that role is. Do you suppose it's a productive role? I can assure you it is not. That's the main reason I don't like it. I believe the spirit of the statements by Carter and possibly Cosby will accomplish nothing other than defaming opposition to the policies of this Administration. That's the main reason I don't like it.

Well that's the internal debate that the Republican party is having now. The Southern Strategy is a fact. As is the fact that the Republican Party has for decades fanned the flames of white racial hostility toward minorities because it was "strategic politically". But times are changing. Demographics are changing. And there are those in the Republican party who understand that this approach is not as productive as it used to be and is a downright loser in the long run. But OTOH, there are those who cling to what they perceive to be effective methods for rallying a significant portion of the Republican base. We'll see how it all plays out.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a miniscule "role" of the teabaggers and the "role" is destructive. It doesn't surprise me that CNN would want to feature them early and often.

CNN's "featuring" of the teabaggers is a fraction of the downright promotion of them by Fox News. The Tea Parties have been straight up championed by Glenn Beck and now we have a Fox News producer caught on tape rallying the crowd at the 9/12 "protest".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Laugh it up chuckles. In time you may actually consider what that role is. Until then, I'll assume the importance of this is not as much social justice as it is strategic politically. That's just the perception of a non-racist white Republican guy anyway. You can take it or leave it I suppose.

Actually it's not. There's nothing "strategic politically" in calling out the racist element among those who oppose the Obama administration. Which is why the Obama administration isn't touching it with a 10 foot pole. Clearly they are not trying to milk it for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. Instead we had a black man holding an Obama cabinet post who went on speaking engagements discussing white corporate/environmentalist america's effort to pollute and poison blacks and latinos and believed Bush facilitated 9/11 on the US.

So you have one example of a guy who has a legitimate point about the former and is way off base on the latter? And somehow you think that is remotely equivalent to what I've posted? Ok.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah as a matter of fact it is; it is freedom of speech OAW. I appreciate the frustration in having to tolerate reprehensible speech, but there is the freedom to express it. They also have the freedom to express it in and amongst people who aren't. When you point to the rallies that produce these horrible images, they are amongst a great many people from virtually all walks of life.

They do have freedom of speech. No one is disputing that. My point is that the others there who supposedly aren't a part of the blatantly racist element have freedom of speech too. And they quite conspicuously choose not to exercise it when it comes to admonishing the racist idiots to chill out. You don't see anyone in saying that it is "destructive". That it's not serving the interests of the cause. That it's distracting from the overall message and purpose of the protests. None of that. No one says sh*t. And perhaps they don't because it's a sentiment that's more prevalent than many would like to believe? Perhaps the ones who are bold enough to hold a blatantly racist sign are the minority ... but the numbers of those who think the same but are afraid to say it publicly is much larger? Or perhaps it's more "strategic politically" to remain silent and feed off the energy that they bring to the party?

In any event, the Tea Party movement has the "freedom of speech" to disassociate itself from this racist element. Thus far it has not chosen to do so in any significant fashion. And that, my friend, speaks for itself.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sort of like claiming that Bill Cosby's comment means that he "believe(s) opposition to the policies of this Administration (at last check equally white as it is black ) equates to racism."? Even though that's NOT what he said. As I demonstrated by posting his ACTUAL STATEMENT.

The ACTUAL STATEMENT about racism "playing a role in recent outbursts against Obama". I'm telling you racism plays absolutely no role in the outbursts against President Obama nor the tea parties. Prove I'm wrong. There is absolutely no constructive intention here, no good can come from the claim. Neither Carter nor Cosby mentioned the Hitler signs, the Socialist-Joker signs, or the witchdoctor specifically; Cosby was referencing the "recent outburst". The outburst was clearly the Senator who indicted Obama for lying as Obama himself had claimed of the opposition from the podium 5 minutes prior. I want to be clear that we absolutely need to maintain etiquette in the chamber and the President was elected specifically to have the bully pulpit he enjoys. I'm not defending the Senator's behavior, I'm ridiculing the notion that this is racism and you've agreed that it wasn't. The very foundation of the claim is racist because I can personally guarantee you this would not be in question had it been a black Senator.

The claim of racism without proof is always destructive. Always.

You are free to criticize all you want. And I am free to point out exactly how your criticism was BS.

How else is the statement to be taken OAW? What else should one extrapolate? Okay the point was; those silly racists have a tendency to burst out against black men? Now we can all move on? Thank you Mr. Cosby? President Carter? Really?

You were the one who decided to take Cosby's statement well above and beyond what he actually said and come to some sweeping conclusion. I just find it ironic that you would do that with Cosby since many of his statements recently have been so "strategic politically" to the right.

I didn't take Cosby's statement well above and beyond what he actually said and come to some sweeping conclusion. Here, I got one for ya. How about the recent outbursts and teaparties and townhalls are more about the President attempting to sell a bill that doesn't exist? How about the President citing what the plan can do when it's clear to just about any expert you can find that it can't? What if the outbursts are more about the distaste for the incredible lack of transparency and bipartisanship in once again attempting to ramrod this very expensive proposal through to legislation without giving anyone a chance to read it? What about the lack of a substantive response to the cost of the plan and how we're going to pay for it? Now, you may likely disagree with the above points of contention, but the fact of the matter is that most Americans and most experts including the CBO, CRS, and CIS believe these are real concerns. How are any of these real concerns less important than the fact there might be a racist in there somewhere?

The truth? The minority racist element that may or may not exist within the opposition to this President does not matter near as much as debating the merits of a proposal that has the scope and potential for impacting every citizen in this country. I think Carter's judgement is skewed, but that doesn't surprise me. I'm more surprised by Cosby's lack of prioritization and vision. "racism" is entering the discussion because it has to IMO. If we're going to ask about the existing racism in opposition to leadership, shouldn't we first ensure those in leadership are on our side? We're all one here my man. I wish you'd reconsider your allegiances. I wish those with the loudest voices would too.

Net interpretation? How about simply acknowledging the obvious? As opposed to dismissing it or pretending that it doesn't exist? How about recognizing the simple fact that because it may not be the motivation behind your opposition to Obama personally, that doesn't mean that it's not playing a role in said motivation for others?

Those nuts do not make my laws OAW. Hopefully some are at least contributing tax revenue through income, but I suspect many are not and I certainly don't care to hear them speak. However, they do not affect me near as much as my mayor, my governor, my senator, my legislative, my Judicial, and my President. Carter can neither quantify nor prove any such claim. The only possible impacts the statement could hope to have are distractive and destructive.

Again. I disagree with President Carter's statement about Rep. Wilson.

You should more than disagree with it then. The only outcome of his statement is destructive and I dare say infinitely more influential than some ignoramus holding a sign. The only organized element of this racist sentiment is a friggin' laughing stock from their conical dunce caps- down.

Not because I think he was incorrect. Rather, because that statement in and of itself doesn't warrant an accusation of racism. If you are going to go there then you should be able to say that definitively about the statement itself as opposed to speculating about the motivation behind the statement. Now considering how Rep. Wilson is a conservative, white male from S. Carolina who's a member of the Sons of the Confederacy and accused Sen. Strom Thurmond's out-of-wedlock black daughter of "smearing" Sen. Thurmond when she publicly revealed the "open secret" of her parentage? Well let's just say that Wilson is "suspect" IMO. But I think most people will give him the benefit of the doubt on whether or not he is racist.

Conservative
White
Male
S. Carolina
... it's like you can't help it. Do you not see this?

I checked out one of these Sons of the Confederacy "camps" and it doesn't seem all that bad to me. I actually found the article on that page kind of interesting. I don't know anything about the "smearing" and using "parentage" as somehow slanderous.

Well that's the internal debate that the Republican party is having now. The Southern Strategy is a fact. As is the fact that the Republican Party has for decades fanned the flames of white racial hostility toward minorities because it was "strategic politically". But times are changing. Demographics are changing. And there are those in the Republican party who understand that this approach is not as productive as it used to be and is a downright loser in the long run. But OTOH, there are those who cling to what they perceive to be effective methods for rallying a significant portion of the Republican base. We'll see how it all plays out.

I'll be honest with you OAW, I've had several exhaustive discussions on the above talking points and as I recall closed just about every one of them. I'll deal with the "authority" fallacy for the simple fact that our views are irreconcilable. Suffice it to say the notion that there is not just as racist and influential an element among the left is both laughable and woefully naive IMO.

CNN's "featuring" of the teabaggers is a fraction of the downright promotion of them by Fox News. The Tea Parties have been straight up championed by Glenn Beck and now we have a Fox News producer caught on tape rallying the crowd at the 9/12 "protest".

... and there is absolutely, positively, nothing destructive or violent or harmful about them. They are exercising their rights to dissent. This opportunity is extended to all who wish to assemble. I can neither take their signs from them or kick them out.

Actually it's not. There's nothing "strategic politically" in calling out the racist element among those who oppose the Obama administration. Which is why the Obama administration isn't touching it with a 10 foot pole. Clearly they are not trying to milk it for what it's worth.

The President isn't because he's got to remain miles above all that. Of course you know this OAW. Interesting they'd use Carter to carry the "lowly" message. Hell, who wouldn't want to hear from the guy who's legacy is being one of the worst Presidents in US history? Yeah, it's about as strategically motivated as it could possibly be.

So you have one example of a guy who has a legitimate point about the former and is way off base on the latter? And somehow you think that is remotely equivalent to what I've posted? Ok.

Yeah and I'll tell ya why; he's way off on both. Tell me what impact he's had on mitigating the problem? He can't. He can't measure the amount of racism in it and therefore can't measure any appreciable improvements to the condition, he can't qualify it, nor quantify it, he can't prove it, and he can't fix it. He's trying to do something else entirely and he's exploiting racial sensitivities to get it done. I'm not duped by the former or the latter.

They do have freedom of speech. No one is disputing that. My point is that the others there who supposedly aren't a part of the blatantly racist element have freedom of speech too. And they quite conspicuously choose not to exercise it when it comes to admonishing the racist idiots to chill out.

Anyone who's ever encouraged anyone else to assemble regarding these tea parties has always made clear the importance of civility. I've not heard any Republican or Conservative or White Males from any State call for violence, racism, or hatred and I've never heard them defend it. There are plenty of us railing on stupidity, but there's no reason to claim it as our own. You get that right?

You don't see anyone in saying that it is "destructive". That it's not serving the interests of the cause. That it's distracting from the overall message and purpose of the protests. None of that. No one says sh*t. And perhaps they don't because it's a sentiment that's more prevalent than many would like to believe?

Why don't you go through the list of rags you linked to earlier in this thread and tell me which ones would author an article on Republicans who rebuke racist stupidity? Forgive me, but my "indoctrination" senses are peeking.

Perhaps the ones who are bold enough to hold a blatantly racist sign are the minority ... but the numbers of those who think the same but are afraid to say it publicly is much larger? Or perhaps it's more "strategic politically" to remain silent and feed off the energy that they bring to the party?

Why view it as only one side with the need to feed? Don't think for a minute there is only righteous and evil OAW, not for a minute.

In any event, the Tea Party movement has the "freedom of speech" to disassociate itself from this racist element. Thus far it has not chosen to do so in any significant fashion. And that, my friend, speaks for itself.

The tea parties have not given them a voice. The freedom this country affords grants them a voice. I cannot take their signs away and I cannot kick them out. I will not take them in and I will not give them an outlet to speak their voice, but they have it none the less. To frame this as in any way exclusive to the right is to play into the political strategy of distraction. If you're not framing it this way, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

It is just as politically expedient to cry "racism" as it is to employ it or exploit it OAW.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

To his credit, even Obama himself dismisses the racism charges. He was black during the election too... and guess what? He won.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

To his credit, even Obama himself dismisses the racism charges. He was black during the election too... and guess what? He won.

R.I.P. Racism. 1776 - 2008.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The most ironic thing is- were that true, I'd be happy about it and generally say, great, glad we got that out of the way.

But who've grown accustomed to throwing out the racism charge CONSTANTLY as a way of stifling debate would stomp their feet, whine, swear up and down it wasn't so, and decry anyone who believed it as... racist.

And so, sadly, I'm sure it will live on...

[SpaceMonkey]

I think acting defensive in response to the very idea of racism isn't a terribly helpful contribution to "getting it out of the way" either.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think acting defensive in response to the very idea of racism isn't a terribly helpful contribution to "getting it out of the way" either.

No one's acted defensively in response to the very idea of racism. A lot of people have simply gotten tired of the charge being falsely leveled, and as I said, as a tactic of stifling debate.

The side effect of 'crying wolf' all the time, is that people tend not to believe the wolf-criers IF the actual thing eventually does show up.

If you called the fire department all the time, year after year, saying your house was on fire... letting them get there only to find your house wasn't on fire, do you think that would be a productive setup for the one time you call the FD and your house IS actually on fire?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No one's acted defensively in response to the very idea of racism. A lot of people have simply gotten tired of the charge being falsely leveled, and as I said, as a tactic of stifling debate.

What I see a lot of the time when race becomes in issue is a lot of people on the conservative side of the spectrum reacting so vocally and strongly that you might have thought someone had called them racists even if they weren't involved. Everyone seems to start taking it personally, and I have no idea why. That's what I mean by acting defensively. Some people seem to take offense to the idea that someone else out there is being called a racist. I don't think it's helpful to make it a personal issue if you aren't personally involved.

I'm not talking about you. Just a general observation.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sorry, but I think it's kind of silly to pretend people can only notice a false accusation if it's leveled at them personally. That's a ridiculous false benchmark.

I believe it's healthy to have open debate in this country- especially against government intervention into people's lives. It's healthy when people get together and let politicians know they're pissed off over excessive taxes by governments both state and federal that have been TERRIBLE stewards of the public's money and trust. It's healthy when people tell politicians that, "no, the debate isn't over just because you keep insisting it is, yes we are going to voice our disagreements we have, and yes we will continue to hold you accountable whether you feel its your right to run roughshod over us or not."

It's been quite clear to many people that some politicians -Carter for example, Rangle for another, with his tax-cuts= the n-word nonsense- have tried to use the tired old tactic of falsely accusing racism in order to try and silence debate of certain issues through the intimidation factor of leveling the charge.

It's silly to try and say it needs to somehow be personal in order to notice and point it out. I don't like any other person on the national stage pulling that gutless tactic on anyone else. The side effect (intended or not) is that it does nothing to end racism or racial strife- in fact, just the opposite. Kind of like calling in thousands of false alarms to the FD wouldn't do much to make ones house safer from fire, in fact, probably the opposite.

Anyway, as I said, it's to his credit that even Obama knows to separate the false tactics from the real thing, and the damage that pretending both are the same actually does. Kudos to him for that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No one's acted defensively in response to the very idea of racism. A lot of people have simply gotten tired of the charge being falsely leveled, and as I said, as a tactic of stifling debate.

The side effect of 'crying wolf' all the time, is that people tend not to believe the wolf-criers IF the actual thing eventually does show up.

If you called the fire department all the time, year after year, saying your house was on fire... letting them get there only to find your house wasn't on fire, do you think that would be a productive setup for the one time you call the FD and your house IS actually on fire?

The same thing could be said for those that need to criticize anything and everything about Obama without discriminating battles including that he's eating the wrong kind of hot dog.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The same thing could be said for those that need to criticize anything and everything about Obama without discriminating battles including that he's eating the wrong kind of hot dog.

Is any of this unprecedented? Is there a collective Democrat model they should employ to express fairness to the office of the Presidency?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What I see a lot of the time when race becomes in issue is a lot of people on the conservative side of the spectrum reacting so vocally and strongly that you might have thought someone had called them racists even if they weren't involved.

Wouldn't it concern you more if they were indifferent to the charge? Carter referenced "overwhelming" in his statement. This is saying "most".

Everyone seems to start taking it personally, and I have no idea why.

You know exactly why. Slander and character assassinations are supposed to be taken personally. Now that Carter and Cosby have said their piece, now what? Do we get beyond the racial divide because of their words of wisdom or are we indicting an opposing viewpoint that seems to be prevailing in the court of public opinion by simply calling them racists? Of course it's the latter and it's both apparent and shameless.

That's what I mean by acting defensively. Some people seem to take offense to the idea that someone else out there is being called a racist. I don't think it's helpful to make it a personal issue if you aren't personally involved.

I'm not talking about you. Just a general observation.

How do you take it?

The overwhelming majority of those who support the President's policies are socialist. It doesn't make sense to get all riled up about it or defensive because it's not about you personally spacemonkey. All that does is make you look more like a socialist. You shouldn't argue against it or try to define socialism, you should just accept that the overwhelming majority of those on the left are socialists.

[stupendousman]

President Bush was demonstrated against by some of the most partisan left-wing kooks spewing hateful rhetoric and it was encouraged by their friends in the media.

Not once do I remember them being referred to as simply irrational haters of Bush, an "angry mob" or do I remember it being "news" that they were organized Democrats acting on behalf of special interest groups back by those with lots of money (Soros, etc.), or that it's based on some kind of insidious moral defect that's being secretly concealed (racism, in this case).

There was barely any of the type of concern and outrage over Code Pink disrupting (and in some cases trespassing with the help of the media) events they were NOT invited to or dismay at the truly hateful rhetoric they were using. This was pretty much over a single issue, that at the time most of the country supported Bush on.

Now we have multiple issues that the majority of Americans already lack support for Obama on, where people who were invited to speak their mind, and the media has a cow when people express disgust at what's going on and this administration's lack of honesty in regards to the issues. Democrats invent intellectually dishonest reasons for all this because they simply can't sell the American people on the crap they are spewing.

Welcome to Hypocrisy, USA - Population YOU.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sorry, but I think it's kind of silly to pretend people can only notice a false accusation if it's leveled at them personally. That's a ridiculous false benchmark.

You can notice it. But just as it's not productive to try to attribute secret "racist" motives to anti-Obama protesters, it's equally unproductive to try to attribute "race-baiting" motives to Obama supporters. You're just fueling a cycle of false outrage. If more people just said "I'm sorry, I can only speak for myself, but I oppose Obama's policies because of (insert some policy disagreement) and not the color of his skin" and didn't engage the "race-baiters" in psychoanalyzing a broad swath of people then maybe we would actually be on a path to getting racism "out of the way."

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wouldn't it concern you more if they were indifferent to the charge? Carter referenced "overwhelming" in his statement. This is saying "most".

There is a distinction between being indifferent and responding in a way that doesn't coldly dismiss someone's very personal subjective impression. I don't think good things have ever come from arguing that someone's feelings are wrong.

You know exactly why. Slander and character assassinations are supposed to be taken personally. Now that Carter and Cosby have said their piece, now what? Do we get beyond the racial divide because of their words of wisdom or are we indicting an opposing viewpoint that seems to be prevailing in the court of public opinion by simply calling them racists? Of course it's the latter and it's both apparent and shameless.

I don't think what they said was especially wise nor necessarily accurate, and because of their public status maybe it does deserve a more general response, but when you get right down to it I think the "racism" argument and the "race baiting" argument are both crude ways to try to silence debate about certain issues.

How do you take it?

The overwhelming majority of those who support the President's policies are socialist. It doesn't make sense to get all riled up about it or defensive because it's not about you personally spacemonkey. All that does is make you look more like a socialist. You shouldn't argue against it or try to define socialism, you should just accept that the overwhelming majority of those on the left are socialists.

Well, I'd say that in my case, you're wrong.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

President Bush was demonstrated against by some of the most partisan left-wing kooks spewing hateful rhetoric and it was encouraged by their friends in the media.

Not once do I remember them being referred to as simply irrational haters of Bush, an "angry mob" or do I remember it being "news" that they were organized Democrats acting on behalf of special interest groups back by those with lots of money (Soros, etc.), or that it's based on some kind of insidious moral defect that's being secretly concealed (racism, in this case).

There was barely any of the type of concern and outrage over Code Pink disrupting (and in some cases trespassing with the help of the media) events they were NOT invited to or dismay at the truly hateful rhetoric they were using. This was pretty much over a single issue, that at the time most of the country supported Bush on.

Now we have multiple issues that the majority of Americans already lack support for Obama on, where people who were invited to speak their mind, and the media has a cow when people express disgust at what's going on and this administration's lack of honesty in regards to the issues. Democrats invent intellectually dishonest reasons for all this because they simply can't sell the American people on the crap they are spewing.

Welcome to Hypocrisy, USA - Population YOU.

I perfect example of this is Cindy Sheehan. The media was all over her " Camp Casey" vigils outside the Crawford ranch when Bush was on "vacation." Did you see or hear anything on her moving "Camp Casey" to Martha's Vineyard during Obama's vacation? There was no coverage on MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. Other Than Fox News ( and right of center blogs), Jake Tappers blog on ABC was about it.

[OAW]

ebuddy,

You and I can go around and around about this. You seem to want to hang your hat on the comments of Rep. Wilson and whether or not they can be "proven" to be racist. I don't know why since I already acknowledged that I don't think they could and it was a mistake on President Carter's part to characterize them as such. You then go on to make the absolutely incredulous claim that racism plays absolutely no role in the tea parties. You then say "Prove I'm wrong." Well .... I already did when I posted JUST A SAMPLING of the blatantly racist posters PUBLICLY DISPLAYED at tea party events. Again, those images speak for themselves. If you are going to be one of those conservatives who will swear on a stack of Bibles that a white man burning a cross on a black family's yard is NOT "racism" but just a simple case of "arson" ... then hey, whatever dude. Sort of reminds me of the old Richard Pryor joke when he said "Who are you going to believe? Me or you lying eyes!" In any event, what I absolutely will not do is debate the obvious with an otherwise intelligent person.

Furthermore, if you want to believe that President Carter is being used by the Obama Administration as part of their "strategy" then knock yourself out. Spoken like someone who hasn't really followed politics for very long. Especially when anyone who has knows that Carter is a loose canon who has been known to speak his mind ever since his presidency ended. And he's been a thorn in the side of every Administration since then ... including Clinton's. And speaking of President Clinton, I will conclude by posting something that he said about this because I think he's absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by President Clinton

While some criticism targeting President Obama is racially motivated, the fight over health care isn't, former President Clinton told CNN.

"I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president," Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a wide-ranging interview that aired Monday evening.

"But I don't believe that all the people who oppose him on health care -- and all the conservatives -- are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then."

Bill Clinton: Health care battle not about race - CNN.com

Originally Posted by President Clinton

"I think some of the extreme right who oppose him on health care are also racially prejudiced," he told "Good Morning America" co-anchor Robin Roberts. "If you look at some of the signs, listen to some of the rhetoric, there's no question that's true. But I believe if he were not an African-American, all the people who were against him on health care would still be against him. Because they were against me too. He believes that."

Bill Clinton: Race 'Not Driving Opposition to President Obama on Health Care'

That's been my position throughout this thread. Again, the main ones claiming that "Criticism of 1st Black President = Racism" are conservatives. And quite predictably so.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I perfect example of this is Cindy Sheehan. The media was all over her " Camp Casey" vigils outside the Crawford ranch when Bush was on "vacation." Did you see or hear anything on her moving "Camp Casey" to Martha's Vineyard during Obama's vacation? There was no coverage on MSNBC, CNN, or NBC. Other Than Fox News ( and right of center blogs), Jake Tappers blog on ABC was about it.

It was a story the first time, this time it's old hat. We already know her position.

FOX News reported it because it makes Democrats look bad.

Anything else you want to know?

[ebuddy]

You and I can go around and around about this. You seem to want to hang your hat on the comments of Rep. Wilson and whether or not they can be "proven" to be racist. I don't know why since I already acknowledged that I don't think they could and it was a mistake on President Carter's part to characterize them as such.

I just can't give you as much credit as you seem to think you're deserving of for not trying to defend the indefensible. You did mention that Rep. Wilson couldn't be proven racist, but only within the context of suspicion for the fact that he's Conservative, White, Male, and from S. Carolina among other things. Here's the bottom line; I believe the indictment is contingent upon the race of the subject and as such is, in and of itself racist. In your case, you're having a measurable degree of difficulty separating your stereotypes which I'm sure you understand most see as hand in hand with racism. In short, I'm tired of racists trying to point to what they think is racist. My message to them? Check yourself.

You then go on to make the absolutely incredulous claim that racism plays absolutely no role in the tea parties. You then say "Prove I'm wrong." Well .... I already did when I posted JUST A SAMPLING of the blatantly racist posters PUBLICLY DISPLAYED at tea party events.

The quoted statements were what I found most reprehensible. The posters I just can't agree with you on. Calling Obama Hitler is not racist. Calling Obama socialist is not racist. Citing the Constitution or flying the Confederate flag is not a priori racist. I find the witchdoctor poster questionable, but it seems to be suggesting a desperate health care situation in which we're going to be relying on magic.

Again, those images speak for themselves.

Not all of them and only a couple of them to the very sensitive. You've been shown the posters of Bush as well and there's little doubt in my mind that if you super-imposed Obama's face over them, you'd swear there was a racist sentiment in there somewhere.

If you are going to be one of those conservatives who will swear on a stack of Bibles that a white man burning a cross on a black family's yard is NOT "racism" but just a simple case of "arson" ... then hey, whatever dude. Sort of reminds me of the old Richard Pryor joke when he said "Who are you going to believe? Me or you lying eyes!" In any event, what I absolutely will not do is debate the obvious with an otherwise intelligent person.

Wha?!? Have I ever been "one of those Conservatives"? Can we please try to stay on task here? Whatever it is you're hoping to achieve with this, I simply can't help you.

Furthermore, if you want to believe that President Carter is being used by the Obama Administration as part of their "strategy" then knock yourself out. Spoken like someone who hasn't really followed politics for very long. Especially when anyone who has knows that Carter is a loose canon who has been known to speak his mind ever since his presidency ended. And he's been a thorn in the side of every Administration since then ... including Clinton's.

So... let me make sure I've got this correct;

Carter is not playing a role in speaking for Obama, but the nut-cases espousing racist sentiment are playing a role in those who oppose this Administration's policies? Really?

And speaking of President Clinton, I will conclude by posting something that he said about this because I think he's absolutely hit the nail on the head.

No one is denying that there are racist elements among Conservative movements. Any open-minded individual would have to likewise acknowledge their existence among the left. Citing their "role" as if they've been commissioned to participate in some official capacity when they are doing this of their own accord is BS. It is destructive to cite "racism" where there isn't any and diminishes the impact of the call when there is. This is what Carter did. Cosby clearly said he "agrees with President Carter...". They were both patently irresponsible in this.

That's been my position throughout this thread. Again, the main ones claiming that "Criticism of 1st Black President = Racism" are conservatives. And quite predictably so.

That's the net take-away of their message OAW. It is a distraction to the actual merits of the debate and it is always destructive when it is unsubstantiated. Period. You don't agree with it because of course, you're a liberal. You're right, we can go around and around about this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

There is a distinction between being indifferent and responding in a way that doesn't coldly dismiss someone's very personal subjective impression. I don't think good things have ever come from arguing that someone's feelings are wrong.

Oh there are more than two distinctions. Ask OAW, few legacies illustrated the well-documented wrongness of a man's feelings more than Carter's. I believe the operative phrase for him was... loose cannon.

I don't think what they said was especially wise nor necessarily accurate, and because of their public status maybe it does deserve a more general response, but when you get right down to it I think the "racism" argument and the "race baiting" argument are both crude ways to try to silence debate about certain issues.

I couldn't agree more.

Well, I'd say that in my case, you're wrong.

Granted, I'd be the first to tell you I'm capable of being wrong, but I hope you didn't construe the statement as being literally about you. I was simply illustrating how impossible the rhetoric has become.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I just can't give you as much credit as you seem to think you're deserving of for not trying to defend the indefensible. You did mention that Rep. Wilson couldn't be proven racist, but only within the context of suspicion for the fact that he's Conservative, White, Male, and from S. Carolina among other things. Here's the bottom line; I believe the indictment is contingent upon the race of the subject and as such is, in and of itself racist. In your case, you're having a measurable degree of difficulty separating your stereotypes which I'm sure you understand most see as hand in hand with racism. In short, I'm tired of racists trying to point to what they think is racist. My message to them? Check yourself.

"Among other things" that you conveniently left out. That little part of how he accused a black woman of "smearing" Sen. Strom Thurmond for publicly declaring that she was Thurmond's daughter. Never mind that it was an "open secret" in S. Carolina. Never mind that Thurmond always provided for her (even though he never acknowledged her publicly). It was just downright "unseemly" for the distinguished Senator from S. Carolina to be publicly outed for having an out-of-wedlock "Nigra" child with one of his black maids. Not Mr. Dixiecrat later turned Republican who never renounced his (supposed) earlier segregationist views and campaigns. Clearly that just stuck in Rep. Wilson's craw. Believe you me I am most familiar with this phenomenon. White males have a long history of desiring black women in this country. And many a white male (especially in the South) had their way with black women during slavery and segregation. Forcibly or otherwise. It's the "dirty little American secret" that is blatantly obvious but rarely discussed. The wide variety of skin tones in the African-American community that has ALWAYS been here is testament to that. The fact that the overwhelming majority of African-Americans have some white ancestry is testament to that. So he's a "conservative, white, male from S. Carolina" (a demographic with a long and documented history of harboring racist sentiment) who ALSO went there against this woman (in this day and age)? Yeah that does make him "suspect" in my book. So call it whatever you want.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The quoted statements were what I found most reprehensible. The posters I just can't agree with you on. Calling Obama Hitler is not racist. Calling Obama socialist is not racist.

And you should note that I did not post any images where Obama was called "Hitler" or a "Socialist". In fact, I made that exact point to Chongo above. No my friend ... I posted very different images. And you know it. But go ahead and pretend like I didn't. We both know better.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Citing the Constitution or flying the Confederate flag is not a priori racist.

Citing the Constitution in the context of "Obama giving our tax dollars to Hamas"? WTF? Forget the Hamas part ... that is just completely silly and wasn't even the point. The question is why you choose to just ignore the death threat that followed it ... in the context of Obama receiving 400% more death threats than any other US President. Why do you think that number is so high? Because of healthcare reform?

As for the Confederate flag not being "a priori racist" ... yeah right. That's utter and complete BS. But there's a thread in the main lounge about that if you wish to argue that point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I find the witchdoctor poster questionable, but it seems to be suggesting a desperate health care situation in which we're going to be relying on magic.

Questionable? Questionable? Obama, a black man, being portrayed as a "jungle bunny savage". A racist image and portrayal that has a centuries long history in this country. I suppose if he had been depicted in blackface that would have "suggested that Obama's healthcare proposal would be financially solvent" huh? I suppose if he had been depicted with bulging eyes that would have "suggested the eye-popping cost of the Obama healthcare proposal" huh? I'll be "charitable". I suggest you brush up on the topic racist depictions in the media before you make such a stunning display of ignorance again. Especially on a public forum

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not all of them and only a couple of them to the very sensitive. You've been shown the posters of Bush as well and there's little doubt in my mind that if you super-imposed Obama's face over them, you'd swear there was a racist sentiment in there somewhere.

Again. I already discussed the images of Bush earlier. And I mentioned how they weren't applicable to the topic at hand and that was exactly why I didn't post any of the similar images of Obama. But despite the fact that I've already outlined my position on that "there's little doubt in your mind" that I would think something different? How very "conservative" of you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wha?!? Have I ever been "one of those Conservatives"? Can we please try to stay on task here? Whatever it is you're hoping to achieve with this, I simply can't help you.

Yes. When you made the absolutely brain dead argument that the Obama as a witch doctor poster "seems to be suggesting a desperate health care situation in which we're going to be relying on magic."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... let me make sure I've got this correct;

Carter is not playing a role in speaking for Obama, but the nut-cases espousing racist sentiment are playing a role in those who oppose this Administration's policies? Really?

I never said the nut-cases espousing racist sentiment were "'playing a role' in those who oppose this Administration's policies." I said .... quite specifically ... that "racism was 'playing a role' in some of the opposition to Obama". I mean jeez ... the noun in your statement was "nut-cases" and the noun in my statement was "racism". The first is in reference to people and the latter is in reference to ideology. Obama outright said that Carter was NOT speaking for him. Repeatedly. Something that hasn't been done by the Tea Party leadership and which you've made "freedom of speech" excuses for on more than one occasion. Your attempt at an analogy was not just weak it was downright inapplicable. Come on man ..... you are way too smart to go out with a Hooked on Phonics move like that!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one is denying that there are racist elements among Conservative movements.

Oh wow! Stop the presses!!!!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's the net take-away of their message OAW. It is a distraction to the actual merits of the debate and it is always destructive when it is unsubstantiated. Period. You don't agree with it because of course, you're a liberal. You're right, we can go around and around about this.

No. That's the "net take-away" that conservatives choose to tell themselves. There's a big difference. One that is quite obvious to those who choose not to gloss over the very real and very prevalent racist sentiments being publicly displayed against President Obama. Especially when such sentiments aren't characterized as "a distraction to the actual merits of the debate". Quite the opposite. They are just "freedom of speech" being exercised.

But even if we focus on Rep. Wilson's outburst, the fact remains that this was a first in US history. President Carter, a son of the South himself, holds the opinion that Rep. Wilson would have never disrespected a white President like that ... regardless of the extent of their disagreements. Throughout US history we've seen many political debates a lot more contentious than this one. And thus far, no one has ever disrespected a white President in such a manner before. Despite 43 previous opportunities over 220 years. The first time that this has ever happened was by a Southern, white, male Congressman against the first non-white President. Now there are those who do not believe that this was a "coincidence" even though it might well be. But given the historical record, it is quite understandable why this is their view. And it would be extremely misguided to dismiss them as if they were crackheads or something because of it.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

"Among other things" that you conveniently left out. That little part of how he accused a black woman of "smearing" Sen. Strom Thurmond for publicly declaring that she was Thurmond's daughter. Never mind that it was an "open secret" in S. Carolina. Never mind that Thurmond always provided for her (even though he never acknowledged her publicly). It was just downright "unseemly" for the distinguished Senator from S. Carolina to be publicly outed for having an out-of-wedlock "Nigra" child with one of his black maids. Not Mr. Dixiecrat later turned Republican who never renounced his (supposed) earlier segregationist views and campaigns. Clearly that just stuck in Rep. Wilson's craw. Believe you me I am most familiar with this phenomenon. White males have a long history of desiring black women in this country. And many a white male (especially in the South) had their way with black women during slavery and segregation. Forcibly or otherwise. It's the "dirty little American secret" that is blatantly obvious but rarely discussed. The wide variety of skin tones in the African-American community that has ALWAYS been here is testament to that. The fact that the overwhelming majority of African-Americans have some white ancestry is testament to that. So he's a "conservative, white, male from S. Carolina" (a demographic with a long and documented history of harboring racist sentiment) who ALSO went there against this woman (in this day and age)? Yeah that does make him "suspect" in my book. So call it whatever you want.

You're asleep alright.
1. I told you I hadn't heard of the "smearing" issue. I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I thought it was unnecessary to expand on it since you had already expressed that his outburst was not racist.
2. White males have a long history of appreciating women of all ethnicities. This is no "dirty secret". Are you kidding me? This is the friggin' public school we're talking about here. I learned about the evil anglo-euro white males and their propensity for killing "red-skins" among a wealth of other travesties of the human condition including fornication between masters and slaves all very early on in my education. I mean, if you like we can go back to the beginning of the slave trade and establish how fond the Portuguese were of the African sisters sold to them. Who would've thought enslaving your own race and selling them off would've been such a lucrative industry!
3. People in the North also have a precedent of racism. The entire country has a well-documented history of racism. This is the country that elected Obama President. This is like fighting to sit at the front of the bus, but repeatedly going to the back of it 40 years later. Just sayin'.
4. So... you think Wilson was racist in his outburst or not? Do you think he would've done this to a white President? I mean, I could let you continue to sell yourself on racism, it's an interesting process to watch.

And you should note that I did not post any images where Obama was called "Hitler" or a "Socialist". In fact, I made that exact point to Chongo above. No my friend ... I posted very different images. And you know it. But go ahead and pretend like I didn't. We both know better.

I know, I mentioned them.

Citing the Constitution in the context of "Obama giving our tax dollars to Hamas"? WTF?

Bush? Terrorist? WTF? Perpetrated 9/11??? WTF?!? Not racist.

Forget the Hamas part ... that is just completely silly and wasn't even the point. The question is why you choose to just ignore the death threat that followed it ... in the context of Obama receiving 400% more death threats than any other US President. Why do you think that number is so high? Because of healthcare reform?

I'm not going to pretend to know whether or not someone is a racist. The quote underneath the statement was a quote taken from the Constitution. The Constitution does in fact say this. I'm not going to go from that statement to an attempt on the President's life. There are racists in this country and they have just as many ties among leftist ideology as they do right-wing ideology. These tea parties have been going on for months. Why do you suppose Carter's panties are in a bunch about racists now? Health care reform? Hell YES! Carter is a white, southern racist who is projecting his fear of blacks on the overwhelming majority of those who oppose Democratic policy initiatives!

As for the Confederate flag not being "a priori racist" ... yeah right. That's utter and complete BS. But there's a thread in the main lounge about that if you wish to argue that point.

Slavery was not the sole issue of the confederacy. There's a link I provided earlier if you'd like to argue against them.

Questionable? Questionable?

Yup! Questionable, particularly to the hyper-sensitive with eyes moving to and fro who would've seen racism in any one of Bush's depictions used on Obama.

Obama, a black man, being portrayed as a "jungle bunny savage".

Jungle bunny savage? It's a witch doctor OAW. Do you suppose the sign is saying that communist jungle bunnies are coming to a clinic near you?!?

A racist image and portrayal that has a centuries long history in this country.

Depictions of witch doctors have centuries long history???

I suppose if he had been depicted in blackface that would have "suggested that Obama's healthcare proposal would be financially solvent" huh? I suppose if he had been depicted with bulging eyes that would have "suggested the eye-popping cost of the Obama healthcare proposal" huh? I'll be "charitable". I suggest you brush up on the topic racist depictions in the media before you make such a stunning display of ignorance again. Especially on a public forum

You view all things through the prism of a racist OAW. Face it. You can't help letting the stereotypes fly, you repeatedly try to stretch any situation to fit it. You are part of the problem sir with all due respect. Racism exists, but not in signs that try to suggest that communist jungle bunny nigras are COMING TO A CLINIC NEAR YOU!!! OH NOOOOOO!? EVERYBODY RUN! THE COMMUNIST JUNGLE BUNNY NIGRAS ARE COMING TO OUR CLINICS!!! GRAB YOUR CROSSES AND TORCHES BOYS WE GONNA HANG US A CLINICIAN?!? Give me a friggin break.

Again. I already discussed the images of Bush earlier. And I mentioned how they weren't applicable to the topic at hand and that was exactly why I didn't post any of the similar images of Obama. But despite the fact that I've already outlined my position on that "there's little doubt in your mind" that I would think something different? How very "conservative" of you.

I for the life of me can't see how you're supposed to be an example of greater integrity in this discussion OAW. You're citing "racist" posters and among them are posters of items ALL that have been mentioned of Bush. The only one I took issue with was the witch doctor depiction, but again... that could EASILY be a statement against health care reform and how paying for it long-term has been proposed.

Yes. When you made the absolutely brain dead argument that the Obama as a witch doctor poster "seems to be suggesting a desperate health care situation in which we're going to be relying on magic."

You dropped your stick on this one. Unless you're trying to suggest that the FUD of that poster is of jungle bunny nigras (in your words by the way before someone gets the wrong idea here) taking over clinics, I just don't see the connection you're trying to make.

I never said the nut-cases espousing racist sentiment were "'playing a role' in those who oppose this Administration's policies." I said .... quite specifically ... that "racism was 'playing a role' in some of the opposition to Obama".

No it's not. Not any less than Carter "playing a role" in supporting Obama. As hard as you try, you can't have it both ways. You can't measure their "role". You can't quantify their "role". You can't even claim what the "role" is. The term "role" is to suggest that a racist element has been commissioned in some official capacity to oppose this President, but you've got nothing other than your gut feeling.

I mean jeez ... the noun in your statement was "nut-cases" and the noun in my statement was "racism". The first is in reference to people and the latter is in reference to ideology.

I don't know what "ideology" they're supposedly supporting. Like I told you before, the only organized element of this ideology have been rendered quacks with white, conical duncecaps. Nut cases. These are the ones dissociative enough to attempt taking the President's life. I place them firmly in the camp of the insane and think they should all be locked up. I can't personally do this. They have the freedom to express their insanity. I'm not defending them, but I can't remove them. Point them out, I'll gladly tell them what I think. You then can visit the numerous precincts and cable access channels and legislators, etc.. who espouse hatred against whites and let them know what you think. Cool?

Obama outright said that Carter was NOT speaking for him. Repeatedly. Something that hasn't been done by the Tea Party leadership and which you've made "freedom of speech" excuses for on more than one occasion. Your attempt at an analogy was not just weak it was downright inapplicable. Come on man ..... you are way too smart to go out with a Hooked on Phonics move like that!

Glenn Beck denounces racism and he's helped birth the 9/12 movement that has been actively involved in these tea parties. Like I said, there's no reason to accept the notion that racists have a "role" in them. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Oh wow! Stop the presses!!!!

omg

No. That's the "net take-away" that conservatives choose to tell themselves. There's a big difference. One that is quite obvious to those who choose not to gloss over the very real and very prevalent racist sentiments being publicly displayed against President Obama. Especially when such sentiments aren't characterized as "a distraction to the actual merits of the debate". Quite the opposite. They are just "freedom of speech" being exercised.

Right, just like the racist sentiments expressed against Condi Rice and Powell. Yup. Racists the lot of them! Where were you then?

But even if we focus on Rep. Wilson's outburst, the fact remains that this was a first in US history.

You're right, prior to this the chamber would echo with the collective BOOOO! from the left side of the aisle!

President Carter, a son of the South himself, holds the opinion that Rep. Wilson would have never disrespected a white President like that ... regardless of the extent of their disagreements.

You've already said Carter was wrong. Are you saying he's right now? Are we watching an opinion develop in real time? This is fascinating! (you'll notice I've taken an increasing interest in using emoticons hoping to establish some rapport with you. I had to remove yours so as not to exceed the limit of 13! )

Throughout US history we've seen many political debates a lot more contentious than this one. And thus far, no one has ever disrespected a white President in such a manner before.

Not shortly after a stimulus package passed just months prior with less than 10 hours for review! There is absolutely nothing precedented about what is going on with our Federal government right now, particularly the haste with which it is all being thrust upon us.

Despite 43 previous opportunities over 220 years. The first time that this has ever happened was by a Southern, white, male Congressman against the first non-white President. Now there are those who do not believe that this was a "coincidence" even though it might well be. But given the historical record, it is quite understandable why this is their view. And it would be extremely misguided to dismiss them as if they were crackheads or something because of it.

I've dismissed no one as "crackheads". The word never came out of my keyboard. Please again, stay on task here. I simply disagree with you passionately and believe the unsubstantiated accusation of racism is always destructive. Always. The tea parties have been going on a long time my friend. Racism has been going on a long time. They found that indictments of "astro-turf" and "nazis" wasn't effective, bust out race. Do it now! Now while we're mired in losing our health care debate!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're asleep alright.
1. I told you I hadn't heard of the "smearing" issue. I don't know enough about it to comment on it. I thought it was unnecessary to expand on it since you had already expressed that his outburst was not racist.

Perhaps you didn't know about it. But I told you. And you tried to dismiss it and focus on me saying he was a Southern white conservative as if that was the only reason I found him to be "suspect". Brush up about Essie Mae Washington-Williams. You'll see she is the good Sen. Thurmond's eldest child. Conceived when he was 22 years old with a 16 year old black household servant. And yes, Rep. Wilson did say that "it's a smear" on Sen. Thurmond's image and an attempt to "diminish" his legacy when she publicly revealed that Sen. Thurmond was her father. So in the good Rep. Wilson's mind .... Sen. Thurmond at a minimum committing statutory rape and impregnating a 16 year old girl wasn't a "smear" on his image. He only considered it a "smear" when the public officially found out that Sen. Thurmond had a black daughter out of wedlock. Especially given his segregationist and anti-civil rights history. So yeah ... your boy Rep. Wilson attacked Ms. Washington, by then an elderly lady of 78, for telling the truth about Sen. Thurmond. Just a little uh ... "background" on the man who got out of pocket with President Obama.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not going to pretend to know whether or not someone is a racist. The quote underneath the statement was a quote taken from the Constitution. The Constitution does in fact say this. I'm not going to go from that statement to an attempt on the President's life.

Who said anything about an "attempt"? But clearly some nut-job holding a sign saying that says President Obama is giving "our tax dollars to Hamas" and that the Constitution says that the penalty for treason is death is an expression that the President should be killed. No he wasn't "attempting" to do it, but he was damned sure "calling" for it to be done. It contributes to a very dangerous and explosive atmosphere. And again, it's a sentiment that appears to be very much tolerated at Tea Party events.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These tea parties have been going on for months. Why do you suppose Carter's panties are in a bunch about racists now? Health care reform? Hell YES! Carter is a white, southern racist who is projecting his fear of blacks on the overwhelming majority of those who oppose Democratic policy initiatives!

I'm going to have to ask you to lay off the drugs now.

Take a moment and think about how illogical this statement is. If it's "Health care reform? Hell YES!" ... then President Carter had all summer to make that kind of charge. But he didn't. He made his charge after Rep. Wilson made his little outburst. After watching blatantly racist signs and rhetoric coming from the Tea Party crowd all summer.

Furthermore, if President Carter is "a white, southern racist who is projecting his fear of blacks" then please cite some evidence to support that claim. I mean after all ... you are the one who keeps saying that such unsubstantiated claims are "destructive".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Slavery was not the sole issue of the confederacy. There's a link I provided earlier if you'd like to argue against them.

No, but it was the predominant issue. Make not mistake about it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yup! Questionable, particularly to the hyper-sensitive with eyes moving to and fro who would've seen racism in any one of Bush's depictions used on Obama.

Again you make that statement when I've already said that I didn't think the "Obama as Hitler" signs were "racist". You really don't listen do you?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Jungle bunny savage? It's a witch doctor OAW. Do you suppose the sign is saying that communist jungle bunnies are coming to a clinic near you?!?

Again. I'd suggest you brush up on the history of racist media depictions before you are so quick to dismiss this image. You will see that it is quite prevalent.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Depictions of witch doctors have centuries long history???

Yes. In fact they do. Europeans have been making racist images of Africans and people of African descent since the colonial era. Read a book sometime and you might learn something.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You view all things through the prism of a racist OAW. Face it. You can't help letting the stereotypes fly, you repeatedly try to stretch any situation to fit it. You are part of the problem sir with all due respect. Racism exists, but not in signs that try to suggest that communist jungle bunny nigras are COMING TO A CLINIC NEAR YOU!!! OH NOOOOOO!? EVERYBODY RUN! THE COMMUNIST JUNGLE BUNNY NIGRAS ARE COMING TO OUR CLINICS!!! GRAB YOUR CROSSES AND TORCHES BOYS WE GONNA HANG US A CLINICIAN?!? Give me a friggin break.

You defend a poster of Obama as a witch doctor, but I'm the one "letting the stereotypes fly"? Wooooooooooooowwwwww!!!!!

Anyone with at least 2 cents worth of intelligence can see that what I said was to point out the absolute absurdity of your "the witch doctor poster is suggesting that Obama's healthcare plan is like magic" defense. But go ahead. Keep on defending the indefensible.

You know what? Here's a thought. Since you think that the witch doctor poster was just "questionable" ... and not because of the poster itself but because of how the "hypersensitive" among us might take it .... then please give an example of something that could be said or displayed in reference to Obama that you actually would consider to be "racist". You see that's the funny thing about conservatives. They are quick to dismiss or minimize behavior that many other people consider to be racist. It's like they set the bar so high that it can never be reached. So what would it take? Short of a poster that says "Obama is a n*gger!!!" that is. Or would that even do it for you? And do trust and believe many of your conservative compatriots would try to argue that that wouldn't be "racist" either. But would be quick to level the charge at those who said that it was.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I for the life of me can't see how you're supposed to be an example of greater integrity in this discussion OAW. You're citing "racist" posters and among them are posters of items ALL that have been mentioned of Bush. The only one I took issue with was the witch doctor depiction, but again... that could EASILY be a statement against health care reform and how paying for it long-term has been proposed.

It could only EASILY be taken that way by the willfully obtuse and the woefully uneducated. Take your pick.

And for the record ....

By your own word's, you did NOT take issue with the Obama's Plan is WHITE SLAVERY poster.

So something tells me you won't have a problem with these either ...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The term "role" is to suggest that a racist element has been commissioned in some official capacity to oppose this President, but you've got nothing other than your gut feeling.

Might I suggest a brief vocabulary lesson?

role: the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.

Now where does that denote "commissioned in some official capacity"? Hmmm?

So when someone says that "racism is playing a role in some of the opposition to Obama", that is no different than saying "racism is playing a part in some of the opposition to Obama". That is, it is a part of the equation. Not the entire equation, but clearly it is a part for some people.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know what "ideology" they're supposedly supporting. Like I told you before, the only organized element of this ideology have been rendered quacks with white, conical duncecaps. Nut cases. These are the ones dissociative enough to attempt taking the President's life. I place them firmly in the camp of the insane and think they should all be locked up. I can't personally do this. They have the freedom to express their insanity. I'm not defending them, but I can't remove them. Point them out, I'll gladly tell them what I think. You then can visit the numerous precincts and cable access channels and legislators, etc.. who espouse hatred against whites and let them know what you think. Cool?

The "ideology" is the mindset that takes issue with an African-American being the President. And do trust and believe that there are plenty of people out there who subscribe to it. Clearly not the majority otherwise Obama wouldn't have been elected. But they exist nevertheless. But go ahead and pretend that the only "organized element of this ideology" are Klan members.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Glenn Beck denounces racism and he's helped birth the 9/12 movement that has been actively involved in these tea parties. Like I said, there's no reason to accept the notion that racists have a "role" in them. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck? This is the same individual who called President Obama a racist on national TV! And did you have anything to say about that? Did you say that it was "destructive" as you did of President Carter's comments? Or did you give him a pass? Did Mr. Beck provide any sort of substantiation to this charge whatsoever? Or was that simply beside the point since this was on Fox News after all?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, just like the racist sentiments expressed against Condi Rice and Powell. Yup. Racists the lot of them! Where were you then?

You've said this before. And I already told you that I didn't know what you were referring to. But instead of providing a little thing we call an example, you just repeat yourself. Whatever.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're right, prior to this the chamber would echo with the collective BOOOO! from the left side of the aisle!

Booing and cheering has occurred from both sides of the aisle for decades. This is nothing new. Yelling "You lie!" at the President during a speech to Congress is unprecedented. Verbally interrupting a speech by the President during a speech to Congress is unprecedented. But go ahead. Act like you don't know.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've already said Carter was wrong. Are you saying he's right now? Are we watching an opinion develop in real time? This is fascinating! (you'll notice I've taken an increasing interest in using emoticons hoping to establish some rapport with you. I had to remove yours so as not to exceed the limit of 13! )

I said President Carter was wrong for saying that Rep. Wilson's outburst was based on racism. And I've already explained why. Now whether what President Carter said was true or not is another matter altogether. But in any event, I'm not a mind reader so I can't speak to Rep. Wilson's motivations.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not shortly after a stimulus package passed just months prior with less than 10 hours for review! There is absolutely nothing precedented about what is going on with our Federal government right now, particularly the haste with which it is all being thrust upon us.

Kind of like Bush's 700 billion bailout of the financial sector and the bailout of the auto industry? Oh yeah I forgot. The thing to do now is pretend that Obama put that ball in motion! That's certainly the way the Tea Baggers play it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've dismissed no one as "crackheads". The word never came out of my keyboard. Please again, stay on task here. I simply disagree with you passionately and believe the unsubstantiated accusation of racism is always destructive. Always.

So again, surely you concede that Glenn Beck was "destructive" when he said Obama had a "deep seated hatred for white people or white culture."?

Surely you concede he was "destructive" when he said "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."?

Surely you concede that Rush Limbaugh was "destructive" when he said "You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."?

Since neither of them even bothered to attempt to substantiate their claims. Or does their blatant race-baiting get a pass because they are on the conservative side of the fence?

OAW