Jimmy Carter claims racist tone against Obama.

[applecorped]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...laims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.html

"In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former President Jimmy Carter said he has been extremely bothered by the heightened climate of racial and other hate speech since the election of President Barack Obama."


I read about this climate of racial and hate speech in the news lately but have not experienced yet in my daily life. Is this climate change real?

 

[Thunder]

of course there are some folks who bring a racial tone to their hatred of Obama.

But I'd like to think that a majority of Obama-haters don't like him because of his views and his goals for this country, and NOT cause he is a black man.

 

[LTC8K6]

Darn! Just when we were all post-racial...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UJaeLjCvH4

 

[Cynic]

I'd like to think that too, but I suspect a lot of people don't like he views and his goals because he's black. And, you know, Democrat. I'm from western PA, originally from a bit further out from the city than I am now and still retain lots of ties there. You might recall the dust up during the campaign when one of our state representatives, John Murtha, called the region racist (and then brilliantly ammeded it to "redneck") and took a lot of flack for it.

Well, the truth hurts. Obama won PA on the basis of Pittsburgh and Philly and virtually no other counties. That was kind of unusual in and of itself. But during the campaign there was an awful lot of butt sniffing going on, where the incidence of mildly racist jokes would be put out there and reaction carefully gaged to see if they could press further. Vitally "important" points were brought up, like "I don't know he's a muslim or not, but you can't be too careful..." and "Obama's really only half-black, and so he's not really black at all and is just using the black population for easy votes". I'm sure there was much worse, but as I said, there was a lot of butt sniffing going on and I didn't smell their kind of dog.

This didn't really surprise me much. But that isn't to say there weren't surprises. Western PA is a region steeped in blue collar, labor union types (from back when we produced and worked steel). Even Reagan wasn't popular and winning as a Republican in the suburbs and more rural areas was an uphill batter. But Obama got slammed out there in the election. With that many people suddenly switching voting habits, you can bet that people who previously kept their racism under their hat found reasons to switch.

My own parents, who had previously voted Democrat in every election they'd every voted in and used to tell us cautionary tales about how, when living in various places in the South during the late 60's and early 70's, they witnessed the segegated restaurants, bathrooms, and water fountains themselves and would sagely shake their heads in disgust. Yet during the during the election, they parroted all the same slogans the GOP stuffed their answering machine with, somehow identified with Joe the Plummer, the causes of the rich, about social medicine, etc, even though they're poor and aren't taking even half their prescriptions because they can't afford them. All of Reagan's faults (they used to angrily call him "turkeyneck") became virtues. And then I was made to understand that they don't feel that black people and white people should interbreed because "it's hard on the kids, who won't be accepted".

Yeah, racist tone on the uptick? Check. This is in Pennsylvania, where everyone knew someone with a Confederate flag in the living room of their mobile home, but it wasn't considered much of a goal to be like them. I can't even begin to imagine some of the states more famous for this crap.

 

[skeptical]

IMO, I think some of the _tactics_ that have been used reflect racism. For example, the willingness of a sitting congressman to scream at a president during an address to congress is unprecedented. I think it is no accident Joe Wilson is from SC and a member of sons of the Confederacy.

However I also think that some of the actual fears boil down to jingoism. (or hypernationalism if you prefer) Part of the problem is Obama is perceived as "other" and "not quite American" by some. It's his name, the fact that he spent a lot of time outside of the US in countries many Americans couldn't locate on a map if they had to, the fact that he wasn't even born on the mainland, etc. He is perceived as the ultimate outsider, and being black just puts the icing on the cake. He is "just not American enough" or for more radicals "not an American". Once you accept that premise, all else follows: birthers, he's a commie, he's a fascist, he wants to take our rights, "I want my country back", etc.

If you look at the claims, they are either traditional US hypernationalist boogie men or flat out attempts to explain the fear: "he's not one of us".

So, I think Carter hits the target but misses the mark. It's not _just_ racism, because a lot of this would be much milder if his name was Bob Washington and he was from Kansas. However, the willingness of so many to disrepect him is far disproportionate to any actual hatred any of his policies could engender, and I believe this is due to race.

 

[yodaluver28]

Sadly there is alot of racism involved. Obviously not all of it, just look at how Clinton was treated. But there is something far darker and more sinister in the attacks on Obama than anything leveled against Clinton and that's saying something.

There are tons of videos on Youtube of Teabaggers and people who were attending McCain-Palin rallies during the campaign who have no difficulty or shame saying the most insane, hateful things without a shred of evidence for any of it. Some are even bold enough to proudly display their racism.

Forget the recession, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda, the greatest threat to this country are the hateful, willfully ignorant mobs who have become obsessed with destroying Barack Obama and anything he touches. The more of these paranoid lunatics I see and hear, the more I fear that he will not survive even his first term.

 

[Skeptic]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...laims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.html

"In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former President Jimmy Carter said he has been extremely bothered by the heightened climate of racial and other hate speech since the election of President Barack Obama."

Translation:

"Jimmy Carter disagrees with the criticism against Obama."

Therefore, it logically follows (Carter thinks) that:

"I disagree with the criticism" = "The criticism MUST be wrong."
"Obama is wrongly criticized" = "The wrong criticism MUST be due to racism."

Therefore,

"Obama is criticized for racist reasons".

Then one can go back and find some off-the-cuff "proof" of the conclusion that is reached in the way I just mentioned.

This leap of logic is not unique to Carter, of course. It's modus operandi in certain circles; but it's still an obvious logical mistake.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Dems voted down a rebuke of Democrat Pete Stark for his far worse comments about W. Not only did Stark call Bush a liar, he said that Bush sent kids over to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his own amusement.

 

[Wolfman]

Translation:

"Jimmy Carter disagrees with the criticism against Obama."

Therefore, it logically follows (Carter thinks) that:

"I disagree with the criticism" = "The criticism MUST be wrong."
"Obama is wrongly criticized" = "The wrong criticism MUST be due to racism."

What a load of unmitigated crap. I assume you've chosen your forum name with a due sense of the irony involved.

How about the fact that a significant portion of the 'criticism' of Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual policies, and rather focuses on issues of race, and false claims regarding his religion (Muslim). One doesn't have to see many interviews with some of these teabaggers to hear blatantly racist comments, not to mention numerous more that allude to it without saying anything outright.

I don't see where Carter says that criticisms of Obama's policies are wrong; what he objects to are criticisms that have nothing to do with policy, but that rather seek to inflame and confuse the issues by dragging in race and religion.

Seriously...dude...that's gotta' be one of the most illogical, unfounded, and blatantly non-skeptical "conclusions" (and in this case, I use that term very loosely) that I've heard in awhile.

ETA: One example among many: quote from Mark Williams, organizer of one of the many 'tea party' events, commenting on Obama: "An Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist-in-chief."

 

[Foolmewunz]

The Dems voted down a rebuke of Democrat Pete Stark for his far worse comments about W. Not only did Stark call Bush a liar, he said that Bush sent kids over to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his own amusement.

But, Maaaaaa! He did it first!

 

[hamelekim]

Translation:

"Jimmy Carter disagrees with the criticism against Obama."

Therefore, it logically follows (Carter thinks) that:

"I disagree with the criticism" = "The criticism MUST be wrong."
"Obama is wrongly criticized" = "The wrong criticism MUST be due to racism."

Therefore,

"Obama is criticized for racist reasons".

Then one can go back and find some off-the-cuff "proof" of the conclusion that is reached in the way I just mentioned.

This leap of logic is not unique to Carter, of course. It's modus operandi in certain circles; but it's still an obvious logical mistake.

I agree with this fully. It's an obvious tactic that people use on both sides of the political spectrum.

Republicans are racist, and Democrats are socialists.

 

[Just thinking]

What a load of unmitigated crap. .... ETA: One example among many: quote from Mark Williams, organizer of one of the many 'tea party' events, commenting on Obama: "An Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist-in-chief."

What? ... you think Obama hasn't made racist comments when running for President? What about his "typical white woman" comment?

Most of the people on 9/12 were white ... but there were some black people present. In such an overwhelmingly white "racist" crowd, did we find any blacks being harassed? Do you have any evidence what-so-ever on such behavior?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Translation:

"Jimmy Carter disagrees with the criticism against Obama."

Therefore, it logically follows (Carter thinks) that:

"I disagree with the criticism" = "The criticism MUST be wrong."
"Obama is wrongly criticized" = "The wrong criticism MUST be due to racism."

Therefore,

"Obama is criticized for racist reasons".

Then one can go back and find some off-the-cuff "proof" of the conclusion that is reached in the way I just mentioned.

This leap of logic is not unique to Carter, of course. It's modus operandi in certain circles; but it's still an obvious logical mistake.

That hit it on the head squarely.

Democrats have to play the race card to bolster their false arguments- its what they do. They have to "demonize" everything.

They are the most 2 faced liars and propagandists on Earth

They cry "racism" and whatnot when its "their" boy but when it was "Dub"- calling him everything except a human being was "just".

 

[Locknar]

I have never been impressed with Jimmy Carter...and this is yet another example of why. People can disagree on issues without race playing any part what so ever; how pathetic that he (Carter) seems to feel otherwise.

 

[Just thinking]

That hit it on the head squarely.

Democrats have to play the race card to bolster their false arguments- its what they do. They have to "demonize" everything.

They are the most 2 faced liars and propagandists on Earth

They cry "racism" and whatnot when its "their" boy but when it was "Dub"- calling him everything except a human being was "just".

They now have their post racial society ... and it seems they (some) don't like it, as it has kicked out a crutch from under them.

 

[Cynic]

Jimmy Carter is from Georgia and might know a thing or two about the subtleties of racism. While it might be pathetic if someone can't disagree with issues without playing the racism card, it does not follow that playing the race card was necessarily inappropriate. It's naive to think that in a country so rife with racism that it isn't playing a role in how all this plays out. I have never before seen so many otherwise apolitical people around me so charged up over issues that they never would have cared so much about before. Is it reasonable to care about such things? Absolutely. Are some people only paying attention to all this now because the guy sponsoring it all is black? You bet.

What Carter said is a specific charge that only someone who lives under a rock could see as untrue. He didn't say that everyone was like that. He said there was more of it than before. Well duh, right? That's what racists do -- they act racist! It would be most remarkable if racist activity went down during the first black presidency, now wouldn't it?

 

[Just thinking]

He didn't say that everyone was like that. He said there was more of it than before.

He said ..."an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man ..."

and ..."a belief among many white people, not just in the South, but around the country that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Well duh, right?

Well, duh WRONG!

Most people that voted for Obama for President were white.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

He said ..."an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man ..."

and ..."a belief among many white people, not just in the South, but around the country that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."



Well, duh WRONG!

Most people that voted for Obama for President were white.

What we are seeing here is a common tactic to obtain emotionally charged support. Democrats play the race card, sex card, age card, ( insert card of the moment) in everything.

They do this to take focus off of the ISSUE and to demonize the protestors.

I didnt vote for him and dont like him. It had nothing to do with his race- it had to do with his POLICY, AGENDA and PRIOR RECORD.

He is a failure as a President- he will be another Carter or even worse.

Even the middle and right wings of the DNP are seeing this now.

They are ALSO getting a taste of their own medicine by enduring what they so vigorously gave to Bush. ( and Bush was certainly deserving of many criticisms- nobody argues that)

They cant stand it. Thats why Liberalism is correctly referred to as a mental condition.

 

[Drysdale]

Why does anyone still listen to this guy?

Carter is the Britney Spears of politics, he'll say anything to get his name in the news.

He's a clown,geez.

 

[Cynic]

He said ..."an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man ..."

This all comes down to what we mean by "intensely demonstrated". Maybe I'm just sensitive, but the demonstrations that have struck me as particularly "intense" have also struck me as particularly racially motivated. Maybe that's just my personal experience with the inbred trailer trash I see making those demonstrations talking. But the kinds of "intense demontrations I think he's talking about are of the sort shown in that video, with the white-face Joker posters, the Nazi name calling, etc. That kind of vehemence doesn't come from mere political interest.

and ..."a belief among many white people, not just in the South, but around the country that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Are you disputing the word "many" here? Are you disputing that there are even "many" racists in America?

Most people that voted for Obama for President were white.

A statistic I'd attribute to the fact that most of the country is white. What you want to be asking yourself is what percentage of the country is racist, and then what percentage of those racists voted for Obama, and then, therefore, what percentage of the people against Obama are racist.

For instance, somewhat recent polls indicate that 13% of white Americans say they are "racially biased" (i.e. racist). Those are the ones that admitted it and recognized it. I think it's safe to say that the real number higher, probably not insignificantly higher. So, assuming a 50-50 split among whites for the vote and further assuming that none of the racists voted for Obama, that makes the anti-Obama racist percentage somewhere around 25%, or 1 in 4.

Does this mean that Jimmy Carter is right? Not by itself. But simple parsimony would suggest that the level of vehemence we're seeing in a crowd composed of at least 25% racists, holding their racist signs and accusing Obama of being a foreigner, of being a muslim, or being racist himself.... it certainly makes Carter's suggestion a bit more than merely plausible.

Ancedontal evidence is not evidence, but I'm pretty sure the fact that I'm surrounded by racists bitching about Obama in Pennsylvania, who fought on the side of the North in the Civil War, means that this is happening everywhere to some degree.

 

[Twiler]

[snip]

They cant stand it. Thats why Liberalism is correctly referred to as a mental condition.

By doctors? Or by right-wingers?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

This all comes down to what we mean by "intensely demonstrated". Maybe I'm just sensitive, but the demonstrations that have struck me as particularly "intense" have also struck me as particularly racially motivated. Maybe that's just my personal experience with the inbred trailer trash I see making those demonstrations talking. But the kinds of "intense demontrations I think he's talking about are of the sort shown in that video, with the white-face Joker posters, the Nazi name calling, etc. That kind of vehemence doesn't come from mere political interest.



Are you disputing the word "many" here? Are you disputing that there are even "many" racists in America?




A statistic I'd attribute to the fact that most of the country is white. What you want to be asking yourself is what percentage of the country is racist, and then what percentage of those racists voted for Obama, and then, therefore, what percentage of the people against Obama are racist.

For instance, somewhat recent polls indicate that 13% of white Americans say they are "racially biased" (i.e. racist). Those are the ones that admitted it and recognized it. I think it's safe to say that the real number higher, probably not insignificantly higher. So, assuming a 50-50 split among whites for the vote and further assuming that none of the racists voted for Obama, that makes the anti-Obama racist percentage somewhere around 25%, or 1 in 4.

Does this mean that Jimmy Carter is right? Not by itself. But simple parsimony would suggest that the level of vehemence we're seeing in a crowd composed of at least 25% racists, holding their racist signs and accusing Obama of being a foreigner, of being a muslim, or being racist himself.... it certainly makes Carter's suggestion a bit more than merely plausible.

Ancedontal evidence is not evidence, but I'm pretty sure the fact that I'm surrounded by racists bitching about Obama in Pennsylvania, who fought on the side of the North in the Civil War, means that this is happening everywhere to some degree.

Lets try to inject some intelligence here

Maybe that's just my personal experience with the inbred trailer trash

Sounds like you have some "racial" bias there too- exactly what is "inbred trailer trash"? What "race" are they predominately?

the Nazi name calling, etc. That kind of vehemence doesn't come from mere political interest.

Are you referring to the millions of times this was done to Bush or Obama?

Was it wrong then too? Did you speak against it then too?

What you want to be asking yourself is what percentage of the country is racist, and then what percentage of those racists voted for Obama, and then, therefore, what percentage of the people against Obama are racist.

Ok, what is the specific and exact definition and example are you defining as "racist"?

but I'm pretty sure the fact that I'm surrounded by racists bitching about Obama in Pennsylvania, who fought on the side of the North in the Civil War, means that this is happening everywhere to some degree

You have Veterans of the Civil War there?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

By doctors? Or by right-wingers?

Both

 

[cyborg]

Thats why Liberalism is correctly referred to as a mental condition.

American Politics is the mental condition; I cite this thread.

 

[Cynic]

Lets try to inject some intelligence here

*crickets*

Sounds like you have some "racial" bias there too- exactly what is "inbred trailer trash"? What "race" are they predominately?

White, of course. The difference is, I don't see them for their color. I see them for their racism.

Are you referring to the millions of times this was done to Bush or Obama?

Was it wrong then too? Did you speak against it then too?

Not relevant.

Ok, what is the specific and exact definition and example are you defining as "racist"?

Allowing, consciously or not, someone's skin color or cultural heritage to influence their opinions or inclinations toward that person.

You have Veterans of the Civil War there?

No, but we all have their legacies, don't we? Can't escape our past so easily.

 

[Twiler]

Both

Which specific doctors?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

*crickets*



White, of course. The difference is, I don't see them for their color. I see them for their racism.




Not relevant.





Allowing, consciously or not, someone's skin color or cultural heritage to influence their opinions or inclinations toward that person.



No, but we all have their legacies, don't we? Can't escape our past so easily.

OK, the liberal agenda finally comes out

White, of course. The difference is, I don't see them for their color. I see them for their racism.

Ahh, OK- you dont see them for their "color" but they are still "inbred trailer trash". So I guess by that logic that something like "ghetto trash" is good too?

Got it

Not relevant.

Its totally relevant and thats why you wont touch it. If a liberal does it- its OK, right, justified and whatever- if its done to them out come the ad hom.

Allowing, consciously or not, someone's skin color or cultural heritage to influence their opinions or inclinations toward that person.

You just described the entire human race

No, but we all have their legacies, don't we? Can't escape our past so easily

Yeah but what liberals do is "selectively" use the parts they want while attempting to deny,avoid or rewrite history on the rest.

Like slavery- they are quick to demonize the old South- they dont like to remember the parts that BLACKS also owned slaves, that is started under BRITISH rule, that Africans sold their own people into it and the old US south didnt "invent" the idea. They also dont like to remember the parts where by and large the "north" didnt do anything about it. They also like to promote the civil war as the "war to end slavery" and thats what it was all about.

 

[Just thinking]

This all comes down to what we mean by "intensely demonstrated".

Perhaps it means taking the time, effort and money to go to Washington DC and protest directly on the Capitol's lawn. Certainly that's much more intense than just sitting here at a keyboard and typing. And displaying protest signs that are easily readable at a distance seems to qualify for demonstrating. Yes ... it can be easily reasoned that those folks at 9/12 were intensely demonstrating.

Maybe I'm just sensitive, but the demonstrations that have struck me as particularly "intense" have also struck me as particularly racially motivated.

Then understand that that's merely an opinion not shared by everyone. Do you have evidence to support the racist motivations for this?

Maybe that's just my personal experience with the inbred trailer trash I see making those demonstrations talking.

Your unbiased objectiveness here is blinding.

But the kinds of "intense demontrations I think he's talking about are of the sort shown in that video, with the white-face Joker posters, the Nazi name calling, etc. That kind of vehemence doesn't come from mere political interest.

No ... it doesn't. But that's the extreme minority ... there were folks from all walks of life in that crowd, and as in any crowd of that magnitude, you will find some odd balls. But since all can be considered intensely demonstrating, and Carter claimed an overwhelming amount racists, I'd count him among the wackos.

Are you disputing the word "many" here? Are you disputing that there are even "many" racists in America?

If you wish to qualify (as Carter did) those that were intensely demonstrating, then NO ... I do NOT.

A statistic I'd attribute to the fact that most of the country is white. What you want to be asking yourself is what percentage of the country is racist, and then what percentage of those racists voted for Obama, and then, therefore, what percentage of the people against Obama are racist.

Go ahead ... give us those stats, please. Who and how many are racist?

For instance, somewhat recent polls indicate that 13% of white Americans say they are "racially biased" (i.e. racist). Those are the ones that admitted it and recognized it. I think it's safe to say that the real number higher, probably not insignificantly higher. So, assuming a 50-50 split among whites for the vote and further assuming that none of the racists voted for Obama, that makes the anti-Obama racist percentage somewhere around 25%, or 1 in 4.

And how many blacks are racially biased (racist ... as you like to put it)? It's all too easy to find data that shows a much greater percentage of blacks that voted for Obama than whites who voted for McCain. So, by your logic blacks are more racist than whites. Your thinking sways me not at all.

Does this mean that Jimmy Carter is right? Not by itself. But simple parsimony would suggest that the level of vehemence we're seeing in a crowd composed of at least 25% racists, holding their racist signs and accusing Obama of being a foreigner, of being a muslim, or being racist himself.... it certainly makes Carter's suggestion a bit more than merely plausible.

Again, I will ask was there any harassment against the blacks that attended the rally by all those white racists you claim were present?

Ancedontal evidence is not evidence, but I'm pretty sure the fact that I'm surrounded by racists bitching about Obama in Pennsylvania, who fought on the side of the North in the Civil War, means that this is happening everywhere to some degree.

And I'm pretty sure you're wrong ... as was JC.

 

[Cynic]

You just described the entire human race

Bingo! The difference is that some people try to resist that and some people embrace it.

Like slavery- they are quick to demonize the old South- they dont like to remember the parts that BLACKS also owned slaves, that is started under BRITISH rule, that Africans sold their own people into it and the old US south didnt "invent" the idea. They also dont like to remember the parts where by and large the "north" didnt do anything about it. They also like to promote the civil war as the "war to end slavery" and thats what it was all about.

Boy, you really are convinced that someone else having done something makes it OK, aren't you? Somewhere, at some point in time, was a hypocrite and therefore Jimmy Carter is full of crap. The bottom line here is that the country is full of racists and we just elected a black president. Suggesting that isn't going to result in an increase of racial "tone" is just naive.

 

[Skeptic]

To say "it's criticism that has nothing to do with his policies!" is not true.

Clearly, the right's fear is that Obama is either (a) lying about what his goals are, and actually want to lead the country to a bad end, or (b) does not realize what the results of his actions will be in practice, so, despite good intentions, will lead the country to perdition.

Perhaps neither of these criticisms is correct. But they certainly do have to do with his policy. It's only when one defines "Obama's policy" strictly as "What Obama says he will do" that one can claim it has "nothing to do" with his policies.

When the right was in power, things were different: then, the left claimed that it is not enough to listen to what the government says is its goal; the actual or potential consequences of its actions also count as its "policy", whether or not the government likes it or admits it, or even realized that those would be the consequences of its actions.

This is precisely the standard of judgment the right is using now for Obama. It might be unfair, indeed it is unfair, but that all of a sudden has "nothing to do" with Obama's policies merely shows the left's own biases -- to wit, its willingness to take at their word those politicians the left likes.

 

[Skeptic]

To say "it's criticism that has nothing to do with his policies!" is not true.

Clearly, the right's fear is that Obama is either (a) lying about what his goals are, and actually want to lead the country to a bad end, or (b) does not realize what the results of his actions will be in practice, so, despite good intentions, will lead the country to perdition.

Perhaps neither of these criticisms is correct. But they certainly do have to do with his policy. It's only when one defines "Obama's policy" strictly as "What Obama says he will do" that one can claim it has "nothing to do" with his policies.

When the right was in power, things were different: then, the left claimed that it is not enough to listen to what the government says is its goal; the actual or potential consequences of its actions also count as its "policy", whether or not the government likes it or admits it, or even realized that those would be the consequences of its actions.

This is precisely the standard of judgment the right is using now for Obama. It might be unfair, indeed it is unfair, but that all of a sudden has "nothing to do" with Obama's policies merely shows the left's own biases -- to wit, its willingness to take at their word those politicians the left likes.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Bingo! The difference is that some people try to resist that and some people embrace it.



Boy, you really are convinced that someone else having done something makes it OK, aren't you? Somewhere, at some point in time, was a hypocrite and therefore Jimmy Carter is full of crap. The bottom line here is that the country is full of racists and we just elected a black president. Suggesting that isn't going to result in an increase of racial "tone" is just naive.

Bingo! The difference is that some people try to resist that and some people embrace it.

Who tries to "resist" it?

Liberals specialize in it. I travel all over the world ( you want to see racism, come over here to Afghanistan and be a Jew) and ONLY in the US do you see the breakdowns like African American and such. I have never seen anyone refer to themselves as a African Brit or anything else.

Liberals are the most prolific race baiters and overt racists that exist on Earth. They just believe that their mantras and elitist thinking justify it.

Boy, you really are convinced that someone else having done something makes it OK, aren't you? Somewhere, at some point in time, was a hypocrite and therefore Jimmy Carter is full of crap. The bottom line here is that the country is full of racists and we just elected a black president. Suggesting that isn't going to result in an increase of racial "tone" is just naive

Is your argument so obviously weak after exposing it that you have to resort to straw or do you do it simply as a matter of programming.

I never said or incinuated there was anything "ok" about it. The point was ( and is) that liberals "selectively" use the points that illustrate their agenda ( which they often dostort to the point of being factually false)- then they justify it with made up facts while ignoring the whole story.

Also, they "target" "white America" ( go ahead and call it what it is) I dont hear them prosesting British Involvement or Scottish or anything else. I dont see them railing about the indentures of the Indians by the British.

Somewhere, at some point in time, was a hypocrite and therefore Jimmy Carter is full of crap.

Liberals are the worst hypocrites of all ( they dont even try to hide it- they just ignore it) and Carter IS full of crap. The 2 statements arent dependant on each other- they are stand alone facts

The bottom line here is that the country is full of racists and we just elected a black president.

No we elected a President that happens to BE black. ( rather those who voted for him did)

You apparently dont see or acknowledge your own racist bias. Where are all of these racists? Who are they? What group are they?

Are you just referring to "white" racists or are you covering the black racists like Jesse and Sharpton and others?

I just want to know if your "racial bias" is all ensuing or specificed to a specific race or class itself. ( which is in and of itself racism)

Suggesting that isn't going to result in an increase of racial "tone" is just naive

Whats "naive" is blaming race as an excuse to avoid policy failures and not addressing the issues

 

[Twiler]

I notice that specific doctors who describe being a liberal as a mental condition have not yet been named by Longstabber.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I notice that specific doctors who describe being a liberal as a mental condition have not yet been named by Longstabber.

It was a test of the liberal identification system- it was only a test, we will return you to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress

You made my case for me

Longstabber

an insult where none was given - textbook sign of the illness. Dont dig into the facts- just call names, whine and insult

Then as to liberalism as a disease- you need to look at it under its "street names" and you will find it.

Paranoia, schizophrenia, OCD, persecution complex and a host of others.

Remember, liberals dont whine for reason- they just whine

 

[cyborg]

an insult where none was given

Where?

textbook sign of the illness. Dont dig into the facts- just call names, whine and insult

Physician heal thyself.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Where?



Physician heal thyself.

Where?

Pay close attention to the SPELLING

Physician heal thyself

Not applicable- I'm not the one "pretending" it isnt true, happens on both sides and is universally wrong.

I'm not the racist trying to disguise what it is and make excuses for it in a lame attempt to justify "my" side

 

[cyborg]

Pay close attention to the SPELLING

Did so, I still fail to see the insult. It looks like a very easy mistake to make.

You're just going to have to explain what it as about being refered to as "Longstabber" as opposed to a "Longtabber" or "LONGTABBER PE" is so particularly insulting.

Not applicable- I'm not the one "pretending" it isnt true, happens on both sides and is universally wrong.

Well actually you are saying that "Liberals" are mentally ill without any evidence of this. (Whatever your definition of Liberal happens to be).

I'm not the racist trying to disguise what it is and make excuses for it in a lame attempt to justify "my" side

Okay, racism beyond the pale, mental illness up for grabs.

Got it.

 

[Twiler]

Did so, I still fail to see the insult. It looks like a very easy mistake to make.

[snip]

Yes, that was an accident.

Which doctors have associated liberal attitudes with mental diseases?

Suppose I say 'Guaranteeing health care to all citizens, regardless of their financial status will improve the USA', which part of that is indicative of mental disease? Or is that not a liberal attitude?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Did so, I still fail to see the insult. It looks like a very easy mistake to make.

You're just going to have to explain what it as about being refered to as "Longstabber" as opposed to a "Longtabber" or "LONGTABBER PE" is so particularly insulting.



Well actually you are saying that "Liberals" are mentally ill without any evidence of this. (Whatever your definition of Liberal happens to be).



Okay, racism beyond the pale, mental illness up for grabs.

Got it.

OK, fair enough

Did so, I still fail to see the insult. It looks like a very easy mistake to make.

You're just going to have to explain what it as about being refered to as "Longstabber" as opposed to a "Longtabber" or "LONGTABBER PE" is so particularly insulting.

Prehaps you dont know this so I'll explain

The "long tab" is a reference to the physical "length" of the tab in relation to other tabs authorized for use in the military. ( when you spell SPECIAL FORCES its "longer" than Ranger, Airborne and others thus the "long" tab- its the "longest" one there is authorized for wear)

We have a knife in our patch and crest

The term "longstabber" is a commonly used term to refer to murderers referencing our insignia specifically.

I take personal issue with that

Well actually you are saying that "Liberals" are mentally ill without any evidence of this. (Whatever your definition of Liberal happens to be).

Its not so much a reality based commentary as it is using their own agenda against them.

 

[Praktik]

Liberals this, and liberals that - is there anyone worse??