If you disagree with the president, you're a racist??

While it isn't the newest topic in the news, I was pondering the comments made by our former president, Jimmy Carter. I found this article and thought some of the points were correct. What do you think?

 

I think Carter is wrong. I do not think Wilson's outburst was impelled by racism, and I think it's ludicrous to think that everyone who disagrees with Obama's policy intentions is a racist, as a matter of course.

That said, I do not for the life of me believe Wilson's wasn't a calculated move - call it the cynic in me, but I believe it was more than "righteous indignation" at play; something in the cynic in me sniffs he was deliberately hoping to tap a vein, by his outburst.

Additionally, to say Carter's comment was ridiculous, and to say that obviously not everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, is not to say that everyone who disagrees with Obama is not a racist.

As I mentioned elsewhere, in an odd twist of history, it's become quite politically correct to turn the whole thing on its head - when one is, in fact, a racist, with a bigoted mind, and one spouts a bigoted viewpoint, it's become quite p.c. to levy the charge, "oh, race baiting again!!!!

As I said there, not everything is racist; so, too - not everything is absent of racism. Sometimes, it is, well, racism.

 

Both sides have people who play these stupid games, for example those who disagreed with Bush and war were often called Anti-American.

They pull out a couple of extremist examples and then point to them and generalize the whole group to try and make people feel wrong about being in the group. Politics, gotta love it

 

Yes, politics are crazy!

From what I have read both Wilson and his opponent, Rob Miller, have received increased campaign donations since the comment. There are people on all sides of the fence that want to help fuel these fires. . .

 

Is it OK if I don't?

I prefer a small seaside (or riverside, or mountainside, or anywhere-side, so long as it's country-side) hovel, my guitar, my books, my writings, my mutts, and my fam....and leave behind the mess we've wrought with this planet.

(OK, retreating back from the precipice of over-seriousness ).

 

Hmm.. America's angriest has been; Jimmy Carter.

Ah, the peanut farmer. Worst President of all time. Responsible in part for the housing collapse. What a legacy.

And now, he's friggin senile.

What I would like to know, is if you disagree with Obama, just what kind of "racist" are you? I mean, what "race" are we talking about?

If the president were a women and someone disagreed with her, would they be labeled a sexist?

Carter is retarded. Anyone here old enough to remember his Presidency will tell you that.

 

I don't know...Mia, if you'll answer now, as opposed to the many times it's been asked before, or, keeping with the theme you're "ignoring" me, what race was Mia referring to when he wrote:

What race is the "Uncle Tom" voted for, for no other reason than guilt, by the white voters of America? Pacific Islander?

Or, in an apparent best impression of Obama's speaking (or, "how a black guy talks"), what race was he referring to when he wrote:

I expect I'll be called a bunch of foul things, again, and expect to read that I am "posting out of context." I've provided the links, to just these posts, should you or anyone care to address this.

What race were these referring to?

An example, OP and others, of what I mean, when I say that it's become convenient to call the charge "race-baiting" to what I cannot help but feel is, in fact, bigotry.

 

Personally I've given up race-baiting. No matter which race i tried, the bait either drowned too fast or wiggled off the hook before I caught anything.

 

LOL...you are trying to kill me, man...is it the stale jokes?

(amended to clarify, my stale jokes...credit where it's due, you've been slaying 'em lately, Rob).

 

I think Carter is probably wrong too. Although I do think a lot(well some, I can't say how many but I know more than I can count on one hand in real life, so the number can't be too small) of the people who are "outraged" right now are fueled by a general xenophobia and aversion to change, and the president's race is a factor.
I mean alot of the more ignorant and crazy 9/12 protesters probably thought William Jefferson Clinton was the anti-christ, and he was a white southerner named William Jefferson Clinton. If you took Slick Willie, made him a ivy league northerner, gave him a not so waspy, muslim sounding name, an international/cosmopolitan background and darkened his skin a bit, you'd probably get the same reaction.
It's not purely about race but more about him not being one of us. I mean if Alan Keyes was president these people would not be reacting to him the same way and he's blacker than obama. But Alan Keyes would never get elected president either. lol

These are the genius types I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

 

It's complete BS for someone to say "if you disagree with the President, you're a racist." No one is saying that. It's a straw man argument. I certainly disagree with the President on a number issues (including his continuation and escalation of of the war in Afghanistan, his dismissal of the legalization of marijuana, and his dismissal of the medicare for all approach for health care reform.)

What some people (like Carter) are saying is that some of the really outrageous anger at Obama is at least somewhat based in racism. It's pretty ridiculous to pretend like it's not.

 

To be fair...

• There were people that expressed inordinate hatred for Clinton (and still do), going so far as to label him the anti-christ.
• When Bush got in office, the people that hated him were as rabid about it as those that hated Clinton if not actually worse.
• So Obama gets into office... and people that hate him with a passion are motivated by *race*?

Doesn't seem likely to me. My guess is the majority of the people that hate Obama wouldve felt the same about Hillary if she'd won.
The two sides have become polarized to the point of absurdity.

 

Really? So was the really outrageous anger at Bush based in racism also?

If not, I want to know why it doesn't apply to him too.

 

No. People hated Bush because of Iraq. And yes, when the left had their turn they were retarded too. Bush didn't invade Iraq to line his and Haliburton's pockets and Obama is not really a Muslim commie hellbent on destroying the USA.

 

People hated Bush because he won.

 

A few extremist nutjobs didn't like the supreme court decision. But the hatred increased exponentially after the Iraq invasion. After Iraq the opposition/hatred for Bush became the norm, it became mainstream, the way that opposition/hatred for Obama today is mainstream.
After the Iraq invasion about half the country and most of the world seemed to hate Bush. About half the country now seems to hate Obama, except the half who now hate this president think he's secretly a illegal alien, communist muslim. (OK, honestly it's probably not that much more outlandish than thinking he's part of a cabal that helped us attack ourselves, as some believe(d) about Bush)
The bottom line is the hatred and the outlandishness that the hatred is being based on is becoming more and more mainstream. To me it's pretty clear it's because the media is whipping people up into a frenzy.
Seriously, when foreigners accuse Americans of being stupid, I'm not defending us anymore.

PS. Don't even get me started on the anarchists protesting the G20. You want anarchy, go to fucking Somalia.

 

Nah, all of Bush's hatred was deep seeded and had little if anything to do with Iraq. It existed long before that.

Iraq was an excuse to exercise more hatred and ignorance... Probably more of the later than anything. In the end, we've all found out that going into Iraq was the right and a good decision. The way it was handled at times, was not, but ultimately the goals accomplished and the future that has been forged will be part of a lasting legacy of positive change in the Middle East. Assuming Obama does not fuck it up.

 

I don't think so. Liberals always get their panties in a bunch when it comes to war. Which war usually doesn't even matter. If there's a war, most libs will be against it. I don't believe the hundreds of thousands or millions that were protesting in the streets after the Iraq invasion were there because they hated Bush for winning, but because there was a war. Pretty much the same reason the hippies hated Nixon.
I do however think most of the hatred towards Obama is because he won. Because I know these people. I live in republicanland. My extended family and the people they worship jesus with all were suspicious of Obama during the campaign. The suspicion has turned into frothing at the mouth rertardedness. And it's mostly being fueld by fox, specifically Glenn Beck.

Watch the video I posted.

This is not done through slick editing or camera tricks. I'm sure the people who produced the film intentionally excluded the intelligent folks who knew why they were there, but nonetheless it is pretty clear that a significant portion of the people who are outraged don't really know why, they just know it has something to do with muslims and socialism/facism/communism and a government takeover by a guy who doesn't look like anyone they've ever attended a nascar event with.

 

I think rising expectations are a bitch - ask Louis XIII, before his head plonked down into the guillotine basket.

Personally, after 9/11, I think the country was pretty solidly behind Prez. Bush - as it usually is, with any Prez. who takes any kind of decisive action (I'm reminded of something as "trivial" as the Granada operation - made at the trough of the recession - and how it rebounded Reagan's standing from the hit it had taken, if my memory is correct).

I agree with you, that the quagmire that became Iraq is a principal reason Bush's standing plummeted. He effectively lost the confidence of the country - that, and the economy, as people stopped understanding why we were bleeding economically, over what seemed like a directionless and, increasingly in more minds, an unnecessary war.

The same thing has, and will plague Obama. The longer "problems aren't solved," the quicker the rate of his erosion - rising expectations are a bitch.

As to racism - I think that as with Bush, most who stand in opposition - even vitriolic opposition - with Obama do so on principled grounds, as Obama himself has admitted (cynic that I am, I would say, from a Machiavellian sense, "has admitted, wisely so").

The lunatics, as you've touched on, are easy enough to spot, and it would be fatuous to ascribe it all to racist lunacy. There is a principled, genuine beef with Obama, and I can, and do, respect that, whether I agree or not - precisely because it is based on principles, and not bigotry.

That said, the lunatics who hate Obama will just grab any lightning rod they can to validate their hatred, because it really doesn't matter - they just hate him, so any issue will do. And so they are great sources of "heat capacity" for the thinking fomentors of their ilk, and get a lot of press.

 

There certainly is a principled beef. But it feels like the lunatics are running the asylum right now and drowning out the voices of the reasonable and principled.
And I agree that the vitriolic opposition wasn't primarily fueld by race as Jimmy Carter said it was. But Obama's race is part of a suspicion stew that is fueling the fears and actions of the less advanced members of our society. And people like Glenn Beck are stirring up the pot of suspicion stew, for profit.

P.S. I had to look up fatuous.