login
Is President Carter right? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-09-16 12:05 PM in reply to: #2409477 |
Champion  7347     SRQ, FL |  Subject: RE: Is President Carter right?Jackemy - 2009-09-16 11:22 AM Charles Rangel who is chairman of the ways and means doesn't pay the very taxes that he oversees. EXCELLENT point. Add in Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle (and I'm sure a couple of other). These peopole broke the law ( oh wait.. sorry it was a "mistake") vs a lapse in judgment. Seems like a case of displaced outrage. |
| 2009-09-16 12:07 PM in reply to: #2409404 |
Champion 5522 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? bmass - 2009-09-16 9:52 AM Habitat for Humanity, seat belt laws, and emmission standards are three things that I will give President Carter credit for. Now I just wish he would fade away and SHUT THE H#!! UP. X2 - the man was not smart when he was President, now he is senile and not smart, but like your grandpa, we will say whatever, whenever... GHWB is the model by which all ex presidents should be measured - just be quiet and work on charity - don't coment on politics.... |
| 2009-09-16 12:09 PM in reply to: #2409713 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? mrbbrad - 2009-09-16 1:02 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2009-09-16 9:50 AM PennState - 2009-09-16 7:04 AM The pertinent quote from the above reference: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American," Carter said. Just to parse this article even further, I think you can take it a step further and say that the pertinent section is “intensely demonstrated animosity”. I don’t have the impression that Carter’s saying that everyone who criticizes the President or disagrees with him is doing so because he’s black, only that there is a section of the population who seems outraged past the point of reason or logic. I can’t help but wonder whether, for a lot of these people, the outrage is based on their anger at seeing a person in the Oval Office whom they think is inherently incapable of holding such an office.
If Carter’s saying that all criticism of the President is racially motivated, then that’s absurd and I disagree, but it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there’s a pretty large contingent of people in this country who can’t get their head around the idea of a black man holding the highest office in the US. I just posted pretty much what you had already posted. Imagine that. I suppose I should read more.... So exactly where is this dividing line you are proposing between those who demonstate their animosity vs those who intensely demonstrate their animosity??? So this means wer're gonna play the what is the meaning of the word is game, really..... You are reaching boys edited 'cause I can't spell today Edited by trinnas 2009-09-16 12:11 PM |
| 2009-09-16 12:20 PM in reply to: #2408911 |
Master 1821 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. i've got issues with the bailouts, inaction on don't ask don't tell, the idea of putting more troops in afghanistan, and his wavering on support for a public option. is that rooted in racism? no, no more than much of the opposition to his other policies by those on the right is rooted in racism. but carter is discussing not just criticism of obama's policies, but intensely negative feelings about the man himself. many of those who have "intensely demonstrated animosity" are the same people who claim that obama is a secret muslim, that he was born in kenya, and that he is seeking to destroy the United States from within. it's a stretch, i think, to believe that these myths are not somehow rooted in racism and distrust of having a black man as president with the intention of delegitimizing his presidency. is carter's statement helpful? no, in the sense that it's going to be a distraction, and certainly obama, when inevitably asked, will distance himself from it. is carter's statement completely baseless? i think that's a "no," as well, though i'd suggest that "some" would have been a more prudent qualifier than "overwhelming." carter grew up in georgia during segregation. he likely knows a thing or two about observing racism. and one word on bush. after 9/11, he had an approval rating of 80-85%. for the last two years of his presidency, his approval ranged between 25-35%. you have to really work at it to earn that sort of turn-around. |
| 2009-09-16 12:22 PM in reply to: #2409276 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? JorgeM - 2009-09-16 9:58 AM It is obvious racism; Wilson should have just called him a jacka**, it seems that would be ok per the Decorum in the House approved guidelines.  PS. If anyone disagrees with my opinion is obviously basing such on the fact I am Mexican and not because people have different points of views and disagreements happen all the time... WHAT??? I always thought "Jorge" was a popular Irish name? If you were really Mexican, your tri outfit would have had equal parts green, white and red. Instead you appear to be more of a "Celtic" fan.  |
| 2009-09-16 12:25 PM in reply to: #2408911 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? If it makes Carter feel any better, I'm pretty sure Obama would be criticized even more if he were Al Gore. Doesn't this type of discussion remind you of your first gf who would say, "if you loved me, you would _____." It's such a paethetic argument to call people racists if they disagree with you. |
| 2009-09-16 12:27 PM in reply to: #2408911 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? ChrisM - 2009-09-16 1:27 AM Does criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism? Possibly, but not necessarily. |
| 2009-09-16 12:27 PM in reply to: #2409698 |
Extreme Veteran 606 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? Jackemy - 2009-09-16 12:55 PM JustTriDave - 2009-09-16 11:08 AM Jackemy - 2009-09-16 11:15 AM JustTriDave - 2009-09-16 9:44 AM Jackemy - 2009-09-16 10:04 AM JBrashear - 2009-09-16 6:27 AM Let's be realistic; if this had happened during Dubya's terms the GOP would be doing precisely what the Dems are doing now. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but both sides would be squeezing every last little drop out of it if it happened to a president from their party. Is Carter right? For some people, sure. I don't think anyone can adequately quantify how big a percentage that is though. Let's be truthful; It did happen during President Bush's term. The only difference is that it was every single Democrat and not just Joe Wilson and it wasn't just the President pitching his policy but it was the State of the Union. And no, the Democrats were not reprimanded by the GOP majority. Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0xO-ZQSoP8&NR=1 And the republicans routinely booed Clinton during his State of the Union speeches... This is much more like Rep Stark calling Bush a liar in a speech.. And the Republicans did try and censure Stark, but couldn't get the measure passed. Stark then apologized on the floor of the House for his comments. When? No it is different than Rep Stark as it was his house floor speech and not the same situation in 2005 state of the union or with Rep Wilson as the President was addressing the congress and certain courtesy should be extended even when the President stretches the truth. Rep Stark can't help himself because is just a moron and had an idiot for a speech writer. Rep Wilson and the 2005 Dems behavior was very inappropriate displays of decorum. •“Clinton’s proposal to expand Medicare to allow Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of “no” and some boos from Republicans during his speech.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98] •“Only once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval — when Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/5/97] •“The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible throughout the president’s State of the Union address — from the moment Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20 of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes.” [Associated Press, 1/24/95] Wow, I didn't intend to waste an hour of your day searching the internet for newpaper clippings. But, three examples on an 8 year term of a President that could drone on for days when he spoke is hardly routine. It only took about 5 minutes...and I could find many more examples...Clinton was booed at nearly every SOU - that would be routine in most people's books. How long he spoke has no bearing on the fact that the republicans booed him. |
| 2009-09-16 12:31 PM in reply to: #2409133 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? saling4 - 2009-09-16 8:58 AM
They did say GW lied and no the Repubs did nothing about it. The Dems did say that our soldiers were dragging women and children out of their houses in the dead of night terrorizing them and the repubs said nothing. The repubs have seldom stood up when the Dems said something ridiculous and/or insulting. Maybe they should have. It's my belief that decorum and civility should rule in that forum, and when congresspeople step across the line, they should be censured. It should have happened in the previous congress, but since it didn't it doesn't mean action shouldn't be taken by this one. If no one is ever held accountable, what makes you think people will start acting like they should? |
| 2009-09-16 12:34 PM in reply to: #2408911 |
| Mountain View, CA | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? Folks, you're going to put someone's eye out with all that finger-pointing. The question Carter raised, I think, wasn't "is (all) criticism of Obama rooted in racism" so much as "are some of the more extreme expressions of animosity rooted in racism." I think we can all agree that there are plenty of people whose disagreements with Obama have nothing to do with race. But folks, can you seriously argue that there aren't also people who don't think a black person should be president, and whose feelings on that subject inform their opposition to him? |
| 2009-09-16 12:35 PM in reply to: #2409733 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? trinnas - 2009-09-16 12:09 PM mrbbrad - 2009-09-16 1:02 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2009-09-16 9:50 AM PennState - 2009-09-16 7:04 AM The pertinent quote from the above reference: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American," Carter said. Just to parse this article even further, I think you can take it a step further and say that the pertinent section is “intensely demonstrated animosity”. I don’t have the impression that Carter’s saying that everyone who criticizes the President or disagrees with him is doing so because he’s black, only that there is a section of the population who seems outraged past the point of reason or logic. I can’t help but wonder whether, for a lot of these people, the outrage is based on their anger at seeing a person in the Oval Office whom they think is inherently incapable of holding such an office.
If Carter’s saying that all criticism of the President is racially motivated, then that’s absurd and I disagree, but it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there’s a pretty large contingent of people in this country who can’t get their head around the idea of a black man holding the highest office in the US. I just posted pretty much what you had already posted. Imagine that. I suppose I should read more.... So exactly where is this dividing line you are proposing between those who demonstate their animosity vs those who intensely demonstrate their animosity??? So this means wer're gonna play the what is the meaning of the word is game, really..... You are reaching boys edited 'cause I can't spell today I don’t know where the dividing line is and haven’t claimed to know. I don’t think anyone does. But everyone’s acting as if what Carter said was “Any criticism of Obama=Racism,” and I don’t think that’s what he said, and I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that it was. |
| 2009-09-16 12:36 PM in reply to: #2409754 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? jimbo - 2009-09-16 1:20 PM i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. . Ok so lets try the WSJ article http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/ The former president addressed that question Tuesday during in response to a question at a town hall forum at his presidential center in Atlanta. The video landed on YouTube. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.” |
| 2009-09-16 12:42 PM in reply to: #2409790 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? trinnas - 2009-09-16 12:36 PM jimbo - 2009-09-16 1:20 PM i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. . Ok so lets try the WSJ article http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/ The former president addressed that question Tuesday during in response to a question at a town hall forum at his presidential center in Atlanta. The video landed on YouTube. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.” What is the question that he is responding to? I agree with his statement that there are people who feel that an AA ought not to be president. That's hardly news. But, I don't think, and I don't think Carter's saying that that opinion is held by a large percentage of the population. There's a big difference between "many" and "a large percentage of the population" and it's not an accident that his answer was phrased the way it was. But it's hard to comment without hearing the question that he's been asked and I can't see the clip. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2009-09-16 12:44 PM |
| 2009-09-16 12:42 PM in reply to: #2409733 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? trinnas - 2009-09-16 1:09 PM mrbbrad - 2009-09-16 1:02 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2009-09-16 9:50 AM PennState - 2009-09-16 7:04 AM The pertinent quote from the above reference: “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American," Carter said. Just to parse this article even further, I think you can take it a step further and say that the pertinent section is “intensely demonstrated animosity”. I don’t have the impression that Carter’s saying that everyone who criticizes the President or disagrees with him is doing so because he’s black, only that there is a section of the population who seems outraged past the point of reason or logic. I can’t help but wonder whether, for a lot of these people, the outrage is based on their anger at seeing a person in the Oval Office whom they think is inherently incapable of holding such an office.
If Carter’s saying that all criticism of the President is racially motivated, then that’s absurd and I disagree, but it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there’s a pretty large contingent of people in this country who can’t get their head around the idea of a black man holding the highest office in the US. I just posted pretty much what you had already posted. Imagine that. I suppose I should read more.... So exactly where is this dividing line you are proposing between those who demonstate their animosity vs those who intensely demonstrate their animosity??? So this means wer're gonna play the what is the meaning of the word is game, really..... You are reaching boys edited 'cause I can't spell today I proposed no dividing line, just noted a divide. I do get the sarc font, but yes, I am going ask we actually pay attention to the meaning of words. It's kind of a thing with me. |
| 2009-09-16 12:43 PM in reply to: #2408911 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? Don't forget that this is a continuing theme as well. Murtha used this in his campaign, calling people in his own state rednecks and racists when they supported Hillary and they took offense to Obama's uneducated statement about folks clinging to guns and religion. Janine Garafallo has continually generalized Libertarians and anyone who attended a 'tea party" as a racist. Carter is just keeping it going. If these people are not going to add specificity to who they are talking about, they have to accept generalized responses concerning their rediculous claims. Are there racists? Of course. Is there a lot of legitimacy in contrasting views to the current administration's policies? Of course. Is Joe Wilson's outburst racially motivated? I doubt it but I can't be 100% certain either way. To make the accusation is foolish. |
| 2009-09-16 12:47 PM in reply to: #2409790 |
Master 1821 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? trinnas - 2009-09-16 1:36 PM jimbo - 2009-09-16 1:20 PM i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. . Ok so lets try the WSJ article http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/ The former president addressed that question Tuesday during in response to a question at a town hall forum at his presidential center in Atlanta. The video landed on YouTube. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.” show me where carter says that all criticism of obama has roots in racism or how that additional quotation, the first part of which is referencing wilson specifically, contradicts anything that i said. |
| 2009-09-16 12:49 PM in reply to: #2408911 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? |
| 2009-09-16 1:05 PM in reply to: #2409817 |
| Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? jimbo - 2009-09-16 10:47 AM trinnas - 2009-09-16 1:36 PM show me where carter says that all criticism of obama has roots in racism or how that additional quotation, the first part of which is referencing wilson specifically, contradicts anything that i said.jimbo - 2009-09-16 1:20 PM i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. . Ok so lets try the WSJ article http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/ The former president addressed that question Tuesday during in response to a question at a town hall forum at his presidential center in Atlanta. The video landed on YouTube. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.”
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number <worked for many years> — as many : the same in number <saw three plays in as many days> I would argue that there are some but NOT many, but I guess we would have to get into the debate about what many means.
300 could be many people, unless you compared it to 300,000,000. When someone says many or a LOT of people are not comfortable with a man of color in the oval office I would disagree. When someone says a lot or many it implies that the majority or close to it. Do you think 30 or 40 % of the people who are upset with the actions of the federal gov. in the last year are race driven? |
| 2009-09-16 1:15 PM in reply to: #2409822 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? mrbbrad - 2009-09-16 1:49 PM Hey, how come nobody refers to Jimmy Carter as JC?  ROFL! I doubt that even an atheist wouldn't give him that association. |
| 2009-09-16 1:27 PM in reply to: #2409847 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? crusevegas - 2009-09-16 1:05 PM
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number many years> — as many : the same in number as many days> I would argue that there are some but NOT many, but I guess we would have to get into the debate about what many means.
300 could be many people, unless you compared it to 300,000,000. When someone says many or a LOT of people are not comfortable with a man of color in the oval office I would disagree. When someone says a lot or many it implies that the majority or close to it. Do you think 30 or 40 % of the people who are upset with the actions of the federal gov. in the last year are race driven? With all due respect, I think that’s naïve. I come from a predominantly Democratic, suburban, Northeastern family, and I can tell you that there are a few members of my family who expressed during the campaigns that they weren’t sure that they could vote for a black man for president. And if there are liberal East Coast voters who were uneasy about the idea, I think it’s fair to assume that in the parts of the country that have traditionally been less than egalitarian towards blacks, that there’s an even larger segment of the population who feels that way.
(This is me, yet again, wishing that there were a larger African-american presence on BT and COJ. I always feel as if these debates end up being hashed around by a bunch of middle-class white people. It’d be nice to hear another perspective. Just sayin, is all.
I don’t want to get into a pointless debate over the meaning of “many”, although I disagree that “many” implies “close to a majority”. The definition that you posted doesn’t define it as such, and I don’t think most people would. I don’t think it’s 30% or 40%, no. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2009-09-16 1:29 PM |
| 2009-09-16 1:29 PM in reply to: #2409817 |
Member 1699 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? jimbo - 2009-09-16 12:47 PM Carter never uses the word "all" but he did use the words "overwhelming majority." That doesn't have an exact definition but in my mind it would be much more than 50%. I find it insulting. I intensely disagree with most of Obama's policies and intentions. I do not consider myself a racist, and I guarentee I would be as intense with John Kerry or Al Gore spewing the same big governement answer to everything. |
| 2009-09-16 1:31 PM in reply to: #2409847 |
Master 1821 | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? crusevegas - 2009-09-16 2:05 PM jimbo - 2009-09-16 10:47 AM trinnas - 2009-09-16 1:36 PM show me where carter says that all criticism of obama has roots in racism or how that additional quotation, the first part of which is referencing wilson specifically, contradicts anything that i said.jimbo - 2009-09-16 1:20 PM i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. . Ok so lets try the WSJ article http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/ The former president addressed that question Tuesday during in response to a question at a town hall forum at his presidential center in Atlanta. The video landed on YouTube. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.”
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number — as many : the same in number I would argue that there are some but NOT many, but I guess we would have to get into the debate about what many means.
300 could be many people, unless you compared it to 300,000,000. When someone says many or a LOT of people are not comfortable with a man of color in the oval office I would disagree. When someone says a lot or many it implies that the majority or close to it. Do you think 30 or 40 % of the people who are upset with the actions of the federal gov. in the last year are race driven? carter was talking about animosity toward obama the person, he was not talking about animosity toward the federal government. i'm not sure why this distinction is apparently so difficult to grasp. |
| 2009-09-16 1:36 PM in reply to: #2409878 |
| Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? jmk-brooklyn - 2009-09-16 11:27 AM crusevegas - 2009-09-16 1:05 PM
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number many years> — as many : the same in number as many days> I would argue that there are some but NOT many, but I guess we would have to get into the debate about what many means.
300 could be many people, unless you compared it to 300,000,000. When someone says many or a LOT of people are not comfortable with a man of color in the oval office I would disagree. When someone says a lot or many it implies that the majority or close to it. Do you think 30 or 40 % of the people who are upset with the actions of the federal gov. in the last year are race driven? With all due respect, I think that’s naïve. I come from a predominantly Democratic, suburban, Northeastern family, and I can tell you that there are a few members of my family who expressed during the campaigns that they weren’t sure that they could vote for a black man for president. And if there are liberal East Coast voters who were uneasy about the idea, I think it’s fair to assume that in the parts of the country that have traditionally been less than egalitarian towards blacks, that there’s an even larger segment of the population who feels that way.
(This is me, yet again, wishing that there were a larger African-american presence on BT and COJ. I always feel as if these debates end up being hashed around by a bunch of middle-class white people. It’d be nice to hear another perspective. Just sayin, is all.
I don’t want to get into a pointless debate over the meaning of “many”, although I disagree that “many” implies “close to a majority”. The definition that you posted doesn’t define it as such, and I don’t think most people would. I don’t think it’s 30% or 40%, no.
Ok, I thought "most" that implied a majority. Apparently not in your way of thinking. Based on what Carter said and what Webster's definition of "many"is, Carter implied that a majority of the people currently un-happy with the federal gov. are racists. That's how I understand what he said.
|
| 2009-09-16 1:39 PM in reply to: #2409888 |
| Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? jimbo - 2009-09-16 11:31 AM crusevegas - 2009-09-16 2:05 PM carter was talking about animosity toward obama the person, he was not talking about animosity toward the federal government. i'm not sure why this distinction is apparently so difficult to grasp.jimbo - 2009-09-16 10:47 AM trinnas - 2009-09-16 1:36 PM show me where carter says that all criticism of obama has roots in racism or how that additional quotation, the first part of which is referencing wilson specifically, contradicts anything that i said.jimbo - 2009-09-16 1:20 PM i see a significant difference between carter's statement, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," and the more general statement that "criticism of President Obama and his policies have roots in racism." it would be irresponsible to say that all criticism of obama is rooted in racism. . Ok so lets try the WSJ article http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/carter-adds-his-voice-to-race-debate-after-wilsons-outburst/ The former president addressed that question Tuesday during in response to a question at a town hall forum at his presidential center in Atlanta. The video landed on YouTube. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said. “There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. And this has permeated politics ever since I’ve been involved in it back in the 1960s, not only in the South, but also in many places throughout the nation.”
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number many years> — as many : the same in number as many days> I would argue that there are some but NOT many, but I guess we would have to get into the debate about what many means.
300 could be many people, unless you compared it to 300,000,000. When someone says many or a LOT of people are not comfortable with a man of color in the oval office I would disagree. When someone says a lot or many it implies that the majority or close to it. Do you think 30 or 40 % of the people who are upset with the actions of the federal gov. in the last year are race driven? I think most of the animosity directed at President Obama is due to the out of control federal spending and impending legislation, that's how I connect the two anyway. |
| 2009-09-16 1:39 PM in reply to: #2409883 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Is President Carter right? eberulf - 2009-09-16 1:29 PM jimbo - 2009-09-16 12:47 PM ........... show me where carter says that all criticism of obama has roots in racism or how that additional quotation, the first part of which is referencing wilson specifically, contradicts anything that i said. Carter never uses the word "all" but he did use the words "overwhelming majority." That doesn't have an exact definition but in my mind it would be much more than 50%. I find it insulting. I intensely disagree with most of Obama's policies and intentions. I do not consider myself a racist, and I guarentee I would be as intense with John Kerry or Al Gore spewing the same big governement answer to everything. Sort of. He says, “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity.” Not ‘an overwhelming majority of those criticizing the President’. I think the part you left out is significant. Also, criticism is different than animosity and I think Carter’s articulate enough to understand the distinction. I think this is an example of one side on an argument seizing on an intentional mischaracterization of what was said. I’m sure there are those who think I’m just mincing words, like Pres. Clinton asking for the definition of the word “is”, but I think it’s important to examine the person’s exact words and interpret them as a whole, and not cherry-pick portions of the quotation for the purpose of extrapolating some meaning that isn’t there. . |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK