Is President Carter right? (Page 4)

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. . 

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. . 

If you are going to make a speech like that you should not only be concerned with what you are saying, but even more importantly what will be heard, rarely are they the same.

I agree with what Jimmy Carter actually said on this issue, and not with the words that are being put into his mouth.

Here's the thing, there is no way to prove his statement is true or untrue. Racism is such a taboo subject in the US that only the most extreme (KKK, Aryan Nation) types will openly admit to it. If you take a poll about this subject, people can lie, and probably will. I am in no way suggesting that anyone here on BT is less than honest in any way.

I do know, however, from my personal experience, and from a regular reading of whatever "man on the street"  opinions I can find that there are a whole lot of racial undertones in the words being used to express animosity towards Obama. I have lived in the south my whole life, and came into schools on the heels of desegregation.  I have seen the many and varied nuances of speech that can and are used in place of racial epithets, and they are being used to express contempt for Obama.

Can I prove that what I say is really what's going on? No I can't, and that's the point of the carefully crafted language (code if you will) that's being used. Because there's an extra layer of meaning that is understood by both the speaker and the listener that the cold-hard denotation of the words themselves lacks on its face. It's really pretty clever. However, just because I can't prove it does not necessarily make it untrue.

Can one oppose Obama's policy without being racist? Of course. To suggest otherwise is stupid. Can one dislike him without being racist, absolutely. However to deny that there is not a significantly racist motivation to much of the most viscious and hateful reactions to his presidency is to deny the truth.

We in the U.S. have not gotten over the race hurdle yet, we are further along than we ever were, but we are not contemplating the gates of the promised land just yet.

I agree with what Jimmy Carter actually said on this issue, and not with the words that are being put into his mouth.

Here's the thing, there is no way to prove his statement is true or untrue. Racism is such a taboo subject in the US that only the most extreme (KKK, Aryan Nation) types will openly admit to it. If you take a poll about this subject, people can lie, and probably will. I am in no way suggesting that anyone here on BT is less than honest in any way.

I do know, however, from my personal experience, and from a regular reading of whatever "man on the street"  opinions I can find that there are a whole lot of racial undertones in the words being used to express animosity towards Obama. I have lived in the south my whole life, and came into schools on the heels of desegregation.  I have seen the many and varied nuances of speech that can and are used in place of racial epithets, and they are being used to express contempt for Obama.

Can I prove that what I say is really what's going on? No I can't, and that's the point of the carefully crafted language (code if you will) that's being used. Because there's an extra layer of meaning that is understood by both the speaker and the listener that the cold-hard denotation of the words themselves lacks on its face. It's really pretty clever. However, just because I can't prove it does not necessarily make it untrue.

Can one oppose Obama's policy without being racist? Of course. To suggest otherwise is stupid. Can one dislike him without being racist, absolutely. However to deny that there is not a significantly racist motivation to much of the most viscious and hateful reactions to his presidency is to deny the truth.

We in the U.S. have not gotten over the race hurdle yet, we are further along than we ever were, but we are not contemplating the gates of the promised land just yet.

If you are going to make a speech like that you should not only be concerned with what you are saying, but even more importantly what will be heard, rarely are they the same.

Race is, IMO, a much bigger piece of the puzzle. It's been said before, reasonable men can disagree. there is a big difference between hate and policy. I maintan that we are seeing a lot of hate these days, that it was always there, and that the Obama presidency has brought it more out in the open than it was.

If you are going to make a speech like that you should not only be concerned with what you are saying, but even more importantly what will be heard, rarely are they the same.

To the extent that I think Carter could have been a lot clearer about what he was trying to say, I completely agree. 

I guess Carter’s oratory style, what with all the big words and commas and such, is better suited to the pre-Twitter/Facebook/IM era when people could actually hear or read a sentence and consider it on their own for five seconds before being told by a thousand pundits what he really meant by it.  

Race is, IMO, a much bigger piece of the puzzle. It's been said before, reasonable men can disagree. there is a big difference between hate and policy. I maintan that we are seeing a lot of hate these days, that it was always there, and that the Obama presidency has brought it more out in the open than it was.

Race is, IMO, a much bigger piece of the puzzle. It's been said before, reasonable men can disagree. there is a big difference between hate and policy. I maintan that we are seeing a lot of hate these days, that it was always there, and that the Obama presidency has brought it more out in the open than it was.