|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,401
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,401 |
Quote:
WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the anti-government rhetoric over President Barack Obama's health care reform effort is troubling because it reminds her of the violent debate over gay rights that roiled San Francisco in the 1970s.
Dear Nancy
All the anti-government talk should remind you that this country belongs to "We the people" not B.O. not YOU, and not the lying, self centered, idiotic, nut jobs in Washington. "We the people" may just stand up as one and take back our great country.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
Nancy Pelosi's quote . . . how the debate reminds her of the gay rights turmoil, is exactly what I was alluding to in my post above. They are all bringing their own biases into the debate instead of seeing it for what it is. . . .dissent over POLICY.
The older generations are rehashing what happened years ago and are reliving it through the current political prism.
NOT everyone . . . just these yokels . . . the world moved on . . . they have not
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
The older generations are rehashing what happened years ago and are reliving it through the current political prism.
I don't believe its that. They know they can immediately end all discussion and throw any dissenter into a defensive mode with "you're a racist", "you're a homophobe", "you're a <insert biggot / hate monger group here>".
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
I think they are paving the way for a new run at the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". Conservative talk radio is kicking their behinds every day, and they have nothing to counter with. They need to shut them up, and will claim that it (talk radio) is inciting an angry populace ... taking no responsibility for that angry populace themselves by virtue of their overreaching policies, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
Folks need tread lightly as the Country is really getting divided ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,074
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,074 |
Quote:
Dear Nancy
That needs to be addressed to a hell of a lot more folks than just Nancy Pelosi....... 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122 |
So, here's an open question for anybody:
IF bigotry (racial hatred) exists in America
and
IF bigotry is atithetical (or at least damaging) to American ideals
and
IF bigotry is fuelling SOME peoples' opposition to this POTUS...
...when is it OK to call it out in public?
Never?
Sometimes?
Always?
You see... I believe there is a difference between calling out evil and "playing the race card." That difference lies in intent. Al and Jesse have made (dubious) careers from "playing cards." President Carter, among many others has not.
So... does EVERYONE who calls out racism automatically get written off as "card players?" Is there no room at all for observing human ugliness and calling it for what it is?
just trying to mine some ideological gold here....
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Great post Clem.....
I think this issue could be summed up as follows:
1.) Are there people who oppose Barack Obama for racial reasons? - Yes
2.) Are they the majority of people who oppose Obama? - No
3.) Is it ok to call out people's racism wherever it exists? - Yes
4.) Was it ok for Carter to discuss the racial elements of opposition to Obama? - Yes
5.) Was it ok for Carter to point the finger at Wilson as to disagreeing with Obama for racial reasons - No.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
When?????
How about when it is not....as in Not when it is being used as an excuse.....
or how about when it is used in the proper context....so as to not lead people to believe that "Most" of the opposition against Obama is racially biased...
There are many answers to that question Clem....and I am sure many of those who do oppose Obama would also want the racially motivated opposition silenced , called out, or removed.....But they want those things done in a proper fashion so that their message can be heard as well and so that they are not lumped in with that racially biased voice...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Clem, this is the one thing that Carter said that really bothered me... Quote:
"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," Carter told NBC News.
It's vague, it implies a HUGE percentage, it can't be proven true or false, and by use of such a description, by reference it's going to include a lot of people who don't care what color he is.
If I started a comment with "I think an overwhelming portion of black people are... (fill in the blank)..." I would be accused of stereotyping, generalizing, and racism (assuming my comment was negative)... Wouldn't I?
Quote:
...when is it OK to call it out in public?
When you can be specific, when you can back it up with something other than.. "...based on what I see on the news..." and when you stop using generalizations about "overwhelming portions" of people who intensely disagree with the President...
According to Rasmussen, 40% strongly disapprove of how the President is doing his job... so say there are 200 million adults, 80 million strongly disapprove... how many is "overwhelming portions"? Do we have 40 million racists? 50 million? 70 million? Or can we agree that the number of people who don't like him because of his race is probably a much less significant number?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122 |
Quote:
Or can we agree that the number of people who don't like him because of his race is probably a much less significant number?
From my earlier post in this thread:
Quote:
Now, the important question to ask is: what percentage of the President's opposition is represented by the people who wave these signs?"
That's anybody's guess. I'd say that they are probably the same percentage of lunatic fringe element you'd find in any national movement. The amount of press a faction gets is no indicator as to its prevalence.
yes... I do believe we can agree on that.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I knew you'd see it my way. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Organizations like the NAACP won't be needed once the races share a more common history. To think a black person's vote based on skin color equates to a white person doing the same totally discounts hundreds of years of our separate history in getting to this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,880 |
Quote:
You see... I believe there is a difference between calling out evil and "playing the race card." That difference lies in intent. Al and Jesse have made (dubious) careers from "playing cards." President Carter, among many others has not.
Carter has made a mockery of former presidents and how they are suppose to behave. He has made comment after comment about politicians and policies of the right. He doesn't just disagree with them but rather he attacks those who make and believe in those said policies. He is no better than Jessie Jackson in my mind.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Why am I not suprised you miss the point. The very fact that you think that the acts are not equal is exactly why our progress toward eliminating racism is so slow. There is no good form of racism. It is just as wrong no matter what the situation. To choose one person over another based on their race....IT IS WRONG no matter who does it. And the faster you come to understand that, the quicker others come to believe that...the better off we will be.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122 |
Quote:
Carter has made a mockery of former presidents and how they are suppose to behave. He has made comment after comment about politicians and policies of the right. He is no better than Jessie Jackson in my mind.
I suppose you're free to feel so, Pdawg, but I'd hope that in the interest of fairness, you'd also regard former Vice President Cheney in the same light... since he fits your assessment to a tee, as well. Only diff between him and Prez Carter is length of time out of office and political p.o.v.. Bottom line is- Dude hasn't shut his mouth since he left office, either.
Both are former heads of State. Both are still interviewed for their thoughts. Both are diehard idealogues who've not changed their minds.
If Carter is no better than Jackson, neither is Cheney.
So... just exactly how are former heads of State supposed to act- in your opinion?
just wonderin'...
p.s. For the record, I don't mind either of them speaking their minds, since I'm free to listen or ignore them at my choosing.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,149
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,149 |
When was Cheney a head of state? Comparing a former VP to a former president is quite a stretch, don't you think?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
I didn't miss the point, I dismissed it. There's a difference. I feel your attitude is of one that faces the future with eyes closed to the past. For example, when Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers there was something going on other than just another man playing major league baseball. Frankly speaking I don't even agree with your definition of racism. Through your eliminating the aspect hate and superiority you've basically put in on par with favoritism. Seems to me that you're grasping at means to maintain your position on your high horse - pretty much like you claim I missed your point and it wasn't the case that you missed mine or that we just disagree. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
j/c
This is a win-win for all parties.
For the GOP, it distracts from their recent non-sensical buffoonery.
For the Dems, it distracts from Obama's current policies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122 |
Quote:
When was Cheney a head of state? Comparing a former VP to a former president is quite a stretch, don't you think?
Not really. "One heartbeat away," and all that. And especially not in this case. We can safely assume that Cheney was a more ifluential Veep than most, in terms of policy-making. Some have even asserted that Cheney was more hands-on with policy agendas than President Bush, at times.
But enough with this little misdirection play. We both know the point I was making.
Perhaps you have an opinion regarding the actual point of my post?
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,880
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,880 |
Yes, I think what Chaney has said is wrong on two levels. What he said and how he said it.
You are not comparing apples to apples. the only comments Chaney has made are directly related to changes of a policy he instituted and Obama not only changed but attacked the administration over unmercifully. Carter's comments have been on just about everything and over a great number of years. There is a difference between president and vice president. See Al Gore.
Finally, this thread is about what is said about those on the right by those on the left. I do not feel the need to bring up something Chaney did in order to justify my views on Carter...
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,149
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,149 |
Quote:
Perhaps you have an opinion regarding the actual point of my post?
Err, yeah....I guess you didn't grasp it. Let me spell it out for you. Comparing what Carter (a former president) says to what Cheney says as somehow being equal in weight is a bogus analogy. This is evidenced by the amount of publicity from both sides and the ensuing responses. It is blatantly obvious that Cheney's comments have no where near the impact of Carter's.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I do not feel the need to bring up something Chaney did in order to justify my views on Carter...
But some people do. If you say something negative about Carter or Obama or Clinton, then you must, in order to show "fairness" also say something about Bush or Reagan or the other Bush... It is physically impossible on this board or anywhere else to have a discussion on a politician or a political stance without somebody using party equivocation as a response.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
See I guess this is where we are different.... YOU celebrate Jackie Robinson because he was the first Black Player in the Major Leagues... I celebrate Jackie Robinson because of what he went through after he crossed the color line and how he carried himself and performed. I celebrate Branche Rickey for crossing that color barrier in his mind so that this could happen.....Because that is the true victory....The victory was not black men playing baseball in the Major Leagues(although that was a good thing)...it was the perception that blacks were inferior being changed.........that was the true victory. I celebrate the Larry Doby, Steve Gromek Embrace Picture.....because it truly showed the elimination of racism from the minds of those two people. In that moment, the color of skin truly did not matter. Just the man. Quote:
Frankly speaking I don't even agree with your definition of racism. Through your eliminating the aspect hate and superiority you've basically put in on par with favoritism.
So if hate was not a part of the motivation.....you would be completely ok with a white man giving a job to another white man over a black man simply based on the color of two mens' skin????
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
My point about Jackie Robinson had nothing to do with celebration. Let's say it was like the All Star game and selection of what players the Dodgers kept that season was based on a vote of fans. I certainly see the difference in circumstances for blacks and whites and would not view blacks as being racist by voting based of skin color. If I understand your point, history and circumstances have nothing to do with the matter.
And by disagreeing with your definition of racism how do you possibly conclude I am for discrimination?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,296 |
Quote:
I certainly see the difference in circumstances for blacks and whites and would not view blacks as being racist by voting based of skin color.
Really? So it goes this way too then?
"I certainly see the difference in circumstances for blacks and whites and would not view whites as being racist by voting based of skin color."
Right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,122 |
Thanks for the response, Pdawg. The main reason I brought up Cheney was basically to do one thing- find out if you felt his behavior was of the same vein. You answered: Quote:
Yes, I think what Chaney has said is wrong on two levels. What he said and how he said it.
That's good enough for me. Shows me that you're basically a fair-minded individual. Further statements you make have more cred than if you'd have excused what was essentially the same behavior.
jfanent:
Of your observation regarding relative impact, I'm okay with disagreeing with you. Libs howl like rabid volves every time Cheney's quoted in the news outlets... same way the Cons have been up in arms over Carter's recent statements.
DC:
It actually is possible for me to "stay narrowly focused" on topic. See my response to Pdawg for my reason for bringing Cheney into the conversation. What you describe is true for the most part, however. If you REALLY want to see how bad the partisanship can be, spend a little time on the Politico dot com message boards. By comparison, politalk here is positively civilized!
So... for the on-topic response: Carter's statements, as true as he may believe them to be, do nothing to help our current political climate. Such sentiments are best left to private conversations, since their veracity cannot be proven to a certainty. The ensuing controversy simply fogs up the atmosphere, and obscures the real picture. Besides, if opposition to the POTUS is generated more by ethnicity than policy, we'll see it eventually, with further discussion. Carter should have given the mics some "coachspeak" and moved on... or out.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Quote:
I certainly see the difference in circumstances for blacks and whites and would not view blacks as being racist by voting based of skin color.
Really? So it goes this way too then?
"I certainly see the difference in circumstances for blacks and whites and would not view whites as being racist by voting based of skin color."
Right?
I certainly can imagine such circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Jesse Jackson would say yes if I let a white woman with a carton of eggs in front of me, but not the minority with a cart full of groceries.
Jesse Jackson would say yes if you let the minority with a carton of eggs in front of you, but did not offer to pay for the eggs.
White eggs or brown eggs? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Clemdawg and Pdawg...may I jump in here??? I hope so....
I for one see nothing wrong about a former member of the Executive branch speaking his mind concerning current events and his reasons for feeling the way he does.
I would go so far as to say that it be his duty when a new administration seems to be crapping on progress of the previous administration regardless of the motives of the new team. Carter has long spoken out on subjects which he feels that the USA is delinquent in settling...and he names names and shouts his displeasure of it. Dick Cheney does the same... the only difference is that Cheney has been hated for a full generation as a manipulative evil kingpin.
For Cheney to shut up now would be a dissapointment to everyone.
As far as racism and Obama...it is a moot point...Hell, Obama isn't even a black man- he is half black and therefore of mixed heritage. To hate on him from either side is silly as both blacks and whites would be condemning one of their own.
We have real problems to solve...tell our Pres. to stop the Health Care campaigning for awhile and review our Afghan policy and pay more attention to the building trouble between Israel and Iran!
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Here it comes....Disagreeing with
Obama Means You're a Racist
|
|
