Jimmy Carter: Wilson comments 'based on racism'

Source: Associated Press

ATLANTA — Former President Jimmy Carter says Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama last week was an act "based on racism." Carter says Wilson's comment was part of an "inherent feeling" of some in this country who feel that a black man should not be president.

Carter called Wilson's comment "dastardly" and said the president should be treated with respect.

The South Carolina Republican lawmaker was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote divided by party lines. Wilson shouted "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress last Wednesday.

Carter was responding to a question submitted Tuesday night at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnBZubV2cz64A7peobIyGtz_-wOQD9AO3BMG0

---

Thank you, President Carter, for speaking the brutal and honest truth.

---------
Updating with more complete quote from the Washington Post:

"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 said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"

Continued Carter, who is famously from Georgia: "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the 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. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

Read more:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/15/carter_cites_racism_inclinatio.html?wprss=44

Video at link.

I'm from the South, Mobile, Alabama and I have to say, Jimmy Carter has gotten a raw deal in the press. They've set about demonizing him, just as much as they set about to put Reagan on a pedestal.

But yesterday I was posting on another board exactly the thought he expressed. There wasn't a black face in that crowd, and the only ones you see, are like that guy with the weapon, obvious plants, who are paid to show up, or like the news guys they seem to find, the black correspondant shills.

I've always thought it interesting that these news programs managed to find guys like Larry Elder, or the guy with the floating eye, also black, to put on the television, and this is MSNBC, that are conservatives, when 9 of ten blacks are democrats. Nothing going on there, riiiggghhhtt? Trying to bias a huge democratic voting pool, subtly, much?

Best ex-president we've ever had, and not afraid to speak the truth even if it's ugly.

Thank you President Carter!
:yourock:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All Rep. Joe Wilson said was "You lie!" Does Pres. Carter have the ability to read what was on Rep. Joe Wilson's mind, so that Pres. Carter knows for sure that Rep. Joe Wilson's statement was based onn racism? Perhaps Rep. Joe Wilson truly but wrongly believed that Pres. Obama was lying, and he would have made the same wrong statement even if Pres. Obama were white rather than black.

Viewing any and all criticism of. Pres. Obama thru' a racial prism will set race relations back in this country.

And, with their racist signs, no "mind reading" of the intent of many of those participants is necessary.

#2 Regarding Joe Wilson the fact that he felt it was appropriate for him to open his mouth at all and shout at this President says it all. No mind reading required there either.

Of course not.

But "You Lie!" is not all Rep Wilson has said or done and is saying or doing. You don't have to be a mind reader, you just don't have to be a naive apologist.

Do you realize how many times the left could have yelled YOU LIE to Bush? Why did they not? Because it is understood that you do not yell at the president in session. This was the first time ever in our history that anyone yelled at a president when he was addressing congress in the house.

The only reason Wilson felt comfortable yelling at the president was because of the hate and racism stirred up by his raciest party in the months before.

all the wingnuts i hear in mi. are being racial when they talk of obama , as far as there concerned only whites are allowed to have a say in our great country

Carter can speak with some authority on the matter.

He has written a great deal about the racism he witnessed as a child of the South

The race card has been played so many times instead of citing actual causes that it no longer weakens our opponents...it strengthens them.

Even worse, on those occasions when it should be played, no one except those already on board thinks anything of it.

Wilson was/is a complete rude dickhead and an underminer of unity and national over party interests. That's the most effective line of attack by far.

But you seem to be in the minority here.

Do you think that Jimmy Carter, of all people, does not recognize the Southern Strategy when he sees it?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/09/15/kausfiles-sex-racism-and-jimmy-carter.aspx

Personally, from what I've seen of the majority of humankind, I don't mind being in the minority sometimes. ;)

I grew up in the deep south with the "good old boys" who harbored deep resentment that a non-white person is doing so much better than them. It tends to come out at very odd and inappropriate times.

In my neck of the woods, there was no fear whatsoever of non-white people. But, we were very aware of their resentment. We also knew that the "good ole boyz" would go batshit crazy if they had an inkling that we had better sense than they did.

It's called Godwin's Law.

Seriously though, I did not advocate ignoring the problem. I advocated exactly the opposite. My point is that from a purely practical point of view, calling Wilson a racist does not help us in the least due to lack of overt evidence. Most people who are not actively liberal (i.e., the majority of the US citizenry) will just roll their eyes, and figure we don't have anything better than the same ol', same ol. So instead of landing a punch with the obvious evidence (that he's a rude dickhead and more importantly, degrading national unity at a critical moment), we end up hitting him with a nerf ball.

Political power rests upon general majority agreement with those in power. Carter's statement does nothing to that end. Repug leaders are smiling as they read what he said. Count on it.

Here's Kaus' take on it, btw:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/09/15/kausfiles-sex-racism-and-jimmy-carter.aspx

I neither endorse nor criticize Kaus - just saying I'm hardly alone in my judgment.

Because you clearly didn't read mine. ;)

Unfortunately, I did read yours --

:evilgrin:


QUOTE . . .

Most people who are not actively liberal (i.e., the majority of the US citizenry)

will just roll their eyes, and figure we don't have anything better than the same ol', same ol.
So instead of landing a punch with the obvious evidence

(that he's a rude dickhead

and more importantly, degrading national unity at a critical moment), we end up hitting him with a nerf ball.

Political power rests upon general majority agreement with those in power. Carter's statement does nothing to that end. Repug leaders are smiling as they read what he said. Count on it.

There's no "overt evidence" that Wilson is racist?
Or that the party is racist?

Evidently you're not familiar with the RNC and their racism, sexism and homophobia

on videos? Given that, who would be joining that party after such videos were exposed?

:eyes:


Most people who are not actively liberal (i.e., the majority of the US citizenry)

Rather, this is a liberal nation. While the parties have moved to the right -- many of
us would say to fascism -- there is every evidence that the public is liberal/progressive.

Noam Chomsky is a good source for that and he makes clear that the elites do have to know
where things REALLY stand. And, evidently, polls that we don't see indicate that the public
when faced with questions about Mexican immigrants, for instance, will cite that Mexicans
are pretty much returning to land they once occupied and which we took in war.


ALSO . . . further proof of the liberal nature of our citizenry can be found in the reality
that the elites have to BUY government, have to BUY elected officials because the public
won't knowingly vote for their "values."

The right-wing elites are forced to control every facet of communications -- and I presume
the internet is next. That's why their control depends upon a corporate-press.

2000 is yet another example of this -- a Jon Ellis/Fox News partnership in the opening steal
by "recalling" Florida and "calling" it for Bush -- followed by a GOP-sponsored fascist rally
to stop the vote counting mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court -- and finally pressing
the right-wing Supremes into service.

Needless to say, the computers themselves which came into play in the mid-and-late 1960's ...
coincidentally, just about the time America was passing The Voting Rights Act!

This also includes controlling news gathering agencies, monopoly newspaper chains --
and needless to say knocking out PBS and NPR. Publishing houses have been knocked out and
monopolies formed. If you're not familiar with Carl Bernstein's report on our CIA press,
you'll find details on the internet.

Control of our federal agencies and reversing their goals -- from education to environment.
Again, over and again, it is clear that the public rejects right-wing positions when they
are clearly put to them.

Just as a majority of Americans support MEDICARE FOR ALL -- but don't always understand
single payer or public option.

It is only because this is a liberal nation that there is a necessity for total control of
information by the elites/right wing. The need for control of all of this is proof of that.

Lies and myths are like mirrors which are easily shattered when a tiny pebble of truth are
tossed at them. They have to be very careful about that -- all truth is a threat to them.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percentage+who+identify+themselves+as+liberal

;)

The first article up reminds you that the majority of voters are DEMOCRATS . . .

evidently because they're confused?

Or is what's confusing them the labeling and right wing propaganda --

Again -- GOP is a sexist, racist, homophobic movement.

I take it you don't like Carter anymore than you like Obama. Who are your favorite Democratic Presidents again?

On edit: Remember, God sees everything, even your posts, so don't fib.:)

All Carter needs is the cloak. The Sith are way cooler than the Jedi though.

You don't lie. Well, at least not outright. :)

Having so many Republicans posting here is a drag, isn't it? This thread really drew them (or their socks) in, too. Yuck.

Dude, he accused Strom Thurmond's biracial daughter of "smearing" his name by admitting her very existence.

What do you think the hoods are for? To prevent "obvious" evidence from being attributed to any one individual. Is Wilson in the Klan? Probably not, but the point is that there is a long history in the South of hiding one's racism in order to prevent "obvious evidence" from being accumulated. Some people don't have aspirations and are happy to just let it fly, but, if you want to get elected to Congress, you're going to have to find a way to "put a lid on it".

Joe Wilson is Strom Thurmond's protege and he is as racist as the sun is bright. He's just the "modern day" GOP racist who knows he has to keep on his metaphorical hood to survive this awful PC world we live in. And he's been basically successful, with a few high profile slip-ups.

My point is that from a purely practical point of view, calling Wilson a racist does not help us in the least due to lack of overt evidence.
**********

There is evidence.... besides his actions after the outburst.

Here a little:

He voted FOR flying the fake Confederate flag
He's a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. (Also having little to do with heritage)
He worked for Strom Thurman and thought his illegitimate mixed race daughter shoulda kept her mouth shut (When it was Strom's family that made her paternity public)


If he's not a racist, he certainly puts up with them.

That's just silly. :silly:

"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)<1> is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."<2><3>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


And, from the same wiki link:


"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.<7>"


Of course, the question of the propriety of a reference is a totally subjective determination. So, Godwin's "law" is basically meaningless.


;-)





(See also, Maddow's law.)

time to stop the handwringing and deal with the ugly reality. those who don't like what carter has to say are unlikely to vote democratic anyway. there is no honor is pussyfooting around the huge problem of racism in this country.

"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)<1> is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."<2><3>"

A lot of threads here get a lot longer than this one. What's your point?

:)

:)

nor the NAZI movement --

Project Paperclip is proof of that --

uses a nazi comparision automatically loses an arguement especially when there is merit. In fact, it's a rather fascist internet law.

That's just silly.

"Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)<1> is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."<2><3>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


And, from the same wiki link:


"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.<7>"


Of course, the question of the propriety of a reference is a totally subjective determination. So, Godwin's "law" is basically meaningless.



Yes . . . it's use seems to have been "abused" in this thread --

and I think we should begin tracking how often "Godwin's law" is put forth in ineffective

debate?




:evilgrin:

:fistbump:

Godwin's law is at the most noting that history repeats itself --

and we are in that time frame where fascism has crossed our threshold

and it is obvious to most of us.


Godwin might have studied the GOP and tracked how often they mention "911" --

Catchy little number, isn't it?

Disagreeing with Obama or even calling him a liar does not automatically make someone a racist, and I see no explanation which can be supported by logic other than Psephos's "Wilson was/is a complete rude dickhead and an underminer of unity and national over party interests." Playing the race card at eacn and every opportunity only weakens the case when the race card is actually appropriate.

Carter just let the GOP off the hook by giving them something to complain about which will allow them to take some heat off of Wilson. If anyone has Wilson on tape saying he hates black people, bring Carter's quotes back to me for further review - if not, I'll just dismiss them with a roll of my eyes. Carter's not always right, and the facts that Obama is black or Carter is from the South isn't actual proof that Wilson was motivated by racism instead of just dickheadedness.

Are you saying that unless somebody basically comes out an says the hate black people or burns a cross or lynches somebody that they cannot be called racist? What Carter is trying to get across is not about 'overt' racism but a more subtle kind.

at this point I need a little more proof and a little less supposition. The video remark was overboard sarcasm and should be taken as such. I'm just tired of seeing the race card as the default position of so many.

Use of the term 'race card' makes me think you know there is a racist undercurrent to what and why Wilson said what he did but you think using that phrase should shut down the debate. Calling the 'race card' is like it is a 'get out of racism free card'. Again what would constitute proof of racism to you?

the party being disagreed with being black. Examples would include at least a reference to race or the use of a stereotype associated with one. That's as specific as I intend to get here, because your "Use of the term 'race card' makes me think you know there is a racist undercurrent..." makes it clear your mind is made up and no answer I give which fails to agree with your stance is going to be good enough for you.

My use of the term "race card" was not based on anything you think is something I supposedly "know," it's used to describe the first thing I tend to hear whenever someone disagrees with Obama, which I consider an often overused and often disingenuous tactic. Lots of people here on DU disagree with Obama on lots of things, and I don't take disagreements with him or even disrespectful words towards him as racism. You might.

I look forward to seeing you tell DUers who react angrily to any future actions or words by Obama that their words have a racist undercurrent. Man, it would have been fun to see you let it fly when multiple DUers reacted angrily to his claim that Canada's health care system wasn't for us.

When no-one else had done so before in history. He's not a regular citizen, he's a congressman.

You really don't get that if you hold beliefs that whites are superior to blacks for all of your life, then it will influence how you treat blacks ... even if this black person happens to be the President.

I have plenty of reason to think he's a complete fucking asshole. Racist - that's an entirely different level of shitbag. I know lots of assholes who I don't believe are racists. I'm not going to throw around the 'r' word towards anyone until I see something other than assholish behavior and Obama being black.

Being a congressman instead of just a regular citizen doesn't mean much these days - just look at some of the recent Capitol Hill follies by some of these fucks. Lots of things they've done haven't been done before in history, either. Doesn't make them racists, either.

For all I know I might hear something that convinces me that Wilson is a racist. For now, all I know is that he's a fuckhead. All racists are fuckheads, but not all fuckheads are racists.

Oh, and don't tell me what I "really don't get" until you have something other than "you lie" to demonstrate that Wilson has held beliefs that whites are superior to blacks all his life, especially when you really don't get that calling someone a liar, even in a completely inappropriate setting, doesn't automatically make the jump from fucking asshole to racist.

everything revolves around them.

I know the difference between a guy being a dickhead and then being a racist.

His comment taken in isolation is NOT racist. It is not racist to call someone a liar.

But racist motives can cause you to lose your cool and disrespect the President who happens to be a black man.

And then to become defensive about apologizing when you're called on it.

behavior I have ever seen. I would add only that they become defiant (and sometimes uglier), as well as defensive, when called upon to apologize.

racist motives CAN make someone lose their cool doesn't mean that's what happened this time, but if you want to go ahead and jump to a conclusion based on mere assumption and stereotypes the same way I'd expect a Republican to, then feel free. I'm tired of seeing people do that, but apparently I'm never going to get any relief from it.

and as you point out . . . likely "based on mere assumption" . . . ???

PLUS the traditionally and still active RACIST agenda of the GOP in continuing

to try to push the "Southern Strategy"* with coded messages and not so well hidden

messages.

Whether sexist, racism, or homophobia the aim is to create discrimination against

a group of people for the purposes of exploitation -----------------------------

while claiming that they are an "inferior" group.

Unfortunately, it is easy to teach hatred!



* Added that because I'm not sure that there ever was a "Southern Strategy" except

to cover decades of GOP vote stealing using computers -- which, coincidentally,

began to come in during the mid-late-1960s, just about the time America passed

The Voting Rights Act!

could be just another complete fucking asshole -- until you take a closer look at his history. He was an aide, and a protege of Strom Thurmond, and denied that the avowed segregationist (he ran for president as a "segregationist") and overt racist, Strom, had a half-black daughter -- even after Strom had admitted it; Wilson is a current member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose stated mission is to perpetuate the principles of the Confederacy; he sits on the Board of the ultra-neoconservative NRA, Wilson has fought to keep the Confederate Flag flying above the S.C. state capitol. His Southern rednecked racist history is rich, and he is not ashamed of it.

Now, put all of that in context with his outburst of "You lie..." while pointing a finger at President Obama, and tell me with a straight face that there wasn't an implied "boy!" at the end of his shouted statement. I heard it, Jimmy Carter heard it, and millions of other concerned Americans heard it.

And yes, most racists and bigots ARE complete fucking assholes. It comes with the job.

I love the fact that you came up with something other than "Well, Jimmy's seen it before, so he must be right in all cases, and Obama is black, after all."

When I heard the speech, I didn't hear an implied "boy," though - I heard insane and maniacal anger at the fact that a president had different priorities than the party of the asshole speaking. I heard the same anger when Clinton was president. You might be right, Wilson might be a racist, but jumping to that assumption isn't my default position. Hearing "boy" at the end of his sentence certainly isn't, either.

I believe it's quite possible to hate or be an asshole to Obama without hating his color. Hearing so many come out of the woodwork and claim racism every time someone disagrees with him strikes me as not only an ineffective strategy which damages the credibility of people who cry race when it's justified, but often a "run home to mama" position when there's nothing else to say. We should be ripping him for calling Obama a liar without the slightest shred of proof, rather than running to the automatic cry of Jesse Jackson every time he opens his mouth. You heard "boy" from Wilson and apparently so did a lot of others, but I didn't. I might hear it in the future from him, but I didn't that night.

I do thank you, though, for the only post I've seen in reply to mine on this issue that didn't make me roll my eyes.

piece of "circumstantial evidence": Wilson publicly called Strom Thurmond's daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, a "liar" (with the same "uppity "Ni---r" implication) for asserting that she was in fact, the Senator's daughter. Essie Mae's mother was Strom Thurmond's former maid. Wilson continued to deny the facts even after Thurmond had admitted to knowing about, and giving money to, his half-black daughter for many years.

Over the years, the typical Southern redneck has become very adept at expressing his, or her, racism without actually using the N-word, or any other overtly racist epithets. The N-word went to "colored," "Negro," or "nigra," and finally became the all-inclusive "those people." You will seldom, if ever, hear a redneck (and they know who they are, and are proud of it) use the term "African-American." They imply the N-word in many different ways, and those on the receiving end, or who are familiar with their speech patterns, can hear it loud and clear.

I agree that the overuse of any accusation wears down its effectiveness, and leads to it becoming a cliche. I firmly believe that any sensible person can readily tell the difference between honest and passionate disagreement, and hateful and intolerant racism. In the cases of Rep. Joe Wilson, the Town Hall rednecks, the religious-right who call for President Obama's death, those who openly carry guns and threatening signs to venues our President will be speaking, and those who hurl obvious race-based euphemisms at our President, however, I will continue to call attention to them in the loudest voice I can manage, and in every venue (including Democratic Underground) I have access to.

If you don't believe that the election of our first African-American president has ignited a dramatic increase in rednecked racists "coming out of the closet," see this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30876593/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity/

This is the phenomenon that President Carter has identified as well. These are not "new" racists, they are existing racists that have been enraged by the election of a "black man" to the highest office in our nation, and there are millions of them -- especially in the neoconservative Red States.

except in your mind --

insane and maniacal anger

Disagreement with policy shouldn't create "insane and maniacal anger" which should give

you your first clue.

Meanwhile the anger for Clinton was often based on his more liberal policies -- including

towards African-Americans and homosexuals -- not to mention women.

The GOP remains sexist, racist and homophobic and has made that quite clear over decades.

you your first clue."

Excellent point!

Thank you --

:)


And, I will continue to argue that anyone who isn't aware that the GOP is RACIST

hasn't been on this planet very long!

And I think my status as the OP should allow me to bestow that on you.

Congratulations!

:party:

like to thank my director, my producers, and my... What happened to my mike? Where is everybody? Who turned out the lights?

i.e. he is strictly a jerk, but these are two things that never overlap. Racist is one kind of jerk, complete asshole with progressive views on race is another kind of jerk.`

Where the fuck did I say that?

I'm not wasting the time on a post as stupid as yours, sorry.

Do they have to call women "whores" --

or homosexuals "girlymen" -- for that to be clear to anyone????

bury their heads and the sand to avoid the ugly truths of our society.

No my mind isn't made up and I don't think that everybody that disagrees with President Obama has racist tendencies actually I am a big supporter of single payer so that is at least one area where I disagree. My request for further explanation of 'proof' was just my attempt to try and understand your point better. Your attempt to sidestep my request for you to give me a deeper understanding of what you consider proof by claiming that I am an inflexible or not willing to listen is a really poor debate technique and tries to throw back your inability or unwillingness to flesh out your ideas back on me. Again the short example you gave is of the 'everybody knows that is racist' category. Of course everybody knows that people that go around using racial epithets are probably really racist. Don't you think it is possible that some of those people are at least human enough that they realize overt racism is not acceptable to society at large. In that case their 'racism' becomes much more subtle. That kind of racism expresses itself in how you treat a person of color as far as respecting them as a person and for whatever position and accomplishments they have accomplished in their life.
When Jimmy Carter who grew up and lives in the South indicates that he sees a racial undertone to the actions and words of Wilson I will bow to his life experience as giving him a much better insight into that kind of subtle racism (I was born and raised in Northern California so the Southern experience is not something of which I can really claim any personal knowledge). In the end I don't know if Wilson is a racist, some here have pointed out actions and involvement with groups that might indicate that he has those feelings. Before I end this little rant, and correct me if I am wrong, you seem to take a black and white (no pun intended) view of racism. By that I mean you feel somebody is either an all out overt racist or we have to assume they are absolutely not racist at all. I think as in most things there is a lot of gray area in there. You may have people that are not overt racist but are still racially intolerant. Some people may even have ideas or beliefs about other races that are wrong but are a reflection of where and when they were brought up so are more of a lack of knowledge and experience than true overt racism.

get through to you what I meant. This is not a debate "technique" any more than your demanding to know the exact ramifications of the proof I'd require is. If "more than just the fact Obama is black" isn't clear enough to you, then we can both walk away without winning each other's understanding. I really can live with that, as evidenced by the good night's sleep I got last night.

As for the rest of your post, it strikes me as if you're struggling to support your theory about Wilson, clinging to "they realize overt racism is not acceptable to society at large. In that case their 'racism' becomes much more subtle" and hiding behind "Carter's from the South, he'd know better." If that's enough for you, fine - it isn't for me. All I'm doing is expressing an opinion, and I don't care if you convert to it. As for yours, if your goal was the change my mind, you failed - as you did if you expected me to believe your "My request for further explanation of 'proof' was just my attempt to try and understand your point better."

Lastly, your "...correct me if I am wrong, you seem to take a black and white (no pun intended) view of racism. By that I mean you feel somebody is either an all out overt racist or we have to assume they are absolutely not racist at all" is insulting and absurd. I'm not saying Wilson isn't a racist, I'm saying we don't have enough to go on and I'm not willing to take Carter's word for it just because he's seen it in others. Your logic makes no more sense than saying "...correct me if I am wrong, you seem to take a black and white (no pun intended) view of crime. By that I mean you feel somebody is either an all out overt criminal, with jail tats and drugs and stolen cash in plain view, or we have to assume they are absolutely not criminal at all, obeying all laws, even jaywalking." I'm saying that before you send a potential criminal to jail, you need more than Jimmy Carter saying "I've seen this behavior in others before, so he must be guilty."

Slapping labels on people without enough to justify it is what Republicans do, not us. I honestly can't believe the shit I've read in this thread so far.

Have the last word, if you like, but don't expect me to come back and read it. The length of this "debate" of yours has well exceeded my level of interest. You either understand my stance by now or you don't, and I really don't care either way.

When I discuss politics or anything else for that matter I don't set out to convert or convince people I just discuss my case and try to elicit as much input from the opposing view as I can. Who knows if the person on the other side presents enough information I might even have to reexamine my position. I have repeatedly asked you to go beyond the 'just more than he is black' so I can get an idea of what you think constitutes enough information to be able to connect a statement to a racist ideology and method of interacting with people of color. Since you seem unable or unwilling to examine the question you are right this back and forth is over. Have a good one.

I originally hoped it was because you hadn't done the research, but that can't be the case seeing as how the facts have been posted in this thread several times now about Wilson and his racist history.

I'm sure your probably rolling your eyes now, and feeling smug about how superior you are to all of us, and that's fine.

no matter how implausible to avoid coming up with racism as a possible answer.

going to, um, share it with you. (Share with you sounds so much nicer than than steal from you, doesn't it?)

I was trying to express the idea that many throw out the 'race card' line to avoid any deeper discussion of their own attitudes toward people of color and their attempt to throw blame for any racist attitudes back on their targets. So if I am doing something bigoted and a person of color calls me on it I cry 'Your using the race card' which indicates that there really isn't anything wrong with what I am saying or doing but the person of color is just having a knee jerk reaction to a white person. I thought 'get out of racism free card' sort of wrapped that all up in one phrase. Feel free to use it ideas should be shared.

This thread brought out some Republicans masquerading as Democrats and some stealth racists, but it also introduced me to a lot of good posters. So, it's a good thread.

I know it may come as a shock to some of you who think everything that is ever said must advance our "strategy." Perhaps a foreign concept for political junkies is that there is such thing as the truth, plain and simple, regardless of political outcome. If you need the hardcore "evidence" that racism can exist and operate as a deeply ingrained element of our legacy then you must approach the very idea of racism as a skeptic. There is such thing as an attitude that someone has gotten too "uppity" for their supposed station in life. There is a context for President Carter's comments. This is not an obvious "win" for the GOP because Obama himself does not "play the race card," as you like to put it. With the hypersensitivity to that which you have just illustrated, he would obviously have never been elected if this were his strategy.

Hey, I spent my youth in the South, with young versions of the very people that are now Senators in the South, and are many of the same people who show up at these right-wing, "I hate Obama no matter what" rallies.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the terms "nigger-lover, or fuckin' niggers, or jokes in the area.

But it has become unpopular to be openly racist, even in the South. So, when something you believe, or have been taught is not popular, and you still believe it, where does it go? Does it disappear? Hell no, it is driven underground. They can't have "I hate that black uppity Negro" rallies, so they have birther rallies calling him a Kenyan, when all obvious evidence is that he was born in Hawaii. You reject everything he puts forward, because you know he's black, and you've been taught from birth that black folks are bad, and need to stay in their place--the "uppity Negro," thing, some of you have heard about.

I can't say how much of this exists in the rest of the country, but I'm sure no matter where you live, you've found a few folks that could find themselves in a white, conical hood.

Don't believe it isn't there, just because the new racist is a coward, who won't come out with the same guttural insults of ethnicity as they were once so proud to shout out. It's there, and more than anything, the statistics of all of these right-wing movements, as well as Nixon's whole republican southern strategy, is evidence of the racists now being a core voting group of the republican party.

It's funny really, as some of these folks in the South are the poorest people in the nation, yet they keep voting for Republicans, based only on the thought that they are the party racists are supposed to belong to. And their lives are the very ones that have been destroyed by rich elitists, who could care less about him being black, but are only interested in the con, the con of the racists, as Republicans will always need to con about 30 percent of the people to vote against themselves, and races is one of the biggest tools they use, vying with religion, to get that done.

Man, if you ever want to switch parties, the Republicans could really use you.

For all I know Wilson could be a racist, I just haven't seen enough yet to make that leap and I'm not willing to take Carter's every word as gospel just because he's spent more time south of the Mason-Dixon than I have. Silly me for trying to make that point - it's been a long time since I've taken so much flak from the know-it-alls.

any chance you've noticed that?

Meanwhile, what Wilson did was unprecedented -- and this happens to be the only

African-American president America has ever had.

If some have drawn the not unlikely conclusion that his outburst had more to do

with racism than the truth of the legislation -- in particularly since he KNEW the

legislation barred health care for immigrants -- I agree.


Neither have I noticed any strong challenges in our corporate press to Wilson's "lie."

Or the reality that in the instances where America does -- as every other nation does --

provide EMERGENCY services for immigrants/visitors that the GOP would find great fault

with even that humanitarian care!!!

Yeah...subtle... like the sea of WHITE that is the Teabagger/ 9/12ers. (Not to mention their signs)

Hell, Beck's so scared of them, he didn't even show up to his own event!

This is not unprecedented, Presidents have been called liars before. But in a joint session of congress? Don't all of the people in that chamber hear speeches by the President of the opposition party and think to themselves, what a bold faced liar! Do they shout it out during the speech like the redneck teabaggers that scream down town halls? No, this does not happen, generally. Why did it not happen with Clinton? He was despised by the right? Or Bush 43?

his public track record makes him a raciest.

Is there no such thing as context? Those things about his history are racist, but TOTALLY unrelated to his shout out during a Presidential Address? The naysayers want "evidence." Where is your "evidence" that this is NOT part of what is going on here? We demand evidence!:sarcasm:

what he did was wrong! Beyond wrong, as in something that has never happened in the history of our country wrong.

and yes, he is a blatant raciest!

but the fact that he IS a raciest shouldn't sway us from the fact the he is a UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN! Personal, political, unethical and even asinine beliefs that are deplorable should take a back seat to the fact that HE FUCKED UP!
No one should ever behave like that to the President of the United States, epically a congressman in the middle of a speech to congress. 200 years ago, he would have been hung! and 5 years ago, Cheney would have taken him hunting. It wouldn't have mattered if he was raciest, a terrorist, or a pederast. The issue here is not whether or not the man has an irrational fear of people with a different skin pigment than him. He does. And we, as a nation really need to find a way to deal with that, and the fact that it still exists in 21st century America. But the Issue here is that this man issued a direct, blatant, and unapologetic insult to our President, and as a former member of the US ARMY reserve, HIS commander-in-chief. That needs to be dealt with on its own merit. Not as a "hate crime," but, at minimum a crime of vengeful stupidity, in witch the man should publicly apologize, and at worst an act of sedition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 (the re-pugs were up our ass about it, and no one did anything this bad)

I don't like this man. I don't like his politics, I don't like his views, and I don't like what he did. But outing this turd as a raciest is like when the nailed Capone for "tax evasion."

instead of for being a racist is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion rather than serial killing.

No, Just cowering and being spineless like the Dems in Congress. Apologize and water it down until it's absurd.

Carter couldn't do it anymore so he spoke out.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the GOP seemed to be encouraging military to show disrespect for Clinton . . .

based on his having avoided the draft -- yet, no one would have dared to

try to do that to W based on has AWOL service in the Guard and Cheney's 5

deferments! In fact, they both should have been "booed" by the military!

And that's the heart of it -- and something which as I recall they also tried

to do re Carter. That was quite an outrageous period of time in itself!

If Wilson had gotten away with this display of disrespect they would have gone

further with it. It's something that has to be stopped right here --




:)

Yet with Obama they felt perfectly comfortable in defying standard decorum to shout out "you lie" in a joint session of Congress.

Any thoughts on why they felt decorum only applied to one man when both were equally detested?

the outburst of one asshole? Wow.

Leaving aside the fact that if the Republicans attacked Clinton en masse with Wilson's strategy even the anti-Clinton media would have thought they'd gone too far...never mind. If you really think the impeachment attempt's approach being different than Wilson being a dick is proof that Wilson is a racist rather than just a dick, then good for you.

Racism is without question the underlying cause of the attacks on Pres. Obama. Acknowledging this presence is not playing the race card...it's simply admitting that this country hasn't come as far as we'd thought(or hoped). Fear of admitting this or of acting to stop it is going to set our progress toward tolerance and equality on a really slow path. Most of the arguments against our President appear to have no substance and are so far removed from reality as to be almost laughable. Obama has offered to work with the Right and has had no takers...He can't be 100% wrong 100% of the time. Nothing else explains this lack of cooperation, IMO, except racism...plain and simple. It's an issue that has raised it's ugly head again, and it needs to be addressed just as it was decades ago. Sadly, without the help from the Right, we will only see continued derisiviness and that will eventually erode our great nation.

me personally i think obama with no resume to speak of has no business being president of the US, and i shall criticize him as he deserves it, as does every public servant get my critcism. He is, in my book, not brilliant, not a statesman, not experienced.... (and becoming very boring with all his speeches...does he ever work?)

now perhaps i am a racist...i don't like his 50% white skin....or is that black part i dont like?...since you seem to know as its "without question"...so which part of his genetics dont i like?

Criticism of Obama is NOT "without question racist" I have my own grievances with him and his administration, as I am sure many (ok, the few) of the free thinking republicans do without racism.

However, I do agree with President Carter that there is rampant racism running in the country, and it is behind alot of the senseless attacks on Obama

but the concept that every grievance of obama and his administration is based in racism....is well......racism. The idea that a half black, half white president cant be criticized is absurd.

and the fact that the default position is racism is not just stupid but self defeating....it makes the democrats looking like a bunch of ignorant morons (and racist at that-nothing like making sweeping generalizations of a whole group-nazis? brownshirts....christ-what stupidity)

one addition: the nazi representations/accusations go for BOTH groups (dem and repub) both were/are disgusting

every attack on Bush is from homosexuals.

or every attack on Clinton is from men who cant get laid.

Only a FOOL deals in absolutes.

check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM&feature=fvw

i can't tell the difference between the different cockroaches that i find in my office every so often and kill mercilessly. I understand that this is probably just an indication of a far deeper racist problem that is deep within.

i shall do some self awareness type programs...who knows maybe its the white side of obama that i don't like....after all its diluting his true "blackness".....

You are creating shadows, then sparring with you own creations. Maybe that's easier than responding to the statements that posters here are actually making, but it's a waste of time.

Wilson did something that no one has ever done during a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress, a tradition that goes back to the monarch addressing a joint session of Parliament. Some have been saying this was no different than booing Dummya. Also totally untrue. Booing a comment or a policy, which goes on all the time in Parliament, is very different from calling someone a liar. "You lie" is even very different from "That's a lie.")

It was outrageous and a level of disrespect to the President, the assemblage, and the occasion that is unprecedented, not only in our history, but in Parliament's history.

Is it a coincidencce that this first time in history outrage was visited upon our first President with much darker skin than all our prior Presidents? First reaction: Maybe-but I'll keep an open mind. But then, you look at Wilson's own history and how he's acted since his Party forced apology and "maybe" changes.

As far as never labeling racism as racism and never pointing out a Nazi technique when you see one, bull pucky. The Republicans were the first to pull that out to silence our too often "dead on" criticisms of them. (Dead intern Joe Scarborough's been harping on daily for a while now, with pseudo reason.)

They attempt to bully us. IMO, they too often succeed. I totally reject this ploy on their part.

Don't throw the terms around lightly, not because they are taboo, but because it cheapens them. But, if the shoe fits, do not hesitate to label dung for what it is, loudly and often. In fact, it is our duty so to do.

And, above all, don't worry about how people might react. A certain number of people will react badly--but they will do the same no matter what anyway. So what?

Silencing the truth is never the right answer.

those were the first reactions....not the the comment was "out of line" disrespectful", etc....its was racism for "words that weren't said......i always love that, making up stuff to prove a point. (words that weren't said......)

how many zillions of times has the racism label been used on obama....i would say almost every time someone criticizes obama policies in the news, the racism label is used on it. (informally, it takes about 15 seconds before its labeled on the news)

and i don't have the ability to differentiate between real criticism and criticism that is based on racism.....i'm afraid my vulcan mind reading techniques has gotten weaker with age....so you can read minds and differentiate between legit critisim and critisim that is based in racism?..can you give me some hints, so that i'l know when to recognize it?

1)
2)
3)

you seem so sure of yourself, so i would like to learn.

as far as the outrage...
It was outrageous and a level of disrespect to the President, the assemblage, and the occasion that is unprecedented, not only in our history, but in Parliament's history.

please..history is your friend: i seem to recall bush being booed in those same hollowed halls in 2005 by entire Democrat Party not to mention the inauguration

so are you still outraged?....or is it selective to the people you like?-remember to google before making dumb statements of fact.

smarter than I am.

I did addressed the false equivalency claim re: booing of Bush in my post, but it was an edit, so maybe you missed it.

When did I say I was outraged?

"so you can read minds and differentiate between legit critisim and critisim that is based in racism?..can you give me some hints, so that i'l know when to recognize it?"

Um, I never said that. I cited the unprecedent nature of the event, Wilson's own history and his behavior after the Party-forced apology. But, again, I can understand why you might find it easier to make up stuff and snark on a personal level than to address what I and others actually do post. Bu, it's pointless for me to keep responding to it, if your only mode is to pretend I said something else.

false equivalency of booing bush vs calling obama a liar....both are disrespectful to the presidency...... (and I also rejected clintons definition of "is"). I recognize those word games to excuse "your guy" and diss the one you dont like- they don't mean anything to me-its a dumb "lawyers type of game."

i don't know wilson, never heard of him until now (like most of the people)......but i do know the words "you lie"....are not racist words.....they were as disrespectful to the presidency as booing and neither should be excused.

and that is really all there is to it. If you claim the words "you lie" are racist in some form, i still would like to know how....because it was never done before?.....this presidency has done a lot of things that were never done before, like ram a trillion dollar health bill down our throats in a few months that no one ever read (including the president).....

that gall of that kind of attitude is astounding to me.......and i can think of many words much worse than "you lie" to reflect my feelings toward that kind of attitude that a politician has to have to try such a thing....and it has nothing to do with his skin color.

Well, they're not subtle, but 1 out of 2...

BTW, the ability to distinguish between booing someone's statements about the war in Iraq and calling someone a liar is not a subtle word game. Unless, of course, you consider, saying "an apple is not identical to an orange" a subtle word game. In which case, you would be doubly wrong.

"If you claim the words "you lie" are racist in some form"

I never said that either. If you keep building straw men so you have something you are able to knock down, I am going to send you a truss 'cause you're bound to get a hernia sooner or later.

and that is not a word game.....to differentiate between the two and attempt to find something beyond the disrespect is to me, nothing more than a word game designed to excuse one and not the other....

and thats probably the real reason why the attempts to call wilson a racist based on two words, which makes pretending booing a president is not as disrespectful.

A boo is not an accusation of lying, but of only displeasure with the point of view being expressed. Saying that someone lies is a direct attack on their character, and is a far greater attack on the office of the Presidency than booing a statement by that President.

Whether Wilson himself is a racist is something I can suspect but never conclusively know, yet I strongly believe that many of the tea-bag protesters are motivated by racism. Their attacks are so strong and vile upon Obama, and have such little basis in any factual knowledge that it contitutes an emotionally negative reaction to Obama. What basis would there be for such a strongly emotional negativity other than race? They know little to nothing about Obama, the health reform facts, Hitler, Socialism, or anything else.

i would say almost every time someone criticizes obama policies in the news, the racism label is used on it.

********

Prove it. Now you're making stuff up.

I'm sure you can find many examples. But "almost every time". Baloney.


We are talking about teabaggers and the 9/12ers. Stay on subject please.

And my Vulcan mind reading skills say you're just trying to prove how wonderfully fair YOU are, and ignoring what is in front of you.


"and i don't have the ability to differentiate between real criticism and criticism that is based on racism"


Then you have nothing to contribute to this thread. Be quiet. Learn something.

that there are some very intolerant people here......

Kettle? Mirror?

and history is our friend, and is always a good place to start when attempting to determine a person's true nature. To fill in your blanks:

1) Joe Wilson belongs to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization with the mission of "perpetuating the principles" of the Confederacy;

2) Joe Wilson was an aide to, and a protege of, Strom Thurmond who was an avowed "segregationist," and overt racist, and who ironically fathered a child with his African-American maid. Wilson called Thurmond's daughter a "liar" when she went public -- even after Thurmond had acknowledged her as his daughter; and,

3) Wilson fought long and hard to keep the Confederate flag flying over the S.C. Capitol, as a matter of "principle," and presumably out of his dedication to the stated mission of the SCV.

There are many other historical references to Wilson's thinly-disguised racism on the Internet, including the recent article about another racist politician who came to his defense: Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=371682&mesg_id=371682

and another couple of Steve King tidbits,

http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/20/rep-steve-king-r-ia-to-mcclellan-why-couldnt-you-just-shut-up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/rep-steve-king-lone-vote_n_227866.html

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck -- birds of a feather...?

I check my reactions carefully, because I am very interested in racism (as a research topic) so I am very tuned in to the context. However, I DO remember the absolute HATRED of the right for President Clinton, and their disdain for him became very personal. So there are some things they say and do that I think they would direct at any effective Democrat. However that does not mean there is not sometimes the context of racism contributing to the hatred of Obama!

if your so interested in racism....and you used one example of absolute hatred for clinton....does your research include the absolute hatred toward bush?....or is this one of new type of research that is dependant upon politics........

Red Herring Alert!


Who's talking about ALL criticism of Obama?


Are you painting a Hitler mustache on Obama? Do you "want your country back"? Do you think he's a Muslim and a radical Christian, who's a Socialists and a Fascists that was born in Kenya with no Birth Certificate? Do you think he's a liar when what he said is clearly and succinctly written in the bill?

If you'd stop with the PC pretzel logic to prove that you are oh so enlightened for a half a second and you might understand what Carter and a lot of other realists see.

Obama's resume when he ran for President was significantly better than Lincoln's was when he ran. I wager Obama's resume is also a great deal better than the resume of most people here.

He is brilliant. You don't graduate from Harvard Law School with honors after having worked 70 hours a week as editor of the Harvard Law Review, unless you are brilliant. You also dont' get raised in a two bedroom apartment in Hawaii with no family fortune or political contacts and become President before you are 50 unless you are brilliant in ways that are beyond "book smart."

He has every business being President because he was American born, the required age and duly elected.

Making speeches is very much part of a a President's work and probably one of the most important parts, assuming the subject is worthy and the speech is successful.

You are certainly free to criticize him. Heaven knows, I have. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

I don't know if you are racist or not, but I know your comment is disingenuous. Under the "one drop" rule, racists don't worry about anyone's "white blood." When Strom Thurmond's daughter "came out" as his daughter, Wilson did not say, "Welcome" to her half that was the daughter of one of his heroes. He said that black woman had no business saying she was Strom's daughter, when the truth was that Strom Thurmond had no business denying her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/one_drop_rule.htm (New Life for the One Drop Rule)

People also used to label others by what portion of the "blood" was African Amrican. They got as far as octaroon and stopped. Maybe they could not come up with a handy prefix meaning one sixteenth.

not as raciest as the used to be, but still:eyes:

to me racism is ridicules in any form. whole, half, 1/128th, its all dumb. I just cant believe that some one has gone thought the trouble of writing a rule book on it.

on a personal note, it bothers me that it is a question on the census. maybe if we stopped caring about race, it wouldn't mater.


damn, I guess I do have a point.:shrug:

"other." For similar reasons, I also hestitated when the hospital asked my religion while I was in labor. Then I speculated that a hospital may need to know if a priest should be summoned to give last rites if anyhing went wrong?

This may reflect the fact that I am old enough to remember when that kind of data was seldom collected or used for any positive purpose.

I have a wonderful "board friend" who majors in demographics and is quite passionate about it. Maybe I should ask him why the census still seeks that informaion.

As far as the so-called one drop rule,I guess there are always fanatics in every belief system, even one that is fanatic to begin with, like racism.

doesn't it start in the Bible ??

Didn't it begin with Papal Bulls encouraging the enslavement of Africans in America?

Didn't it begin with Papal Bulls encouraging the enslavement or death of Native Americans?

Wasn't Segretation, Inc. based on the preaching of "inferiority" of African-Americans and

the teaching of hatred and intolerance?

Look right now at the demonizing of the Arabs/Muslims by race and religion --

Same patterns -- still in use by patriarchy --

Right wing propaganda always works -- but not for democracy!!!

get around to "whites" checking their skin against a sheet of white paper

it becomes obvious that every "white" person is a person of SOME COLOR!!!

:evilgrin:

Jesus!

It does. It has a definition, y'know. For one, it requires two different races. And, in case you've never seen "Raintree County" I will tell you one rule that has been around for a long time and is very much alive:

"One drop of Negro blood (or Hispanic, or Asian, or Jewish) and you're all Negro!" (or Hispanic, or Asian, or Jewish) A time honored Racist Rule!


What, are you 12? Did you grow up on a desert Island?

you learned that when you were 12?

I 'm not comparing obama to lincoln....i'm comparing obama to the other democrats with far thicker resumes. (and i wouldn't have voted for lincoln either, it could be a wiser more experience president would have made the civil war a lot less bloodier-he sure screwed up with his generals!)

and PLEASE stop with the "brilliant stuff"... graduating harvard does not make one brilliant.....i know some of them...an editor of the law review....hmmm, would you send me a link to some of his work so i can judge for myself?....70hrs a week, doesnt impress me, as a working student and independent thats a normal week for me....he gets no points for working hard.

you've hit upon the one single fact that we agree upon:
You also dont' get raised in a two bedroom apartment in Hawaii with no family fortune or political contacts and become President before you are 50 unless you are brilliant in ways that are beyond "book smart."

that was my reaction when he was elected in the primaries....this is one slick brilliant con artist-and he has done nothing to change my mind about that.


and we disagree about his primary job....which is to get things done, he might try reading the various health care bills and instead of talking about them all the time, when we don't even know which one he is talking about (does he?), and devise one himself that actually defines what he wants.
___

and i plead ignorant of the official rules of black/white definition of racism. I figure 50% is 50% half white, half black......

if i understand it correctly its one of two things:

comparing a US politician to Nazis is so far out, that it doesn't even require an answer (an answer that i have sympathies with)

or

"as a democrat i am so intolerant of views that i disagree with, that i wont even try to explain (i.e. I am much smarter than you, i know better, i am probably better educated and i dont have to waste my time with a "lesser being"

______

at least that is how i understand his answer.......is there a third option here?

and also claim to be able to judge the quality of one editor of the Harvard Law Review over another? Less bloodier? You need to work on the style points, as well as the content, of this vein you are mining. Make them less stupidier.

i'm not impressed with degrees nor experience in college....we've got so many in my family (extended) that we average 2.5 per.

something with substance thats he did that i could go "wow".... i did go wow when he was elected during the primaries, that was really impressive- I have no idea how he conned so many for so long, but he sure did.

anyways back to that brilliant thing.......

some examples please......

I simply stated that a person who types 'something thats he did' and the rest of your verbal mashings might not be much good at judging the quality of other people's work. You are here raving, just raving. "always back to that brilliant thing". What? I said nothing about the President, what I said was about you. Your posts are barely literate, so you do not strike me as able to judge anyone's quality of writing. That was my point, and that was all of my point.
I did not say Obama is brilliant. I said you are displaying a lack of skill with the written word. Also with reading comprehension.

as your wrote:

You need to work on the style points, as well as the content, of this vein you are mining. Make them less stupidier.

i have no idea what style point is or mining...i suspect they are part of the grammar and word definitions that have developed for use in forums....i probably should have inquired first as opposed to making assumptions.

as far as my reading and writing comprehension goes....I seem to have done pretty well over the years....perhaps its you.

For every point you excellently made.

But +1000 for the last one.

to save it to favorites and click whenever I need an extra burst of energy. It will be my personal battery pack.



:fistbump:

the crux of your argument, and it's fallacy. No one on this forum has called you a "racist" because of your obvious dislike of President Obama, nor would anything you have posted even lead me to believe that you are a racist. You are obviously at least a left-leaning voter, as evidenced by the large number of posts you have accumulated on DU, so neither can I accuse you of being a "right-wing troll." That only leaves me to believe that you were not happy with the outcome of the Democratic Primary elections, and I know full well that you are far from alone in that camp.

The claims by a few on DU that those of us who actually do see racism in the actions and words of some (not all) of the Town Hallers, Teabaggers, religious-right neoconservatives, and a few elected representatives, somehow implies that the "racism label" applies to ALL criticism of President Obama rings hollow. I believe that much of rancor directed at valid Democratic accusations of racism, is actually motivated by an unwillingness to let go of any left-over Primary bitterness, and a sort of glee in seeing President Obama attacked -- for whatever reason.

It is perfectly acceptable to criticize, rail against, and even hate President Obama for his actions and words, but NOT because of the color of his skin, his name, his ancestry, or his qualifications to be POTUS. To deny that there has been an dramatic increase in the public display of overt and thinly-disguised racism and bigotry, since the election of President Obama borders on willful negligence.

I will admit that there are some "camp followers" who apply the racism label inappropriately, and without thinking it through. The vast majority of level-headed Americans, however, can readily identify racism when it is shows its ugly, intolerant, and ignorant, head.

Posting at DU for years while Republican is quite possible.

Annoying, isn't it?

but sometimes it's hard to tell a Republican from a PUMA, and I like to give everyone the benefit of doubt...;-)

The rule on races was that one drop of "black" blood made you a negro.

Many still hold to that --

It's very obvious when you grow up with it. I'm a white male who grew up in Texas. My family is all from the deep south: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas. Most of them remain racists to this day, though their language in public has changed with the years, their language in private has not.

The moment this unprecedented outburst occurred, I knew it was a racist white man. The facts have all proven me to be correct. His reactions and behavior are all in line with what a racist white man would do today.

It's not only very sad that our culture has this deep wound from our tolerance of slavery and racism for so many years, it's also very troubling that so many others are so eager to ignore it that they buy into their cover-up so quickly. It's as if to say that as long as we pretend that the elephant is not in the room, then perhaps it isn't.

Well, my friend, the ugly elephant of entrenched racism IS in our room. And the only way to get it out is to call it by name. Racists don't wear badges and hoods these days. There is no body of evidence for you to bring them to trial. You have to trust your instincts and the instincts of your friends who have dealt with this ugly beast much more than you have.

No offense intended, but Jimmy Carter is keenly aware of what Southern racism looks like. He knows it when he sees it. And, when he sees a spade, he calls it a spade.

Peace.

While not all Repuke criticism is racist, this had racism all over it. Especially considering Wilson voted to grant access to illegals.

I'm stunned some posters are defending that piece of shit Joe Wilson. I suppose there will always be those here that stick up for racists. Just take a look at the Crowley threads.

No one.

He's an unwiped asshole and even pugs know it. Which is why they love it when that's not what he gets called out on.

having his conduct around his outburst being attributed to racism.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Again, I was not arguing whether Wilson is a racist. It cannot be proven or disproven based on his outburst on the House floor. I was arguing that flipping that card over on subjective rather than objective evidence is not politically useful to us, and is politically useful to our opponents. Believe me, they wish J.C. would say more in that vein, and I'm already reading political analysts on the web who share my view.

On the other hand, it's easy to prove Wilson's an uncouth boor and that he harmed national interests by gratuitously increasing partisan rancor, because all it takes is two eyeballs and YouTube. Which makes that a natural line of attack.

Reread what I posted. I'm interested in raising our political adroitness, and actions that actually advance our interests.

:dem:

or "Boy" or uppity, unless they are proud of their racism. So, the assertion that one should never label racism unless one has an express reference to race or a racial stereotype is very convenient indeed for racists. It allows them to get away with almost anything without being called out. No thanks.

As far as worrying about what what the right wing is going to say or how it is going to react--one of the dumbest things Democrats can do, IMO. That is exactly how they get to rule even when they are almost nothing but a regional minority.

You tell the truth, do the right thing and the devil take the hindmost.

because without that, we've got nothing.

But most people in America don't read fringe blogs (yes, we're a fringe blog). They have about 30 seconds of compressed coverage - if they have any at all - and they make a quick objective judgment. They need simple evidence, not nuance.

If Wilson is a racist the truth will out soon enough. Wouldn't surprise me in the least...and then he will be well and truly fucked by his own hand. (lol - the imagery is provocative.)

People are getting tired of racism accusations unless there's clear racism on display. Any psychology major can describe attenuation of the stimulus response over time. Or to be more colloquial, how many times should the boy call wolf? And then what happens when the wolf comes?

Anyone who hasn't already picked up on this general-population sentiment is naive.

But, I am glad you expressed your view because it has given rise to some responding posts that are really blessing me.

If he is a racist, the spotlight is now one him and it will reveal itself....and if not, then this additional racist call, is simply another false accusation....which weakens the democrats....

which people "are getting tired of racism accusations?" The racists? If there are actually wolves at Town Hall meetings, and in Congress, and at Teabagger marches carrying wolf signs, and wearing wolf hats, is it best to be silent so that we are not accused of crying wolf too often? Are you advocating that we only cry wolf when the wolf is coming after us directly, and not our president, neighbors, or fellow Americans?

Being a racist is not like being a criminal: racism is both Constitutional and legal. There is no specific act, or "standard of proof" that we can point to in order to positively charge someone with racism, unless they are overt racists and proud of it. For those covert racists who use innuendo, euphemisms, and oblique references to mask their intolerance and hatred, I totally agree with Justice Potter Stewart who said of pornography, "I know it when I see it." And, so does President Carter, and millions of other concerned Americans.

Anyone who believes that dormant racists aren't coming out of the woodwork because we have elected a "black man," to the highest office in our nation, is beyond naive. Anyone who believes that we should just allow racists to spew their intolerance and hatred in front of national news cameras, and let them go unchallenged for fear of "overusing" the accusation, is beyond belief. Anyone who believes that many of us who have been protesting racists and bigots for decades, only do so on the Internet from the comfort of our homes, is ill-informed. There is no such thing as "too much" protest when it comes to finishing the Civil Rights battle, and demanding full equality and civil respect for ALL Americans.

Due to the efforts of those who preceded the current generation, incidents of overt racism and bigotry have greatly declined in this country, and that has lulled many into a false sense of warm-and-fuzzy. Racists and bigots remain in large numbers, and because of President Obama's election, are resurgent. It is not our mission to convert existing racists and bigots, and convince them to change their mindsets and adopt more compassionate human values. It is our mission to hold them up to the light for scrutiny, and use them as deterrents and as examples of anti-social behavior to be avoided by the generations who will follow us. There is a much bigger picture here than just what is, or isn't, politically expedient for we Democrats, or a political concern for any concocted or perceived "general population sentiment."

The fight for the same values that cost more than 600,000 American lives in the Civil War remains as important today, as it did some 150 years ago -- and for the same reasons: to leave a better world and legacy for our descendants, than the one we inherited.

please explain to me which one of those two words was the racist word......

He's only said 2 words his whole life??? How did he get elected????

His actions speak louder than....

You obviously don't know anything about the man.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it also makes some other people deniers of racism, at least whenever it can be plausibly denied.

Luckily, President Jimmy is in the first group.

read my post at the bottom of this thread....or better yet, read the transcript! He never once Names anyone. He doesn't hint at any one. He just says that racism is alive and well in 21st century America.

I'm now from the South, specifically South Carolina.
Another poster mentioned the average IQ there of 89; mine is at genius level.
Playing the "race card" is getting old.

Joe Wilson is an immigration law attorney.
The statement that Obama made was false.
In the bill as it stood then, there were no effective ways of denying
government subsidized health insurance to an illegal.
That does not mean medical care. By law, all have to get it.
It does mean that an illegal, needing life extending treatment, should have to return to his/her home country to get it.
I would favor government tax-payer funded aid to do that.
Wilson's outburst was improper, driven by emotion, since the public statement was so much at odds with the truth.

I notice that the videos, photos and avatars at the DU tend to be overwhelmingly white.
Why is that?

Concerning racism in the South, it exists.
However from personal experience I have found that it existed to a far greater
extent in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn, and the greater Boston area.

It also existed quietly in some Liberal gatherings in NYC when I was an activist there.

The bottom line is a reasonable level of civilized behavior.

Savage behavior, no matter what the color or ethnic background of the perpetrator is,
show never be tolerated of excused.

Joe Wilson's outburst was unacceptable.
So were the recent on-stage actions of Kanye West.

President Obama's leaked description of him was accurate.
He might have added "drunken" to the epithet, since it was reported that
West was taking some good Cognac hits before hand.

On the other hand, Serena's outburst, while also unacceptable, was probably the result of being too competitively pumped up
against an unexpectedly tough opponent.

Did you check this claim out for yourself?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/did_joe_wilson_lie_about_having_been_an_immigratio.php?ref=mp

While you're at it, prove what Obama said was false. Where in the bill does it provide Fed $$$ for illegal immigrants?

I dug back on this.
My original reference was a press report of his statement:

"I'm for immigration, legal immigration, I've been an immigration attorney."

which I accepted at face value.

I could find no evidence that Joe Wilson had been anything else than a real estate attorney.

After helping someone else navigate the horrible maze of an immigration matter, I am keenly aware
that immigration law is not a casual pursuit.

Joe Wilson lied about that.

His association with Strom Thurmond I was not aware of, and is a haevy negative to me.
In my area, the races (all of them) get along quite well.

The incidence of KKK types is much higher in Boston and Bay Ridge than it is here.
There even a major Washington Post columnist who resides not too far away.

Your allegation is correct.

You've officially bested the media, who keeps repeating this BS claim without doing what you just did.

Here's something else they're not reporting:

Joe Wilson was for federal health care $$ for illegal immigrants (before he was so "passionately" against it).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/joe-wilson-voted-to-provi_n_284034.html

:wtf:

Haven't been in Bay Ridge in a while, but I call bs as to Boston.

Part of my family is from the area around Boston.
No, people did not run around wearing hoods.
But on the other hand, if someone of color dared to move into the 'hood, there was often violence.
It has moderated to a good extent, but many areas in the South have better racial relations than Boston.
Perhaps I should have used LA as a present day example.

First, you are puling a bait and switch. You said there ARE more KKK types in Boston than in SC. ARE. Present tense. SC today and Boston today.

Second, violence did not "often" happen when people moved into a white neighborhood. That is a lie, straight up. Were there isolated incidents in, say, 1955? Maybe. But what the fuck was SC like in 1955?

Second, having been challenged, you are now backpedalling, and trying to compare the Boston of long ago with the SC of today. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. We can talk, say, Boston 1955 and SC 1955 or Boston today and SC today. Which would you prefer?

BTW, that's twice now that you posted bs, then backpedaled when called on it. Just sayin'

I am not doing a backpedal.
I was trying to be reasonable.
However, you stay in pit bull attack mode.
That is your problem.

I will stand by the following statement, which can be backed up:

This is more racial harmony in a number of areas in the South then there is in a number of areas outside the South.

That is truth.

I could also say that there is more deep-rooted, and ingrained cultural racism in the antebellum South (and the other Red States), than in most parts of the country. That statement is especially true when you include Latin-Americans, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, Jewish-Americans, AND African-Americans. The rapid growth of organized (and armed) hate groups is not occurring in the North, or on the two coasts, but mainly in the former Confederate neoconservative Red States.

Is there racism present in every State in our Union? Of course there is, but the majority of the Town Hallers, the Baggers, and the Birthers, are from the neoconservative Red States.

The perception of "truth" is often at odds with the reality of "truth."

The language in the bill, refusing coverage to illegals only pertained to "affordability credits", nothing else.
That is something Obama chose to omit.

Although Wilson did not practice law, he was and is very active on immigration issues in Congress, which requires a knowledge of the laws.
He should not have said that he "practiced".

"...the majority of the Town Hallers, the Baggers, and the Birthers, are from the neoconservative Red States."
What accurate statistics do you have to back up that claim?

You need to drop the Saul Alinski inspired ridicule names and use the true names:

Town Hallers - Americans who are fed up with non-representative representatives (includes democrats).
Baggers: Americans with grievances similar to the original original Tea Party: Taxation without Representation.
Birthers: American who want to know why so much information about Obama's past is being kept hidden.

These people come from all sections of the US.
Right labeled and Moderate labeled voters outnumber Democrat and left labeled voters, and they tend to vote to the right.
This is across the entire US.

Perhaps you will be content in living under a authoritarian oligarchy controlled by leftist elites.
I will not.
I will also not be content in living under an authoritarian oligarchy controlled by rightist elites.

This has been a common thread in my family tree, which fought against Jihadists in Afghanistan, Nazis in Europe, slavery in the Civil War, British Rule in the Revolutionary War, and arrived here in 1652.

Now we may have to fight against a coup d'etat here.

many excuses and apologists for hatred, bigotry, and racism in many places on the Internet, but you will hold a special place in my memories as one of the most asinine posters I have ever run across. Your braggadocio, pomposity, and arrogance are a monument to the Libertarian-like, "rugged individualist," self-important, frame-of-mind which is such a very vocal minority across this country now. Your reference to a "coup" appears to be a thinly-veiled threat that you would support the overthrow of our lawfully elected government. That is sad, and pathetic.

You are more than free to post anything you wish, and I do not believe that you are a "conscious" racist. You are most likely something much worse: an ideologue on a mission to instill fear and hatred among those unfortunate enough to fall under your influence, or pay much attention to you. Fortunately, there is not much chance of that happening here.

Enjoy your pizza...

and your comments seem mostly true, but none of them belie the fact that, regardless of the content of his comment or the validity of his remark, his unprecedented calling-out of the President during his speech to the joint session of congress was a racist act. He could have shouted anything and it would have amounted to the same. It was unprecedented. It was demeaning. And, I believe, it was racist.

peace

and Wilson took the first step --
that's why this had to be stopped immediately.

They also did as much as they could to create disrespect in the military for Clinton --
but W and the 5 deferments Cheney had clear sailing!

Carter was victim of the GOP desire to create disrespect for a president --
every effort was made to make him look like a fool.

judgment and observations over anyone who posts on, or contributes to, Slate every time. I too, have spent time in the South, and racists like Wilson (and much worse) abound. Jimmy Carter has firsthand knowledge of that which he speaks, and he has always been honest and forthcoming to a fault. You may also be surprised at the number of "non-activist" and average Americans who read the posts on Democratic Underground without directly participating, so we are preaching to many thousands more than just our own "choir."

Your, and other's, calls to "take the high road" and ignore racism where and when it pops up its ugly little cracker-assed, rednecked, head, is the apologist approach: "Aw, they don't really mean to be racists -- they just have policy disagreements with President Obama." The other completely asinine apologist argument is that we are wasting valuable time and energy on racism, and should focus on more important matters.

More important fucking matters! What in the hell could be more important than attempting to publically call out the ignorant, intolerant, remaining opponents of the Civil Rights Movement, than by shining a big, bright, spotlight on them every chance we get, now that they are coming out of the woodwork like the cockroaches they are? According to the "Progressive" apologists and the "ignore it, and it will go away," proponents, the Civil Rights Movement that so many brave Liberal Americans have fought and died for, has been won, and we can all just thank Abraham Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK, and the thousands of others who died, for their service and dedication, dispatch their legacies to the pages of history, and get on with our pitiful "it ain't my problem" lives.

Well, this is one Civil Rights marcher that will not just turn over and play dead while the racists and their right-wing handlers hurl obscene epithets at my President, and openly call for his death. I have seen entirely too many great leaders gunned down by radical bigots in my lifetime, and I will NOT be quiet.

and I appreciate it.

as i mentioned in another post, there is no "honor" in minimizing and/or denying the problem of racism in america. in fact, minizing and denying is a huge part of the reason we are NOW only 50+ years into a society where people of color have the same rights as white people.

:eyes:

The race card has been played so many times instead of citing actual causes that it no longer weakens our opponents...it strengthens them.

Even worse, on those occasions when it should be played, no one except those already on board thinks anything of it.

Wilson was/is a complete rude dickhead and an underminer of unity and national over party interests. That's the most effective line of attack by far.

Racism is not a game. It is an institution in this country that has deep roots. Most people, including many minorities have grown up in this country with the subconscious belief that the American way is the White American way and that they are 2nd class citizens. You do realize that it was only 40 to 50 years ago that Black people and other minorities did not even legally share the same rights as White people don't you? You are telling us that a White man from the South, with ties to an organization known to promote White Christian identity politics, who has said racist things before, is not motivated by race? You are telling us that this group of almost exclusively White protesters who are holding up pictures of our President calling him an African and a Muslim terrorist are not motivated by his race?

Now, there are times when people have used the oppression of their ethnic group as a defense when it was not applicable, but this is not one of them. There is a small but vocal group of people who are scared to death of the implications of having a minority, especially a Black President. They are afraid of what that will mean to their way of life. What if Black Presidents become common place? What if Latinos become a majority group and are elected to the highest office? What if a Black or Latino woman becomes the President? What will happen to us?

Not every single protest and criticism against President Obama is racist, but to say that the "race card" is being "played" too much is dismissive of a major problem this country has had and continues to have with how the current White majority relates to and treats minority groups.

It implies that mentioning the possibility of racism as the underlying motive shouldn't be done. Shutting down discussion that way enables subtler forms of racism.

and deliberately dismisses anyone who may try to bring up the problem of racism without having to actually discuss it. (Which of course suits the racists and their apologists just fine of course.) Considering the deadly effects of racism in this country it's a phrase I consider to be highly offensive.

THANK YOU Jimmy Carter!

:rofl: