He calls it racism...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

>>And I know more than a few people who voted for Obama precisely because he was black. Which is the more racist?

Racism isn't, nor ever, has been confined to just one ethnic group of people. It's in many places, and more common then most think. Thanks for illustrating my point.

But there's a huge difference between how people think and what people do. Actionable racism is in decline. Perhaps people THINK certain ways, but we've become accustomed to calling damned near everything racist.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Aramike

But there's a huge difference between how people think and what people do. Actionable racism is in decline. Perhaps people THINK certain ways, but we've become accustomed to calling damned near everything racist.

I would have to agree here. Actionable racism is declining perhaps. That one we would have to look at hate crims % from city to city. Bare in mind it happens both way thought. You are correct, some will twist anything into making it look like racism. 'You lie=racism' See how easy that was?

The question is when did Jimmy become senile, before or after his presidency?

Jimmy Carter walks back racism charge With video

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27808.html

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

The question is when did Jimmy become senile, before or after his presidency?

Jimmy Carter walks back racism charge With video

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27808.html

I think it was during if I recall.

Yea heard about his backpeddeling doesent supprise me. I think he was expecting more 'support' in his views.

[AVGWarhawk]

Imagine that Just another growing phenomenon eh Skybird?

[Skybird]

Trying to score by tricks again? Carter did not link his racism remark to the "You lie-incident" in the way it is misquoted since then. In fact Carter said that part of the general attacks on Obama and the allout opposition to him is based on racism.

Originally Posted by BBC article originally linked

Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".
(...)
Angry town hall meetings and a recent taxpayers' demonstration in Washington have been vitriolic towards the president, reports the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell.
Many have not just protested against the president's policies but have accused him of tyranny, and have promised to "reclaim America".
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national programme on healthcare," Mr Carter said at a public meeting at his Carter Center in Atlanta held prior to the Congress vote on Tuesday.
"It's deeper than that."

Responding to a question specifically on Mr Wilson's outburst, he said Mr Obama was the head of state as well as the head of government and - like heads of state elsewhere - he should be "treated with respect".
It was a "dastardly thing to do", he said.

That'S how I recall it very precisely. That's what the BBC-article quoted him with.

And even propaganda..com had to hide in its text that that is what Carter said:

Originally Posted by politico.com

“By the way, that’s not what I said,” Carter interjected as he was being asked about the comment. “If you read the remarks carefully, you’ll see that’s not what I said.”

“I said those that had a personal attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism,” Carter explained. “But I recognize that people who disagree with him on health care or the environment, that the vast majority of those are not tinged by racism.”

“I meant exactly what I said,” he continued. “What I actually said, if you look at the transcript, is what I just repeated to you.”

To characterise Carter correcting the magazine misquoting him as "Carter backing away from former staztements he gave in reply to Wilson", is simply - a lie, in the end. If they write that "Carter touched off a firestorm three weeks ago when he said Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) “You Lie!” outburst was “based on racism” ", then this is simply not true this way, and is an example of extremely bad and biased, distorting propaganda-journalism that FOX and other Republican sources are very happy with if only it serves their interests.

There is no doubt that Carter did not reply in explicit reaction to the you-lie-incident. but possible that interested rightwinged amrican media and sources try to make it appear as that. Lovely. And so honest.

[SteamWake]

Ive heard the audio and Jimmay said something about 'vast majority being racilay motivated' now he recants.

Nah no trickery here Jimmay stepped in it it just took him a couple of weeks to realize it.

Two videos

Wednesday, 16 September 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

10/1/09 2:30 PM EDT

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27808.html

What did he say in video #1? "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"

In video #2 he claims to mean what he said in video #1

A personal, some crazy 'p' word, attack he is just trying to lie his way out of his senility. Sorry not buying it.

He called everyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

[Skybird]

I sometimes wonder if you guys can really master your own English languge.

Originally Posted by

Transcript of Former President Jimmy Carter's Remarks on Racism at an Emory University Townhall Meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2009

Question: Do you still believe that racism is an issue that President Obama is facing in passing bills in Congress?

President Carter: Yes, I do. Let me answer this question very carefully.

I think it is completely legitimate, and to be expected, to have tough, sometimes even unfair debates about major issues that face our country. Health care is one. I think it is within the bounds of political propriety, for instance, for opponents of President Obama's proposal to raise the false claim that there are death squads, and that everybody that is over 65 years old is going to be deprived of medical care, to let them die early. Those are the kinds of claims that have been made against them. That's okay.

But when a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the President of the United States of America as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, or when they waved signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds of the way Presidents have ever been accepted, even with people who disagree.

And I think people that are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African-American. It's a racist attitude, and my hope is, and my expectation is, that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the President of the United States.

If you do not believe it, see it here, in full, live:


If one googles, many sources claim that he gave parts of that comment in direct reply to questions about what he think about that you-Lie-Incident. That way they want to construct a situation that Carter is claimed to have said Wilson is a racist.

But get it in your heads, guys: that simple did not happen.

But the propaganda effort is directed against one of your most favourite hate-figures, Carter. And that is the only reason why you applaud it. If there is anything you want to point out as questionable in Carter's else remarkably reasonable and sensible remarks, then that he says that bullying an opponent in a debate by putting things into his mouth and claiming lies about him like him wanting to establish death squads, is "okay". It is not, and it is no practicing of free speech, but practicing free lying. It is perverting free speech by turning it into a tool of destroying speech alltogether. Because you cannot have a reasonable debate wioth soembody who thinks it is legitimate for him to lie and to bully if it helps him to win over his opponent. That simply is shabby behavior and a level of hostility that turns the debate not into something constructive, but into destruction. Talking to such a person is pointless, simply.

Which this forum often has given evidence of, too. I can sing an endless song about having been misquoted, quoted ouzt of cointext, things put in my mouth, and that way making claims about what I should have said and meant that as a matter of fact I never have said.

This status of things into which political culture in the US and it's media has degenerated over the recent years, is the reason why the US society is so very much and very fanatically polarised.

I googled many pages and blogs and newspaper on this issue, and I found that almost all of them made wrong links between what was asked, what Carter did adress, and what he actually said. It was scaring becasue it shows that the media, despite the vital critical role it should play in a democratic order, is totally and completely failing it's responsibility. And this is utmost worrying.

Forgive me if I point out that the first argument was that folks who disagreed with Mr. Obama because of racism and Jimmy was just pointing that out. Now the argument is that Jimmy didn't call disagreement racism and so where does the supposition now stand? Racism or not? If not why the disagreement. If so then Jimmy is not a good spokesman against racism, because he just recinded his own words.

Originally Posted by Skybird

... and I think since quite a while now that that assessment is absolutely right. The level of totally derailed hostility and almost irrational hate tirades against Obama, comparing him to the worst criminals and massmurderes in the history of mankind, cannot be just differing opinion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

He called everyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

English, some people just can't understand the actual language even if it is the language they seem to use themselves.

Forgive me if I point out that the first argument was ......

Wrong. Try again.

Now the argument is that ......

Wrong. try again.

If you cannot even properly identify the arguements how on earth can you claim they are in disagreement and are being recinded.

[Skybird]

I will not sort it out once again for you, CB, or anybody else, I have repeatedly done that now, above. Either you can follow a speaker, and correctly understand to what he responds and to what not, or you cannot.

Either you can follow a speaker, and correctly understand to what he responds and to what not, or you cannot.

I am glad you didn't use the word context, as that just confuses him.