Political Discussions
Jimmy Carter calls dissenters racists.
Posted by anticsrocks • 9/19/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: carter, dissent, obama, racism
Jimmy Carter recently said -
"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,'' Carter said. "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief of many white people, not just in the South but in the rest of the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves and concerns me very deeply."
On the face of it, Carter would seem to be the person we as a society might turn to about this particular topic. But how has our former President conducted himself in regards to racism?
"Readers should refer to Stephen Hayward's The Real Jimmy Carter if they want a taste of the out-and-out racism that Carter employed in order to defeat moderate former Gov. Carl Sanders for the Democratic nomination that year. As Hayward's book points out:
* Carter's top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter's leaflet was intended to depress Sanders's white vote.
* "The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."
* Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. "I don't think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state," said Carter."
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters...
The article goes on to highlight other racist acts that Carter employed to get elected, but I guess even former Presidents have skeletons in their closets...
User Comments
-
I generally distrust the Washington Examiner on national politics for the same reason that you will trust it: its overt ideological slant.
Leaving that aside, though, since it is not an argument in itself, how logical is it to try to undermine the validity of Carter's analysis about America in 2009 with anecdotes about behavior back i 1970? If the accusations against Carter in 1970 were true, would that somehow negate what he said in 2009? Do I really need to dig out that list of logical fallacies again? Which one do you think this would be? The old two wrongs make a right fallacy? -
Carter really understands what it takes to be president. Especially because his went so well.-
That's an argument against Carter's claims about a phenomenon in America today how? It's not.
-
-
-
(1) Your argument in the first paragraph of this first post is an Ad Hominem, a personal attack, that is, not an argument at all. Your LOL is also an "Appeal to Ridicule," another non-argument
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
(2) Your OP and your second and third paragraphs represent nothing more than an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, nothing more, not actual arguments.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
(3) Your last paragraph in this newest post is correct, no matter what the newspaper was referring to, which is why I also stated, "Leaving that aside, though, since it is not an argument in itself . . ." I stated my preferences, my problems with the paper, but also made clear that that is not an argument in itself. -
I saw the Carter clip. He actually didn't claim that all who disagree with Obama are racists. He said that racism exists and some of those who disagree with Obama are doing so because of race. -
Indeed, xmarks. That's what I caught on NPR this morning as well.
-
He implied no such thing, antics. He would have alienated me too, if he had. Words like some, many, most, a few, and so on matter a great deal.
-
"How does the fact that Carter stooped to racist tactics to win elections have anything to do with his accusing all who disagree with Obama of being racists?"
I prefer to deal in facts. What you claim Carter said is simply untrue. Now you claim to know what EVERY far left lib does. Presumably you have met, read or have studied EVERY one? -
"He implied no such thing, antics. He would have alienated me too, if he had. Words like some, many, most, a few, and so on matter a great deal."
Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he's African-American."
Nope, he didn't use words like some, many, most of a few. He used the words "overwhelming portion."
He implied that the "overwhelming portion" of opposition to Obama is because "he's African-American."
Are you alienated yet?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b5xoUHCBsk -
Hmmm, I notice "someone" is unusually quiet about this now. I guess "someone" doesn't have the integrity it takes to admit they were wrong and Mr. Carter did imply that those "overwhelming portion" who oppose Obama are doing so because he is "African-American."
-
@xmarks...I provided the video link showing Carter saying, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he's African-American." So he did, in fact say it. I did not lie. I did not exaggerate.
I also provided the link that shows what Carter did to win elections. He employed racist tactics. So that goes to the very heart of whether he is qualified to call those who oppose Obama racists.
It shows the hypocrisy that runs rampant on the left. -
You claimed "his accusing ALL who disagree with Obama of being racists"
He said "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he's African-American."
when you claim something that isn't factual, what do you call it?. -
I said - "Carter may not have said all who oppose El Presidente are racists, but he implied it."
What do you call the "overwhelming portion?" He is implying that those who protest (and remember the context, he was being asked about the 9/12 Protesters) are doing so because of racism. -
Carter actually muddies the waters even more here with the phrase "overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity," because he is talking about the animosity, not the people who hold it. But if we overlook that, "overwhelming portion" to me means "a significant amount." It would be a fair question to ask him whether he meant "most" or "a lot." With no statistical evidence, I would venture "a lot" as the safe answer, were I making the accusation myself, but "most" might work too, especially since he did not say, "most Obama haters are racist." Instead he said ""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." He was talking about racism, to be sure, but also more subtle angst that some have. Racial attitudes in this country are complex. It's often not as simple as saying someone is either racist or not. There is a whole spectrum of possible feelings and attitudes between these two polls. Carter's language did justice to that fact.
Now the thing is, we could actually have a real discussion here, but the content of the OP prevents that, because it sets up false claims. Of course, Carter's own comments were not helpful, because, no matter their truth content, they amount to an attack on the character of the birthers, militia-types, right-wing political leaders, pundits, and any average citizen who hates Obama. I've made those kind of attacks myself here, but not a lot of people care what I have to say, just a few random readers here at best. Carter's words, on the other hand, have resonance. Maybe he still needed to say it. But maybe this NPR columnist has a point: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112960207. Of course, to discuss this we'd actually have to agree on what Carter said. And I've never seen a discussion about race on this thread go anywhere good. -
Big difference between imply and infer.
-
Yes, Carter implied it and the rest of us inferred it.
-
He said what he said, already quoted too much in this thread.
You inferred what you inferred. Now you claim everyone else inferred the same. Clearly that is not the case are we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion. -
*shrug*
-
-
Carter et. al. are showing just how desperate the left is getting,
Accusing someone of racism when their beef is clearly something else is just a way of shutting down the argument and in some diluted fashion claimin a victory based on the false premise presented.
This argument has been used against dissenters of things like affirmative action etc. for a long time. If you don't agree/love it, it can't be for any other reason than being a racist.
The best part of this is that the "racist" charge will be rendered toothless.
If not liking overspending, big government, Socialist programs etc. is the same as being racist, then racist just isn't that bad of a title to have anymore.-
And here we are dealing with a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem." (www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)
-
are you accusing me or carter?
-
It should be clear from the placement of my post that I was discussing the nature of your argument.
-
Interesting myopia. lets review then.
You say that this is Circumstancial Ad Hominem.
And your link described this with the following examples:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
So lets start with 1.
Person A (tea party participant, Hereby named TPP) makes the claim "stop spending money"
Person B (Carter) makes the claim that it is in TPP's interest to make claim B (Because he/she is racist)
Claim "Stop spending money" is false.
This is a FALLACY in accordance with YOUR link.
Or ... lets examine example B
Person TPF makes claim "stop spending money"
Person Carter makes attack on person A's circimstance (being white, and racist)
CLaim X is false.
Also a FALLACY according to YOUR own link.
Now, please explain how you would apply this to me.
Oh, and BTW, i've reported your original link since it seems you are calling me a racist. -
Oh my. No. That's not what I was doing. I was looking at a logical fallacy. In this case, you were/are attempting to undermine Carter's claims not by looking at the merits of what he is saying, but by saying it is in the left's supposed interest to say something like that. And because it is supposedly in the left's interest, Carter's claim is false.
This was variation no. 1 at that link, the first one you site above, i.e.,
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
Your problem here is that you chose the false entry point for your analogy. I guess next time I'll have to spell it out instead of just saying what happened. -
I didn't choose a "false" entry point. My point is that the Tea Party Protesters are getting called racists for not liking large government and out of control spending.
Carter is the person with the fallacy as i clearly proved, nothing has been presented to prove that my point was 'False".
The use of the "logical fallacy" claim without ability to justify why one would call on it only proves that it's an attempt to discredit tht point when no real argument can be made. -
You want proof of what? That race is a factor in some of the Obama angst out there? There are lots of good examples in the first half of this opinion piece (which I already cited above), including some words from Tea Party leader Mark Williams: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112960207.
Of course, as is being discussed on a different sub-thread above, no one is talking about "all." So no one has called you a racist personally, though, as I suggest in the same sub-thread above, I get why Carter has ruffled feathers. Now if we could only discuss facts and not false characterizations of Carter and others who also see the same thing going on. (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/jimmy-carter-calls-dissenters-ra...)
To talk about a lack of proof, you'd have to actually address the indicators being discussed by the other side, not just say there is no proof. And by addressing the evidence, I don't mean coming up with examples of racism among Blacks, which is a tactic I've seen here a lot, according to the old two wrongs school of fallacious logic.
On a different note, it seems we're also talking at cross purposes when it comes to the circumstantial Ad Hominem logical fallacy, but I don't think there's any more I can say about it, except maybe to point out that you have tried to rebut what I said about your argument by changing the subject, hoping to score points, I guess, that would somehow apply to my own observation. That's not how sound arguments work, though. -
You never said anything about my argument, and still haven't.
As always, you claim to have some point, but you never make it. -
I thought I did. You don't have one. Unless logical fallacies count as arguments. But as I said, we are talking at cross purposes; we're talking past each other; and apparently we're doing it in different languages. I've done my best to understand and engage what you're saying. If that's not good enough, oh well.
-
"I thought I did. You don't have one. Unless logical fallacies count as arguments. But as I said, we are talking at cross purposes; we're talking past each other; and apparently we're doing it in different languages. I've done my best to understand and engage what you're saying. If that's not good enough, oh well."
This would be rule #3 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, a favorite of the far left.
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
-
-
SNL has a pretty funny sketch related to this story maybe two thirds of the way into their Thurs. special episode. Jimmy Carter versus Michael Steele. True to SNL tradition, both figures take hits. www.hulu.com/watch/96411/saturday-night-live-thu-sep-17-2009
-
I recall shortly after the election, NPR featured a show (i'm not able to find it presently) about canvassers trying to convince union members to vote for Obama. One major obstacle was in trying to convince some to vote for a black man. It would be hard to assume that all such individuals were part of the far right.
The fact is that a significant portion (perhaps a majority) of people of all races have some degree of racism. Such tendencies seem to be mitigated by education and interracial interaction.
It has not been my position that racism is EXCLUSIVE to those who oppose Obama. Simply that it has infused some opposition with an extra degree of fervor.
It has shown up in joke emails, in serious chain emails about his wanting to make us like his "communist tribe" in Kenya, in the way people have purposely misspronounced the word "inauguration." Racism exists, even in our "post-racial" world.-
Yes, it is easy to forget how race also figured into the Democratic primary season.
And the joke and chain emails are good examples, because they went viral in parts of the population. The mispronunciation of "inauguration" is new to me, but it sure makes sense.
Obama's own handling of this has been interesting. For the most part, he has not engaged it, because such engagement can only make things worse. But there was that famous speech last year after the Wright thing. And there was the beer summit this year. Avoiding the issue completely has been impossible for him. Moreover, he has no problem drawing on a kind of colloquial black idiom as it suits him, without, however, making himself into a laughing stock, as Michael Steele frequently does. (Interesting and related commentary: www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=18059)
-
-
As long as Carter is alive he will forever be trying to stay revelant in the public eye. His legacy as president will always haunt him. It was bound to happen...his remarks on racism towards the current President have nothing to do about his concerns, and everything to do with Jimmy. If he wants to label me as a racist for protesting trillion dollar deficits,paying the unions tab on health care,use the myth of Global Warming to tax the hell out of Americans,and continue his drive to socialize this country, fine with me. This is the guy that drove America to near ruin and was attacked by a "killer rabbit" during his time in the White House. I seriously wonder if he should even be holding a hammer and saw these days.
Edisto Joe
The Edisto Joe Outlook
www.edistojoe.com-
And we're back to more logical fallacies. Instead of addressing Carter's argument, you are attacking Carter on other grounds.
First there is the Circumstantial ad Hominem, as I described above.
> Person A [Jimmy Carter] makes claim X.
> Person B [Edistojoe] asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
> Therefore claim X is false.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
We're also talking about a regular ad Hominem:
> Person A [Carter] makes claim X.
> Person B [Edisttojoe] makes an attack on person A.
> Therefore A's claim is false.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Lastly, you are assuming that Carter called all opponents of Obama racist, which he did not. See the long sub-thread above on this last point (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/jimmy-carter-calls-dissenters-ra...).
-
-
Ok, lets talk racially motivations.
www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.asp...
WHITE NON-WHITE BLACK HISPANIC
44 73 93 61
45 74 91 68
43 71 86 68
45 72 91 67
46 73 92 69
47 79 96 77
46 76 94 68
47 79 95 72
51 81 94 79
51 78 91 75
52 82 96 81
52 83 94 81
53 76 95 72
54 79 94 75
55 83 95 82
56 81 90 79
57 82 91 78
56 83 91 85
60 84 96 83
58 84 92 84
57 85 96 85
55 82 94 79
54 79 92 75
57 75 91 70
54 79 95 74
58 77 92 70
55 79 90 74
55 80 96 76
58 79 94 73
56 78 91 76
58 81 91 77
59 79 92 73
61 80 90 75
63 78 86 74
Top date represents Jan 19-25
Last date represents Sept 7-13
Whites , Approval drop from 63 - 48, with an average of 53
Non Whites Approval drop from 78-73, with an average of 78
Blacks Approval rise from 86 to 93 - with an average of 92.5
Hispanic Approval drop from 74 to 61 with an average of 75
Whites/Non Whites and Hispanics Approval Drop
Blacks, Approval Increase.
Someone fill in the blanks on racially motivated approval on Obama please.-
Relevance? You are assuming a direct correlation between these approval ratings and what Carter referred to, which was "the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama." The latter is a subset of those who disapprove of the job Obama is doing, and you cannot draw conclusions about the latter based only on the former.
Put differently, it seems you're dealing with a logical fallacy called Division:
> 1. The whole, X [the people in your polls], has properties A, B, C, etc.
> 2. Therefore the parts of X [those manifesting "the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama"] have properties A, B, C, etc.
See www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html for why this is a fallacy.
Demonstrating that your logic is fallacious on this count does not make Carter right, of course. That's a separate issue, and we've offered some evidence above that you have not yet addressed. -
Yada yada logical fallacy,
I knew the second you posted that thread that you would keep throwing it in on every post you didn't want to argue the facts on.
Predictable, at least you are consistent.
I just spent the morning with one of the most staunch Obama opponents i've ever met. An african american who is convinced that Obama will set back the African Americans in this country 10 years by being the worst president imaginable. Interesting how he must be the small minority of the majority...
Carter made a statement concerning the "vast majority" of opponents, A statement on his own oppinion, that someone actually considers this to be something factual is ludicrous.
However the numbers i posted show that there is a huge discrepancy, All but the black community is showing a lowering of support for Obama.
when you measure 4 groups, and three of them show similarities, and one is showing the exact opposite, it shows something other than what Carter would denote.
Unless of course you want to argue that this isn't white's only, But whites, non whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc.. That all hate blacks, and only blacks are judging him on his merits. -
The only argument I'm seeing buried in the interesting anecdote and personal attack is this statement of yours: "when you measure 4 groups, and three of them show similarities, and one is showing the exact opposite, it shows something other than what Carter would denote." But is this an argument? You're still making that Division mistake.
As I said verbatim above, 'you are [still] assuming a direct correlation between these approval ratings and what Carter referred to, which was "the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama." The latter is a subset of those who disapprove of the job Obama is doing, and you cannot draw conclusions about the latter based only on the former.'
Attacking my person to undermine this observation doesn't cut it. That just muddies the waters further. You already know about personal attacks, but maybe you don't see how in an discussion they are a logical fallacy as well? See www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html. And logical fallacies do mean something. They mean that you don't have an argument, unless you can construct one without them. Why not try? -
Muddles the waters further....
At least we can agree that you muddle the waters, whether I do it further or not is another issue.
And as always, you presume to discuss the premise made by carter, which has ZERO Factual backings produced by you or anyone else here.
And you refuse to discuss the facts that are presented.
Facts don't sit well -
I have discussed the merits of Carter's case in several places in this thread. Look.
-
As near as I can tell, there were no personal attacks here by either side, so I'm wondering what admin thinks it was doing. Something about digressing in its opinion. Since I wasn't, and Antics wasn't either, I'm confused.
-
-
When Carter made his ludicrous statement he based it solely on his perception of the political climate Obama faces today. The case has no merits and is self serving. You can try to explain his reasoning,or defend his words any way you want but you will not convince me or thousands of others that he is anything more than another left wing nut fanning the fires of racism to score political points in their losing battle for public support. Your argument in defense of his statement is an insult to all voting Americans.
Edisto Joe
The Edisto Joe Outlook-
I don't see any actual arguments in your statements, just insults, an appeal to belief, and apparently a statement that anyone who accepts Carter's statement is insulting himself or herself, if he or she is a voter. Such reasoning is the norm here on BC, but all it accomplishes is to preach to the choir, not convince anyone else of the merits of your case. Still, I suppose there's value in that, if you're looking to connect to like-minded people, not prove the merits of your case.
-
And that is an argument how?
-
Nice find Antics,
Touché -
Mine was not a rhetorical question. I have been referring to rules of logic on this and some other threads, something I thought was a desirable quality in any argument, whether it is made by a liberal, a conservative, or anyone of any other political stripe you can imagine. You, however, appear to be rejecting logic as some sort of liberal trap. In its place you are referring to rules that you say only apply to "radicals." So I ask you, how does this frame of reference relate to what is being discussed here, whether the question of Carter or my insistence on following elementary rules of logic? Are you saying that logic is a liberal trick? If not, what exactly are you saying?
-
"Mine was not a rhetorical question."
That is why I answered you, rhetorical questions require no answer. Most teachers know that.
"...what exactly are you saying?"
I believe that it is evident as to what I am saying. I have noticed that you employ certain repetitive tactics that fall into the category of radical community organizing, i.e. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
Simply by reading statements, anyone can see what tactics are being used. You rarely, if ever concede to anyone else's point, usually avoid replying to what is being said, and almost nearly always try to misdirect the conversation to minimize your opponent's view point. These tactics are straight out of Alinsky's bible - Rules for Radicals.
What I am doing is merely deconstructing your methods. No attack here, I am not calling you a radical, racist, hate monger or anything else derogatory. I am simply stating the truth. Basically, I am doing the same thing to you that you have been doing to me. That is all, no evil hidden agenda here.
And let me repeat, I am NOT attacking you here, mark. -
If there is an argument that is logical and based on credible evidence, I address it. If the entire argument is built on false logic, then all I can do is address that—or ignore the arguments altogether.
But you are talking about vague generalities here, not any specific argument I have made, so the truth content of your generalities remains uncertain, even questionable, at least to the extent that I even understand your points.
All I see you doing is quoting from what you call "Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals," a source I know nothing about. I'm assuming it is something you consider to be bad, since it has the word "radical" in it, and I guess you are seeing it as a bag of evil tricks endemic to what you consider to be "radicalism." Since my most recent tact has been to actually engage your logic, I am still left with the impression that you think logic is a liberal or, as you might prefer, a "radical" trick.
Put differently, your argument still relies on an attack on me or my rhetorical tactics, not my actual arguments. In other words, you still rely on an Ad Hominem form of argument. Meanwhile, I can barely remember what we were even talking about. -
I am supposed to believe that you are an ardent supporter of Barack Hussein Obama and you do not know who Saul Alinsky is, or Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals?
Now either that is disingenuous, or you are very ill informed on Obama's community organizing background. I am sure that if I were to take the time and go back to threads from the election that Obama's community organizing and tutelage under the Alinsky method were both discussed.
And my arguments do not rely on attack. I am simply demonstrating that certain tactics taken on this board are closely aligned with the Saul Alinsky teachings.
-
-
Like most places the US has racists. Racists are unlikely to be very keen on Obama and this will influence the nature and tone of their argument.
British racists certainly don't like Obama. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsnSZnhygQY-
Polybore- The problem is not so much what Carter said, because he is talking about a very small minority of dissenters. And you are right, people that are racist will never like Obama, even if his policies turned into Reagen's. The bigger concern is when people like Maureen Dowd and Co. say that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist.
-
I can't believe that anyone with any credibility has said "everyone." See the sub-thread here, where a few of us have already covered this territory, albeit for Carter, not Dowd: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/jimmy-carter-calls-dissenters-ra...
-
wp
-
-
Why talk about Carter, or anything that is virtually irrelevant to the real issue? He has no bearing on the happenings in D.C., he is a side show that both the blogs and the media pick up on because it creates a lot of this kind of thing between people on different sides of the issues.
No one listens to Carter, haven't for years as far as I can tell.
The only thing people should worry about is what those in charge of the government think about it, if their president thinks that way, and from what I've heard he doesn't give it any credence.And those who speak for him say the following...
"I don’t think the president believes that people are upset because of the color of his skin. I think people are upset because on Monday we celebrate the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse that caused a financial catastrophe unlike anything we’ve ever seen.-
Yeah, it is a distraction. And you're right about Carter's political relevance. Still, sometimes I think its okay to have a party elder say what's on his mind. Kind of like someone's grandfather, who might say things that sound outlandish, but which might be worth at least thinking about. But Obama is right to treat it as an unnecessary distraction. The right, on the other hand, well, what else have they got? It must get tiresome spreading the same old lies about health care.
-
"The right, on the other hand, well, what else have they got? It must get tiresome spreading the same old lies about health care."
Well, as has been pointed out many, many times on BC, I am not the expert in spotting logical fallacies, but I am almost positive that is one...
Nope, on second thought, that is from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals...
Number 12, I believe - RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. -
Still not following you, antics. For starters, what do you mean by polarize? Since I don't know the text, I'll have to defer to what your own intent is, but to me "polarize" sounds like creating divisions, or dividing, as if you could go after your political enemy and sow divisions among it. Not really seeing how I could be doing that here, but maybe you have something completely different in mind.
As for the rest, well, I defer to www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/, which I believe the right still has a modicum of respect for, and factcheck.org, which is still legitimate, no matter the right's attempts to undermine its credibility. On both sides you will find problems with some of the statements on the Democratic side, but the "pants on fire" award seems to go to Republicans far more often. Hence my statement, based also on the actual events of this past summer, in the media and on this board.
Go ahead and analyze my rhetorical strategies, but such analysis is only interesting as a political argument here if you find my arguments are based on falsehoods. So far I'm not seeing you prove that. I point to logical fallacies, not to point to little errors, which I don't care about, but when entire threads and posts here are based on them. In other words, I find it useful to prove when people are making claims based on questionable logic and spurious claims.
So far, you still appear to be rejecting the notion that the logical fallacies posted at www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ are even real or a problem. Perhaps we could avoid this distraction in these threads by going to a thread I started on the topic, one to which you have not contributed. How about it? Here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/logical-fallacies. What do you think of them? Forget my use of them. What do you think of this summary of logical fallacies itself?
And how about your starting a separate thread on this other thing you've been citing, so that everyone can learn about that? You seem to think every liberal should know these so-called "rules for radicals." Dunno why you do, but I certainly have gotten by a few decades of political life without hearing about them. Care to enlighten me and anyone else interested on a separate thread? -
To say that you don't know who Saul Alinsky is or his very famous book is very hard to believe.
I will post on your thread if you feel that you need me to.
As far as you telling me what OP's to write, I will write what you want me to just as soon as you are the person who signs my paycheck. Barring that, stop trying to tell me what to write, especially when you hardly ever answer direct questions yourself. -
"Tell" you to do something? Really? I thought I used question marks. It was just an idea, after all, a mere suggestion.
-
-
Antics:
Back to your orginal post which got the ball rolling here. Yes, Carter has skeleton's in his closet on blacks and racism, but even more recently he has shown his distain for the Jews, basicly blaming them for all the ills in the Middle East. Racism is racism no matter what color.
Edisto Joe.-
My understanding is that his disdain is for Israel, more specifically the nation state of IsraeL, not for Jews. I think it is important to make that distinction. They are two different things as many "Jews" have told me.
-
Carter definitely does not like Israel. His administration voted for quite a few very unpopular (among Jewish voters) anti-Israel United Nations Security Council Resolutions during his tenure in the Oval Office. It has been said that the Jewish vote helped him win New York and defeat Gerald Ford and it also made him lose New York and consequentially lose to Reagan.
-
Lost connection, could not add -
Some say that Carter's admin voting for and repeatedly suporting anti-Isreal United Nations Security Council Resolutions really hurt him. He had the Jewish vote in the election against Ford, which enabled him to carry New York, but lost it in the election against Reagan - losing New York and thusly the election.
Also, then Georgia Governor Carter was rumored to have been against Maryland Governor Marvin Mandel becoming the chairman of the National Governors Association due to Mandel being Jewish. This is being told by Mandel himself and a very select few media people. In fact, the only reference I found for it was Tom Marr. -
anticsrocks: His stance on Palestine definitely hurt him. I can't say about Mandel, though it's something I can research easily enough, but I imagine the Israeli lobby was pretty strong then and it could have been easily made to look that way whether it was true or not.
-
I read somewhere once a quote about Carter, it went "He was a good man, but a poor President," or something like that.
Not sure I agree with the "good man" part, but the rest I can go along with. -
Have people forgotten how Carter helped achieve peace between Egypt and Israel. That's no small thing, no matter what you might think about Egypt or the shape of the peace. It also gives the lie to anyone who would call him anti-Semitic. Supporting the creation of a Palestinian state is not anti-Semitic. Labeling it as such is nothing but an attempt to delegitimize real debate about the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations.
-
-
If you hold disdain for the nation state of Isreal you also hold it for her people...the Jews. That comes from my wife of 30 years, herself a Jew.
Edisto Joe-
Begging your pardon, but your wife is one Jew, my boyfriend and his father are two more, they don't hold that view, one of my long time readers is celebrating her New Year this weekend as well, she in in between and see's both sides. I somehow doubt any of these people can lay claim to being the ultimate authority on this, nor can I. I can only read or listen to what he says and he has never spoke out against Jews, only the state of Israel. Your wife feels one way as does the very large and someone notorious Israeli lobby, other people, many of them Jews, and many of them currently living in Israeli, feel differently.
-
-
Sorry everyone, completely off topic but this conversation reminded me of that new book about the secret service. I saw an interview with the author and he said that Carter was incredibly nasty towards his secret servicemen. Ok, I am done. Back to your regularly scheduled talk.
-
The relationship between a president and his secret service detail has got to be a fraught one. What is supposed to be protection might at times feel like incarceration. Regardless, I doubt that there is a clear link between the presidential-Secret Service relationships and presidential politics.
-
Passive voice CLio..
care to research and revise?
-
-
For the record, I didn't see any comments that rose to the level of needing deletion on this thread. Of course, I would say that about mine, but I'm also talking about anticsrocks' comments. I suppose BlogCatalog is still feeling its way forward and might overreach now and again. Well, I'm sure the world can live without whatever I said, but I'll let anitcs speak for himself. Oh well.
-
The Washington Post published an article today called, "In S.C., One Road Divides Two Ways of Thinking: Views on Obama, and Race, Hold Firm." It is based on a couple dozen people, black and white, living in the same area, half of them in Rep. Wilson's district, the other half in Rep. Clyburn's.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103775.ht...
I am sure that different people here could read it and come to entirely different conclusions, depending on how the reader understands the language spoken by the particular interviewees. It doesn't prove anything either way, but it shows how people talk about race in that area, at least when they are talking openly with a newspaper reporter. -
*sigh* WAY too busy.... ZZZzzZzzz
All I am going to say is that Carter is the kind of guy who finally got things right outside the presidency because he couldn't do any of that inside. Carter is right about the racism to an extent too. Whether dissenters or not are exactly is questionable but it still is an issue regardless. If you don't think that it is let me express two facts: 1. MLKJ asked for us not to be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. & 2. THOUSANDS of people were ecstatic about our first "black" president. Funny how ignorance works... Same people would say we made history! I say they are right! History repeated...-
Our nation's self congratulation was about US, more than it was about Obama
-
I find it ironic that so many people on the left consider MLK nothing short of a living saint (to be clear, I am not trying to play down what he did). As liberty stated, the Reverend asked us to not judge others by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I find it ironic that the left who claims to be for equality, immediately blames racism as the key factor for dissent towards Obama. They also use the race card to stifle any debate they are not winning. Just look at some of the things Keith Olbermann or Maureen Dowd has said about white congressmen, ask yourself, would their comments really fly if directed towards a black person? Just look at some of the speeches of Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor. What if those same comments were given by a white preacher and directed towards a black man or community? Dissenters of Obama are white, therefore they must be racist. Does this not go against what MLK preached?
-
No No No Newblogger...
You should know by now that we can't hold the left to the same standards that they hold the right to.
If you even try that, especially with Rev. Wright you're a racist. Didn't you get that memo? -
Mark- The point I was trying to make was that some people on the left (like Dowd) go against exactly what MLK preached. Which was above all, equality. So the idea that Carter sits there and says people against Obama are racists (now granted he did not generalize the same way Pelosi has) because Carter sees a bunch of white people yelling at a black guy, he equates with racism. The same logic follows with the Huffington Post, NYT, and so forth. They are simply looking at the color of one's skin. White people yelling at a black man. The thoughts do not even cross their mind that people may be protesting because they are against Obama's policies. All these far left liberals see is white yelling at black, without judgment of character. This was the irony I was trying to point out.
-
Not sure what you mean by equality, which is a more complex issue than you might think. Equality before the law? Equality of opportunity?
Still think there's a bunch of smoke over nothing coming from the right on this issue. -
Mark- If that is how you are going to respond, I am not going to continue arguing. If you choose not to see the point I am trying to make, then we are done here.
-
So what did I say *now* that was deleted? Be nice if whoever is doing it would explain. I don't even remember what I said, but I do not recall attacking anyone.
-
you were "biting your tongue," if I recall.
-
Oh right. Guess I should've just spoken my mind, if I was going to get slapped down for it anyway.
-
Mark- I didn't feel that comment of yours was out of line that got removed. I just think BC is starting to remove anything that gets reported.
-
Yeah, that's how it feels. Presumably that will change soon, as they get used to this more active posture of moderation.
-
Agit8r, yes I know. That is why I said thousands rather than implying more, using words like majority or everyone. I simply cannot believe how many people like that I ran into that was happy about that. I even met two people who were voting for him on the sole reason that he was black.
-
even King Numbers can engage in Affirmative Action, appearently
-
-
Here are some views from Selma on the question of racism and opposition to Obama: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113138124
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
