Posted: 21 Sep 2009 11:49

First Rangel, then Carter and now Dave Matthews have all said this same garbage - if you oppose Obama, you're racist.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBI...ex.html
CNN: President Carter said he thinks that a lot of the animosity directed toward President Obama is race related.

Dave Matthews: Of course it is! I found there's a fairly blatant racism in America that's already there, and I don't think I noticed it when I lived here as a kid. But when I went back to South Africa, and then it's sort of thrust in your face, and then came back here -- I just see it everywhere. There's a good population of people in this country that are terrified of the president only because he's black, even if they don't say it. And I think a lot of them, behind closed doors, do say it.

Maybe I'm paranoid about it, but I don't think someone who disagreed as strongly as they do with Obama -- if it was Clinton -- would have stood up and screamed at him during his speech. (Shakes his head) I don't think so.

Is this the new tactic on the left - call anyone and everyone that disagree's with Obama's policies racist? Claim they are against the policy because they are "terrified of the president only because he's black"?

And better yet, what do Rangel and Carter and Matthews base these claims on? What studies do they have to support their positions? Or is this simply a self sustaining feeding frenzie - the more people we can get to make this claim, even if totally unsupported, the more merit it has?

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 12:03

Well, he gives us two pretty solid alternatives in his own words:

Quote:

There's a good population of people in this country that are terrified of the president only because he's black, even if they don't say it.

Either he's psychic, and can read people's unspoken thoughts.

Quote:

Maybe I'm paranoid..

Or he's paranoid and delusional.

Take your pick.

Of course, he might be right. However, consideration of that problem leads us to the shocking realization, which I am sure no-one has considered, that maybe there's an element within black Americans that supports Obama for no other reason than that he is black. Hard to believe, I know, but it's at least possible. This would of course be equally racist. Just in case, I propose that Mr Matthews should go to the nearest area to him which is densely populated by black people and tell them just how racist many of them might be. He shouldn't hesitate to add that even though many of them might publicly attest that they're not racist, he, Dave Matthews, knows better.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 13:09

Subliminally, I think they're really just saying (or accusing) people are closet racists, just to make people feel ashamed for doubting the president.

If I were to disagree with the president, I'd be very upset over the accusation that I'm a racist. I've publicly declared that I am not a racist, so it holds no water over why I disagree with the president. I'll disagree, because it is my right to disagree, untainted by racism, that I disagree with [a]a[/i] president.

If Hilary Clinton was elected president, would we be playing the sexism card instead? Ridiculous.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 13:16

More to the point, if I had an argument against an Obama policy, then that argument stands or fails independently of whether or not I'm racist. The argument that x is racist, therefore x's arguments are not sound is just as ad hominem as the argument x is black, therefore x's policies are not sound policies.

Being racist doesn't mean you're wrong about everything.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 15:02

Lilith wrote:

Subliminally, I think they're really just saying (or accusing) people are closet racists, just to make people feel ashamed for doubting the president.

That is exactly what I think is going on. They are trying to shame people into supporting Obama no matter what he says or does. And if you don't, you're racist.

"Racist" is not a nice thing to call someone and the vast majority of people do not like being labeled one, directly or indirectly. And it's an accusation that's both extremely hard to prove and even harder to defend yourself against.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 15:24

Jefster wrote:

More to the point, if I had an argument against an Obama policy, then that argument stands or fails independently of whether or not I'm racist. The argument that x is racist, therefore x's arguments are not sound is just as ad hominem as the argument x is black, therefore x's policies are not sound policies. Being racist doesn't mean you're wrong about everything.

I do agree with you but I think it's a lot more complex then that. I believe that being racist (or whatever ist) does justifiably put your arguments into doubt.

I believe the US needs to do more to protect our borders. My belief has nothing to do with hating other races or cultures. It's about protecting our borders, reducing drug trafficing, stopping the tax drain on our public schools and healthcare system and other such issues. I also absolutely do not believe the argument that illegal immigrants are willing to work jobs Americans won't work.

However, when someone with a swastika tattooed on their arm presents the same exact arguments as me, I look at that person with a great deal of distrust. I am far more inclined to believe they simply want tighter borders to keep certain ethnicities out.

And this is where it gets very fuzy. Some will simply say look, he's racist, he has a swastika, and i'm racist for agreeing with him, I just don't have the tattoo. That is basically what Carter, Rangel and Matthews are doing.

I am of the opinion that if you haven't tainted yourself, you're opinion should be respected just as anyone else's should. To not do so, to simply judge anyone that happens to disagree with you because they share arguements with those that are racist, is the worst kind of ad hominem attack because it is without any cause and is based purely on guilt by association of idea. Not guilt by association - i would never hang out with a guy with a Swastika tattoo. But guilt by association of idea - i happen to have the same opinions on a topic as this person does. He is unfortunatly a racist so I agree we should all ignore him, but you can not claim I am a racist just because he is and we agree on this one particular topic.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 16:12

All of this talk of so and so being racist has taken the true meaning of the word and watered it down. In the past two weeks with all the name calling racist just doesn't have the shock value that it used to have.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 17:24

the gist of an article I read today in the NYT:
"small-government movement=populism=racism"

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 17:40

Keep in mind that both Carter and Mathews have not claimed all opposition to the President is racist (despite the leading thread title).

While I may not agree with the magnitude of their claim, one cannot deny the huge amount of both directly and indirectly racial opposition being thrown at Obama. That doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with him is a racist - but it certainly doesn't dismiss the very thick racial tensions that permeate this society. I think both sides here are deliberately misconstruing the other.

Carter makes the claim that some opposition to the president is racial motivated and exaggerates the amount. In response, the "right" claims Carter thinks ALL opposition to the President is racist, and this is all some liberal plot to shame people into following the president. Both of these positions are disingenuous.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 18:11

Honestly, do we need another thread about racism and Obama....every one has been locked and warnings given out.

Isn't there any other news you all can discuss?

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 19:27

this seems to be the big fuss right now...

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 20:45

UPDATE

http://politicalticker.blogs.c...-obama/

Former President Bill Clinton Larry King Live:
“I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president,” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in an interview to air Monday evening. “But I don’t believe that all the people who oppose him on health care – and all the conservatives – are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now, would be opposing him then. Therefore, while I have devoted my life to getting rid of racism, I think this is a fight that my president and our party – this is one we need to win on the merits.”

Clinton's statement is perfect. He is exactly right on every single thing he said. Kudos.

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 21:50

Well he's right that a lot of people are racist even if they don't know it, or don't express it. But there's no way for him to know how many, who, and what they think. It's a load of cowpoopy

Posted: 21 Sep 2009 21:51

Holy crap. I actually agree with that statement. Good job, Mr. Clinton!



And, honestly, I'm so sick of the word "racism" being tossed around to and fro that I may scream.

Posted: 22 Sep 2009 08:56

Since when does a pothead musician's opinions rank up there with Congressmen and former Presidents?

When African Americans disagreed with President Bush or, I dunno, any of the Presidents preceding him, where were the cries of "RACIST!" from Conservatives?

If memory serves, there weren't any because there were other ways to disagree with someone's position rather than first undermining them by accusing them of racism.