Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is Jimmy Carter right to call attacks on Obama "Racist"


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner

Following Sen Joe Wilsons outburst, where he shouted "You Lie" at President Barak Obama, ex President Jimmy Carter claimed that most opposition to Obama was racist in nature. So, does he have a point, or are the Democrats using the race card as cover for an increasingly unpopular President?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following Sen Joe Wilsons outburst, where he shouted "You Lie" at President Barak Obama, ex President Jimmy Carter claimed that most opposition to Obama was racist in nature. So, does he have a point, or are the Democrats using the race card as cover for an increasingly unpopular President?

Are complaints against Obama and his increasingly unpopular policies racist? I don't think so. Will it still be used as an excuse. Most definitely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Letterman asked Obama on his show if Carter was right to call attacks on Obama racist. Obama made a simple observation: "I was black before I got elected president." There were racists in America before Obama got elected, and they certainly did not lead in getting him elected. There are still racists in America, but they are not leading the attacks against the elected president. The attacks are all about the economic crap the country is in, and a healthcare plan that the people perceive as being shoved down their throats at a time of economic hardship and without an understanding of what all is involved. It's still impossible to tell who is lying and who isn't about, for example, how it will be paid for and how people's present coverage will be affected. But Carter's basically stupid remark was of course fodder for the media, always looking for something to exploit for ratings, and the media has been eating it up. Keeps all those TV talking heads busy night after night to earn their pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Letterman asked Obama on his show if Carter was right to call attacks on Obama racist. Obama made a simple observation: "I was black before I got elected president." There were racists in America before Obama got elected, and they certainly did not lead in getting him elected. There are still racists in America, but they are not leading the attacks against the elected president. The attacks are all about the economic crap the country is in, and a healthcare plan that the people perceive as being shoved down their throats at a time of economic hardship and without an understanding of what all is involved. It's still impossible to tell who is lying and who isn't about, for example, how it will be paid for and how people's present coverage will be affected. But Carter's basically stupid remark was of course fodder for the media, always looking for something to exploit for ratings, and the media has been eating it up. Keeps all those TV talking heads busy night after night to earn their pay.

I think they're angry with Obama because they placed their hope with him and he betrayed them. With Bush they didnt see much of anything to hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Thanks for the replies folks, so why, in your opinion, are People disappointed in President Obama, or is this all Rush and his barbarians stirring the pot, I mean surely his Health care proposals must have been in his manifesto, and so can't come as a huge shock........Whitewater and stained dresses anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies folks, so why, in your opinion, are People disappointed in President Obama, or is this all Rush and his barbarians stirring the pot, I mean surely his Health care proposals must have been in his manifesto, and so can't come as a huge shock........Whitewater and stained dresses anyone?

All I can do is state why I'm disappointed. He could have waited till we're out of the recession (whenever that is) to push healthcare reform down our throats. One drastic thing at a time. He did nothing to convince me that a trillion dollar budget (I believe that was the figure, give or take a few dollars) was needed as a stimulus. It strikes me as just obscene Democratic spending, which is "change" in that Democrats couldn't hope for such deficit spending before in their wildest dreams. His man in charge of the economy, the Secretary of the Treasury, is a crook (tax evader) who apologized for their "mistake" and got confirmed by his fellow crooks on Capitol Hill, while his "mistake" would probably put me and any other ordinary citizen in jail. And this guy is just one of the tax evaders whom Obama has hypocritically chosen to help lead this law-abiding nation. The people charged with getting us out of the current economic mess come from the same Wall Street criminal class that got us in the mess to start with. One can get the impression that Obama and crew are treating the American people just like the stupid suckers they are. He also put a well-known gangster's moll in charge at the State Department. I would have thought that the guy who ran on a platform of "change we can believe in" wouldn't have touched the kind of people he has around him with a ten-foot pole. Maybe these are some of the things that have people disappointed in Obama. Oh, and I am not a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following Sen Joe Wilsons outburst, where he shouted "You Lie" at President Barak Obama, ex President Jimmy Carter claimed that most opposition to Obama was racist in nature. So, does he have a point, or are the Democrats using the race card as cover for an increasingly unpopular President?

Are complaints against Obama and his increasingly unpopular policies racist? I don't think so. Will it still be used as an excuse. Most definitely

So far, I can second this opinion, and Ron's on the "gangster's moll" at State. Let's consider the source here: Jimmy Carter, tool of the Fed and Big Oil, bringer of Zbig Brez to the table at the behest of the super-monied superelite.

Were we supposed to be fooled? Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats have gotten control of an executive dominated since the Civil War by the Republicans through elevating some previously unknown quasi-populist savior with intellectual-humanist credentials - WW, FDR, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama. Did I leave anybody out? Throw in the LBJ of the "Great Society" (styled after the New Deal of his mentor, but done to capitalize on JFK's liberal pragmatism).

The first Dem savior brought us the Fed and WW I. The one whose liberal-intellectual pretensions were the greatest, and whose family thought it could compete with the major family wealth in the US (the Big Oil that made it possible for Texas Small Oil to oppose him) was blown away in public.

The racist Wilson, remember, was the beginning of a new, populist Dem party that had to counter Republican control of the African-American vote (which it had retained despite the horrors of Reconstruction and its abandonment of the Black south in the 1877 election compromise) with an appeal to all those downtrodden in the GOP's rush to court business and industry. Eventually that appeal encompassed disillusioned African-Americans. Am I speaking an untruth to list the roll call of erstwhile saviors above as Wilson's heirs? Including Barry Obama of Chicago?

"Fool me once...shame on you, I guess. Fool me twice...uh..." JFK was the best of the bunch, judging by what he said and accomplished. He would remain so had he died of natural causes in 1963.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...