Jimmy Hypocrite Carter:

http://newsrealblog.com/2009/09/17/jimmy-carters-record-on-race/

It may be true that a few compared President Bush to a Nazi, but no one ever said he was un American, a Muslim, etc, etc.

Yet some people who post here has called him a Muslim, socialist, commie, and lets not forget the birthers, right?

Why not start posting about how both parties are friggin crooks? Both parties are screwing the American taxpayer! And Beck and queer Rush isn't helping the GOP. Haven't you realized that yet?

Oh, I'm sure they rile up the base of (idiots, rednecks, etc) but they are turning a lot of people away from the GOP, like some Demo's and lots of independents, but it seems like you don't understand that or just don't care.

Why haven't you posted about Sibel Edmonds? She gave testimony, under oath, how some of our elected critters, from both parties, committed treason on our country for money.

Don't you think your readers might like to know about that? Or are you just hung up on the person now occupying the White House?

"Or are you just hung up on the person now occupying the White House?"

Good 'ol JC. Can always stay on topic.

"It may be true that a few compared President Bush to a Nazi, but no one ever said he was un American, a Muslim, etc, etc."

Not Muslim, but "they" certainly made a lot of dumb claims, and spent years trying to prove them.

He was called a draft dodger, a deserter, was claimed to be a member of various secret societies, et bloody cetera. You can still find a lot of people who think he was in the pocket of "The Jews," or owned outright by the Israelis, or the oil companies, or Halliburton.

The biggest and most-obvious thing to say about Obama is "he's a Chicago Democrat." You can't get much more damning than that...

I wouldn't give a damn if Obama were purple with yellow spots - well, come to think of it, I probably would, I'd hope whatever caused that particular coloration wasn't contagious - I'm looking at what he's SAYING and what he's WANTING to do to us all.

But the big problem is he doesn't have a friggin' CLUE when it comes to damn near anything. Things don't go as he wants - it's racism. People don't let him do what he wants - it's racism. The economy doesn't recover at his order - it's racism. EVERYTHING has boiled down to racism, racism, racism here, racism there, racism in the ground and in the air -

AND SCREAMING RACISM DOESN'T EXCUSE OBAMA'S FUCKING INCOMPETENCE!

It doesn't magically make 2+2=$1 trillion. It doesn't make governmental bureaucracies suddenly shrink - or become effective. Screaming 'racism' when it's pointed out that you can't clean up the losses in a system by making it fantastically larger and more expensive doesn't change the fact that making a system much larger and costly will not save you money.

JC - Start your own blog, dude. Blogger.com is ready when you are. I PROMISE if you do so I'll visit.

jc

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2241719

twit.

JCHammer,
What is wrong with being a redneck? I live in
redneck country, many of my friends are red necks. Many of them are farmers, some are
school teachers, and some are doctors. Since
I live among rednecks, and have most of my
life, I guess I'm a redneck too.
So tell me again, what's wrong with rednecks
that you denigrate them.

Don't get too offended, maggie.

JC is probably just some namby-pamby 'noreaster lounging on a yacht eating brie and drinking wine, trying to figure out which pair of argyle socks to wear to tomorrow's fashion show.

Or he could be just an angry ass.

LOL!
Thanks Shawn. Funny you mention argyle socks,
I've got a pair that are about 29 years old,
and I still wear them!

Maggie

Anyone who opposes Obama will be called a racist. Just ask Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

Dennis D - Best shot at jc hammer[head] in the thread, congrats.

As for you jc, I guess Pete Stark never called Bush a liar on the House floor. Or did he?

Oh ait jc, you said "unAmerican," sorry.

That asshole known as The Goracle came close enough for government work to calling him unAmerican.

Of couse it takes a special set of balls to call anyone unAmerican after he attempted to steal the 2000 election by demanding a recount in the top three dem precincts in Fla.

God! Don't get me started on "Mr. ALL The (DEMOCRATIC) Votes Must Be Counted".

Shawn,

While I think you have a valid point to make, your argument is far too clouded with vague generalizations to make anything close to a strong case.

Some people do pull the race card and use it for political purposes. And, since the subject of race in the US is a highly loaded, often emotional, and almost always contentious issue in public discourse, political manipulation of it is especially volatile.

"Instead of discussing issues based on the merit of their principles, they've resorted to shrouding everything debatable by crying racism."

Everything? Now, that's an overstatement if I have ever seen one. Maybe it would be better to argue against specific instances instead of making easily refuted over-generalizations like this? Just an idea. Some people do indeed politicize the issue of race for their own purposes. Others (left and right) do not. Why not stick to specifics instead of jumping in the pool of stereotypical argumentation?

"The word "racism" has become diluted of its true meaning in recent years."

What's your definition of the true meaning of racism? How about this: "A doctrine of superiority by which one group justifies dehumanization of others based on their distinctive physical characteristics."

"Just like comparing Bush to a Nazi, branding people who happen to have dissenting views as racists has become standard operating procedure for the left."

Automatically branding Obama dissenters as racists IS not only lazy, it's absolutely out of line. On the other hand, assuming that this tactic has become the SOP of the "left" (which is a mass of millions of people), is also intellectually lazy.

Disagreement with Obama DOES NOT equate to racism. Not at all. Disagreement and dissent are absolutely healthy to our system of government, and in my opinion essential.

At the same time, there are certainly racists who disagree with Obama simply because of the color of his skin. Racism exists. No reason to deny that.

So we have these realities, and everyone has to find a way to communicate and work through them. Unfortunately, millions of us keeping holding fast to stereotypes and generalizations in public debate & communication.

"Descriptions like socialist, marxist, and communist denote a political philosophy, all of which describe a system of governance where the many, regardless of racial or ethnic persuasion, are oppressed by the power of the few. These describe forced rule."

Terms like socialist, marxist, and communist DO NOT denote ONE political philosophy, let alone ONE system of governance. These terms are thrown around all the time as if they refer to concrete concepts, while in fact they are loaded with numerous social, political, and historical meanings. People on ALL SIDES throw these terms around all the time while referring to vastly different things. These terms are used just as irresponsibly as the word 'racist' sometimes is, IMO.

Ironically, some of the same people who use SOCIALISM as a scare term have no problem walking into the US Post Office and mailing a letter.

The end point: people on all sides politicize and manipulate terms and ideas to suit their agendas. The point is for everyone in the middle of the crossfire to realize that these tactics are not limited to ONE SIDE.

You rightfully point out the fact that racism is one of these terms that is often politically manipulated. Next time, however, why not try to avoid the intellectual laziness of resorting to stereotypical thinking as you make your case? Just in case you weren't aware, the "left" is not just one solid mass of like-thinking automatons. Imagine that! At the same time, plenty of Americans on the other side of the aisle need to realize that the "right" is also not just some like-thinking mass of robots. Imagine THAT!

Your complaint here is basically that people should be able to disagree without being "branded" by one massive loaded and highly politicized term. I completely agree. Now, my suggestion is that you take some of your own rhetorical medicine.

JC - "Why haven't you posted about Sibel Edmonds?"

Better idea, use a bit of intellectual curiosity and search this site for a Sibel Edwards post.

Notice how she progressively added to her story, why it's almost like she made it up as she went along.

And isn't it interesting with all the hate directed at any and everybody connected to the Bush Admin not one of those haters, including those in the Senate and the House have never given her the time of day let alone a forum to spew nonsense.

"Instead of discussing issues based on the merit of their principles, they've resorted to shrouding everything debatable by crying racism."

Everything? Now, that's an overstatement if I have ever seen one. Maybe it would be better to argue against specific instances instead of making easily refuted over-generalizations like this?

Specific instances? Have you been on this planet for the last month? Listing "specific instances" becomes ludicrous (and also repetitious) when you get past the number 30.

A Google search of "charges of Republican racism" will give you 1,410,000 hits.

OVERSTATEMENT? I think not.

ryan a - "Everything? Now, that's an overstatement if I have ever seen one."

Do ya think? Well try this on for size.

In the context of tea parties and 9/12 march that covered everything from taxes, health care, clunkers BS, bailouts, tarp, ACORN the libturds in question have "resorted to shrouding everything debatable by crying racism."

Rednecks are honest as the day is long. They do not have any nuance in their wording. That is a far more welcoming trait then the uppity, snooty NE liberal who thinks all people in other areas are here to serve them. ww

@GarandFan:

"Specific instances? Have you been on this planet for the last month? Listing "specific instances" becomes ludicrous (and also repetitious) when you get past the number 30."

Look, making vague claims and arguments might be fun and all, but it really does not break down the issue very well. It's kind of pointless. You can get all upset and defend it, but my point is that while Shawn has a case to be made, and can certainly argue it, hiding behind vague claims doesn't do much.

"A Google search of "charges of Republican racism" will give you 1,410,000 hits."

Haha. Google evidence. Did you know that "charges of cat racism" will get you 558,000 hits, and "charges of dog racism" will get you 1,720,000 hits?

Apparently, according to Google, the real issue here is dog racism ;)

Or you can realize that using Google as some kind of statistical proof of your claim is a little on the dubious side (notice how the search engine mixes up terms, etc). Just sayin.

Marc:

"In the context of tea parties and 9/12 march that covered everything from taxes, health care, clunkers BS, bailouts, tarp, ACORN the libturds in question have "resorted to shrouding everything debatable by crying racism.""

While I appreciate your comeback, Shawn's claim is still an overstatement. I am not sure why you feel the need to defend it. I already agreed with Shawn that some people manipulate and abuse the race card. No news there.

But claiming that any and all debate has been stifled by the race card is not only over dramatic, it's a misrepresentation of reality.

I agree that certain people are out of line. I disagree with you guys when you try to claim that the race card has "shrouded everything debatable."

Ryan,

The Supreme Court nomination of this year was about what
Getting a Latina Female on the court.
Race card dealt.

BHO lied about in Joint session of congress got called on it the bills language gets changed and the NYT says it was all motivated by race.
Race card dealt .

Durring the election if BHO was not elected it would be because America is Racist
Race card dealt

When Tea Parties were held it was because people were racist

Yes every big political issue the Race card has been dealt. To deny it is to be completely disingenuous.

Terms like socialist, marxist, and communist DO NOT denote ONE political philosophy,

I am sorry to tell you you have no idea what Marxism is when you state that.

The Post Office and the creation of Postal Roads is one of the enumerated powers of tThe Federal government as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Their are a certain number of activities that government needs to perform. This is the reason that Conservatives talk about limited government. So please explain how the Post Office is Socialist organization.

Please explain which definition of Socialism does the Post Office fall into?

1 a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2 procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3 (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

hcddbz - "During the election if BHO was not elected it would be because America is Racist
Race card dealt"

Obama was elected with 95% of black voting for him
Race Card Dealt.

Obama as elected with a higher percentage of white voters than Bush.
Race Card Dealt.

The problem is that too many people are painting their opponents in absolute terms about race.

Some on the Left who are throwing the race card and using a broad brush to say that ALL opposition to Obama is racism, see Janeane Garofalo. Conservatives are tired of being painted as racists and Nazis by people on the Left.

As a result there is an overreaction by some on the Right to paint everyone on the Left as falsely throwing the race card.

Not everyone on the Left is throwing the race card and not everyone on the right is a racist. To use absolute terms for racism is stupid. Overplaying the race card devalues the term when real racism occurs. It's like crying wolf. After a while, it becomes hard to take the charge seriously.

ryan a - "While I appreciate your comeback, Shawn's claim is still an overstatement."

Claim what you want, take it out of the context all you care to.

I claim your full of porcine excrement and are picking a nit.

I have nothing to add to the debate, except to say that Shawn's title for this piece is most definitely awesome!

hcddbz:

"Yes every big political issue the Race card has been dealt. To deny it is to be completely disingenuous."

Maybe certain people have pulled that card on numerous issues. No doubt about that. People resort to all kinds of stupid tactics. But that does not mean that all debate has been "shrouded," or that ALL liberals are doing this. Not sure why you guys can't accept that.

"I am sorry to tell you you have no idea what Marxism is when you state that."

Feel free to enlighten me. Your argument is that terms like marxist, socialist, and communist denote ONE COHERENT political philosophy? Really? From my view, there has been some vastly different political and social uses of these ideas throughout history. This is just a basic question of history, period. No need to oversimplify that. The same claim can be made for "capitalism," which has taken on different forms and aspects throughout history.

"Please explain which definition of Socialism does the Post Office fall into?"

Well, it's right there where it says "the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole". That's exactly what the Post Office is--we, as the citizens of the US (read community) own it, and the system is run through "centralized planning." It does not mean that we are "socialists", it means that certain aspects of our economic system have socialist (centrally planned) components. Not really a big deal. It's called a "mixed economic system." Thanks for the softball question though.

Eric:

"Some on the Left who are throwing the race card and using a broad brush to say that ALL opposition to Obama is racism, see Janeane Garofalo. Conservatives are tired of being painted as racists and Nazis by people on the Left."

Garofalo is a great case in point of someone on the left who loves to make baseless and broad claims. There are plenty.

"As a result there is an overreaction by some on the Right to paint everyone on the Left as falsely throwing the race card."

Agreed.

"Not everyone on the Left is throwing the race card and not everyone on the right is a racist. To use absolute terms for racism is stupid. Overplaying the race card devalues the term when real racism occurs. It's like crying wolf. After a while, it becomes hard to take the charge seriously."

Well said. I agree completely.

Marc,

"I claim your full of porcine excrement and are picking a nit."

Ha. NOW that's the way to sound more credible. Anything else to add?

Oooo, I don't sound credible to you?

Too bad, you're not anywhere near the top of my list to impress.

ryan a: Well said. I agree completely.

In that case it seems to me that you should be putting as much effort into denouncing those who falsely play the race card as you are in denouncing those who are offended by it.

Funny, how it doesn't quite seem that way.

or that ALL liberals are doing this. Not sure why you guys can't accept that.

You have setup a false straw man. We never said ALL liberals but it has been used by prominent liberals in the Press and in Politics. Dowd, President Carter, Speaker Pelosi and most MSM anchors.

"Look, making vague claims and arguments might be fun and all, but it really does not break down the issue very well. It's kind of pointless."

As is your arguement. As previously stated, after about 30 instances of RACIST! in the MSM by the usual suspects, I don't think

"your argument is far too clouded with vague generalizations"

carries much water. My point on Google was over 1,000,000 MILLION references to Repubican RACISM.

Let's look at it another way. HOW MANY INSTANCES WOULD YOU REQUIRE TO BE LISTED BEFORE SHAWN WOULD HAVE A GOOD CASE? HOW MANY?

Eric,

Well, just invite Lee Ward and his bag of liberal overstatements on here, and you will be pleasantly surprised.

Also, ponder a selection from my long-winded comment above:

"Automatically branding Obama dissenters as racists IS not only lazy, it's absolutely out of line. On the other hand, assuming that this tactic has become the SOP of the "left" (which is a mass of millions of people), is also intellectually lazy.

Disagreement with Obama DOES NOT equate to racism. Not at all. Disagreement and dissent are absolutely healthy to our system of government, and in my opinion essential.

At the same time, there are certainly racists who disagree with Obama simply because of the color of his skin. Racism exists. No reason to deny that.

Hmmm. Kinda sounds like the argument that you just made, doesn't it?

Ryan,

So as you stated when people call at Socialism it does not refer to the Post Office.
The post office is tasked with providing service to all people but it is not supported by American Tax dollars.

It is funded by people who want to use the service. Now it is one of the only legal monopolies it has sole control of first class mail. Which is why email has hurt it more than FedeX and other package curriers.

hbbdz:

"You have setup a false straw man. We never said ALL liberals but it has been used by prominent liberals in the Press and in Politics. Dowd, President Carter, Speaker Pelosi and most MSM anchors."

Look, Shawn wrote that this kind of crap is standard operating procedure for "the left," which includes millions of people to the left of center.

It is, as you point out in this post, a tactic employed by SOME on the left. This is the same point that Eric made. For me, rather than cast this as an issue about right vs. left, it's better to argue through the issue using specific examples and instances.

So, if you see an instance of Carter pulling the race card, by all means I think you should tear into him for it. If I disagree, then I'll say so. But making general claims about the supposed opposition only continues to re-create the larger problem, which is that debate here in the US is super polemic and based upon stereotypes of the other side. This crap gets old.

GarandFan:

"My point on Google was over 1,000,000 MILLION references to Repubican RACISM."

My point was that using Google as an indicator is pretty silly, since there were over 1.7 million results for "dog racism." Not the best evidence for your case. Do you get the point?

"Let's look at it another way. HOW MANY INSTANCES WOULD YOU REQUIRE TO BE LISTED BEFORE SHAWN WOULD HAVE A GOOD CASE? HOW MANY?"

Did you even read my comment up there, or did you just react and start trying to argue with me? My point is that yes, people on the left do this kind of crap. And so do people on the right. At the same time, my point was that arguing through vague generalizations really doesn't carry much weight. Also, framing this as if all liberals are somehow doing this is also intellectually lazy.

People on all sides rely on stereotypes of the "other" side all the time, and often public debate breaks down into arguments over caricatures of one another. What's the use?

hbbdz:

"The post office is tasked with providing service to all people but it is not supported by American Tax dollars. "

That's for operating expenses (payroll, etc). The US Post Office is property of the Federal Govt (buildings, equipment, trucks, etc). That is the centralized ownership of the "control of the means of production and distribution." The P.O. is a socialist element of our mixed economic system.

"Labels like "racist" and "Nazi" have been diminished to nothing more than political barbs, thrown around as silly sound-bites in an attempt to stigmatize others who (gasp!) disagree.

"They are the last verbal refuge of a liberal."

A couple of examples of this dastardly liberal trait:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/03/07/another-lesson-learned.php

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/08/05/some-weird-stuff.php

You've got to laugh.

"Labels like "racist" and "Nazi" have been diminished to nothing more than political barbs, thrown around as silly sound-bites in an attempt to stigmatize others who (gasp!) disagree."

I would agree, more with the endemic Nazi comparisons. It's a thoughtless, mindless knee-jerk reaction to an opposing viewpoint, something that has been increasingly cheapened by repetition. Comparison with Nazis (hitler) is to equate that person with a regime that systematically murdered more than 6 million innocent people and was responsible for countless more millions of deaths subsequent to the war he waged in Europe. People need to stop and think about that a bit. Does anyone really think that's what Obama is about? At least Bush put policies into place that resulted in a lot of people dying. So far, I don't think this administration has done anything like that.

Well groucho, you could start with Nancy Pelosi.
Matter of fact, since you want to bring up Nazis AND Hitler, you can bring up the whole stinking Democratic Party!

RYAN:

WHAT NUMBER?

I don't condone comparing Bush to Hitler either. It's a comparison that should not exist in the current dialogue, or lack thereof. So GunFan, you're saying the Democratic Party are Nazis, then? Just want to be clear. Remember, try and be civil.

Groucho:
Read post 38. You wrote it. My reply was to the effect "Where/when did this NAZI/HITLER shtick start? Look no further than your mistress Nancy Pelosi. A little farther back, say for the last 8 years "McChimpy/Bush/Hitler/Haliburton/Cheney".

You are free to 'cut and past' where I said "Democrats are Nazis" in post 39.

You do recall mentioning in another post about the use of QUOTATION MARKS?

Quotes yours, not mine. I thought I was kind of agreeing with the previous poster. Then YOU showed up. Isn't it past your bedtime?

Isn't it past your bedtime?

I accept your "apology".

There goes another thread. Good night and good luck.

Ryan

It is, as you point out in this post, a tactic employed by SOME on the left. This is the same point that Eric made. For me, rather than cast this as an issue about right vs. left, it's better to argue through the issue using specific examples and instances.

Actually my point was that THE LEADERSHIP of the left was employing it. Which was understood by many reading this. This is not just average citizens or bloggers saying these things it has been Senators, Congressmen and The Old Gray Lady.

As for The Postal Service it was founded in 1792 which was before Socialism came to US shores. It was based on the Royal Mail.
Since 1971 the post office supports itself on it service revenue. Those building and trucks are paid for out of that budget. The postal service does enjoy a legal monopoly on first class mail. By law anyone who want to compete must charge 6x the amount of the post office price.

Now the workers of the Post Office do not own it which take away from the Socialism. The US Government has laws setup for the Postal Service but does not technically own it. So it a strange entity.

uvTMnB I want to say - thank you for this!