On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:47:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:46:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"H the K" wrote in message
news:2LmdnfhTW506pi3XnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink .com...
From NBC's Mark Murray
In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former Democratic President
Jimmy Carter attributed much of the conservative opposition that
President
Obama is receiving to the issue of race.

snipped for brevity

I also think that a lot of it is more of a fear-based reaction than out
and
out racism... white good/black bad. Obama is an unknown to lots and lots
of
people.. unknown in the sense that some have never had a black man or
women
be in charge of directly affecting their lives, and they're afraid.

The really disturbing part is the promoting of these feelings of fear and
uncertainty by "news services" such as Fox and Dick Army's Freedomworks.
Both of these groups know better. They should be ashamed of themselves.

There's no reason to insult the sensibilities of on concerned
Americans with untenable speculation.
Where did I do that? Dick Army?? He's a paid shill for big pharma.

You are right in that in as
much as the anxiety produced by the apparent path the country is
taking could be described as fear by less discerning persons, the
description fails to acknowledge legitimate concerns of those persons
who have their sensibilities assaulted, too, by statements such as
this; "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is
led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it
can also have great advantages," written by Tom Friedman for the NYT.

So, Friedman is not allowed to state his views? Have you read any of his
books?

The obvious that smacks the 'enlightened' reader pugilistically
between the eyes is that any one-party rule is an open invitation for
the induction of a narcissitic Nero who may, on a whim, blithely pin
ne'er-do-wells to trees, coat with wax, and set afire to serve as
improvised night lights. If the autocrat can be enlightened the
autocrat can be debauch. But, this is just one of many scenarios that
has given rise to civil angst. To posit an argument that hinges on
the 'puerile' fears of a few citizens is to criminally deprecate the
wide-spread, warranted hand-wringing over profligate spending by our
"enlightened" legates and imperators. And if one decides that the
felonious argument should trump all other arguments, one can pull out
the Michael Moore rabbit of an argument out of the hat and flippantly
offer, "You really think that's ever going to happen?" Can history
ever serve as the example?

This sounds like a rant. I'll just let it stand without further comment.

Thank-you. I have no doubt that posterity will find the 'commentary'
measured and apropos, as much as it is obvious that I have not decried
Friedman's right to state his views.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access