Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:47:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 9:32 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:13 pm, H the K wrote:

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.

initially i didn't think this was true but i'm changing my mind...the
hatred of obama, along with the idea that he's some alien communist
sent to destroy america is so unbelieveable that no rational person
would propose it. it must be based on race

Poor old Carter is an old man, and hasn't come along with the rest of
the country. He hasn't gotten over the rabbit attack? ~snerk~ Then
can you say "stagflation"?


Sounds like Democrat-rationale to me.

It sounds like anyone who doesn't want to live in a socialist country
is automatically a racist.

What horse****. But as soon as Carter made his bull**** pronouncements
yesterday, I knew you liberals would be on it like stink on that
smelly stuff.

Maybe that's another analogy you don't get.
--

John H

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:53:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:13:11 -0400, H the K
wrote:

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.

"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," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a
long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's
attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African
Americans."

Carter continued, "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think
it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white
people, not just in the South but around the country, that
African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an
abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."


Are the black tea baggers racist too? I saw plenty of them in the
pictures from DC.


So, what you're saying is that because someone is black that gives them
extra authority about the president?

FYI, you might want to rethink the use of the term "tea bagger." It's kinda
become a joke.

In any case, what I'm not seeing much of is a legitimate discussion about
the various parts of the bills (those we know about such as HR 3200). When
Clinton was trying to get healthcare reform through Congress, she was, of
course, pilloried by the right, but interestingly the attacks were about the
actual contents of the proposed legislation. These days, the attacks are
about things that aren't in the bills, about Obama's race, and about things
that have nothing much to do with healthcare reform. I can't help thinking
that there must be a reason for the difference.

Pure drivel.
--

John H

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

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

"H the K" wrote in message
om...
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.

"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," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a
long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's
attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African
Americans."

Carter continued, "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think
it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white
people, not just in the South but around the country, that
African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an
abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."
--


President Carter...he must be reading herring, jack, justhate, DK, BAR and
the rest of the right-wing bigots who populate this joint.


I definitely think a lot of it is racism. Just look at the signs displayed
in the rally in DC... I certainly acknowledge that Bush got treated to signs
comparing him to Hitler, but I don't believe any of them made reference to
his race.

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.

More drivel.
--

John H

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

On Sep 16, 12:42*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:47:42 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 16, 1:46*am, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:46:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

snipped for brevity



the biggest spenders in US history were ronald reagan and george w.
bush. where was the outrage when they busted the budget?

Got up on the wrong side of a reasoned discourse this morning?

"House Speaker Thomas O'Neill (D., Mass.), who had tried to offset the
President's personal pulling power with some tough political talk of
his own, said after the vote that "the monkey is off the Democrat's
back. *The federal budget cuts, as brutal as they are, are Reagan's
cuts."

Toledo Blade, May 8th, 1981


unfortunately for your distorted view of history, the right wing 'cato
institute' agrees with me:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in
inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even
after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is
still the biggest-spending president in 30 years

and for a longer view, the biggest budget busters have been
republicans:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_20409139/

Over the last 100 years, of the five presidents who reigned over the
largest domestic spending growth, four were Republicans. Taken in
order of expenditures, they were Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Dwight
Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman (the lone Democrat), and George Bush.

and for a view of presidents and budget deficits, check

http://jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/unca...art_2006_2.gif

to see what a BIG spender reagan was compared to clinton.

now, right winger, go read. you might learn something

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 16, 12:42*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:47:42 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 16, 1:46*am, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:46:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

snipped for brevity



the biggest spenders in US history were ronald reagan and george w.
bush. where was the outrage when they busted the budget?

Got up on the wrong side of a reasoned discourse this morning?

"House Speaker Thomas O'Neill (D., Mass.), who had tried to offset the
President's personal pulling power with some tough political talk of
his own, said after the vote that "the monkey is off the Democrat's
back. *The federal budget cuts, as brutal as they are, are Reagan's
cuts."

Toledo Blade, May 8th, 1981


unfortunately for your distorted view of history, the right wing 'cato
institute' agrees with me:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in
inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even
after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is
still the biggest-spending president in 30 years

and for a longer view, the biggest budget busters have been
republicans:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_20409139/

Over the last 100 years, of the five presidents who reigned over the
largest domestic spending growth, four were Republicans. Taken in
order of expenditures, they were Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Dwight
Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman (the lone Democrat), and George Bush.

and for a view of presidents and budget deficits, check

http://jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/unca...art_2006_2.gif

to see what a BIG spender reagan was compared to clinton.

now, right winger, go read. you might learn something

May the gentle reader please note, if one is disposed to an honest
scrutiny of the discourse, that this particular thread has devolved
from a discussion of what impels and compels those who object to the
ostensible, inexorable, oppression through legislation by government
and a recognition of the use of the strawman argument of racism
applied to those very objectors. My commentary was not read carefully
by this particular antagonist as this antagonist launched into his
standard rigamarole of "busted budgets" and whatever that is supposed
to suggest. The lack of an apprehensible commentary on his or her
part is best illustrated in the use of the ad hominem "right winger,"
which is applied through vacuous presupposition and palpable angst.

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

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:47:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 9:32 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:13 pm, H the K wrote:

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.

initially i didn't think this was true but i'm changing my mind...the
hatred of obama, along with the idea that he's some alien communist
sent to destroy america is so unbelieveable that no rational person
would propose it. it must be based on race

Poor old Carter is an old man, and hasn't come along with the rest of
the country. He hasn't gotten over the rabbit attack? ~snerk~ Then
can you say "stagflation"?


Sounds like Democrat-rationale to me.

It sounds like anyone who doesn't want to live in a socialist country
is automatically a racist.

It sounds like you need to get out more. We have lots of social programs in
the country, and I for one, am glad we do.

What horse****. But as soon as Carter made his bull**** pronouncements
yesterday, I knew you liberals would be on it like stink on that
smelly stuff.

Maybe that's another analogy you don't get.

Maybe you should get over the fact that FDR is dead.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:53:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:13:11 -0400, H the K
wrote:

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.

"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," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a
long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's
attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African
Americans."

Carter continued, "And that racism inclination still exists. And I think
it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white
people, not just in the South but around the country, that
African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an
abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."


Are the black tea baggers racist too? I saw plenty of them in the
pictures from DC.


So, what you're saying is that because someone is black that gives them
extra authority about the president?

FYI, you might want to rethink the use of the term "tea bagger." It's
kinda
become a joke.

In any case, what I'm not seeing much of is a legitimate discussion about
the various parts of the bills (those we know about such as HR 3200). When
Clinton was trying to get healthcare reform through Congress, she was, of
course, pilloried by the right, but interestingly the attacks were about
the
actual contents of the proposed legislation. These days, the attacks are
about things that aren't in the bills, about Obama's race, and about
things
that have nothing much to do with healthcare reform. I can't help thinking
that there must be a reason for the difference.

Pure drivel.
--

John H


Purely accurate... but feel free to continue to deny it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:47:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 9:32 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 15, 9:13 pm, H the K wrote:

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.
initially i didn't think this was true but i'm changing my mind...the
hatred of obama, along with the idea that he's some alien communist
sent to destroy america is so unbelieveable that no rational person
would propose it. it must be based on race
Poor old Carter is an old man, and hasn't come along with the rest of
the country. He hasn't gotten over the rabbit attack? ~snerk~ Then
can you say "stagflation"?

Sounds like Democrat-rationale to me.
It sounds like anyone who doesn't want to live in a socialist country
is automatically a racist.

It sounds like you need to get out more. We have lots of social programs in
the country, and I for one, am glad we do.

What horse****. But as soon as Carter made his bull**** pronouncements
yesterday, I knew you liberals would be on it like stink on that
smelly stuff.

Maybe that's another analogy you don't get.

Maybe you should get over the fact that FDR is dead.



President Carter called out the Republican racists, and that includes
JohnH(erring) here.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Does Jimmy Carter read rec.boats?
 

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