Who cares? What does it have to do with the imbecilic comment Carter made?

I was responding to a post in this thread ... that's what it had to do with.

I was responding to a post in this thread ... that's what it had to do with.

:notworthy:

I've seen no evidence from the President that he can't handle criticism of his policy.

 

I don't believe most Americans are racists. I do believe many, out of ignorance , fear blacks. I do think that images like cartoons showing dead monkeys, guys carrying monkeys with "Obama" on its head, Rush calling him "Half-rican" and singing a song called "the magic Negro", a lady saying "muslims are taking over the country", cartoons with watermelons, etc give those that wonder ample reason to do so.

Not to speak for commando, but I think he's talking more of the people that keep pulling out the race card every time Obama gets questioned.

 

The examples you give are not the majority, or anywhere close, of white America. In fact, it's a small minority. There's also no shortage of blacks that are racist against whites, likewise, it's nowhere near the majority of black America.

Racism is an issue in some situations, but I think that some people abuse the term and use it when its inappropriate. This is definitly a disservice. I do think ignorance is the greatest source of racism.

Not to speak for commando, but I think he's talking more of the people that keep pulling out the race card every time Obama gets questioned.

 

OK. Then he should not say "....he should...."

 

The examples you give are not the majority, or anywhere close, of white America. In fact, it's a small minority. There's also no shortage of blacks that are racist against whites, likewise, it's nowhere near the majority of black America.

 

As I've pointed out in the previous post as well as one before that.

As I've pointed out in the previous post as well as one before that.

:thumb:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090916/pl_nm/us_usa_carter_racism

I asked my dad this question tonight, were the African Americans who disagreed with the Bush policies racists against whites?

I hated Billy beer, but that didn't mean I hated Billy.

 

You don't have to talk delicately.

 

Where is the president lying?

I didn't claim one way or other whether or not the President was lying. Let me put it this way- suppose I (incorrectly) heard that my African-American friend took my girlfriend out on a date. I would be angry with him, and it would have been because he took my girlfriend out on a date, not because he is an African-American. Just because I believed incorrectly, that does not mean I'm a racist.

 

This comment is solely in response to your comment, "Frustration? How so?" I'm not encouraging Rep. Wilson's actions (or even his beliefs) but explaining how he can be frustrated even if he's wrong.

On a side note, I understand that since Wilson's comment, the policy to prevent Illegal Immigrants has been added and pushed by the White House. The exact thing that Wilson wanted and the White House had been resisting.

 

Did I read that correctly somewhere?

On a side note, I understand that since Wilson's comment, the policy to prevent Illegal Immigrants has been added and pushed by the White House. The exact thing that Wilson wanted and the White House had been resisting.

 

Did I read that correctly somewhere?

 

I think the original wording said something to the effect of "you must be a citizen." However, as I asked somewhere, are we going to turn away someone who shows up with a cracked skull or a heart attack simply because they can't provide documentation? I think some wording was added that supposedly gave it some more teeth but I don't believe that we will turn them away.

This woman might disagree with you.

 

FBI: Beating outside Cracker Barrel may be hate crime

 

Why?

Discussing racism doesn’t come down to “X number of white people are prejudiced against Z” number of black people versus “Q number of black people are prejudiced against S” number of white people. Certainly, there are plenty of numbers to fill out those variables. While those in those groups should be criticized and rejected, I don’t believe they constitute the entirety of the issue.

 

From my perspective, racism is something much deeper, more systemic in society. When the country has been more predominately white since its inception, and since that group has, until the very recent history, used the government and laws to overtly discriminate against other races (and perhaps some laws today do this tacitly), it’s very difficult to claim that racism is merely an equal and opposite reaction among the races. An illustrative example: A study was conducted where real, identical, and well qualified resumes were sent to a slew of job openings, with the exception that the names were changed from the real name to “white-sounding” or “black sounding” names. Those resumes with black sounding names were 50% less likely to be offered an interview. Does this mean that the employers or human resources staff members are prejudiced? I think it means they are responding to societal conceptions subconsciously. I’ve linked this study before, but it’s worth the experience. Just take the “Race-IAT” and evaluate it yourself.

 

I don’t think it’s constructive or healthy to dismiss racism as something from antiquity. A biracial president was just elected, and that likely wouldn’t have happened in the not too distant past, but I don’t believe it is an indication that racism is over. I think it’s healthy to discuss it. And that doesn’t mean pandering to Jesse Jackson or some other demagogue. Shouting “liar” at the president doesn’t make you a racist, though it makes you sophomoric, dumb, or both. However, because some have latched on to this and other things as evidence of racism doesn’t mean that the entire discourse should be abandoned.

Discussing racism doesn’t come down to “X number of white people are prejudiced against Z” number of black people versus “Q number of black people are prejudiced against S” number of white people. Certainly, there are plenty of numbers to fill out those variables. While those in those groups should be criticized and rejected, I don’t believe they constitute the entirety of the issue.

 

From my perspective, racism is something much deeper, more systemic in society. When the country has been more predominately white since its inception, and since that group has, until the very recent history, used the government and laws to overtly discriminate against other races (and perhaps some laws today do this tacitly), it’s very difficult to claim that racism is merely an equal and opposite reaction among the races. An illustrative example: A study was conducted where real, identical, and well qualified resumes were sent to a slew of job openings, with the exception that the names were changed from the real name to “white-sounding” or “black sounding” names. Those resumes with black sounding names were 50% less likely to be offered an interview. Does this mean that the employers or human resources staff members are prejudiced? I think it means they are responding to societal conceptions subconsciously. I’ve linked this study before, but it’s worth the experience. Just take the “Race-IAT” and evaluate it yourself.

 

I don’t think it’s constructive or healthy to dismiss racism as something from antiquity. A biracial president was just elected, and that likely wouldn’t have happened in the not too distant past, but I don’t believe it is an indication that racism is over. I think it’s healthy to discuss it. And that doesn’t mean pandering to Jesse Jackson or some other demagogue. Shouting “liar” at the president doesn’t make you a racist, though it makes you sophomoric, dumb, or both. However, because some have latched on to this and other things as evidence of racism doesn’t mean that the entire discourse should be abandoned.

 

Doesn't surprise me a bit, unfortunately.

 

Given the sizeable percentage of the Hispanic population, do you know if a similar study has been performed along those lines?