Former president from the south, Jimmy Carter, says animosity toward Obama is racism
By: DelilahStarling 
Former Democratic president Jimmy Carter, who grew up and lived in the south, told Brian Williams in an interview on September 15, 2009:
"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."
"And that racism inclination still exists.” Carter continued. “And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief of 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."
In January, 2008, although Jimmy Carter did not come out an actually endorse Obama during his campaign, but did say he was optimistic about the potential of an Obama presidency and compared his articulate, thoughtful, and intelligent communication skills to those of Martin Luther King.
Carter thought that Obama would be a healing force to mend the rifts around the world that had festered up during eight years of the Bush administration.
It turns out he was right. President Obama has been received very well around the world and currently enjoys more popularity abroad, than at home.
However, the ugly and insidious tenor that has been prevalent in so many health care town hall meetings, with people yelling and carrying signs of Obama dressed as a witch doctor or wearing a Hitler mustache, reveals a huge amount of animosity. Then good old boy Glenn Beck’s tea bagger march on the capitol over the weekend, would seem to confirm what so many have said all along, and now has been put into words by a former president from the south—the hate being spewed by the radical right has been steeped in the tea pot of intolerance and racism.
South Carolina "you lie" Joe Wilson once denounced Strom Thurmond's mix-race daughter for revealing her relation to the oldest man in the senate after he died. Wilson would have preferred that she stay silent and not reveal to the world that one of the predominate bigot's in the Senate had fathered a black child.
It would seem the rest of the world is more enlightened than many home town “patriots”.
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reach -
Credibility
-
READ MORE: Obama, racism, Jimmy Carter, Brian Willims, Glenn Beck, Southern States, Martin Luther King, Bush, Hitler
Post a Comment Comments: 86
"the hate being spewed by the radical right has been steeped in the tea pot of intolerance and racism."
Nope, Delilah, I'd have to respectfully disagree, both with you, and former President Carter. I'm sure there are people who dislike Obama because he's black, and there are also people who disliked almost every other US president, because they were white. Neither side is either a majority or representative of a large block of opinions.
Playing the race card is too easy, and the recent popularity of doing exactly that will be a serious problem for Obama in 2012, because it basically infers that all who disagree with his policies may be racists, and insults the intelligence of dissenters... including some who might be sympathetic to him on some issues. His approval ratings are droppings, and if he keeps painting with a broad brush, it will continue... count on it.
Nope, Delilah, I'd have to respectfully disagree, both with you, and former President Carter. I'm sure there are people who dislike Obama because he's black, and there are also people who disliked almost every other US president, because they were white. Neither side is either a majority or representative of a large block of opinions.
Playing the race card is too easy, and the recent popularity of doing exactly that will be a serious problem for Obama in 2012, because it basically infers that all who disagree with his policies may be racists, and insults the intelligence of dissenters... including some who might be sympathetic to him on some issues. His approval ratings are droppings, and if he keeps painting with a broad brush, it will continue... count on it.
Please ... "calls it like he sees it, right or wrong" ... the man is a fabulist, and a venal one at that!
As per my example (posted below) he did not "call it like he saw it" by claiming in the fall of 2004 that one million black voters had been disenfranchised in the 2000 election in Florida.
That claim had been thoroughly examined and hashed over for four years when he made it! There was absolutely no credible proof that even ONE black person in Florida was disenfranchised in the 2000 election. NOT ONE! But Jimmy Carter and John Kerry each stood there in Georgia and insisted that ONE MILLION blacks in Florida had been disenfranchised.
By saying that, he was repeating what was one of the biggest, most venomous lies of modern socio-political history. He did it intentionally, in order to stir up racial animus toward Republicans, just before the 2004 Presidential election.
And, I suppose he was "calling it like he sees it" when, during his Presidency, he insisted that the elections held in Zimbabwe in 1979 were not be recognized by the international community, and he forcefully insisted that a subsequent election be held, which occurred in March of 1980, bringing the murderous Marxist Robert Mugabe to power. That thug consolidated his power and turned the country into a total dictatorship. Since then, Mugabe has been well known as the modern world's premiere example of a one-man killing spree, even last year reportedly having the wife of his political opponent murdered by cutting off her feet, and then burning her alive with a petrol bomb.
Mugabe's hold on power over the years has come from repeatedly cheating in, and stealing elections, at times by preventing large sectors of urban populations from voting at all. And Mugabe is a well-known and virulent racist. He even boasted once that he is a modern day Hitler!
My point here is that because of his disastrous foreign policy, and dogged meddling in the Zimbabwe elections at the time, Jimmy Carter was largely responsible for the rise to power of Robert Mugabe.
So, I'm sure the families of Mugabe's untold victims over the years, black and white alike, would be thrilled to know that the American President whose forceful blundering at the time brought Robert Mugabe to power, is now falsely insisting that Americans opposed to the policies of our current President, are really motivated by racial animus!
Jimmy Carter was by leaps and bounds the worst President in my lifetime – and I’ve seen a few doozies. Since he was (thankfully) run out of town back in 1980, he has made it his mission to become the worst ex-president of all time, never hesitating to question others’ motives, or to make stupid comments intended to undermine American foreign policy.
Notably, President Obama today rejected Carter's poisonous comments, as should all decent people.
As per my example (posted below) he did not "call it like he saw it" by claiming in the fall of 2004 that one million black voters had been disenfranchised in the 2000 election in Florida.
That claim had been thoroughly examined and hashed over for four years when he made it! There was absolutely no credible proof that even ONE black person in Florida was disenfranchised in the 2000 election. NOT ONE! But Jimmy Carter and John Kerry each stood there in Georgia and insisted that ONE MILLION blacks in Florida had been disenfranchised.
By saying that, he was repeating what was one of the biggest, most venomous lies of modern socio-political history. He did it intentionally, in order to stir up racial animus toward Republicans, just before the 2004 Presidential election.
And, I suppose he was "calling it like he sees it" when, during his Presidency, he insisted that the elections held in Zimbabwe in 1979 were not be recognized by the international community, and he forcefully insisted that a subsequent election be held, which occurred in March of 1980, bringing the murderous Marxist Robert Mugabe to power. That thug consolidated his power and turned the country into a total dictatorship. Since then, Mugabe has been well known as the modern world's premiere example of a one-man killing spree, even last year reportedly having the wife of his political opponent murdered by cutting off her feet, and then burning her alive with a petrol bomb.
Mugabe's hold on power over the years has come from repeatedly cheating in, and stealing elections, at times by preventing large sectors of urban populations from voting at all. And Mugabe is a well-known and virulent racist. He even boasted once that he is a modern day Hitler!
My point here is that because of his disastrous foreign policy, and dogged meddling in the Zimbabwe elections at the time, Jimmy Carter was largely responsible for the rise to power of Robert Mugabe.
So, I'm sure the families of Mugabe's untold victims over the years, black and white alike, would be thrilled to know that the American President whose forceful blundering at the time brought Robert Mugabe to power, is now falsely insisting that Americans opposed to the policies of our current President, are really motivated by racial animus!
Jimmy Carter was by leaps and bounds the worst President in my lifetime – and I’ve seen a few doozies. Since he was (thankfully) run out of town back in 1980, he has made it his mission to become the worst ex-president of all time, never hesitating to question others’ motives, or to make stupid comments intended to undermine American foreign policy.
Notably, President Obama today rejected Carter's poisonous comments, as should all decent people.
Dude, you're patently an idiot and know nothing; hence I am not going to waste my time.
firesisle, with all due respect, your words, "I'm sure there are also people who disliked almost every other US president, because they were white."
Excuse me, what?
You say "Playing the race card is too easy." Excuse me, what?
Sigh...
Excuse me, what?
You say "Playing the race card is too easy." Excuse me, what?
Sigh...
What I'm saying, is that, just as there are white people who have a problem with a black president, there are also black people who have a problem with a white president; I've experienced both, so I know they do, in fact, exist.
Playing the race card is too easy, as a major reason for Obama's failing support, becuae I don't think it's as much of a major component as some of the left maintains, and the true reasons are much more complex, and blowing it off to either race or ignorance avoids the real issues.
Playing the race card is too easy, as a major reason for Obama's failing support, becuae I don't think it's as much of a major component as some of the left maintains, and the true reasons are much more complex, and blowing it off to either race or ignorance avoids the real issues.
"Fortunately, most Americans see Obama much in the same way as the rest of the world and are proud to have him, but the radical right fringe is louder and more obnoxious, claiming the first amendment gives them the right to disagree with the government.
Well, I don't completely agree. I think most Americans are more reserved than the "radical right" which is a tiny majority, but the voices of dissent are coming from many others, who might be a little less vociferous.
The first amendment does give citizens the right to express themselves as they wish, whether it's obnoxious "birthers" on the right, or PETA members throwing paint on those wearing furs... it goes both ways
"That essentially means they have the right to act like idiots and a lot of them have been gleefully exercising that right."
Exactly right, and in some cases, especially the particular cases previously noted here, I'd agree with you completely. Just remember that while the majority of the right choose to express themselves in am more appropriate manner, they are still very likely sympathetic to the issues being protested, if not the more extreme protesters themselves...
From what I've seen, the river of dissent runs much deeper than it appears on the surface, and can't be defined by the flotsam that happens to bob along...
Well, I don't completely agree. I think most Americans are more reserved than the "radical right" which is a tiny majority, but the voices of dissent are coming from many others, who might be a little less vociferous.
The first amendment does give citizens the right to express themselves as they wish, whether it's obnoxious "birthers" on the right, or PETA members throwing paint on those wearing furs... it goes both ways
"That essentially means they have the right to act like idiots and a lot of them have been gleefully exercising that right."
Exactly right, and in some cases, especially the particular cases previously noted here, I'd agree with you completely. Just remember that while the majority of the right choose to express themselves in am more appropriate manner, they are still very likely sympathetic to the issues being protested, if not the more extreme protesters themselves...
From what I've seen, the river of dissent runs much deeper than it appears on the surface, and can't be defined by the flotsam that happens to bob along...
[Comment deleted by user]
Well, firesisle, you make some points to ponder, but all things are relative.
There has never been a white president called a "liar" in the house of Congress. You won't find that any white president has been called things like "Indonesian Muslim" or "Welfare thug". There has not been a white president, who has received more death threats than any other.
President Obama is being embraced by the rest of the world, not because of the color of his skin, but because he is so far superior to the Bush/Cheney administration in terms of flexibility, intellect, communication, and the willingness to listen for ways to compromise, rather than swagger around being exclusionary or making demands.
Fortunately, most Americans see Obama much in the same way as the rest of the world and are proud to have him, but the radical right fringe is louder and more obnoxious, claiming the first amendment gives them the right to disagree with the government. That essentially means they have the right to act like idiots and a lot of them have been gleefully exercising that right.
What is amazing to many people is the fact that Obama had a white mother, so he is half white. But that just makes some intolerant people even more indignant.
I stand by what I said: the rest of the world is a lot more enlightened than some of our own.
There has never been a white president called a "liar" in the house of Congress. You won't find that any white president has been called things like "Indonesian Muslim" or "Welfare thug". There has not been a white president, who has received more death threats than any other.
President Obama is being embraced by the rest of the world, not because of the color of his skin, but because he is so far superior to the Bush/Cheney administration in terms of flexibility, intellect, communication, and the willingness to listen for ways to compromise, rather than swagger around being exclusionary or making demands.
Fortunately, most Americans see Obama much in the same way as the rest of the world and are proud to have him, but the radical right fringe is louder and more obnoxious, claiming the first amendment gives them the right to disagree with the government. That essentially means they have the right to act like idiots and a lot of them have been gleefully exercising that right.
What is amazing to many people is the fact that Obama had a white mother, so he is half white. But that just makes some intolerant people even more indignant.
I stand by what I said: the rest of the world is a lot more enlightened than some of our own.
Think about it. Even Obama is getting more death threats than Jimmy Carter got when he was in office, and Pres. Carter would have been the most ineffective President if it wasn't for Pres. Herbert Hoover with the way he mishandled the oil situation and the Iran hostage situation. And Obama gets more death threats than Carter when Carter was in office.
When the 'RIGHT' protest, anywhere, study the signs they bring. These folks are proud to make fun of the black man in their White House.
Yes, I agree with Jimmy Carter.
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net
Thanks for posting this blog!
Yes, I agree with Jimmy Carter.
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net
Thanks for posting this blog!
Jimmy Carter simply has no credibility whatsoever on the issue of race. Over the years, he has repeatedly played the race card, and has frequently done so in a very nasty and pernicious manner. In that respect, Carter is far worse than the little boy who cried wolf. Therefore, giving him any credence on the subject is sadly way beyond being simplehearted.
For example, during the presidential race in 2004, Carter held a press availability with John Kerry, in Georgia, and publicly repeated the absolute lie that in the 2000 election, one million black voters in Florida were disinfranchised. One million! No one had ever produced any credible proof that even one single person was "disinfranchised" in that Florida election based on race. Not one! And yet, four years later, Carter and Kerry repeated the vile charge about the "one million" disinfranchised black voters.
Why did they repeat that false and ugly charge? They did it to stir up racial animus toward Republicans in the run-up to the 2004 election.
The most telling aspect of that lie was that the very people who would have had to be deeply involved in such a widespread voter suppression conspiracy, would have been the Democrat election supervisors in the heavily black populated areas of Florida!
But Jimmy Carter did not hesitate for one second to publicly repeat that out and out falsehood.
So, please, do not think you will persuade anyone with any sense that Jimmy Carter has now somehow become the go-to guy on the subject of what is motivating people to protest the policies and programs of Barack Obama.
The bulk of the growing opposition to Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with irresponsible governance, including engaging in out of control spending, making radical and inadvisable appointments, frequently to circumvent established process, exhibiting a dangerous naivite in foreign policy, and engaging in a stubborn pursuit of policies that seek to radically alter large sectors of the economy without justification. People justifiably fear that his initiatives will further undermine our national economic stability, with no discernible way out. They fear for the future.
For example, during the presidential race in 2004, Carter held a press availability with John Kerry, in Georgia, and publicly repeated the absolute lie that in the 2000 election, one million black voters in Florida were disinfranchised. One million! No one had ever produced any credible proof that even one single person was "disinfranchised" in that Florida election based on race. Not one! And yet, four years later, Carter and Kerry repeated the vile charge about the "one million" disinfranchised black voters.
Why did they repeat that false and ugly charge? They did it to stir up racial animus toward Republicans in the run-up to the 2004 election.
The most telling aspect of that lie was that the very people who would have had to be deeply involved in such a widespread voter suppression conspiracy, would have been the Democrat election supervisors in the heavily black populated areas of Florida!
But Jimmy Carter did not hesitate for one second to publicly repeat that out and out falsehood.
So, please, do not think you will persuade anyone with any sense that Jimmy Carter has now somehow become the go-to guy on the subject of what is motivating people to protest the policies and programs of Barack Obama.
The bulk of the growing opposition to Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with irresponsible governance, including engaging in out of control spending, making radical and inadvisable appointments, frequently to circumvent established process, exhibiting a dangerous naivite in foreign policy, and engaging in a stubborn pursuit of policies that seek to radically alter large sectors of the economy without justification. People justifiably fear that his initiatives will further undermine our national economic stability, with no discernible way out. They fear for the future.
[Comment deleted by user]
Excuse me, but it was proven that tens of thousands of black voters were removed because they were "suspected felons." Even when it was proven that they weren't, Gov. Jeb Bush refused to reinstate them.
Maybe not a million voters, but certainly enough to put Jeb's stupider brother into a White House he never really won.
Maybe not a million voters, but certainly enough to put Jeb's stupider brother into a White House he never really won.
This is utterly bogus leftist rubbish, CaliforniaMike.
What I said was that no one -- not one person was disenfranchised in Florida, based on their race. That is a fact.
No credible proof of any such thing has EVER been proven, although plenty of Democrats, including Carter and Kerry have repeatedly made the exponentially larger false and vicious charge in order to try to stir up racial animosity. They are despicable people for having done so.
What you are referring to was an effort by the state -- which they were required to do by law -- to purge the voting roles of the deceased and convicted felons who, were and should have been prohibited from voting.
A 1998 Miami election was thrown out because of the number of deceased persons and convicted felons who somehow managed to get their votes recorded. The court correctly concluded that the legitimate voters were thereby disenfranchised as a result of those phony ballots. It's kind of like what happens to you or me when organizations like ACORN register non-existent voters -- someone goes in and casts that bogus ballot, and your ballot or my ballot is thereby nullified.
There were administrative difficulties that arose as a result of similar or identical names, and likely some voters did not get it straightened out prior to election day. I do not know what the precise numbers were, but I am sure your number of 10,000 is a gross exaggeration.
Again, the local election commissioners, many of them Democrats, bore much of the responsibility for those problems. Were they doing it based on race? The answer is no.
So go back to Democrat Underground, or wherever you got your propaganda from, and delude yourself some more about how any such snafus were "proven" to have been based on race. They were not.
And, what do you mean "maybe not a million?" This post is about charges of racism made by Jimmy Carter, based on what he somehow magically knows is in other peoples' minds. It has been a habit of a lifetime for Carter.
Finally, I reiterate, to his credit, that President Obama rejected Carter’s obnoxious comments today.
Gee, CaliforniaMike, you are not now suggesting that he is being untruthful are you?
Didn't think so!!
What I said was that no one -- not one person was disenfranchised in Florida, based on their race. That is a fact.
No credible proof of any such thing has EVER been proven, although plenty of Democrats, including Carter and Kerry have repeatedly made the exponentially larger false and vicious charge in order to try to stir up racial animosity. They are despicable people for having done so.
What you are referring to was an effort by the state -- which they were required to do by law -- to purge the voting roles of the deceased and convicted felons who, were and should have been prohibited from voting.
A 1998 Miami election was thrown out because of the number of deceased persons and convicted felons who somehow managed to get their votes recorded. The court correctly concluded that the legitimate voters were thereby disenfranchised as a result of those phony ballots. It's kind of like what happens to you or me when organizations like ACORN register non-existent voters -- someone goes in and casts that bogus ballot, and your ballot or my ballot is thereby nullified.
There were administrative difficulties that arose as a result of similar or identical names, and likely some voters did not get it straightened out prior to election day. I do not know what the precise numbers were, but I am sure your number of 10,000 is a gross exaggeration.
Again, the local election commissioners, many of them Democrats, bore much of the responsibility for those problems. Were they doing it based on race? The answer is no.
So go back to Democrat Underground, or wherever you got your propaganda from, and delude yourself some more about how any such snafus were "proven" to have been based on race. They were not.
And, what do you mean "maybe not a million?" This post is about charges of racism made by Jimmy Carter, based on what he somehow magically knows is in other peoples' minds. It has been a habit of a lifetime for Carter.
Finally, I reiterate, to his credit, that President Obama rejected Carter’s obnoxious comments today.
Gee, CaliforniaMike, you are not now suggesting that he is being untruthful are you?
Didn't think so!!
Heya Jerry... *LOL*
Ok... you've seen ALL the signs, because you've been there, right? No? Are you talking about the sign that show up in the drive-by medea and accepting that they are somehow representative the general population of attendees? That is a serious mistake. That also alows y'all to just blow them off as whackos instead of addressing real issues. If that's where you want to go with it, far be if for me to fight it. It just ticks people off and some, maybe more than some, would support Obama on some other issues, if they weren't being insulted by being painted with a broad brush...
Ok... you've seen ALL the signs, because you've been there, right? No? Are you talking about the sign that show up in the drive-by medea and accepting that they are somehow representative the general population of attendees? That is a serious mistake. That also alows y'all to just blow them off as whackos instead of addressing real issues. If that's where you want to go with it, far be if for me to fight it. It just ticks people off and some, maybe more than some, would support Obama on some other issues, if they weren't being insulted by being painted with a broad brush...
One of Jimmy Carter's books "Israel, peace not apartheid" was recommended by Osama Bin Laden and some members of his own staff left over charges of its bias. That alone kills any moral authority that this man has over such issues in my view.
As for the Hitler mustache, it is a sad fact of social science. When people of like mine sets get together, they tend to gravitate to the extremes. However, I find it doubtful those people are representative of the mainstream protestors
As for the Hitler mustache, it is a sad fact of social science. When people of like mine sets get together, they tend to gravitate to the extremes. However, I find it doubtful those people are representative of the mainstream protestors
[Comment deleted by user]
Actually, if you want to understnd the dymamics and history of the Palestinian conflict, throw Carter's book out the wondow, and read the history of the region over the last 100 years, from several sources. Taking it from Carter, or any one person or source gives you one person's understanding, which may or may not be valid or even relavent.
I have to ask... in the middle of the Cold War, what kind of a healthy mind leaves the US nuclear launch codes with a secret service agent, 100 miles away when they go home to visit? When Carter went home, the US was absolutely powerless to respond in any kind of timely manner to a nuclear strike. Personally? I'd call that man a dumb-ass.
At least he didn't lose them, like Clinton...
I have to ask... in the middle of the Cold War, what kind of a healthy mind leaves the US nuclear launch codes with a secret service agent, 100 miles away when they go home to visit? When Carter went home, the US was absolutely powerless to respond in any kind of timely manner to a nuclear strike. Personally? I'd call that man a dumb-ass.
At least he didn't lose them, like Clinton...
[Comment deleted by user]
"Where were these idiots when Bush 43 was taking us into an illegal war that killed thousand of Americans?"
They were probably supporting it, as were most of the "idiots" they put into Congress, both Democratic and Republican. Without Congressional support, Bush could have done very little. I think that makes it hard to blame just one man.
They were probably supporting it, as were most of the "idiots" they put into Congress, both Democratic and Republican. Without Congressional support, Bush could have done very little. I think that makes it hard to blame just one man.
macasey,
You raise many good points. Especially, regarding the religious hypocrisy.
I just heard the responses to an e-mail survey that CNN's John Cafferty sent out, which asked if Carter was right about Obama being treated with racism. The response was about 80% in agreement. The e-mails were thoughtful and many came from conservatives, which was surprising.
Michael Steele is going around the talk show circuit trying to convince people that it was about policy, not racism and he was bashing Carter for saying what he did, accusing him of throwing the "race card out there willy-nilly'. Well, that is so typical of Steele, who claims that the "liberal elite" think they know racism better than he does, being a black man.
Steele uses the example that he doesn't hear someone call a black man a "liar" and automatically think "racism". Talk about overly simplistic.
In this case, the "black man" was the president of the United States, being called a "liar" by a southern white guy in the house of congress. Add to that all the other insanity being stirred up by radical conservative "Christians", and the observation of a former president from the south, and it spells racism.
What is that old expression? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck--it's probably a duck.
You raise many good points. Especially, regarding the religious hypocrisy.
I just heard the responses to an e-mail survey that CNN's John Cafferty sent out, which asked if Carter was right about Obama being treated with racism. The response was about 80% in agreement. The e-mails were thoughtful and many came from conservatives, which was surprising.
Michael Steele is going around the talk show circuit trying to convince people that it was about policy, not racism and he was bashing Carter for saying what he did, accusing him of throwing the "race card out there willy-nilly'. Well, that is so typical of Steele, who claims that the "liberal elite" think they know racism better than he does, being a black man.
Steele uses the example that he doesn't hear someone call a black man a "liar" and automatically think "racism". Talk about overly simplistic.
In this case, the "black man" was the president of the United States, being called a "liar" by a southern white guy in the house of congress. Add to that all the other insanity being stirred up by radical conservative "Christians", and the observation of a former president from the south, and it spells racism.
What is that old expression? If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck--it's probably a duck.
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden would recommend hummus as a delicious Mid-Eastern treat. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop eating chickpeas.
Changez----I see who you are now!
Delilah---you are truly blind if you sit there and say that there is not a resentment by minorities toward the white man----not every black, brown, yellow , red, or whatever color you wish to speak about have racist thoughts but they are out there---I work in an inner city hospital --all nationalities are represented by either being an employee or a patient--I personally see it everyday----and not every white person has racist feeling toward non whites----the broad brush is used quite frequently to get a particular view across and it does everyone a great disservice.
Diliah----do you really think that Joe Wilson sat in the chamber and thought --this is a black man---I think I'll say he's lying---because I don't like black people---Pleeeeeeze-----you do have a problem---
[Comment deleted by user]
Even though Joe Wilson fought to keep the Confederate flag flying, even though he's a member of the Sons of the Confederacy, even though he attacked Strom Thurmond's illegitimate black daughter as a liar?
At least we can be thankful he didn't say, "You lie, n****r."
At least we can be thankful he didn't say, "You lie, n****r."
Good one Mike!:))
Okay, Cookie. Let's suspend reality for, like, one second.
First of all, no one said any thing about Joe Wilson's remark being planned or premeditated, so what does that have to do with anything?
Secondly, it wasn't so much what "you lie" Joe Wilson said, it was where he said it--in the house of Congress, where the worst behavior allowed is occasional booing. Obviously, Joe Wilson thought the rules of civility didn't apply to him.
In addition to the fact that Wilson made a big stink about Strom Thurman's bi-racial daughter, who came out in public after Thurman died. Not to mention Wilson's Confederate connections.
It isn't a big stretch to connect his "you lie" rant to racism. If there had been a white president standing in front of the room that Wilson happened not to agree with, it's doubtful he would have behaved the same disrespectful way.
As it turns out, Wilson was wrong and Obama was right.
Of course, not everyone who disagrees with the president is a racist. That's just rhetorical bull, but given every thing that has been going on in this country--Carter is right and he deserves credit for having the intestinal fortitude to say it out loud publicly.
The fact is, your rant on this comment thread have taken a lot of free liberty to put words into my mouth, like saying:you are truly blind if you sit there and say that there is not a resentment by minorities toward the white man, etc.
Where did I say that? No where. Evidently, you are one of those spammers that hit other people's articles that you don't agree with and use the platform to unload your personal bias.
Then you bark at Changez, because of a one line supportive Carter remark left here? Well, we now know who you are: one very judgmental person.
First of all, no one said any thing about Joe Wilson's remark being planned or premeditated, so what does that have to do with anything?
Secondly, it wasn't so much what "you lie" Joe Wilson said, it was where he said it--in the house of Congress, where the worst behavior allowed is occasional booing. Obviously, Joe Wilson thought the rules of civility didn't apply to him.
In addition to the fact that Wilson made a big stink about Strom Thurman's bi-racial daughter, who came out in public after Thurman died. Not to mention Wilson's Confederate connections.
It isn't a big stretch to connect his "you lie" rant to racism. If there had been a white president standing in front of the room that Wilson happened not to agree with, it's doubtful he would have behaved the same disrespectful way.
As it turns out, Wilson was wrong and Obama was right.
Of course, not everyone who disagrees with the president is a racist. That's just rhetorical bull, but given every thing that has been going on in this country--Carter is right and he deserves credit for having the intestinal fortitude to say it out loud publicly.
The fact is, your rant on this comment thread have taken a lot of free liberty to put words into my mouth, like saying:you are truly blind if you sit there and say that there is not a resentment by minorities toward the white man, etc.
Where did I say that? No where. Evidently, you are one of those spammers that hit other people's articles that you don't agree with and use the platform to unload your personal bias.
Then you bark at Changez, because of a one line supportive Carter remark left here? Well, we now know who you are: one very judgmental person.
I think cookies 'reality', and mind I use the word most sparingly, is in a permanent suspension . Kind of like cryostasis or suspended animation; this is not a person with a good grip on reality delilah; uh uh. Telling it to temporarily suspend reality is like giving prince a sex change.
and as far as a CNN poll---people who say they are conservatives---I could say I was a rocket scientist, a fairy princess, a rodeo star---how would you know---and the only ones who even listen to CNN are liberals---need I say more----
MACasey---Illegal war---define this---
[Comment deleted by user]
Macasey, You are absolutely right and a very welcome voice of reason to this comment thread.
You are obviously very versed in politics and Jimmy Carter in particular. I thought I remembered that he had won a nobel peace prize.
Thanks for your comments!
You are obviously very versed in politics and Jimmy Carter in particular. I thought I remembered that he had won a nobel peace prize.
Thanks for your comments!
Macasey---Is this the same Jimmy Carter that has not 1 but two books on the Bin Ladin must read list---go ahead ---keep singing the praises of this senile old gentleman---I think Jimmy needs to be worrying about what will happen to him with the new healthcare being planned for seniors---as Rahmn's brother the physician says the treatment of dementia would be a waste of money and not necessary---Jimmy better start hoarding his Aricept now!
[Comment deleted by user]
This post, above ostensibly "written" by macasey, is copied word for word from, here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-6639-Seattle-Democrat-Examiner~y2009m8d16-Sarah-Palin-and-Newt-Gingrich-on-new-health-care-reform-bill
Is there not a rule on this site prohibiting plagiarism?
http://www.examiner.com/x-6639-Seattle-Democrat-Examiner~y2009m8d16-Sarah-Palin-and-Newt-Gingrich-on-new-health-care-reform-bill
Is there not a rule on this site prohibiting plagiarism?
delilah----but to a delusional person it can look like a duck sound like a duck but it's actually their mother------go figure------
[Comment deleted by user]
lecia . . . I just saw this comment of yours. Right you are! I said something similar in a response to macasey and others, but I can now see you got the point out first. Good one!
My response was "Well, on this point, macasey, I’ll simply say that I acknowledge your candor in conceding that, in your opinion, the President was lying when he said that Jimmy Carter was wrong about what he said."
By the way, you might also want to check out my latest comment below in response to macasey.
It seems our little buddy got caught with his/her fingers in the cookie jar -- one of his/her comments was copied wholesale from a 2006 website about Jimmy Carter. Check it out!
Looks like poor Delilah might have spoken too soon when she said:
"Macasey, You are absolutely right and a very welcome voice of reason to this comment thread."
Ooooops!
My response was "Well, on this point, macasey, I’ll simply say that I acknowledge your candor in conceding that, in your opinion, the President was lying when he said that Jimmy Carter was wrong about what he said."
By the way, you might also want to check out my latest comment below in response to macasey.
It seems our little buddy got caught with his/her fingers in the cookie jar -- one of his/her comments was copied wholesale from a 2006 website about Jimmy Carter. Check it out!
Looks like poor Delilah might have spoken too soon when she said:
"Macasey, You are absolutely right and a very welcome voice of reason to this comment thread."
Ooooops!
Of course, Obama is not going to say anything to further inflame the racism dialog.
I can't even imagine the indignant furor from the right radicals if the president were to publicly agree with Carter. Obama isn't stupid. He is wise to distance himself.
I can't even imagine the indignant furor from the right radicals if the president were to publicly agree with Carter. Obama isn't stupid. He is wise to distance himself.
[Comment deleted by user]
And Dililah---Lets just agree you are judgemental also---lots of judgemental words on your blog---depends on what your source is as to how you judge your stance vs my stance on matters---I think we will just have to agree to disagree because I think we could probably go back and forth and come up with that standard arguement " it depends on the meaning of is" lol----and by the way how do you know that given the same circumstances---with the emotions running so high over a bill that will have such impact on our people and the economy--that Joe would not have shouted out in frustration when hearing something that does not ring true.I was watching the TV and yelled at the TV moments before Joe did. (and if I'm not mistaken Obama did backtrack on his statement within the next 24-48 hours)
Well Dilalah, looks like you and Jimmy Carter lost this one. Big time!
Rasmussen reports that only 12% of the American public believe that the opponents of the President's policies are racists.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/12_say_most_opponents_of_obama_health_care_plan_are_racist
While there are a number of people (21%) who are not sure, just over two thirds (67%) of the American public reject that notion.
Do you think that Jimmy Carter will now apologize for making his ugly accusation?
Given his history of false accusations and bad judgment, I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting!
Rasmussen reports that only 12% of the American public believe that the opponents of the President's policies are racists.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/12_say_most_opponents_of_obama_health_care_plan_are_racist
While there are a number of people (21%) who are not sure, just over two thirds (67%) of the American public reject that notion.
Do you think that Jimmy Carter will now apologize for making his ugly accusation?
Given his history of false accusations and bad judgment, I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting!
Oh please, Mr. T,
Polls are only as reliable as the way they are worded, and they can change dramtically if there is a slight change in how the question is asked.
It all comes down to a simple truth--no one wants to admit they are racist or the country has a racist problem toward the president.
In addition to the fact that not everyone hangs on every word of media that circulates every day on TV, Internet, or radio. Some people just prefer to "sing in the sunshine."
Polls are only as reliable as the way they are worded, and they can change dramtically if there is a slight change in how the question is asked.
It all comes down to a simple truth--no one wants to admit they are racist or the country has a racist problem toward the president.
In addition to the fact that not everyone hangs on every word of media that circulates every day on TV, Internet, or radio. Some people just prefer to "sing in the sunshine."
And from where do your simple truths derive, Delilah? Please tell me how you know what is in my head and the heads of the increasing percentage of the people in this country, who are opposed to Obama's policies? How do you explain the increasing numbers? Did a bad case of racism just break out, along with the swine flu?
Or, is it not just a case of you wanting to believe, without proof, as Carter is saying that the "overwhelming portion" of the demonstrable opposition to Obama policies derives from racism?
By the way, Delilah, have you thought up a response to the fact I cited regarding Carter's utterly false charge about one million black voters being disinfranchised in the 2000 election -- the one he made in 2004 without any proof whatsoever?
Or, are you conceding that one?
Or, is it not just a case of you wanting to believe, without proof, as Carter is saying that the "overwhelming portion" of the demonstrable opposition to Obama policies derives from racism?
By the way, Delilah, have you thought up a response to the fact I cited regarding Carter's utterly false charge about one million black voters being disinfranchised in the 2000 election -- the one he made in 2004 without any proof whatsoever?
Or, are you conceding that one?
Dear rainbow,
Why were we all created %100 equal?
Well, Ted Kulongoski, remember that everyone must work hard in whatever field they choose and have a session of international cultural communications training in rememberance of me, the international symbol of music, of harmony, and of universal peace. It shows that the world is composed of diverse people, in terms of race, colour and ability. I am used by people who have different sexual orientations, particularly gays, and I am proud enough to swallow my own pride. Furthermore, Ted, I'm pretty sure, and a rainbow never forgets, that our equality is equal to our efforts to lively equally. It doesn't take a politician to justify our own dreams. There are giving trees that promote clean energy for crying out loud. There are water recycling centers that are relying on mindpower alone. A little heart goes a long ways. Some heart to get from point A to point B with a notion to keep going, a notion to resume and continue on without worry. Little heart, look up. Can't you see me stretched across the sky? Here, step on this outstretching color of your choice, and let's share stories about point C. Have you ever been there? I'll get you there on time. It's rainbow time!
But rainbow, how do expect to rendevouz and bring about new plans for recycling and eventually that solution to air polution?
patience, Ted, we're working on it together remember?
That's right. So, once I meet you at "Rainbow Station" we can continue?
You don't HAVE to believe it, we MUST believe!!! The only way we can redevouz on rainbow time is if we trust together. Our future's are our openings for the future potential in all of us to be unlocked, envisioning tomorrow with moose bumbs to reminded us that we need to remember how to remember every memember every member of the moose club.
Why rainbow the moose club?
Well, Ted, we used to talk politics, me and the moose club, and they promised to lend a hand in our street market for community reminders. And they say a moose never forgets. So weeks and weeks went by as they dealt with community issues of music shop space, supplies, and electricty they remembered something they had promised. There was no positions set for someone to operate the community reminder board so they dealt with it immediately.
Rainbow can I surf you yet?
Get our your surf board and hang 10! I'll take you to whatever point you think about along the way.
So is it true, a governor never forgets?
Why were we all created %100 equal?
Well, Ted Kulongoski, remember that everyone must work hard in whatever field they choose and have a session of international cultural communications training in rememberance of me, the international symbol of music, of harmony, and of universal peace. It shows that the world is composed of diverse people, in terms of race, colour and ability. I am used by people who have different sexual orientations, particularly gays, and I am proud enough to swallow my own pride. Furthermore, Ted, I'm pretty sure, and a rainbow never forgets, that our equality is equal to our efforts to lively equally. It doesn't take a politician to justify our own dreams. There are giving trees that promote clean energy for crying out loud. There are water recycling centers that are relying on mindpower alone. A little heart goes a long ways. Some heart to get from point A to point B with a notion to keep going, a notion to resume and continue on without worry. Little heart, look up. Can't you see me stretched across the sky? Here, step on this outstretching color of your choice, and let's share stories about point C. Have you ever been there? I'll get you there on time. It's rainbow time!
But rainbow, how do expect to rendevouz and bring about new plans for recycling and eventually that solution to air polution?
patience, Ted, we're working on it together remember?
That's right. So, once I meet you at "Rainbow Station" we can continue?
You don't HAVE to believe it, we MUST believe!!! The only way we can redevouz on rainbow time is if we trust together. Our future's are our openings for the future potential in all of us to be unlocked, envisioning tomorrow with moose bumbs to reminded us that we need to remember how to remember every memember every member of the moose club.
Why rainbow the moose club?
Well, Ted, we used to talk politics, me and the moose club, and they promised to lend a hand in our street market for community reminders. And they say a moose never forgets. So weeks and weeks went by as they dealt with community issues of music shop space, supplies, and electricty they remembered something they had promised. There was no positions set for someone to operate the community reminder board so they dealt with it immediately.
Rainbow can I surf you yet?
Get our your surf board and hang 10! I'll take you to whatever point you think about along the way.
So is it true, a governor never forgets?
It's not a card; It is just something that you do have to factor in - a certain percentage of people won't like him because he's black; and he's the first black president so it's not really fair to say other white presidents were disliked by black people or latinos/hispanics.
Dililah----I think that is called the "Hallo Effect"------He lets the others do his dirty work---that way he can sit back and say "Oh, not me" Anyway---what's all this talk about a black man---isn't Obama's mother and her side of the familiy white?---I think the politically correct term is Biracial----lets start addressing all of the hatred for "Biracial" individuals----this world is so full of itself----the more we focus on what is different about each of us the further we fall into choas----how about encouraging each to be the very best we can be--regardless of their ethnicity---this is kind of like rebellious teenagers---the more you try to cram it down their throat the more they will act out---they don't want to have it "in their face" day after day after day------all of this talk about racism---Diliah are you trying to cleanse your soul---is there some transference here?
"Reply By Changez | Dude, you're patently an idiot and know nothing; hence I am not going to waste my time."
Dud, given the obvious fact that you simply have no answers for the facts I cited above, you are apparently not going to waste OUR time either! For that much, I guess, we can all be grateful.
"Reply By macasey | 'President Obama today rejected Carter's comments' – What would you expect President Obama to say? You don't actually think that he can agree do you? He would just be labeled "the angry black man" and attacked even further! Get real!"
Well, on this point, macasey, I’ll simply say that I acknowledge your candor in conceding that, in your opinion, the President was lying when he said that Jimmy Carter was wrong about what he said.
Regarding your second response comment, above, beginning as follows:
"To Trochilus-
President Carter established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and made good on a long-standing American promise to return control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians . . ."
First, macasey, let me point out that plagiarism is a very serious offense. It appears that you have copied that entire chunk of material in "your" response to me above, WORD FOR WORD, from a post, put up in 2006, on the website of the Academy of Achievement, located here:
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/car0bio-1
None of it – not one word was your own, but you represented it as if it was.Secondly, the material you copied was not in any way responsive to the points I had made, which, frankly, does not surprise me. If you are incapable of writing a response on your own, you are incapable of understanding the initial point.
And thirdly, the "point" made at the end of the material you lifted – that Carter has published 20 books since leaving office – is (like all the lifted material) not only irrelevant to the point I made about his race-baiting tendencies, but you may also be surprised to learn that his latest book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," is considered anti-Semitic in tone by many, AND it comes highly recommended by none other than Osama Bin Laden, as previously noted by CookieCutter.
You can read all about it here --
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/bin-ladens-reading-list-for-americans/#more-30319 –- on The Lede, at the New York Times, in a piece entitled, "Bin Laden’s Reading List for Americans," by Sharon Otterman and Robert Mackey. Just don’t copy it and post it somewhere pretending that you wrote it!
Gee, macasey, Osama Bin Laden is hardly the "expert" I’d want to have touting MY books!
Dud, given the obvious fact that you simply have no answers for the facts I cited above, you are apparently not going to waste OUR time either! For that much, I guess, we can all be grateful.
"Reply By macasey | 'President Obama today rejected Carter's comments' – What would you expect President Obama to say? You don't actually think that he can agree do you? He would just be labeled "the angry black man" and attacked even further! Get real!"
Well, on this point, macasey, I’ll simply say that I acknowledge your candor in conceding that, in your opinion, the President was lying when he said that Jimmy Carter was wrong about what he said.
Regarding your second response comment, above, beginning as follows:
"To Trochilus-
President Carter established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and made good on a long-standing American promise to return control of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians . . ."
First, macasey, let me point out that plagiarism is a very serious offense. It appears that you have copied that entire chunk of material in "your" response to me above, WORD FOR WORD, from a post, put up in 2006, on the website of the Academy of Achievement, located here:
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/car0bio-1
None of it – not one word was your own, but you represented it as if it was.Secondly, the material you copied was not in any way responsive to the points I had made, which, frankly, does not surprise me. If you are incapable of writing a response on your own, you are incapable of understanding the initial point.
And thirdly, the "point" made at the end of the material you lifted – that Carter has published 20 books since leaving office – is (like all the lifted material) not only irrelevant to the point I made about his race-baiting tendencies, but you may also be surprised to learn that his latest book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," is considered anti-Semitic in tone by many, AND it comes highly recommended by none other than Osama Bin Laden, as previously noted by CookieCutter.
You can read all about it here --
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/bin-ladens-reading-list-for-americans/#more-30319 –- on The Lede, at the New York Times, in a piece entitled, "Bin Laden’s Reading List for Americans," by Sharon Otterman and Robert Mackey. Just don’t copy it and post it somewhere pretending that you wrote it!
Gee, macasey, Osama Bin Laden is hardly the "expert" I’d want to have touting MY books!
"macasey" . . . hmmmm, let’s see – would you be the writer, "Marie Casey," who published the above two paragraphs, beginning
"Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who has been characterized by conservatives as a “Dr. Death”, discredited claims . . . "
as a portion of a commentary the Washington Examiner on August 16, 2009, in a piece entitled, "Health Care Reform - Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich against the programs they praised" in the middle of which these exact words (above) appear?
If you ARE Marie Casey, would you please explain why so many other comments you have posted on this thread are taken word-for-word from other sources, without any attribution given by you?
For example, see my sourced (linked) comment, below, about the post, put up in 2006, on the website of the Academy of Achievement. You posted that comment here as if you wrote it. You did not write it.
And if you are NOT Marie Casey, would you please explain why you copied a portion of Marie Casey’s commentary, above, PLUS why several other comments you have posted here are taken word-for-word from other sources, without any attribution?
For example, read this "catchy" phrase in another comment you posted without ANY attribution –-
"Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
Maureen Dowd wrote that exact phrase in her recent column, entitled "Boy, Oh, Boy!" . . . not you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
Large portions of the rest of that post here were lifted directly from Dowd’s column as well, such as this phrase:
" . . . belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced the true claim of a black woman that was the daughter of Strom Thurmond . . ." which is in YOUR comment word-for-word, without attribution.
Also in her column was the litany of names she claimed Obama has ostensibly been called. Here is how you put it . . . without attribution, as if you wrote it:
". . . efforts to paint our first black president as a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi that would kill old people, a snake who would indoctrinate kids — is racism!"
And here is what Maureen Dowd said in her column:
" . . . efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race."
Nearly identical. She wrote that, not you -- unless you are Mo Dowd. If you are not Dowd, in my opinion, that is plagiarism, pure and simple.
Why are you taking credit for it? Who are you?
Delilah, is there not a rule on this site prohibiting plagiarism?
"Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who has been characterized by conservatives as a “Dr. Death”, discredited claims . . . "
as a portion of a commentary the Washington Examiner on August 16, 2009, in a piece entitled, "Health Care Reform - Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich against the programs they praised" in the middle of which these exact words (above) appear?
If you ARE Marie Casey, would you please explain why so many other comments you have posted on this thread are taken word-for-word from other sources, without any attribution given by you?
For example, see my sourced (linked) comment, below, about the post, put up in 2006, on the website of the Academy of Achievement. You posted that comment here as if you wrote it. You did not write it.
And if you are NOT Marie Casey, would you please explain why you copied a portion of Marie Casey’s commentary, above, PLUS why several other comments you have posted here are taken word-for-word from other sources, without any attribution?
For example, read this "catchy" phrase in another comment you posted without ANY attribution –-
"Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
Maureen Dowd wrote that exact phrase in her recent column, entitled "Boy, Oh, Boy!" . . . not you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
Large portions of the rest of that post here were lifted directly from Dowd’s column as well, such as this phrase:
" . . . belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced the true claim of a black woman that was the daughter of Strom Thurmond . . ." which is in YOUR comment word-for-word, without attribution.
Also in her column was the litany of names she claimed Obama has ostensibly been called. Here is how you put it . . . without attribution, as if you wrote it:
". . . efforts to paint our first black president as a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi that would kill old people, a snake who would indoctrinate kids — is racism!"
And here is what Maureen Dowd said in her column:
" . . . efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race."
Nearly identical. She wrote that, not you -- unless you are Mo Dowd. If you are not Dowd, in my opinion, that is plagiarism, pure and simple.
Why are you taking credit for it? Who are you?
Delilah, is there not a rule on this site prohibiting plagiarism?
Dude, that is some paranoid shit. Comments don't need to be original, even if copying them does show a lack of intellectual fortitude, but your inept lack of knowledge comes from spewing everything you hear on tv rather than knowing anything for yourself. That's aside from being stinted and ideologically biased.
Here is just the latest macasy copying I have found:
Wesley L. Janssen, on Amazon, nearly three weeks ago, here :
http://www.amazon.com/review/RF7MHZZZ0FDZW
Carter " . . . is a man with a healthy curiosity, an engaging mind, and a moral/ethical compass not controlled by prosaic political polarity."
macasey, here, only 22 hours ago:
"Carter is a man with a healthy curiosity, an engaging mind, and a moral/ethical compass not controlled by politics!"
macasey, do you have any original thoughts? Do you have any original ways of expressing those thoughts?
Do you not see the irony involved in swiping another person’s work to describe how "moral" someone is? Have you no shame?
Still waiting for your response on plagiarism at this site, Delilah . . .
Is there a copyright violation when macasy lifts large chunks of material and posts them here without attribution? That doesn’t sound like "fair use" to me! The one I just cited above is not just one inadvertent instance, Delilah. I know you have said that macasey has been raising "many good points" but, as it turns out, many of those are not his/her points.
This is your post, Delilah. Are you going to allow plagiarism to go on, just because someone is backing up your point – with others’ work?
Wesley L. Janssen, on Amazon, nearly three weeks ago, here :
http://www.amazon.com/review/RF7MHZZZ0FDZW
Carter " . . . is a man with a healthy curiosity, an engaging mind, and a moral/ethical compass not controlled by prosaic political polarity."
macasey, here, only 22 hours ago:
"Carter is a man with a healthy curiosity, an engaging mind, and a moral/ethical compass not controlled by politics!"
macasey, do you have any original thoughts? Do you have any original ways of expressing those thoughts?
Do you not see the irony involved in swiping another person’s work to describe how "moral" someone is? Have you no shame?
Still waiting for your response on plagiarism at this site, Delilah . . .
Is there a copyright violation when macasy lifts large chunks of material and posts them here without attribution? That doesn’t sound like "fair use" to me! The one I just cited above is not just one inadvertent instance, Delilah. I know you have said that macasey has been raising "many good points" but, as it turns out, many of those are not his/her points.
This is your post, Delilah. Are you going to allow plagiarism to go on, just because someone is backing up your point – with others’ work?
Mr. T.
You are so far off base on the whole "plagarism" thing that it would be laughable if you weren't being so smug and adament about it.
There's absolutely nothing in the Allvoices terms of use that says that the comment feature is under strict copyright laws. These are "comments", not published articles that require an attributed by-line or attribution to quotes and links.
Most people use their own words to rant and rave at each other, but if people paste in someone else's words to expedite making their point, whether they agree with me or not,so what?
Since you obviously have spent a huge amount of time today being the "copyright" police, you need to get a life, because you seriously have too much time on your hands.
You are so far off base on the whole "plagarism" thing that it would be laughable if you weren't being so smug and adament about it.
There's absolutely nothing in the Allvoices terms of use that says that the comment feature is under strict copyright laws. These are "comments", not published articles that require an attributed by-line or attribution to quotes and links.
Most people use their own words to rant and rave at each other, but if people paste in someone else's words to expedite making their point, whether they agree with me or not,so what?
Since you obviously have spent a huge amount of time today being the "copyright" police, you need to get a life, because you seriously have too much time on your hands.
God bless Jimmy Carter, a great American. If you don't know why, you never will. I completely support his comments on race. Funny, the fair and balanced Republican Party does not have one person of color in the Congress or the Senate. Hmmm?
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net
Really? Nothing? Then what is this in the Allvoices "Terms of Use?"
"Copyright Infringement
Allvoices does not permit copyright infringing activities and infringement of intellectual property rights on its Website and Allvoices will remove all Content, User Contribution, User Report and User Submission if properly notified that such content or User Contribution, User Report and User Submission infringed on another’s intellectual property rights. Allvoices reserves the right to remove Content, User Contributions, User Reports and User Submissions without prior notice.. . . . "
Once again, as I have documented above in this thread, several of the comments put there by commenter "macasey" are copied either in whole or in part from the work of others, thus constituting plagiarism, and perhaps a copyright infringement, as a violation of "fair use".
You cannot just take someone else's copyrighted material and present it elsewhere as your own work. The brazen copying done by commenter "macasey" includes lifting from the work of NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd, and book reviewer for Amazon, Wesley L. Janssen, as well as others.
"Copyright Infringement
Allvoices does not permit copyright infringing activities and infringement of intellectual property rights on its Website and Allvoices will remove all Content, User Contribution, User Report and User Submission if properly notified that such content or User Contribution, User Report and User Submission infringed on another’s intellectual property rights. Allvoices reserves the right to remove Content, User Contributions, User Reports and User Submissions without prior notice.. . . . "
Once again, as I have documented above in this thread, several of the comments put there by commenter "macasey" are copied either in whole or in part from the work of others, thus constituting plagiarism, and perhaps a copyright infringement, as a violation of "fair use".
You cannot just take someone else's copyrighted material and present it elsewhere as your own work. The brazen copying done by commenter "macasey" includes lifting from the work of NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd, and book reviewer for Amazon, Wesley L. Janssen, as well as others.
Mr. T,
The terms of use pertain to All Contribution, User Report and User Submission--but doesn't mention a thing about the comments submitted, so would suggest you cool your jets.
But, if you are seriously concerned about copyright infringement on Allvoices, believe me; you would have a field day, because the practice of copy/paste without attribution is rampant.
I have reported copyright abuses repeatedly to the community manager. They finally terminated the account of farhat96, who was a prolific copy/paste abuser. He even copied the report of another Allvoices report verbatim, and put it under his account.
So, if you and other people here are concerned about copyright infringement, why not spend time focusing on the real abuses that go on this site every day.
The terms of use pertain to All Contribution, User Report and User Submission--but doesn't mention a thing about the comments submitted, so would suggest you cool your jets.
But, if you are seriously concerned about copyright infringement on Allvoices, believe me; you would have a field day, because the practice of copy/paste without attribution is rampant.
I have reported copyright abuses repeatedly to the community manager. They finally terminated the account of farhat96, who was a prolific copy/paste abuser. He even copied the report of another Allvoices report verbatim, and put it under his account.
So, if you and other people here are concerned about copyright infringement, why not spend time focusing on the real abuses that go on this site every day.
Come to think of it, Delilah, you really should consider that when you undertake to agree with Jimmy Carter and call an emerging majority of the people in this country "racist" you really need to learn to spell the word correctly!
Check out your title -- "Former president from the south, Jimmy Carter, says animosity toward Obama is rascist"The word is "racist, NOT "rascist."
Don't quit your day job!
Check out your title -- "Former president from the south, Jimmy Carter, says animosity toward Obama is rascist"The word is "racist, NOT "rascist."
Don't quit your day job!
[Comment deleted by user]
Oh, Mr. T, you are so clever,
The word I was going for was "rascism" not "racist". I didn't notice the typo, so thanks for your sarcastic rant. It has been duly corrected.
The word I was going for was "rascism" not "racist". I didn't notice the typo, so thanks for your sarcastic rant. It has been duly corrected.
This is such a typical tactic by the ignorant; throw out a vicious and scathing bunch of unpalatable and unconfirmed 'facts in as vociferous a voice as possible, so that it sounds like you're screaming on-line, and then deflect the topic of conversation on to something totally irrelevant and meaningless because it makes them seem observant and ethical, even though there is no issue whatsoever. The question here was is Jimmy right, or is Jimmy a retard and so far T has only managed to scream louder than everyone else and assume he's somehow proved a point; give me one credible fact you troglodyte and then we'll see.
Deflect the topic, Changez? Hardly! Plagiarism is a serious matter, no matter what you say. It has to be confronted.
And expressing silly views on a subject that you know nothing about can only make you look foolish.
You obviously know little or nothing about Jimmy Carter, or his history. Please go back and read what I wrote before about his making utterly false accusations about disenfranchising minority voters in 2000. It was a vicious lie, intended to stir up racial discord. It is exactly what he is trying to do again. Read about his insistent and idiotic support of Robert Mugabe. Those are facts. You did not have to live through the Carter Presidency. We did! He had no clue what to do, and at one point he even began suggesting that it was OUR fault!
And now, please read about his personal record in Georgia on the subject of race, as laid out by Hans von Spakovsky at the link I posted here and in a comment below. It will open your eyes.
Here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=
And expressing silly views on a subject that you know nothing about can only make you look foolish.
You obviously know little or nothing about Jimmy Carter, or his history. Please go back and read what I wrote before about his making utterly false accusations about disenfranchising minority voters in 2000. It was a vicious lie, intended to stir up racial discord. It is exactly what he is trying to do again. Read about his insistent and idiotic support of Robert Mugabe. Those are facts. You did not have to live through the Carter Presidency. We did! He had no clue what to do, and at one point he even began suggesting that it was OUR fault!
And now, please read about his personal record in Georgia on the subject of race, as laid out by Hans von Spakovsky at the link I posted here and in a comment below. It will open your eyes.
Here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=
[Comment deleted by user]
Well, Mr. T, I apologize, because my spell check actually says that both rascism and racism is correct. It has been duly corrected--again.
But I am serious about the copyright infringement on this site. When I noticed that farhat96 had lifted an entire piece from annehart, I asked AV management why the "copyright search" didn't catch it when he posted it and I never got an answer.
If you notice people posting 30-40 reports a day in polished English, when they can barely write a single line on their profile or in an e-mail asking you to become their fan--that is a red flag. I have reported several people and the only one that has been booted off so far was the farhat96 fellow. It hurts the credibility of Allvoices.
But I am serious about the copyright infringement on this site. When I noticed that farhat96 had lifted an entire piece from annehart, I asked AV management why the "copyright search" didn't catch it when he posted it and I never got an answer.
If you notice people posting 30-40 reports a day in polished English, when they can barely write a single line on their profile or in an e-mail asking you to become their fan--that is a red flag. I have reported several people and the only one that has been booted off so far was the farhat96 fellow. It hurts the credibility of Allvoices.
[Comment deleted by user]
Oh please, macasey, no wonder you specialize here in plagiarizing other peoples' work!
When you try to branch out on your own, you immediately demonstrate you can't even get simple numbers right! You have deceitfully lumped together those who say "Yes" and those who say "Not Sure." That is intellectually dishonest.
And, you did not cite the poll itself. You cited from an article in the "Washington Independent" cherry-picking left-wing findings from an otherwise interesting a poll that was done by Public Policy Polling.
The poll itself indicates a number of very strange beliefs on the part of SOME likely New Jersey voters, across the board. For example, fully 21% of voters across the board either believe (9%) that Obama is the "anti-Christ," or are not sure. Even among Democrats, 13%, as per your formulation of the numbers "think Obama might be the anti-Christ." Again, you cited your combination of those who say "Yes" and those who say "Not Sure."
Demographically, the largest percentage of those holding that strange belief is among those who identify themselves as Hispanic. For example, 24% of those in that poll say "Yes" Obama is the anti-Christ, and 19% say "Not Sure."
And, here is another interesting finding in the poll. Among Democrats, 32% are believing "truthers" and 19% say "Not Sure," for a combined total of 51%. I’m sure you will explain that insane belief to us. It’s the "Van Jones" Crazy Brigade! Fully one third of New Jersey Democrats believe President Bush had "advance knowledge" of the 9/11 attack. And another 19% of Democrats say they are not sure.
So, explain those numbers! And tell us, Miss Plagiarizer -- do you count yourself among those harboring such an obviously crazy belief?
You cited the poll through an article about the poll by an organization that claims to be "A Center for Independent Media" – called "The Washington Independent." Independent? It is anything but independent! It is a left-wing rag. A quick check of their "funders" shows they include George Soros "Open Society Institute" –and that other well-known bastion of "independent" thinking, the Streisand Foundation. Ha ha! Wait! Let’s not also forget Teresa Heinz Kerry’s own favorite leftie moneybags group, the "Tides Foundation!" Or, Ted Turner’s "Better World Fund."
Yep! Real "independent" thinking there! And check out their blog roll – if they had a softball team, they would have 25 volunteers to play far left field, and no one willing to play anywhere near right.
When you try to branch out on your own, you immediately demonstrate you can't even get simple numbers right! You have deceitfully lumped together those who say "Yes" and those who say "Not Sure." That is intellectually dishonest.
And, you did not cite the poll itself. You cited from an article in the "Washington Independent" cherry-picking left-wing findings from an otherwise interesting a poll that was done by Public Policy Polling.
The poll itself indicates a number of very strange beliefs on the part of SOME likely New Jersey voters, across the board. For example, fully 21% of voters across the board either believe (9%) that Obama is the "anti-Christ," or are not sure. Even among Democrats, 13%, as per your formulation of the numbers "think Obama might be the anti-Christ." Again, you cited your combination of those who say "Yes" and those who say "Not Sure."
Demographically, the largest percentage of those holding that strange belief is among those who identify themselves as Hispanic. For example, 24% of those in that poll say "Yes" Obama is the anti-Christ, and 19% say "Not Sure."
And, here is another interesting finding in the poll. Among Democrats, 32% are believing "truthers" and 19% say "Not Sure," for a combined total of 51%. I’m sure you will explain that insane belief to us. It’s the "Van Jones" Crazy Brigade! Fully one third of New Jersey Democrats believe President Bush had "advance knowledge" of the 9/11 attack. And another 19% of Democrats say they are not sure.
So, explain those numbers! And tell us, Miss Plagiarizer -- do you count yourself among those harboring such an obviously crazy belief?
You cited the poll through an article about the poll by an organization that claims to be "A Center for Independent Media" – called "The Washington Independent." Independent? It is anything but independent! It is a left-wing rag. A quick check of their "funders" shows they include George Soros "Open Society Institute" –and that other well-known bastion of "independent" thinking, the Streisand Foundation. Ha ha! Wait! Let’s not also forget Teresa Heinz Kerry’s own favorite leftie moneybags group, the "Tides Foundation!" Or, Ted Turner’s "Better World Fund."
Yep! Real "independent" thinking there! And check out their blog roll – if they had a softball team, they would have 25 volunteers to play far left field, and no one willing to play anywhere near right.
Where do you get your nerve, asking if I may have "borrowed" someone else's work?
You have been caught red-handed taking copyrighted work from others, and presenting it here on this thread as if you wrote it!
Did you write to Maureen Dowd to apologize for copying from her column yet? How about the book review of Carter’s book by Wesley L. Janssen? And, did you send your regrets to the folks who did the website at the Academy of Achievement? Did you apologize to them? No?
Now, I said before, there was MORE that you lifted from others and posted on this thread.
Here, macasey, read this sentence:
"Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort?"
It was written by Jacob G. Hornberger and posted on the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in a piece that was published on October 23, 2006.
Now, you should read this following sentence:
"Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort?"
You posted that sentence here, in a comment above in response to CookieCutter.
Sound familiar? It should! The two are absolutely identical. Either you recently changed your name from "Jacob G. Hornberger" to "Marie Casey," or you copied and pasted it in this thread, and pretended you wrote it.
By the way, that comment even prompted Delilah, who posted this "story" to write a comment thereafter and say to you:
"Macasey, You are absolutely right and a very welcome voice of reason to this comment thread."
Looks like she should have written that compliment to Jacob, but you posted it as your own, and thereby stole the credit.
What does that make you feel like?
More material from the sentences in that post are very similar to sentences written by him and by others, but I won't waste your time with the details -- YOU KNOW where you lifted them from!
So, as I asked you once before, do you have ANY original thoughts? Do you have any original ways of expressing your thoughts?
And, Delilah, are you going to take back the compliment, and send substituted notes over to Jacob, Maureen, Wesley, and the Academy of Achievement?
Or, are you going to continue to engage in the lie that it is okay to steal others' work and present it, as long as the person doing it is supporting YOUR argument?
You have been caught red-handed taking copyrighted work from others, and presenting it here on this thread as if you wrote it!
Did you write to Maureen Dowd to apologize for copying from her column yet? How about the book review of Carter’s book by Wesley L. Janssen? And, did you send your regrets to the folks who did the website at the Academy of Achievement? Did you apologize to them? No?
Now, I said before, there was MORE that you lifted from others and posted on this thread.
Here, macasey, read this sentence:
"Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort?"
It was written by Jacob G. Hornberger and posted on the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in a piece that was published on October 23, 2006.
Now, you should read this following sentence:
"Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort?"
You posted that sentence here, in a comment above in response to CookieCutter.
Sound familiar? It should! The two are absolutely identical. Either you recently changed your name from "Jacob G. Hornberger" to "Marie Casey," or you copied and pasted it in this thread, and pretended you wrote it.
By the way, that comment even prompted Delilah, who posted this "story" to write a comment thereafter and say to you:
"Macasey, You are absolutely right and a very welcome voice of reason to this comment thread."
Looks like she should have written that compliment to Jacob, but you posted it as your own, and thereby stole the credit.
What does that make you feel like?
More material from the sentences in that post are very similar to sentences written by him and by others, but I won't waste your time with the details -- YOU KNOW where you lifted them from!
So, as I asked you once before, do you have ANY original thoughts? Do you have any original ways of expressing your thoughts?
And, Delilah, are you going to take back the compliment, and send substituted notes over to Jacob, Maureen, Wesley, and the Academy of Achievement?
Or, are you going to continue to engage in the lie that it is okay to steal others' work and present it, as long as the person doing it is supporting YOUR argument?
i am still waiting for someone to tell me....was obama lying when he said he didn't agree with carter? and don't give me "he said what was best for the nation" because then we have to get into the conversation of when is it ok for a president to lie to the nation and who decides it is the right thing to do and if he is lying this time to protect the nation how many other lies is he telling for the same reason...and if he is willing to lie to protect us from ourselves then how can we trust anything he says.....how do we know he is not lying to protect us from ourselves every time he speaks?
lecia,
I am sure you understand that in framing your latest response, above, the way you did, that you were employing logic. Those who, like Jimmy Carter and his enablers posting here -- including Delilah, macasey , and others -- will not ever acknowledge the inescapable logic. They are too invested in their emotional reaction by perpetuating a vicious lie -- that those who oppose the President are all racists.
The author of this post can’t even spell the word, but somehow, she knows millions and millions of Americans are driven by racial animus!
What was the old joke sign? . . . “Sixx munths ago, I cuddent evun spel salzemun. Now, I are wunn!”
These folks -- including Carter – have thereby proven that they are little more than haters who are willing to accuse the vast majority of those opposed to President Obama's emerging radical and irresponsible agenda, of being predominantly motivated by race. And, they do so without a moment's hesitation!
They will quickly point to one or two signs at a tea party with 1.5 million people in attendance, and scream "racist!"
When the President disagreed with Carter, and when the Rasmussen poll proved that the American people were not buying into any of that nasty rubbish either, the answer by the enablers here was that the President "had" to say that!
So the trap was set, you sprang it, and these folks all fell right into it! But right now they are in the denial stage.
Your point was the obvious one . . . either the President was lying when he said Jimmy Carter was wrong, or, he truly believes that Jimmy Carter -- and his enablers here -- are wrong. So they cooked up their "he had to say it" excuse.
The irony is that if that risible explanation -- that "he had to say it" -- is true, it destroys one of the foundations on which Mr. Obama's candidacy was based. He insisted that we Americans need to move beyond partisanship, and beyond race, and he pledged to be transparent and post-racial.
So, you are right. If Obama was lying about this, then how can anyone ever believe anything he says again?
But, lecia, surely you know are not going to get a logical answer from this crowd? They are too heavily invested in their hate-filled emotions to recognize how ridiculous they sound. And to the extent they are in denial about it, they will keep hitting their heads against the wall, no matter what!
I think I’m going to just sit back and enjoy the show!
I am sure you understand that in framing your latest response, above, the way you did, that you were employing logic. Those who, like Jimmy Carter and his enablers posting here -- including Delilah, macasey , and others -- will not ever acknowledge the inescapable logic. They are too invested in their emotional reaction by perpetuating a vicious lie -- that those who oppose the President are all racists.
The author of this post can’t even spell the word, but somehow, she knows millions and millions of Americans are driven by racial animus!
What was the old joke sign? . . . “Sixx munths ago, I cuddent evun spel salzemun. Now, I are wunn!”
These folks -- including Carter – have thereby proven that they are little more than haters who are willing to accuse the vast majority of those opposed to President Obama's emerging radical and irresponsible agenda, of being predominantly motivated by race. And, they do so without a moment's hesitation!
They will quickly point to one or two signs at a tea party with 1.5 million people in attendance, and scream "racist!"
When the President disagreed with Carter, and when the Rasmussen poll proved that the American people were not buying into any of that nasty rubbish either, the answer by the enablers here was that the President "had" to say that!
So the trap was set, you sprang it, and these folks all fell right into it! But right now they are in the denial stage.
Your point was the obvious one . . . either the President was lying when he said Jimmy Carter was wrong, or, he truly believes that Jimmy Carter -- and his enablers here -- are wrong. So they cooked up their "he had to say it" excuse.
The irony is that if that risible explanation -- that "he had to say it" -- is true, it destroys one of the foundations on which Mr. Obama's candidacy was based. He insisted that we Americans need to move beyond partisanship, and beyond race, and he pledged to be transparent and post-racial.
So, you are right. If Obama was lying about this, then how can anyone ever believe anything he says again?
But, lecia, surely you know are not going to get a logical answer from this crowd? They are too heavily invested in their hate-filled emotions to recognize how ridiculous they sound. And to the extent they are in denial about it, they will keep hitting their heads against the wall, no matter what!
I think I’m going to just sit back and enjoy the show!
Deliah,
Perhaps a new "spell-checker" is in order?
As for this:
"When I noticed that f******* had lifted an entire piece from annehart, I asked AV management why the "copyright search" didn't catch it when he posted it and I never got an answer.
. . .
I have reported several people and the only one that has been booted off so far was the f******* fellow."
Well, I guess that means that you will be promptly reporting "macasey" then? I mean, really! Lifting the work of Mo Dowd! And Wesley L. Janssen! And the website of the Academy of Achievement Wow! How low is that for a liberal? But I know you have been busy trying to make this untenable racism argument fit somehow, even though you didn't know how to spell "racism!"
macasey, welcome back! I see you were out lying low there for a while. As usual, you are making an unwarranted accusation about me without anything whatsoever to support it. The justifiable accusation I made about you was absolutely true. You lifted several passages from others, and pasted their work into this thread as if it was your own work.
What say you about that? And now you admit that you are Marie Casey -- a "published commentator" -- or should I say polemicist?
Tell us, what is your excuse for swiping the work of several others?
Perhaps a new "spell-checker" is in order?
As for this:
"When I noticed that f******* had lifted an entire piece from annehart, I asked AV management why the "copyright search" didn't catch it when he posted it and I never got an answer.
. . .
I have reported several people and the only one that has been booted off so far was the f******* fellow."
Well, I guess that means that you will be promptly reporting "macasey" then? I mean, really! Lifting the work of Mo Dowd! And Wesley L. Janssen! And the website of the Academy of Achievement Wow! How low is that for a liberal? But I know you have been busy trying to make this untenable racism argument fit somehow, even though you didn't know how to spell "racism!"
macasey, welcome back! I see you were out lying low there for a while. As usual, you are making an unwarranted accusation about me without anything whatsoever to support it. The justifiable accusation I made about you was absolutely true. You lifted several passages from others, and pasted their work into this thread as if it was your own work.
What say you about that? And now you admit that you are Marie Casey -- a "published commentator" -- or should I say polemicist?
Tell us, what is your excuse for swiping the work of several others?
Anything written on the web, as a comment, or in a blog, or elsewhere, is the intellectual property of the author; nobody has the right to cut and paste it and by the lack of attribution, make it appear it is their own.
Plagiarism is the most disgusting offense against anyone who writes or creates, and the people who engage in it at any level, are lower than scum.
Plagiarism is the most disgusting offense against anyone who writes or creates, and the people who engage in it at any level, are lower than scum.
For those who may foolishly continue to believe that Jimmy Carter has somehow been some sort of paragon of virtue on the subject of race, I commend to you the following piece entitled "Jimmy Carter's Race Problem," and just posted Friday on NRO's The Corner by Hans von Spakovsky.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=
It begins:
"When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barrack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being 'racists,' perhaps he should look in the mirror. In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he 'was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.' No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation. When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown."
It goes on to fill in the blanks on Carter's personal pockmarked record on the subject, and lends an important perspective to understanding his current overstatements and accusations on the subject. Please read the whole thing. It contains valuable insights into why this worst of our modern Presidents insists now on so broadly and falsely accusing others of racism.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=
It begins:
"When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barrack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being 'racists,' perhaps he should look in the mirror. In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he 'was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.' No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation. When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown."
It goes on to fill in the blanks on Carter's personal pockmarked record on the subject, and lends an important perspective to understanding his current overstatements and accusations on the subject. Please read the whole thing. It contains valuable insights into why this worst of our modern Presidents insists now on so broadly and falsely accusing others of racism.
macasey,
You said above,
"I have not read Maureen Dowd's article. And you have obviously not read what I said above."
You may not have read the whole thing, but you had no hesitancy to copy what she published, and present it here as if YOU wrote it!
Here is the entire comment you posted above, three days ago:
"Joe Wilson belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced the true claim of a black woman that was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the segregationist.
Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the chamber.
Wilson is a racist. Do you think he would have called Hillary Clinton a liar? By the way, it's the same health care plan she wanted.
Wilson is the liar! He was never an immigration attorney. He has never been anything but a real-estate attorney."
As I clearly established above, large portions of this comment, posted by you, were lifted word-for-word from Maureen Dowd's column.
You said above,
"I have not read Maureen Dowd's article. And you have obviously not read what I said above."
You may not have read the whole thing, but you had no hesitancy to copy what she published, and present it here as if YOU wrote it!
Here is the entire comment you posted above, three days ago:
"Joe Wilson belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced the true claim of a black woman that was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the segregationist.
Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the chamber.
Wilson is a racist. Do you think he would have called Hillary Clinton a liar? By the way, it's the same health care plan she wanted.
Wilson is the liar! He was never an immigration attorney. He has never been anything but a real-estate attorney."
As I clearly established above, large portions of this comment, posted by you, were lifted word-for-word from Maureen Dowd's column.
[Comment deleted by user]
Macasey,
Pointing out and confronting a plagiarist is not being anal. It is an obligation writers owe one another. Somehow, you now seek to make me the bad guy for calling you out on it and posted the proof of it above.
For example, I noticed you didn't re-post the first two grafs I quoted from your prior comment, just above! That is because you copied and stole those words from Maureen Dowd.
Where do you get your nerve calling me names?
You present yourself as a "professional" commentator on the Seattle Examiner! The most unprofessional thing a writer can do is intentionally steal the work of others. Sometimes it may happen that a writer inadvertently and accidentally mix a sentence or two of someone else's work in with their work -- or, that is the excuse they use.
But you took several entire sentences, word-for-word, from others and posted them here, as if it was your work! That is stealing. And you won't just own up to it and admit it, but seek to turn it around on me.
Why would anyone ever believe anything you said, including your latest polemical and twisted views about what I have written? You haven't answered any of what I've written, including the idiotic and false accusation made by Jimmy Carter about the so-called one million intentionally disenfranchised voters in the 2000 election. Jimmy Carter wouldn't know the truth if he fell over it. And with his segregationist past, he has a lot of nerve accusing others!
You, meanwhile, have lost any credibility you ever had by swiping the work of others in order to try (and fail) to make your case here.
Here is an example, from PBS, of how Doris Kearns Goodwin explained the situation, and how she dealt with it when she got caught having, in a few instances, published passages that someone else had written.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june02/history_1-28.html
MARGARET WARNER of PBS chronicled Goodwin's response to the situation when she got caught and had to reach a monetary settlement with Lynne McTaggart when:
"the Weekly Standard found 'dozens' of passages strikingly similar to those in three other books, including Lynne McTaggert's 'Kathleen Kennedy.'"
Goodwin's response to the PBS questioning:
"DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: I absolutely believe professional standards for historians need never be sacrificed in popular history. I love footnotes. I think they are actually a pointer to historians of the future, and it's critical to credit the people who have plowed the fields before.
What happened in my case was, 15 years ago, in my first big work of history-which covered 900 pages, 3,500 footnotes, everything longhand-- my technique of citation proved not to be foolproof in the end. I used to take notes on the books in longhand, mark passages for quotes, and also write my running commentary on the story line along with them, use those notes to write the draft, and at the very end would recheck every one of those 300 books to make sure the quotes were accurate and make sure the citation was right.
Somehow, in that process, a few of those 300 books did not fully get rechecked. There are citations all along the way, but some of the phrases should have been in quotes rather than simply cited.
MARGARET WARNER: Goodwin explained why she paid one author, and insisted on confidentiality.
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: When I was told by one of the authors, McTaggert, that some of the phrases of hers had appeared in my work, I just felt so bad about it. I was more than willing to authorize the publishers to settle with her on a monetary basis and keep it confidential so it wouldn't have to be before the world that I had made this mistake, and somehow 15 years later it has now come back."
In other words, Goodwin was contrite and quite ashamed of what she had done. And, she insisted that it was an accident, not intentional such as your offenses, above!
Pointing out and confronting a plagiarist is not being anal. It is an obligation writers owe one another. Somehow, you now seek to make me the bad guy for calling you out on it and posted the proof of it above.
For example, I noticed you didn't re-post the first two grafs I quoted from your prior comment, just above! That is because you copied and stole those words from Maureen Dowd.
Where do you get your nerve calling me names?
You present yourself as a "professional" commentator on the Seattle Examiner! The most unprofessional thing a writer can do is intentionally steal the work of others. Sometimes it may happen that a writer inadvertently and accidentally mix a sentence or two of someone else's work in with their work -- or, that is the excuse they use.
But you took several entire sentences, word-for-word, from others and posted them here, as if it was your work! That is stealing. And you won't just own up to it and admit it, but seek to turn it around on me.
Why would anyone ever believe anything you said, including your latest polemical and twisted views about what I have written? You haven't answered any of what I've written, including the idiotic and false accusation made by Jimmy Carter about the so-called one million intentionally disenfranchised voters in the 2000 election. Jimmy Carter wouldn't know the truth if he fell over it. And with his segregationist past, he has a lot of nerve accusing others!
You, meanwhile, have lost any credibility you ever had by swiping the work of others in order to try (and fail) to make your case here.
Here is an example, from PBS, of how Doris Kearns Goodwin explained the situation, and how she dealt with it when she got caught having, in a few instances, published passages that someone else had written.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june02/history_1-28.html
MARGARET WARNER of PBS chronicled Goodwin's response to the situation when she got caught and had to reach a monetary settlement with Lynne McTaggart when:
"the Weekly Standard found 'dozens' of passages strikingly similar to those in three other books, including Lynne McTaggert's 'Kathleen Kennedy.'"
Goodwin's response to the PBS questioning:
"DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: I absolutely believe professional standards for historians need never be sacrificed in popular history. I love footnotes. I think they are actually a pointer to historians of the future, and it's critical to credit the people who have plowed the fields before.
What happened in my case was, 15 years ago, in my first big work of history-which covered 900 pages, 3,500 footnotes, everything longhand-- my technique of citation proved not to be foolproof in the end. I used to take notes on the books in longhand, mark passages for quotes, and also write my running commentary on the story line along with them, use those notes to write the draft, and at the very end would recheck every one of those 300 books to make sure the quotes were accurate and make sure the citation was right.
Somehow, in that process, a few of those 300 books did not fully get rechecked. There are citations all along the way, but some of the phrases should have been in quotes rather than simply cited.
MARGARET WARNER: Goodwin explained why she paid one author, and insisted on confidentiality.
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: When I was told by one of the authors, McTaggert, that some of the phrases of hers had appeared in my work, I just felt so bad about it. I was more than willing to authorize the publishers to settle with her on a monetary basis and keep it confidential so it wouldn't have to be before the world that I had made this mistake, and somehow 15 years later it has now come back."
In other words, Goodwin was contrite and quite ashamed of what she had done. And, she insisted that it was an accident, not intentional such as your offenses, above!
[Comment deleted by user]
[Comment deleted by user]
[Comment deleted by user]
here are just 100 of the names bush was called...if he were black would you would be saying that "Smirky the Chimp" and "George of the Bungle" were racist?......
Smirk, George of the Bungle, Dubious, The Lyin' King, Boy George, Junior, Commander-in-Thief, Spurious George, George W. Butcher, LoserBush, Dumbya, DUHbya, George Putsch, Scurrilous George, Bushwacker, Bush II, King George II, His Fraudulency, Bush Baby, Oaf of Office, Mini-Bush, "*", *, Mona Loser, Giggles the Clown, President Reject, UnPresident, Drinky McDumbass, Whoosh Bush, Prince Snippy, President Select, Duh?bya, Ersatz DumbShrub, Resident Putsch, President* Bush, Twiggy Bush, Resident Bush, StumbleYa, King George the Turd, Shrubus Illegitimus, Dubfus, Sniffy, ?President?, Bushware 2.0, Bushbrat, "President", Beelzebush, The Son King, His Royal Fraudulency, Embarrassment-in-Chief, The Perp, Flubya, Our Beerless Leader, Our Foundling Father, Quayle II, Duh President, [sic] Bush, DWIbya, Bushit, Bushwacker, Ambush, Bogus W. Potus, Rotus, George the Lesser, His illegitimacy, Humpty Dumbty, DoubleDay, Bush League, Great Pretender, Supreme Choice, G. Whizz George, Dead Brain Talking, D. Dubya I., The English Mauler, The English Patient, Our Encephalic Emperor, Pediatric President, Lyin' Scion, Pre$ident, Presidunce, Presidence, DoubleScrewed, Gridlock George, Your Accidency, George W. Gump, The Rain Man, Dubious Dubya, Smirky the Chimp, :Pretender-in-Thief, Poppy's Puppet .
Smirk, George of the Bungle, Dubious, The Lyin' King, Boy George, Junior, Commander-in-Thief, Spurious George, George W. Butcher, LoserBush, Dumbya, DUHbya, George Putsch, Scurrilous George, Bushwacker, Bush II, King George II, His Fraudulency, Bush Baby, Oaf of Office, Mini-Bush, "*", *, Mona Loser, Giggles the Clown, President Reject, UnPresident, Drinky McDumbass, Whoosh Bush, Prince Snippy, President Select, Duh?bya, Ersatz DumbShrub, Resident Putsch, President* Bush, Twiggy Bush, Resident Bush, StumbleYa, King George the Turd, Shrubus Illegitimus, Dubfus, Sniffy, ?President?, Bushware 2.0, Bushbrat, "President", Beelzebush, The Son King, His Royal Fraudulency, Embarrassment-in-Chief, The Perp, Flubya, Our Beerless Leader, Our Foundling Father, Quayle II, Duh President, [sic] Bush, DWIbya, Bushit, Bushwacker, Ambush, Bogus W. Potus, Rotus, George the Lesser, His illegitimacy, Humpty Dumbty, DoubleDay, Bush League, Great Pretender, Supreme Choice, G. Whizz George, Dead Brain Talking, D. Dubya I., The English Mauler, The English Patient, Our Encephalic Emperor, Pediatric President, Lyin' Scion, Pre$ident, Presidunce, Presidence, DoubleScrewed, Gridlock George, Your Accidency, George W. Gump, The Rain Man, Dubious Dubya, Smirky the Chimp, :Pretender-in-Thief, Poppy's Puppet .
[Comment deleted by user]
"President Obama spoke the truth! The reform bills does not allow for coverage for those in this country illegally."
Since there is nothing in the bill, currently, that requires verification of national origin, exactly how would illegals be stopped from registering? Currently, any illegal who wanted to register, could do so, because there is no vetting process. Obama knows this. Obama is a liar.
Since there is nothing in the bill, currently, that requires verification of national origin, exactly how would illegals be stopped from registering? Currently, any illegal who wanted to register, could do so, because there is no vetting process. Obama knows this. Obama is a liar.
[Comment deleted by user]
so are you saying since the majority of people didn't like bush that all of the things said against him were acceptable but since the majority of people like obama then no criticism of him is allowed? so we only respect the office of the president when someone you like is in office?
where do you get the idea that the actions against obama are just from one labeled section of the population? take me for instance....i am an independent...i am not "right or "left" or a racist or an angry mob or any of the other derisive or divisive labels that are hung on people there days...i voted for obama...but that does not mean i like or believe every word that comes out of his mouth …
john kerry in an interview with bill maher
Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
how is that any different than what rex rammell said?
Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
how is that any different than what rex rammell said?
[Comment deleted by user]
macasey, below is a key portion of your statement, above, when you were talking about the "extreme" Right::
"This is the scary group that President Carter is talking about, a scary group of people that justify their horrible actions in the name of God and country."
And here is the key portion of what Jimmy Carter actually said to Brian Williams, as quoted from this post above:
"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."
In other words, you are wrong in trying to now minimize what Carter was saying.
Jimmy Carter said that the "overwhelming portion" of animosity to Barack Obama's policies is racist. And Jimmy Carter is just plain wrong. Many of you agreed with him in your comments, posted above, including the prime poster, Delilah Starling.
The vast majority of those of us who oppose many of the policies of Barack Obama will simply not sit still for Carter, or Delilah Starling or you, macasey, trying to get away with calling us racists. That is why we have called you all out on this post. As I pointed out with the cite to the recent Rasmussen poll, above, the American people reject that ugly characterization as well.
Your opinions, are your opinions. Cling to them, if you wish! But you are wrong.
"This is the scary group that President Carter is talking about, a scary group of people that justify their horrible actions in the name of God and country."
And here is the key portion of what Jimmy Carter actually said to Brian Williams, as quoted from this post above:
"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."
In other words, you are wrong in trying to now minimize what Carter was saying.
Jimmy Carter said that the "overwhelming portion" of animosity to Barack Obama's policies is racist. And Jimmy Carter is just plain wrong. Many of you agreed with him in your comments, posted above, including the prime poster, Delilah Starling.
The vast majority of those of us who oppose many of the policies of Barack Obama will simply not sit still for Carter, or Delilah Starling or you, macasey, trying to get away with calling us racists. That is why we have called you all out on this post. As I pointed out with the cite to the recent Rasmussen poll, above, the American people reject that ugly characterization as well.
Your opinions, are your opinions. Cling to them, if you wish! But you are wrong.
Continuing to paint the people who oppose Obama with the racism tag will only piss people off and make it that much harder for him to get reelected, so if that's the route they want to go, so be it.
I think it's just hard for some people on the left to realize that many of us dislike Barry-O because we think he's stupid and incredibly inept. He could be black or white, but neither, unfortunately, would make him any smarter or more effective as President.
I think it's just hard for some people on the left to realize that many of us dislike Barry-O because we think he's stupid and incredibly inept. He could be black or white, but neither, unfortunately, would make him any smarter or more effective as President.
Well, now apparently even Jimmy Carter doesn't agree with himself!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5ZN6Ishw8
Will the real Jimmy Carter please stand up?
As for the rest of his apologists on this thread, you should have known better than to try and defend the indefensible.
Have fun under the bus!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5ZN6Ishw8
Will the real Jimmy Carter please stand up?
As for the rest of his apologists on this thread, you should have known better than to try and defend the indefensible.
Have fun under the bus!
News Stories
- News Source: Sydney Morning Herald | 4 months agoThat's not the overriding issue here," Obama insisted in an excerpt of an interview to be broadcast on the CNN show "State of the Union." The US leader, in a bid to shore-up popular support for health care reform, is taking to all five major Sunday...
- News Source: Reuters | 4 months agoPresident Barack Obama said on Friday some of the opposition he faced was because of his race but denied former President Jimmy Carter's charge that racism was a leading factor in angry criticism of his healthcare agenda. "Are there people out there...
- News Source: Miami Herald | 4 months agoSouth Carolina's bitter history of racial politics has drawn national attention before, from Strom Thurmond's segregationist White House run in 1948 and the black daughter he never acknowledged to the Confederate flag flying at the statehouse and Bob...
- News Source: Simi Valley - Moorpark Examiner | 4 months agoPresident Barack Obama said Friday that angry criticisms about his health care agenda are driven by an intense debate over the proper role of government - and not by racism. "Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure...
- News Source: Honolulu Advertiser | 4 months agoRepresentative Joe Wilson of South Carolina said today that if he could do it over again, he would "absolutely not" shout "you lie" at President Barack Obama. "I was speaking at the wrong place at the wrong time," Wilson said at a news conference.
- News Source: Seattle Times | 4 months agoPresident Barack Obama says he does not think race is the main factor driving the angry criticisms of his health care agenda. The president told CNN he assumes some people don't like him because of his race but said that wasn't the "overriding issue."...
Blogs
>
- Blog Source: innthebasement.comThis is why President Jimmy Carter decided to speak his mind about the situation by saying that the animosity towards President Barack Obama is because of racism. He went a little further by saying that there are many white people who ...
- Blog Source: www.bowlofserial.comFormer US President Jimmy Carter spoke Tuesday about all the animosity towards Barack Obama that he believes it stems from the fact that he is a black. ... and so unbelievably apparent that race is the number one factor behind all animosity towards
- Blog Source: politics.nashvillepost.com“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, ...
- Blog Source: inheritingthetrade.comThen several days later Jimmy Carter said on NBC that “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.” Is racism really at play here? ...
- Blog Source: sistertoldjah.comIn 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
- Blog Source: the-osterley-times.blogspot.comJimmy Carter: Animosity towards Barack Obama is due to racism. I spoke yesterday about what I took from the recent comments of Mark Williams and Rush Limbaugh, and how much I felt the subject of race lay just beneath much of the ...
Images
>
-
Image Source: jimmycarter08.com... Posted in Barack Obama, ...Image Source: jimmycarter08.com... Posted in Barack Obama, Racism, ... -
Image Source: blog.cleveland.com -
Image Source: gerontios48.files.w... -
Image Source: i.cdn.turner.com -
Image Source: lh5.ggpht.com -
Image Source: i.cdn.turner.com
Videos
>
-
Video Source: youtube.comRobert Gibbs Responds to Jimmy ...Video Source: youtube.comRobert Gibbs comments that the administration does not subscribe to Jimmy ... - Video Source: www.truveo.com2009 Sept 15 Brian Williams - ...Video Source: www.truveo.com2009 Sept 15 Brian Williams - President Jimmy Carter "Racism"
- Video Source: xml.truveo.com
- Video Source: www.truveo.comJimmy Carter: Racism fuels ...Video Source: www.truveo.comJimmy Carter: Racism fuels hatred of Barack Obama
- Video Source: www.truveo.comJimmy Carter on racism against ...Video Source: www.truveo.comJimmy Carter on racism against Obama
- Video Source: youtube.com2009 Sept 15 Brian Williams - ...Video Source: youtube.comIn an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former Democratic President ...
Reported by DelilahStarling
Cell phones use report code: Most Popular Reports
Related Tweets
-
@jaketapper @LAEscher It's not about which person in the media to believe. It's about getting the facts.
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC @RWBEagle I've criticized Carter all week. I have been abused for it by the left. And then some on the right (you) pretend I remain quiet.
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC @ablackman5 Read what Jimmy Carter said about race in his 1976 race. Look at his 1970 for Governor. Not pretty.
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC @Michael_Alapaki I was 5 years old when I was a pre-schooler. Jimmy Carter was an elected official when he supported segregation.
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC @gason65 Bob Herbert didn't call anyone a racist specifically, though he did question Jimmy Carter's checkered past on race relations.
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC @kalealugo I just put up another link to the Herbert column. He's tough on both Jimmy Carter and the GOP.
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC Bob Herbert on Jimmy Carter, racism and the GOP. http://bit.ly/gpIR7
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC @AdamSerwer Does that mean the National Review once supported Jimmy Carter?
4 months ago -
@JoeNBC The National Review looks at Jimmy Carter's history on race issues. http://bit.ly/OgnOa
4 months ago -
@LAJourno Pres. #Obama says fear of change, not racism, behind public criticism of his policies: http://bit.ly/1JZYTR
4 months ago
Related Allvoices Reports
Related People
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner