• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jimmy Carter: Wilson comments 'based on racism'

Devil505 said:
Sorry chief.......No one's opinion requires proof.
Prove which tastes better.....Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a very large problem distinguishing between statements of preference and assertions of fact.

At least, as long it you think it helps you make your point, anyway.

But it doesn't even matter -- you're couching this in terms of the "topic" of the thread. The topic of the thread, as defined by the OP, is that it does require proof.

So, decide what you're arguing here.
 
Devil505 said:
Same response for you:
Click to expand...

Your "response" gets you nowhere, as it is a non-parallel.

Jimmy Carter did not say he did not like Joe Wilson.

An attempt to parallel to personal preferences fails.

Jimmy Carter said Joe Wilson's outburst was racist, a CLAIM, about real events in the outside world, and he made his slanderous claim with ZERO evidence.
 
Harshaw said:
You seem to have a very large problem distinguishing between statements of preference and assertions of fact.

At least, as long it you think it helps you make your point, anyway.

But it doesn't even matter -- you're couching this in terms of the "topic" of the thread. The topic of the thread, as defined by the OP, is that it does require proof.

So, decide what you're arguing here.
Click to expand...

Again.......(I'll go slow here)....No one's opinion ever requires proof & some opinions cannot be proven at all.
Carter's opinion my well be proven one day but does not require it.
OP's opinion is just his opinion too, & posted for the purpose of starting a discussion....otherwise..why post it??..Right?;)
 
Devil505 said:
Again.......(I'll go slow here)....No one's opinion ever requires proof & some opinions cannot be proven at all.
Carter's opinion my well be proven one day but does not require it.
OP's opinion is just his opinion too, & posted for the purpose of starting a discussion....otherwise..why post it??..Right?;)
Click to expand...

Again . . . "I'll go slow here" . . . the "topic" to which you want to slavishly cling (when you see it as advantageous) is about whether Carter is right or wrong.

Don't screech at others for not sticking to the topic if you won't, champ. Simple as that.
 
Harshaw said:
Again . . . "I'll go slow here" . . . the "topic" to which you want to slavishly cling (when you see it as advantageous) is about whether Carter is right or wrong.

Don't screech at others for not sticking to the topic if you won't, champ. Simple as that.
Click to expand...



Actual Topic Title:

Jimmy Carter: Wilson comments 'based on racism'
(it's printed at the top of each page);)


Topic Title Is Not:
Is Carter Right Or Wrong?
 
Last edited:
StandUpChuck said:
So if I say your posts on DP suggest that you have pedophilic tendancies, I don't need proof?
Click to expand...
Of course you don't need proof. You can say anything you want. (That's kinda of the point here)
Now....if what you say is a lie & I can take you to court & sue for damages.
Therefore...When is Wilson filing his suit against Carter?
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Late getting back to this, I know, but I'd just point out that I'm not necessarily saying that the SS thing is racist; only that the Confederate flag issue (a symbol, a piece of cloth) is trivial compared to an actual, live SS war criminal. I wouldn't necessarily play the race card on either of those.
Click to expand...

Nice recovery. ;)
 
Devil505 said:
I know allot more about Carter than I do about Wilson so, yes I think Jimmy Carter deserves my benefit of doubt where....... the little I know of Wilson does not lead me to give him the same.
Click to expand...

I know more about Carter also. And that point is irrelevant.

I guess the only way I can answer that is to offer my whole life's experiences in which I have dealt with people of both good & bad character. I do not know enough about Wilson to say I KNOW he is a racist but I think I do know enough to have reasonable suspicions.
You may not have these same suspicions but I do.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, this, to me, is nothing more than bias on your part. You are certainly entitled to it...as is everyone, but that's how it's coming across. I'm not sure whether it is ideologically based or whether there is some other basis, but you seem to be looking at this in a very one-sided way.

It is getting late & I'm going to bed in a minute but I think the outrage against Carter is unfair & unjustified & while I can't prove he is right, no one can prove he is wrong either.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.



Edit: I missed this earlier (told you it's getting late!):)




& how do you know he didn't think about the possible repercussions of his words? I would guess that he thought about it quite a bit but...only he can answer that question.
Click to expand...

He may have thought about it, but decided that what he wanted to say was more important than those repercussions. The "racist" issue demeans Obama's Presidency on many levels. If Carter wants to bring it up to present this as a reason for discourse towards Obama's policies, he failed miserably. He presented a red herring, rather than addressing the meat of the issue...something we see here at DP all the time.
 
Devil505 said:
It's 7:16AM &, while having coffee I just wanted to add a thought to my comment on this subject of last night:
Not only do I believe Carter gave some thought to his words before he spoke them, I think he fully appreciated their impact & understood that he would be vilified by many for saying them.
I consider it a mark of the man's courage & integrity that, knowing he would undoubtedly be viciously attacked for saying them....he said them anyway because loves his country to much to remain silent.
Click to expand...

I do not think he understood the impact of his words. Maybe he did in their impact on him, but that is rather short-sighted. The conservative position and it's opposition towards Obama's policies is based on ideological differences. When Carter said what he did, he did two things. He dismissed opposition as having no credible position and as just attacking for the sake of attacking. Does this happen? Sure, but it is NOT SOP. He also marginalized Obama, giving the impression that attacking his policies gets one pegged as a racist. There is more to Obama than the color of his skin.

He also did something that I had hoped would have ended with the Bush Presidency; got the extremists, especially on the left, all riled up, attacking and bashing the opposition, not on the issues, not on substance, but on something unproven and therefore incosequential. He should have known better.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Truthfully, this, to me, is nothing more than bias on your part. You are certainly entitled to it...as is everyone, but that's how it's coming across. I'm not sure whether it is ideologically based or whether there is some other basis, but you seem to be looking at this in a very one-sided way.
Click to expand...
I think only a fool or a liar would claim he has no biases. All of us have different life experiences which effect our perception of the world around us & shape our views. I admit to my biases but feel that my experiences have made me a pretty decent judge of others &, while no one is infallible, my judgment has never really failed me.









CaptainCourtesy said:
He may have thought about it, but decided that what he wanted to say was more important than those repercussions. The "racist" issue demeans Obama's Presidency on many levels. If Carter wants to bring it up to present this as a reason for discourse towards Obama's policies, he failed miserably. He presented a red herring, rather than addressing the meat of the issue...something we see here at DP all the time.
Click to expand...
I simply disagree & feel that ...while Carter's remarks may be a an unwanted distraction to Obama right now, they in no way demean his Presidency & are actually a welcome subject to discuss in this country instead of the steroid use in MLB or the Terry Schiavo tragedy that we were distracted with before.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I think only a fool or a liar would claim he has no biases. All of us have different life experiences which effect our perception of the world around us & shape our views. I admit to my biases but feel that my experiences have made me a pretty decent judge of others &, while no one is infallible, my judgment has never really failed me.
Click to expand...

Of course everyone has biases, but to get a true picture of a situation, it is helpful to look past your biases to other possibilities. Doesn't mean those other possibilities are right or even acceptable, but you seem to be closing yourself off to the possibility of that a different view holds credence because of your biases.

I simply disagree & feel that ...while Carter's remarks may be a an unwanted distraction to Obama right now, they in no way demean his Presidency & are actually a welcome subject to discuss in this country instead of the steroid use in MLB or the Terry Schiavo tragedy that we were distracted with before.
Click to expand...

Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree, here. To me, this was harmful to Obama's Presidency for the reasons I described.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course everyone has biases, but to get a true picture of a situation, it is helpful to look past your biases to other possibilities. Doesn't mean those other possibilities are right or even acceptable, but you seem to be closing yourself off to the possibility of that a different view holds credence because of your biases.
Click to expand...
You & I know very little about each other & I would suggest that you are incorrect when you guess that ..."you seem to be closing yourself off to the possibility of that a different view holds credence because of your biases."
In actuality I listen to talk radio, watch all the major news networks (including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc) & CSPAN for gavel to gavel coverage of Congressional hearings, etc. C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics...so I try to consider all sides to most issues & then choose sides as intelligently as I can.
One of my problems is that I tend to be very direct/blunt in conversation & debate & realize that I may appear to be totally one sided & closed-minded...which is not the case.



CaptainCourtesy said:
Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree, here.
Click to expand...
I think that is the best thing we could agree on & welcome this type of discussion, where personal attack has no place & adults can discuss serious issues......Like adults! Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
You & I know very little about each other & I would suggest that you are incorrect when you guess that ..."you seem to be closing yourself off to the possibility of that a different view holds credence because of your biases."
In actuality I listen to talk radio, watch all the major news networks (including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc) & CSPAN for gavel to gavel coverage of Congressional hearings, etc. C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics...so I try to consider all sides to most issues & then choose sides as intelligently as I can.
One of my problems is that I tend to be very direct/blunt in conversation & debate & realize that I may appear to be totally one sided & closed-minded...which is not the case.
Click to expand...

Direct and blunt isn't the issue. Most of the good debaters at DP are both...myself included. It just seems to me that your perception of things doesn't allow you to consider other possibilities. Many of my Hypocrisy Check! [FONT=&quot]™ questions are based on the ability to understand the validity of an opposing viewpoint, even if you don't agree with it[/FONT].

I think that is the best thing we could agree on & welcome this type of discussion, where personal attack has no place & adults can discuss serious issues......Like adults! Thanks!
Click to expand...

That's fine. Always good to debate another liberal when I disagree with them, especially when it doesn't degenerate into idiotic personal attacks. :2wave:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Direct and blunt isn't the issue. Most of the good debaters at DP are both...myself included. It just seems to me that your perception of things doesn't allow you to consider other possibilities.
Click to expand...
I never claimed to be perfect & have admitted errors here & even apologized a few times. Can you point out specific posts/issues that lead you to believe that I don't consider other possibilities.?
 
Devil505 said:
I never claimed to be perfect & have admitted errors here & even apologized a few times. Can you point out specific posts/issues that lead you to believe that I don't consider other possibilities.?
Click to expand...

Your bias concerning Carter. Without evidence you give him the benefit of the doubt on the issue, but not Wilson. Consider this. Wilson's motivation for saying what he did may be purely ideological. It may be born of the silly partisan crap that has been floating around. These possibilities seem far more likely than the racist angle. Yet, it seems because Carter declared this, you have geared your perceptions towards that motivation, even though the others seem far more probable.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your bias concerning Carter. Without evidence you give him the benefit of the doubt on the issue, but not Wilson. Consider this. Wilson's motivation for saying what he did may be purely ideological. It may be born of the silly partisan crap that has been floating around. These possibilities seem far more likely than the racist angle. Yet, it seems because Carter declared this, you have geared your perceptions towards that motivation, even though the others seem far more probable.
Click to expand...
My bias towards Carter stems from my being 62 yrs old & having lived through & worked under a number of different Presidents in my life. I have always felt that Jimmy Carter was/is a very moral man who likes to help his fellow American. His work with Habitat For Humanity, for example...where he physically works at building homes for the less fortunate has always impressed me.
On the other hand, I feel he was almost too moral (& slightly naive) to be an effective President.
I think he makes a much better Ex-President than he did an active one.

Therefore, I give him the benefit of doubt.

Joe Wilson, on the other hand, I only know from his rude outburst at a sitting President addressing a joint session of Congress & being admonished for doing so, even by members of his own party.
Then, when I read about his affiliation with questionable southern groups, his denial of Strom Thurman's admitted black child & the money he has received from insurance companies,....these things do not PROVE he is a racist or even a bad person, but they are certainly enough information for me to have suspicions & to withhold giving him the same benefit of doubt that I give former President Carter.
Additionally I have said that I feel Wilson's outburst was probably motivated more by greed than by a racist bent...but still feel some racism was involved.

If you feel that this doesn't indicate I have made my judgment (right or wrong) without weighing the evidence available to me, then we'll just have to again agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
My bias towards Carter stems from my being 62 yrs old & having lived through & worked under a number of different Presidents in my life. I have always felt that Jimmy Carter was/is a very moral man who likes to help his fellow American. His work with Habitat For Humanity, for example...where he physically works at building homes for the less fortunate has always impressed me.
On the other hand, I feel he was almost too moral (& slightly naive) to be an effective President.
I think he makes a much better Ex-President than he did an active one.

Therefore, I give him the benefit of doubt.
Click to expand...

I also lived through the Carter years (though I couldn't vote, yet) and agree with your assessment as to why he was a poor President. It could make him a good ex-President, but I think in some instances he puts his morals ahead of the needs of the country.

Joe Wilson, on the other hand, I only know from his rude outburst at a sitting President addressing a joint session of Congress & being admonished for doing so, even by members of his own party.
Then, when I read about his affiliation with questionable southern groups, his denial of Strom Thurman's admitted black child & the money he has received from insurance companies,....these things do not PROVE he is a racist or even a bad person, but they are certainly enough information for me to have suspicions & to withhold giving him the same benefit of doubt that I give former President Carter.
Additionally I have said that I feel Wilson's outburst was probably motivated more by greed than by a racist bent...but still feel some racism was involved.

If you feel that this doesn't indicate I have made my judgment (right or wrong) without weighing the evidence available to me, then we'll just have to again agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I just see this very differently. It is far more indicative of the partisan rhetoric that has attached itself to many things in this country, and a reaction to ideological differences. Greed has something to do with it, too, IMO. I don't see the racism angle. It could exist, but without evidence, presenting it demeans the entire issue. That's what I'm trying to communicate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I just see this very differently. It is far more indicative of the partisan rhetoric that has attached itself to many things in this country, and a reaction to ideological differences. Greed has something to do with it, too, IMO. I don't see the racism angle. It could exist, but without evidence, presenting it demeans the entire issue. That's what I'm trying to communicate.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't appear that our views are that far apart but when you imply that it appears that I don't look at all sides & just jump to a partisan decision, I just think that is an unfair & hasty charge, now that I have explained my reasons for feeling the way I do.

Do I expect to change your mind about Wilson?...No

Do I hope you understand why I have come to my conclusion that Wilson does not deserve my benefit of doubt?..Yes

Do I agree that just bringing up the possibility of it being racially motivated demeans the entire issue?...No
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
So it doesn't appear that our views are that far apart but when you imply that it appears that I don't look at all sides & just jump to a partisan decision, I just think that is an unfair & hasty charge, now that I have explained my reasons for feeling the way I do.

Do I expect to change your mind about Wilson?...No

Do I hope you understand why I have come to my conclusion that Wilson does not deserve my benefit of doubt?..Yes

Do I agree that just bringing up the possibility of it being racially motivated demeans the entire issue?...No
Click to expand...

I agree with the first two statements/questions. It is the third that you and I have a disagreement on. I suppose, from my position, I am looking at the entire picture, not just this one issue, but how things in one area affect others. To me, you are looking at this as a singular issue.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree with the first two statements/questions. It is the third that you and I have a disagreement on. I suppose, from my position, I am looking at the entire picture, not just this one issue, but how things in one area affect others. To me, you are looking at this as a singular issue.
Click to expand...

Not positive that I understand your point but if you are saying that by claiming ANY anti-Obama rhetoric is racism, that would demean the whole argument?....I would agree.....BUT....I don't think anyone is saying that.
What I'm hearing, & what I believe to be true is that there is a certain portion of people in this country who are racist, & THOSE people will never admit the real reason why tbhey hate Obama. They'll always find "Policy Differences" or some such nonsense to hide their true motivation.....Racism.
(what really steams me here are the members who will demand proof of this racism!...."Show me where someone says I hate N--ggers", etc..These arguments are simply disingenuous dodges, imo)

What portion of the anti-Obama movement is represented by real racists is unknowable, as is the specific answer as to whether or not Joe Wilson is....but to argue that it doesn't exist at all....is just not realistic.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
We aren't the topic of the thread; Joe Wilson and Jimmy Carter are.
Click to expand...
Then supply the proof to my point, or back off. You can't, and this whole racism business is all about making Obama like teflon. But it isn't going to work, it's going to backfire. People are tired of the race card, and they're not going to allow it in the White House.
 
American said:
Then supply the proof to my point, or back off. You can't, and this whole racism business is all about making Obama like teflon. But it isn't going to work, it's going to backfire. People are tired of the race card, and they're not going to allow it in the White House.
Click to expand...

Look up.... just above your post for your answer.;)
 
Devil505 said:
Look up.... just above your post for your answer.;)
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about racism in general, we're talking about Wilson's comments, and the fact that Carter had to insert himself in the argument to support the notion that they were racist. He should have stayed out of it.
 
American said:
But we're not talking about racism in general, we're talking about Wilson's comments, and the fact that Carter had to insert himself in the argument to support the notion that they were racist. He should have stayed out of it.
Click to expand...

Why?........because YOU think he should have stayed out of it?
(He probably just didn't take into account that you would find fault........Maybe write him & he'll retract his comments);)

& why is that you have a right to your opinions & can express them publicly but former President Carter doesn't?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom