Jimmy Carter, Democrats and Racism
One thing that is amazing to me how Jimmy Carter’s desperation to stay in the spotlight would cause him to say people that oppose Barack Obama’s policies are driven by race. This week Jimmy Carter has been making many public appearances all over the media telling anyone that would listen that the fierce opposition to Obama is driven by the color of his skin.
“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 told NBC News.
This statement is presumptuous at best and an outright lie at worst. There is no evidence of the opposition to his policies being based on the color of his skin. It is shameful that it is Democrats that scream racism all the time yet they are the first ones to notice the color of a person’s skin. Is it that difficult to believe that someone could disagree with his policies simply on the policies themselves? There is a fundamental difference of opinion between liberals/socialists and conservatives. I know there are many people that tune out at the mention of the word socialist because it has such a stigma to it but if you look up the definition of the word you will see that it is an accurate description.
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Socialism. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Socialism
Sometimes people forget that the once feared Soviet Union’s real name was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR). In fact another definition of socialism can be found on Dictionary.com
Socialism: (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Socialism. (2005). In American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Socialism
This is one of the things that really disturbs me about the modern day Democrat”ic” party. I make the distinction between the Democrat “ic” party and the true Democratic philosophy because the party is anything but Democratic by definition. In their attempt at attaining socialism, they cannot win the argument that socialism is better so they start claiming racism against those that would dare stand up against it. People are opposed to government run healthcare because the government was not meant to work that way. People have seen plenty of examples of how the government’s own bureaucracy tends to make things worse. The government is not driven by financial success and therefore has no incentive to prevent waste. This waste would be done away with in private industry because they need to be competitive. There is no competition in government. Assuming the arguments for government run healthcare are legitimate then 47 million more people would be having tax payer funded insurance. This does not address that there will not be anymore doctors available to serve the extra work load. Secondly the only way to pay for this is to increase taxes dramatically.
People have been dealt bailouts, bogus stimulus packages, and excessive spending by both former President Bush and the current President Barack Obama. All the while being preached to about the economy being in shambles. By definition a recession is when the economy has negative growth for two consecutive quarters. Negative growth means negative income, meaning negative taxes. The last thing that should be done in a negative growth economy is to impose new taxes on them. Raising taxes does just the opposite of growth. Despite this reality, the Democrats have an unprecedented majority in all branches of government that is not likely to happen again for a long time. This is why they are so determined to get this passed despite the negative impact on the economy. They fully understand that if they do not get it this time, then it will be a considerable amount of time before they can have another majority to this degree.
As Margaret Thatcher once said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money".
Hi Paul, Ed here
Wow…sorry if I offended you enough for you to give me YOUR final opinion
then remove me from replying & friends on Facebook so I couldn't respond back to you?
That's okay Paul. Your a good guy.
I too was sold out to the right all my life till about two years ago when the party of Reagan fell into the hands of one of the worst Presidents in modern day history.
That is when the Republican party seemed to morph into PARTY BEFORE THE PEOPLE mantality. And they haven't looked back since.
I too wanted my country back & I feel that my vote was confirmed recently when I saw the outlandish display of misinformed individuals & a segment of the uneducated population on televison with their Obamacare signs, the Hitler B.S.,
the “You Lie” crap etc etc. While (thank god) not all of them where doing their Obama/Hitler rediculousness, I would rather listen to people that actually offered SOLUTIONS rather than PROBLEMS. From a party perspective if you wanna get MY attention then stop the cry baby garbage, the name calling & offensive languge & start offering solutions for the American people rather than neocon idiocy.
But that's okay, O Reilly nailed it a while back.
“In America we the people all have the right to be Morans”
His quote, not mine.
Nevertheless, your right, lets agree to disagree
Goodluck with your party there and my hope is that
you read as much as you can.
“For reading is power, power is knowledge and knowledge gives way to seeing both sides of a story before taking ones side”
My Quote
I did not remove you because I was offended. As I said, I did not want this to become an issue to become offended on either side because I do consider you a friend. Secondly, apparently you did not read my response because I told you that I not a Republican. Just as you said, George W. Bush was not a representative of my desires. Somewhere in all that, you must have missed that point. I was just saying that I would like a little equal handedness when pointing out the news bias. Just as you think that I am sold out o the Republicans, it is hard for me not to think the same about you and the Democrats when you are still putting down the Republicans and conservatives and not addressing the outrageous behavior of the Democrats. Again, all I ask is some equal blame here because George W. Bush is not conservative. He and his father were both big spenders and not my role model for conservatism. As far as the protesters, I would like to see some even handedness in your analysis there as well. There are kooks in every crowd and you can point out the crazies and say that is representative of the whole movement but that would be unfair. I could just as easy say those that were claiming that George W. Bush orchestrated the September 11th, 2001 attack were representative of the entire liberal movement but that would equally be unfair. If you read my earlier posts you would see that where I was coming from was pointing out your highlighting Fox News while ignoring the other news outlets. Let's just agree that news outlets on both sides are misrepresenting the facts and I will be happy. The fact that you mention Fox News, Clear Channel in three consecutive posts while not adding a disclaimer that the left is doing similar things made me decide that I should end this and remove you from my friends list before I got ticked off and said something that I would regret. I can accept that you find George W. Bush offensive as do I. As far as I am concerned he wasted eight years and destroyed our movement that I thought was lost forever. Now that we can see that Obama is spending us into financial ruin, people are beginning to wake up and maybe not all is lost after all. Let's just hope that when the Republican land slide of 2010 exceeds the one of 1994, we will have candidates with some back bone. I was instrumental in the 1994 event just to find that the Republican leadership was spineless and cowered to the media. The way I see it, the media is going to accuse them of being murderers anyway so you might was well do something. The Republicans have not figured out that the media is going to criticize them anyway so they just as well go through with their plans. I am tired of getting lip service from Republicans and then having them stab us in the back. At least with Democrats, you know you have the enemy. Well Ed, I have rambled on long enough so I will let this go. Like I said before, it is pretty clear that we are on completely different ends of the political spectrum. Again, my post was not meant to be an attack but rather to point out that BOTH BOTH BOTH sides are doing it, not just the conservative side as you reminded me on several occasions.
Oh, I forgot to answer your first point on this post. I apologize for not allowing you to respond. I did not realize that it would prevent you from responding. If I truly wanted to prevent you from responding I could have deleted your comment on my blog before it showed up. Again, I truly do not wish you any hard feelings. My intent was to avoid getting angry by having posts come to my phone that I HAD to respond to. I just wish we had someone to vote for. All we had was John McCain and he was CERTAINLY not representative of conservatives.