The gentleman doth protesteth too much.
Of course you can disagree with President Obama's policies, without being a racist; and most who disagree with him, are NOT racist. But this is not to say that there are no racists out there. The problem is that the racists out there tend to be the most vocal. It's really very simple: Those who oppose the President on policy, can explain in detail why they don't like the policy, without making it personal, or racial. Those who use insults and personal attacks, tend to be the ones who are racist. This is not always the case. Sometimes they're just Conservative-nationalists; but honestly, that's a form of bigotry too.
Is it Possible to Disagree With Obama's Policies and NOT be 'Racist'?
Nimitz
2012/07/16 04:45:09
|
|
|||||
|
9 votes
|
|
15% | ||
|
15 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
35 votes
|
|
59% | ||
Top Opinion
-
elijahin24 2012/07/16 16:12:10
Racism:
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. (This last part was ADDED to the definition within the last couple of decades.
Bigot
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, from Old French.]
WORD HISTORY Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
Which is more significant: the fact that some people reflexively respond to Obama-bashing by attacking the bashers as "racist," or that most of the attacks on Obama emanating from the right wing blogosphere (and AM radio & Fox News) are not policy based, but personality-based or ignorant political labeling, such as calling him a "communist," "socialist," "fascist," "Muslim," "terrorist," etc., often several at once or even all simultaneously? How is one supposed to rationally deal with that kind of idiocy? I say this as someone who hates Obama's policies, whether we are speaking of Obama/Romney Care, attacking countries (Libya) that have not attacked us (without even raising it with Congress), the extension of the Patriot Act, the NDAA...
Which is more significant: the fact that some people reflexively respond to Obama-bashing by attacking the bashers as "racist," or that most of the attacks on Obama emanating from the right wing blogosphere (and AM radio & Fox News) are not policy based, but personality-based or ignorant political labeling, such as calling him a "communist," "socialist," "fascist," "Muslim," "terrorist," etc., often several at once or even all simultaneously? How is one supposed to rationally deal with that kind of idiocy? I say this as someone who hates Obama's policies, whether we are speaking of Obama/Romney Care, attacking countries (Libya) that have not attacked us (without even raising it with Congress), the extension of the Patriot Act, the NDAA, his cowardice under the slightest Republiscum pressure, etc. I have never in my life voted Democroach or Republiscum for POTUS, but these idiots (which overpopulate this board) actually make me want to vote for Obama (or at least lie and say I will), if only to spite them. Now, I don't throw around the "racist" label unless it is clearly warranted in dealing with these clowns, but my counter barbs are not exactly restrained, either. So why is the occasional misdirected accusation of "racism" so significant to you? Do you really expect irrationalism to be dealt with by pure rationalism?
Not everyone who disagrees with Pres. Obama is a racist.
LOL
LOADED QUESTIONS FTW!
Unfortunately, idiots have always and will always outnumber rational creatures, and they tend to be louder, too. Race is simply a more sensational (and easy) topic than Obama's extension of Orwellian policies.
*lolz
Sure, if you say so.
And you're right. I do say so. Deal now/avoid rush.
(Gawd I love your avatar. Reminds me of a cross between Alien and Lost Boys.)
:)
But then again, I'm highly skeptical of pretty much everything I read here.
And thanks; I love both movies.
:)
And what's 'apparent' to one is not necessarily so to another.
Of course you can disagree with President Obama's policies, without being a racist; and most who disagree with him, are NOT racist. But this is not to say that there are no racists out there. The problem is that the racists out there tend to be the most vocal. It's really very simple: Those who oppose the President on policy, can explain in detail why they don't like the policy, without making it personal, or racial. Those who use insults and personal attacks, tend to be the ones who are racist. This is not always the case. Sometimes they're just Conservative-nationalists; but honestly, that's a form of bigotry too.