Seperating critisisms
Posted on: September 15, 2009 - 2:24pm
Offline
Seperating critisisms
The xenophobia topic activated my critical thinking and skepticism nodes.
I've seen critics of Obama say racists things and it is perfectly legitimate to say they are racists. However, I have also seen legitimate skepticism of his policies be painted as racist.
So how do you determine whether a critic of Obama is actually racist, or merely painted as such to avoid rational discourse?
- Login to post comments
By paying just enough attention, to understand what they are screaming at me, while carrying a gun
What Would Kharn Do?
That's the trick, I guess. At this point, the man is doing pretty well. Better than Bush did, certainly, at keeping it together. He's actually doing better than Clinton, and better than Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, and LBJ.
I don't think that favorable comparison is an exaggeration, either, and that's a combination of Democrats and Republicans going back more than 40 years. His charisma is obvious, but more than that, he's tackling unpopular problems that need fixing, and has quieted anti-American sentiment in some parts of the world by his mere presence in office.
So you would have to ask yourself if those eight other presidents would be taking the same type of criticisms that he is. Reagan got by on charm alone -- nobody figured he was thinking at all. Bush Sr. was like a really good accountant that people will most likely not remember was even there. Carter is remembered as a bit goofy, but environmentally ahead of his time, Ford as being clumsy (poor bastard), Nixon as being an aggressive boor, and LBJ for the failure of Vietnam. Clinton got blown. (Strangely, nobody mentions that during his time in office, the US made it a policy to fire explosive munitions at everyone and their dog.)
Obama is trying to push a way to make use of all that health care money so that people actually get health care. Yeah, I can see why everyone's so hard on him. It must be unexpected that the guy ran on change, and now he's actually changing stuff instead of declaring an inevitably failed war, nailing his secretaries, or tripping over shit.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
When they don't explain their position and the logic behind their position. Instead, their only rebuttal is to throw out the racism card.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Is it bizarro world where instead of listening to what the person said and judge it on it's own merit, you first look to attack the person that pointed out possible racism in it?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Well, remember the first rule of politics: You can tell when they are lying because their lips are moving. All too often, this applies to the media that surrounds the political world as well. I could point you to any number of articles in the very liberal New York Times that have all the journalistic integrity of Faux News.
=