On 9/17/2010 2:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/17/10 12:32 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

On 9/17/2010 7:44 AM, John Smith wrote:

Actually, since the 1970's, each new president has seen
welfare/food-stamps increase ... through republi-crats and
demo-cans the course has been unfaltering ... why get so
upset now?

On 9/17/10 07:27 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

"why get so upset now?" you ask?

Well, it would seem that subtle (or not so subtle) racial
bigotry may be the answer to your question.

From reading some of the posts here, it would seem that no
matter WHAT Obama says or does, he is automatically wrong.

Heck, one poster even said Obama was a bad president because he
didn't get the family dog from a pound...

On 9/17/2010 8:50 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

No, he was commenting that Obama promised that he was going to
get his dog from the pound, and then bought a purebred from an
exclusive breeder.

Just another broken promise.

Well, I hate to put too fine a point on it...as I don't remember
the specific details (because at the time, I thought the dog deal
was pretty much a non-issue).

When you say "promise", to whom? Under what conditions? Did he
swear to it in front of a Supreme Court Justice on George
Washington's bible?

As Lee Iacocca said to the Mrs, "Nice dodge."

You brought up the dog. I didn't say it was an important issue. But
it was another broken promise. One of dozens. That was the point.



I don't know if you are a parent or not, but sometimes parents do
try and please their kids. Maybe there was nothing at the pound
that the kids liked. Bottom line...there could be fifty different
reasons why they didn't end up getting it from the pound.

That's true. But to comment on it isn't racism. To criticize him for
it isn't racism.

I believe that to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes subtle), racism
is indeed a component of the criticism.

Someone in his position doesn't make a promise on such an issue,
except to appease a political constituency. That's not racial,
either. In other words, it was another political promise broken.

Yes, I realize that in some cases Obama has lied...and is no doubt the
first politician to have ever done so. ;-)

It's real easy to throw down the race card in dismissing critics
of this President. But it's a cheap shot.

No, not a "cheap shot IMHO. Again, because he is not Caucasian, many
times racism does enter into the equation -- where in many cases a white
president would get a free pass -- or at least not have to tolerate the
racial shots.

I would respectfully beg to differ. It is abundantly, I say
ABUNDANTLY clear, that racism, however subtle, IS a factor. There
are some (many?) on this NG for whom Obama can NEVER be right, no
matter which side of the fence he is on.


That's an interesting leap.

So, there's no way race can't be involved?

The fact that there are those for whom G.W. Bush can NEVER be right
no matter which side he is on? So that's got a racial component?

Huh? Obviously not...because W is, well, white. Doesn't mean he can't or
shouldn't be criticized, but O is getting "legitimate" criticism PLUS
racial criticism ...or criticism at least tinged by racism.

The fact that there are those for whom Bill Clinton can NEVER be
right no matter which side he is on? That's racial?

But criticism of Obama must have a racial factor.

Where have I heard that before. I'd say that's a pretty racist remark
on its face.

You bring up Bush. Yes, he broke promises. He was excoriated for it.
I don't recall Jesse Jackson saying that the 'no new taxes' blunder,
AND it's subsequent criticisms, were racially motivated.

Yet, criticism of Obama for his blunders must be rooted in race?

Not necessarily "rooted" but many times tinged.

And Bush 43? Where to start.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that any criticisms of Bush were
motivated by race.

Huh? Why would they? To state the obvious, W is white.

The hard truth is that politicians lie. They make promises with the
intention of breaking them. And make backroom deals. They sell their
influence. I'm in Illinois. Politicians rank below gang members,
career rapists and lawyers. But nowhere is ANY criticism refuted with
accusations of racism.

These career criminals are criticized for their actions. Their
ethics. Their values. For who they are. And often for who they are
not.

Race isn't even on the radar.

Huh?

Not on the radar if you overlook the subtle (and some far from subtle)
posts here.

You've never seen race on this NG used against O, even the "n" word?
Please read the posts here more carefully.

"Racism" is the easiest card to throw in this culture today. IT's a
hot button issue.

And with the first black president in our history, yes, it has been an
"issue".

And it's a cheap shot.

You want to defend Obama? Go for it. You'll have no end of ready
participants to such a discussion. A discussion, by the way, that may
be productive. Might actually convince some people. Will certainly
clarify thinking. And crystalize beliefs.

Try discussing the issues. You may find that you're in agreement with
many of us. You may find that many are in agreement with you.

But as soon as you get backed into a corner by a fact, throw the race
card. Please. Show us how evolved you are.


D. Peter Maus.


Sorry, DP. I may have been unclear. If so, my apologies. OTOH, it may be
a comprehension problem on your part.

Let me try and clarify:

1) The dog issue has nothing to do with racism -- per se. My point was
that people will sling ANYTHING at Obama, no matter whether he is right
or wrong or how trivial it is (like the dog) and that in my eyes, at
least -some- of it is racially motivated (nothing to do with your 'cheap
shot' theory). In other words, if we had a Caucasian president, they
would not necessarily sling anything and everything at him including
stupid stuff like where he got his dog.

2) I in no way meant to imply that ALL criticism of Obama is racial.
That was a rather large leap on your part.

A lot of the criticism is not racial; some criticism is well deserved.
However, some criticism, albeit sometimes very subtle, does appear to
have a racial component. Furthermore, many comments on the NG are
*blatantly* racial, up to and including the "n" word. I'm surprised you
haven't noticed it (or are just ignoring it).

3) The topic was "broken promises/lying" and you seem to have
"accidentally" snipped W's biggest lies from my original post...so for
your edification, I've put it back in (seeing as the topic is
"presidential lies"):

The last presidential lies [from W] cost us TWO bogus wars, a
trillion dollars, thousands of US kids dead, more thousands horribly
mutilated and tens of thousands of dead innocent civilians.

If I had a choice, I'll go with the "lie" about the dog. :-(

At least so far, none of O's broken promises have gotten us into the
mess that W's lies have.

I've explained it as best I'm able. If you think there is no racism
towards Obama on this NG, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
I've explained my position, so please feel free to have the last word.