CSNbbs

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/o...04/334475/

If only folks would remember how they acted when the shoe was on the other foot. Then again, I can barely remember what was supposed to be on the shopping list (but I forgot to write down), so don't count on me being consistent.

Here's a pretty humorous ( at least to me) take on this whole situation.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/04...ionforever

I think we can all agree there are nutcases on both parties. Protesting against the opposition is fine. Being a scumbag who yells out n***er just because he's made at Obama or make threats against Bush for his foreign policy is not fine. Period.

(04-21-2010 08:42 PM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a pretty humorous ( at least to me) take on this whole situation.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/04...ionforever

I think we can all agree there are nutcases on both parties. Protesting against the opposition is fine. Being a scumbag who yells out n***er just because he's made at Obama or make threats against Bush for his foreign policy is not fine. Period.

You are correct. The only thing I would add is that people on both sides need to apply the same argument with equal vigor both ways. That means being equally indignant regardless of whose ox is being gored. So far, neither side has shown much inclination to do that.

Pot, Kettle
Goose, Gander.

The uncivil people of a few years ago are the ones protesting the uncivility of others now. In a few years, it will re-reverse. And everyone has short memories and is sure the other side is 1000 times worse than they themselves ever were.

I presume that if the Tea Partiers are 89% white, that means 11% are not. I guess it depends on how "white" is defined. But it seems to me that since most Tea partiers are conservative that the real surprise is that it is "only" 89%. Frankly, I thought it would be higher, especially after watching the coverage on ABC. Hardly ever saw a black person in their film. What does it matter anyway? The rightness or wrongness of a person's politics should not be measured by the color of their skin. JMHO.

Nothing new here, just different people doing it, different people being outraged. How dare they.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Well, as long as it is your side that is dissenting. Otherwise, it is just rabble-rousing.

I thought the Clinton quote was interesting. Reminds me of the Byrd quote on using reconciliation.

Agree with Owl69/70/75's sentiments, but it is a pipe dream. Politics.

The racial makeup of a group DOES matter when racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings.

(04-22-2010 01:25 AM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The racial makeup of a group DOES matter when racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings.

What I said is "The rightness or wrongness of a person's politics should not be measured by the color of his skin".

I don't see a problem with that statement. If you do, explain it to me.

Now if it is true for one person, it is true for two, three, ... to X. You cannot say a group of people is racist because 89% (or 82% or 96% or 58%) is white (or black)(or anything else), unless the policies of that group, as a group, are racist, and in that case the percentage doesn't matter, does it? THAT is what I meant by saying you cannot judge the rightness or wrongness of a person's (a group's) politics by the color of their skin(s). You judge that by the content of the politics. I know white people that I think are wrong/right, and black people I think are wrong/right, and the color of their skins has nothing to do with it. It is their opinions that disagree/agree with.

So a few people made signs that were racist or could be considered racist. The vast majority of signs I saw on TV had ZERO to do with race. In truth, I saw none that were racist. They all had to do with spending, taxes, constitutional issues, etc. The policies of the group are not racist, and thus the make-up of the group is not relevant. If a few people act wrongly, whether by racism, violence, deception, whatever, that is on those people. If one person at a quilting bee is racist, and the quilting club is 89% white and 11% nonwhite, what the heck does that mean? That Quilters International is a racist organization? Let's judge by the policies, not the percentage of whites.

I'm not judging by the number of whites. But when racial things happen around the Tea Party, and its not an isolated incident, it needs to be addressed.

(04-22-2010 02:20 AM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not judging by the number of whites. But when racial things happen around the Tea Party, and its not an isolated incident, it needs to be addressed.

I guess we need to define isolated incident. I think they ARE isolated incidents. What is the opposite of isolated? Chronic, continual, unrelenting?

I keep hearing certain leftist people refering to the Tea Party as a bunch of angry white people. ( Mahre, Stewart, Pelosi, for starters) Now that is racist. It is a bunch of upset people. They have as much right to express that anger as Cindy Sheehan did. As Code Pink does. As the gay activists who heckled Obama last night do. As the gay activists who were run off from outside the White House do. Nobody called her (CS) an angry white woman, and as far as i know, there were no racially deliniated polls to define her movement by percentages. But there were some nasty incidents. Some really mean signs, depicting Bush with his head cut off and accusing him of murder. Really nice stuff. Racial? Probably not, at most maybe one or two really confused individuals, but it doesn't matter. They didn't define the group as a whole. Political? Definitely, but protest is part of American politics. This ain't China.

Maybe instead of trying to demonize the Tea partiers as racists, maybe some attention should be paid to what is making them angry. Gosh, what an idea!

I am what I am, whether I am angry or happy. I believe what I believe, not because of the color of my skin but because of the thoughts in my brain. I know of few people who want to be defined by the color of their skin. Some are white, some not.

Edit: Hey, LA, it's a lot later here than it is in L.A.. Heading to bed, but I've enjoyed our discussion and we can take up again tomorrow if you wish. Goodnight.

(04-22-2010 01:25 AM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The racial makeup of a group DOES matter when racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings.

What "racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings"?

(04-21-2010 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-21-2010 08:42 PM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a pretty humorous ( at least to me) take on this whole situation.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/04...ionforever

I think we can all agree there are nutcases on both parties. Protesting against the opposition is fine. Being a scumbag who yells out n***er just because he's made at Obama or make threats against Bush for his foreign policy is not fine. Period.

You are correct. The only thing I would add is that people on both sides need to apply the same argument with equal vigor both ways. That means being equally indignant regardless of whose ox is being gored. So far, neither side has shown much inclination to do that.

Well, I mislike and mistrust all politicians equally. I would rather have a random assortment of citizens in charge.

(04-22-2010 08:20 AM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I mislike and mistrust all politicians equally. I would rather have a random assortment of citizens in charge.

A random assortment? What group does that fit better than a Tea Party? Of course, as soon as they are in charge, they become politicians.

Possibly we could select the President and all the Congress by random lot across the country. I doubt that would be better, but it probably wouldn't be much worse. After a while, they would all be politicians though.

How do you keep your random citizen from morphing into a politician?

Still, an interesting concept. I think a variation on it was presented as a science fiction story once. They had refined polling techniques to the point that they could narrow down the electorate to one single voter, who represented the abosolute average voter. He alone cast a ballot. That would eliminate the partisanship, anyway.

following are three letters to the Editor of the Ft Worth Star-telegram, responding to a column against the Tea party movement:


.................................................................................................

Tea Party not about race


It seems that Elisabeth Ivy is unable to comprehend that the Tea Party's anger is indeed directed at an out-of-control government that is unresponsive to the American people it is supposed to represent. This anger is magnified by the obvious socialist (Marxist) direction of our elected "leaders" who emphasize government control and wealth redistribution.

The majority of the Tea Party's supporters seem to fit Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man definition: people who get an education, work hard, pay their taxes and obey the law. These people are the backbone of America and support the nearly half of the population who are freeloaders and pay no taxes. These "forgotten" Americans are the ones getting punished by "change you can believe in."

-- R.H. Gruy, Granbury




Elisabeth Ivy wrote in her column Monday that Tea Party demonstrations reminded her of the civil rights demonstrations of the '60s. Two photos were published with the piece. The first showed protesters carrying signs during a peaceful demonstration, while the second showed police beating black demonstrators during the '60s.

Nowhere in the Tea Party photo was violence depicted nor was there the mention of it on the signs carried. Citizens are peacefully showing their anger at their elected government that is not listening to them.

What happened in the '60s also needed to happen because the government wasn't listening to another segment of its citizens. Both groups want the same thing -- freedom to live their lives as Americans and to actually have a say in their lives.

I have been to five Tea Party events. No one is protesting anyone's skin color, only politics. It's not a race thing, it's a freedom thing, and Ivy should take the time to investigate before she writes another column.

-- Shirley Hill, Weatherford

I read with dismay Elisabeth Ivy's opinion. I wish rather than scurrying to her destination she had taken the time to stop and listen to what the Tea Party's message is about. It has nothing to do with race. It is about this administration's policies and where they are leading this country.

I, too, remember Selma and Little Rock, and I remember the Black Panthers. It could be scary if you weren't listening to the message and had already formed an opinion.

To continue to use the race card does a disservice to all Americans.

-- Anne Waters, Fort Worth

.................................................................................................

Whether you agree with all the sentiments expressed, the common thread is that the TP movement is not about race and those who assume it is should look deeper - or at least just look.

FWIW, I, too, remember Selma and Little Rock and James Meredith.

So Optimistic....does that make Obama Bull Connor or George Wallace? I had no idea liberals were keeping tea partiers from voting, were hanging tea partiers, wouldn't allow the children of tea partiers to go to integrated schools, or were physically harming tea partiers just for being tea partiers. Thanks for the heads up. You don't hear that stuff in the liberal media.

Seriously though, I'm glad you posted those letters. The first guy pretty much sums it up. So the Tea Party makes up the backbone of the country and they don't want to give their money to freeloaders. Well, who are the freeloaders? With a party that's mostly white, it makes you wonder (esp since they wouldn't make up the backbone of the country.)

And let me get this straight. Polls have shown that the Tea Party is mostly white and angry. So its racist to call them white and angry? Again, thanks for the tip.

Spare me the woo is the poor Tea Party BS (because that's what it is, BS.) When the party uses rhetoric that makes it an us vs. them game, how am I supposed to feel, especially when the party is 1% black? When party leadership such as Michelle Bachmann uses rhetoric calling the current government a gangster government or the constant use of terms such as socialism and Marxism (you know the Civil Rights Movement was considered Communist too, but you knew that since you remember Selma and Little Rock), it's hard to take you guys seriously.

But hey, if you keeping patting yourselves on the back for changing the political process for the better, all that other crap will be forgotten. Right?

(04-22-2010 05:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2010 01:25 AM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The racial makeup of a group DOES matter when racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings.

What "racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings"?

Oh I forgot, racists make sure to videotape their acts. Thanks for reminding me.

(04-22-2010 08:45 PM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2010 05:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2010 01:25 AM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The racial makeup of a group DOES matter when racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings.

What "racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings"?

Oh I forgot, racists make sure to videotape their acts. Thanks for reminding me.

I apologize if I'm reading this wrong, but people video tape themselves doing AMAZINGLY stupid things. and if they're are racial incidents, I suspect that means there are people of other races there who would be recording them. There are certainly media at these events... otherwise, they wouldn't be "events" now, would they?? There is a video of the guy who claims he was spat upon, which does appear to show a screaming moron getting carried away and dribbling spit on the guy he's yelling at... but not the "raring back and intentionally spitting" as it is portrayed by the media... (the spitee didn't portray it as such either)and while it was an out of control rant, it wasn't racial.

The thing that people always forget in situations like this is that most truly racist people don't usually have a tough time telling you they're racist.

I guess I could have written that better. It's true that true racists don't care who knows they are true racist. I was responding to the whole "if it's not on tape, it didn't happen" thing.

(04-22-2010 08:41 PM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And let me get this straight. Polls have shown that the Tea Party is mostly white and angry. So its racist to call them white and angry? Again, thanks for the tip.

The gallup poll I saw said they were 21% "other", just like the rest of America. I'm sorry that at 6%, blacks are under-represented in the tea party, but they are almost double the percentage in the Republican party. 89% of blacks are democrats... and many of them are angry, too... so would it be racist to call democrats black and angry?? Spare ME the racial indignation... YOU seem to be the only one making the argument that only black people are poor and don't pay taxes. (If I read you wrong, I apologize... but I'm pretty sure I didn't) I know some DARN rich minorities and some WORTHLESS anglos. It's not about race, no matter how hard some want to label it so. The Tea Party is conservative. Blacks in this country generally aren't. We can debate why, but its a fact... so it really shouldn't surprise anyone that a conservative group skewes white. What is INTERESTING is that it seems to be LESS white than the Republican party as a whole

Good back and pinpoint the exact sentence where I say only black people are poor and don't pay taxes. All I said was I wonder who the gentleman thought the freeloaders were, especially in a majority white party that makes up the "backbone" of this country.

And calling Democrats black and angry wouldn't be racist. It would just be stupid. We don't make up the majority of the party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-pa...phics.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republ...gious.aspx

The first Gallup polls says the Tea Party is 79 percent white. The second poll says the Republicans are 63 percent white. Blacks do make up a bigger part of the Tea Party, 6 percent to 2 percent. Hispanics make up 26 percent of the Republicans and are part of the 15 percent that make up the rest of the Tea Party.

(04-22-2010 09:19 PM)LAOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I could have written that better. It's true that true racists don't care who knows they are true racist. I was responding to the whole "if it's not on tape, it didn't happen" thing.

As I understand it, the argument is not, "if it's not on tape, it didn't happen," but rather, "it is on tape, there are a whole bunch of tapes, and the tapes clearly show it NOT happening."

There is the one situation where a guy might be spitting or he might not, but that's as close as any of the tapes of the events come to showing any of the alleged acts. At least the ones I've seen. And if he actually did spit, then the actions of the policeman following the congressman are at best questionable.

It's not they don't have tapes of it happening; instead, they DO have tapes of it NOT happening. If you've seen something different, please so state for the record, and a link would be appreciated.

Your original post references that "racial incidents have occurred at said group's meetings." If you are referencing the incidents that you appear to be referencing, they did not occur "at said group's meetings." There were TEA Party assemblies in DC, but some distance away. As on any day in Washington, there were any number of groups assembling in the area. The people who confronted the congressmen could have come from anywhere and been affiliated with anyone. As far as I know (and again, correct me if I am wrong) none of them has actually been linked to the TEA Party. In fact, I don't believe that any of them were detained or questioned, which seems odd if the allegations were correct. I know this much, if I were a congressman and anyone did to me the things that have been alleged, I'd make damned certain they got arrested.

Obviously, I'm not condoning any of the alleged acts. But what I've seen raises considerable doubt as to the truth of the allegations, doubts as to whether the alleged acts did in fact occur. Just as we don't need any of the alleged behaviours, we also don't need false allegations that such behaviours occurred. I just want to know the truth. If you know of evidence that supports the allegations, I'd like to know about it. Seriously.