Author Topic: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.  (Read 46148 times)

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 10456
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2010, 02:47:12 pm »
Thanks Mr. Olberman!

I had heard the sound clip "Where are the Black faces, where are the Latino faces, Native American, etc..."   on the Michael Baisden Radio Show but I never heard the commentary in its entirety.

One of the reasons I am concerned about the tea party movement is that the anger and dissatisfaction these people display will eventually effect everyone else on a personal level: at work, on the street, in public places, even in casual conversation, etc.

Offline MKG

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #61 on: March 04, 2010, 04:02:07 pm »
He should of brought down that Statue of Lieity!

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #62 on: March 05, 2010, 06:41:47 am »
Curtis, you ask for my reaction?  Hahaha, you already know my reaction. We’ve discussed this theme already. The fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing President our country has ever seen is of absolutely no relevance in Mr. Olbermann’s mind.  That people are fearful of what Obama’s policies will do to us as a country, both in terms of long-term economic damage and economic burden on hard working Americans, is not on Mr. Olbermann's radar.  That people disagree with Obama on key social/moral issues is unimportant to Mr. Olbermann. That Obama is not vigorously confronting the foreign threats we face, while downplaying terrorism here at home, is cause for alarm, but not for Mr. Olbermann.

Instead, Olbermann attributes all criticism of President Obama to one thing: Racism.

The primary piece of evidence Keith Olbermann cites for what he is portraying as the racism that pervades the Tea Party Movement, and really of all white critics of President Obama, is the fact that Olbermann has seen few non-whites, and specifically, few blacks, at Tea Party rallies.

So ... let’s start with a question I would like to address to Mr. Olbermann:

Now let’s see, Mr. Olbermann. Would one expect to observe a sea of black faces at anti-Obama “Tea Party” rallies? I don’t think so. Do the math. African-Americans on last count comprised around 12.4% of the population (or 13% of the electorate in the last election).  So were the Tea Party rallies to reflect the same racial demographic of the United States as a whole, one would expect around 13% of those in attendance to be black. However, fully 96% of black voters supported Obama in the last election (with only 4% opposed to Obama). Based on the fact that African-Americans are already a fraction of the population, and among them the anti-Obama percentage is trivial, it comes as no surprise that we see fewer black faces at the Tea Party rallies. 

But on some Media outlets, we see absolutely none, ever (when there are some). I wonder why that is? I addressed the issue raised in Olbermann’s rant (though not prompted by that rant) in our discussion regarding the controversial Captain America “Tea Party” comic book.  It is apropos here:

As to not seeing black faces in Tea Party pictures broadcast by the Media ... what networks do you regularly watch? I spoke to one fellow who is active in these protests (I've never been to one) and he told me that the major media outlets turn their cameras away or shut them off whenever they see a "non-white" person. While one might be suspicious of this charge, we know it is true because MSNBC was caught doing so, some time ago. Remember their strident coverage of the protester carrying a rifle (or some such weapon), with close ups of the guy's combat fatigues, gloved hand, and firearm?  Later MSNBC’s skewed coverage was outed (perhaps by Fox News), by showing a full video of the man – which revealed that he is black. MSNBC had intentionally cut their footage, using only the close up, to hide the race of the "dangerous anti-Obama protester" (as they were characterizing him). So we know, as a matter of fact, that this does happen, when the message the Media wishes to purvey doesn't match the images they videotape.

This is particularly true of Olbermann’s MSNBC. 

In any event, while this does evidence Media Bias, it does not in any way establish that those attending the Tea Party rallies are racists. All it proves is that the overwhelming majority of African-Americans support Obama or at least are not sufficiently disturbed by his policies to attend an anti-Obama Tea Party rally (for a variety of reasons, but with the President’s race playing a role for some). 

In this regard, Olbermann’s 1940’s segregated professional baseball analogy is ludicrous; of course black professional ballplayers would have preferred to play in the Major Leagues. In contrast, as I have demonstrated above, only a miniscule percentage of African-Americans would have any interest in attending a Tea Party rally (after all, even most white Conservatives don’t attend these rallies, whether or not they sympathize with the Movement). In the Black Community, there may even be some peer pressure not to attend such rallies, enough to dissuade some who might otherwise be inclined to go, for fear of being demeaned and socially ostracized. Those African-Americans who do attend are, to the best of my knowledge, wholly welcomed with open arms. (Not exactly the reception they would get at a KKK rally). 

In proof of this point, see this response to Mr. Olbermann prepared by some of his so-called Tea Party "Racists" -



The overwhelming black support for Obama has no bearing on the right, indeed the obligation, of Americans (including black Americans) who disagree with the President’s policies to strongly express their political views. Yet Olbermann uses this as a weapon. Olbermann’s reliance on his mighty Media sword, emblazoned with the word “Racist,” to intimidate those who dare to disagree with the destructive left-leaning policies of our President, will fail.

Not that I expect Olbermann to stop his distortive rants and demonizing. Vicious name calling has become a common political tactic, on both the Left and the Right, and I don’t expect it to end anytime soon. Certainly not in Olbermann’s case, as it is one of his specialties (and is nothing new, as reflected in the funny SNL skit mocking Olbermann a few years ago, posted above).  Because, again, fact and logic have nothing to do with what is driving the man. He is a left-wing partisan zealot, plain and simple.

Good night and good luck.*

*Olbermann’s sign off line, identical to that used by Edward R. Murrow, makes me roll my eyes every time I hear it; the absurd ego of it.

Anatomy of the "Racist" Charge—or, How to Turn a Setback into a Disaster
Victor Davis Hanson
The Corner – National Review Online
Thursday, September 17, 2009

It is strange to see Democrats and their supporters persist in their efforts — indeed, even intensify them — to equate Obama's failing legislative initiatives, his dive in the polls, and the rise of protests against him with racism. Polls reveal that it is not just a losing tactic, but an enormously self-destructive one for Democrats.

To make the argument, they would have to prove three points. And so far they have not even come close:

1) Uniquely vicious?

Is the anger against Obama different from what we have seen leveled against presidents in the past? Americans not only know that this is not true, but that some who now charge unfair play were themselves well beyond the bounds of decorum in their own attacks. In the Bush years, "hate" was a favorite word of liberal critics, from both officials (cf. Howard Dean) and mainstream publications (cf. The New Republic). "Assassination" was the rage among liberal culture (cf. Alfred Knopf, the Toronto film festival, the Guardian). "Liar," "Nazi," and "brownshirt" were casual slurs from high-profile Democrats (cf. Gore, John Glenn, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Pete Stark, etc.). True, shouting "you lie" is more serious than booing the President (cf. 2005), but whereas Rep. Joe Wilson has apologized, none of the booers at Bush's State of the Union address, I think, felt that "I'm sorry" was ever necessary. (Questioning Barack Obama's birth certificate is infantile, even unhinged, but not de facto racially motivated — perhaps analogous to something like Andrew Sullivan persisting in spreading rumors [complete with purported photographs] that Sarah Palin did not deliver her last child and engaged in an elaborate cover-up of a faked pregnancy and delivery to hide her daughter's own stealth unwed pregnancy.)

2) Is Obama the only minority high-profile figure to have earned real anger?

No. Clarence Thomas had his character destroyed for partisan purposes, and liberals were enraged when he attributed it to a "high-tech lynching." Alberto Gonzalez was reduced to a caricature of an affirmative-action beneficiary. Former HHS Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan's race was explicitly cited by Representative Stark in a particularly nasty attack. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was caricatured in state-run Palestinian newspaper cartoons as a pregnant monkey, few on the left rushed to denounce such virulent racism. The sad truth is that if a Pres. Condi Rice or Pres. Colin Powell were now in the midst of pushing a controversial conservative agenda (e.g., a federal ban on abortions, cuts in federal spending, keeping open Guantanamo, etc.), the liberal press would be as aggressively hostile as conservatives are today against the Obama plans. The only difference would be that all in the liberal camp would be furious over suggestions of racial motivations to their own anger over conservative African-Americans pushing controversial policy. This is self-evident.

3) Do more prominent politicians on the Right engage in racially charged invective, or rather on the Left?

There have been some lunatic local and minor right-wing state officials who have engaged in racist charges. But so far the most prominent violators of our common norms of decency have been on the left, and indeed those in high positions of executive or elected authority.

Van Jones was a White House adviser — one long ago sought out and watched, according to Obama insider Valerie Jarrett. So someone must have known that in racist fashion he had suggested that whites pollute minority neighborhoods and are more prone to commit mass murders in the schools. Top-ranking officials like Rep. Charles Rangel and Gov. David Paterson of New York have accused whites of racism in lieu of honest self-examination of their own failing careers.

There was no need for Eric Holder to accuse the country of cowardice for failing to talk about race on his terms, nor for the president himself to weigh in on a local police matter as judge and jury — to condemn police in general as profilers and those in Cambridge in particular as acting "stupidly." This was especially unfortunate given the president's own racialist gaffes in the campaign, whether his persistent confusion over the morality of the racist Rev. Wright, his incendiary dismissal of Pennsylvania voters in thinly disguised, culturally biased, if not racist terms, and his flippant reference to the grandmother who raised him as a "typical white person."

The fact is that both health care and cap-and-trade simply are not going to make it into law in anything like their proposed forms, due largely to real fright on the part of moderate Democrats who fear losses in 2010, given the abandonment of these issues by moderates and independents.

The false charge of racism won't change that reality, but it may well, if pursued, turn legislative defeats into political catastrophes for a generation. How strange that with large majorities in the House and Senate, with a president who just months ago enjoyed 70 percent approval ratings, and with a compliant and influential press, the Democratic party cannot pass its own legislation and instead is detouring to label most middle-class voters of all beliefs "racists." It is as if a group of political advisers got together and brainstormed how in theory to ruin the best liberal landscape in generations.

Olbermann Says Tea Parties Are Racist for Lack of 'Black Faces'
Without making it clear that he has actually attended a tea party protest, 'Countdown' host declares 'Tea Klux Klan' bigoted.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100216095241.aspx

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
2/16/2010 9:56:19 AM

You may or may not know it, but if you participated in one of the tea party rallies held nationwide over the last year, you’re a bigot. Why? A black man is president and any criticism of him must be rooted in racism, even though you as lawful protestor might not realize it.

It’s not a new charge [ http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzMwMDkzY2EwYTcwYjJmZGFmODhlZWNhOGE5YjVjNmY= ], but MSNBC “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann doesn't mind repeating it. He made it the centerpiece of a long-winded attack on the tea party movement during the number one story of his Feb. 15 broadcast. Olbermann took his first shot by using anecdotal evidence – misguided comments from one individual [ http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80005-tancredo-tells-tea-partiers-literacy-test-would-have-stopped-obama ]  at a single event and applied them to the entire movement.

“It has become fashionable, sometimes psychologically necessary that when some of us express it, we have to put it in code or dress it up or provide a rationalization to ourselves for it,” Olbermann said. “That this has nothing to do with race or prejudice, the man’s a socialist and he’s bent on destroying the country and he was only elected by people who can’t speak English. Or was it he was only elected by guilty whites?”

Although many have articulated why the tea party movement is important [ http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/14/tea-party-101-prepare-for-tax-day/ ] and have expressed concerns over the direction the federal government is pushing the country what it means for the future, Olbermann asserted that since nothing significant has changed in people’s lives to date, the outcry is without merit.

“The rationalizations of the racist are too many and too contradictory for the rest of us to keep them straight,” Olbermann continued. “The whole of the anger at government movement is predicated on this. Times are tough. The future is confusing. The threat from those who would dismantle our way of life is real, as if we weren’t, to some extent, doing it for them now. And the president is black, but you can’t come out and say that’s why you’re scared. Say that and in all but the lifeless fringes of our society, you are an outcast. So this is where the euphemisms come in. Your taxes haven’t gone up. The budget deficit is from the last administration’s adventurous war. Grandma is much more likely to be death paneled by your insurance company. And a socialist president would be the one who tried to buy as many voters as possible with stupid tax cuts.”

A couple of times during Olbermann’s rant, he reminded his viewers that he was a white man and that made him qualified to label the movement as racist and thus gave him justification to use “incendiary” language to describe any anti-Obama protest.

“But facts don’t matter when you’re looking for an excuse to say you hate this president, but not because he’s black,” Olbermann said. “Anything you can say out loud without your family and friends bursting into laughter at you will do. And this is where those Tea Parties come in. I know I’ve taken a lot of heat for emphasizing a particular phrase, which originated at a FreeRepublic.com rally a year ago this month, originated with a Tea Partier. And I know phrases like ‘Tea Klux Klan’ are incendiary and I know I use them in part because I’m angry.”

Olbermann’s racism charge is predicated on his assertion that there is a lack of diversity within these protests. And although this is one of the most serious charges one can level at an opponent, Olbermann didn’t make clear whether the assessment is based on personal experience attending a Tea Party rally, or if he is just relying on the scattered and one-sided footage MSNBC compiled.

“But at so late a date we still have to bat back that racial uneasiness which has to envelope us all. And I know if I could only listen to Lincoln on this of all days about the better angels of our nature, I would know what we’re seeing at the Tea Parties is, at its base, people that are afraid, terribly, painfully, crippling, blindingly afraid. But let me ask all of you who attend these things how many black faces do you see at these events? How many Hispanics, Asians, gays? Where are these people? Surely there must be blacks who think they’re being bled by taxation? Surely there must be Hispanics who think the government should have let the auto industry fail. Surely there must be people of all colors and creeds who believe in cultural literacy tests and speaking English. Where are they? Where are they? Do you suppose they agree with you, but they’ve just chosen to attend their own separate meetings, that they’re not at your Tea Party because they have a Tea Party of their own to go to?”

If you apply Olbermann’s standard and use scattered anecdotal evidence to level a serious charge like racism, you can legitimately claim that there are racists on the president’s side. Kenneth Gladney, a black man, was allegedly beat up at a town hall by SEIU members back in August, as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch [ http://sweetness-light.com/archive/seiu-thugs-beat-up-town-hall-protester ] reported on Aug. 7.

“Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with ‘Don’t tread on me’ printed on them,” the report said. “He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.” (emphasis in original article)

But such incidents are inconvenient for Olbermann, who concluded that Tea Party protesters are willing sheep that have failed to look at what they’re doing introspectively.

“Look at who is leading you and why, and look past the blustery self- justifications and see the fear, this unspoken, inchoate, unnecessary fear of those who are different,” Olbermann continued. “If you believe there is merit to your political argument, fine. But ask yourself when you next go to a Tea Party rally or watch one on television or listen to a politician or a commentator praise these things or merely treat them as if it was just a coincidence that they are virtually segregated, ask yourself, where are the black faces? Who am I marching with? What are we afraid of? And if it really is only a president’s policy and not his skin, ask yourself one final question. Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you will ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you.”

Offline Francisco

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #63 on: March 05, 2010, 07:39:22 am »
Is it me or Micheal's posts keep getting bigger and bigger with each visit I make to this thread?? :D
Don't get fooled by the bombs that I get I'm still I'm still Saddam from Iraq.

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #64 on: March 05, 2010, 05:18:23 pm »
Is it me or Micheal's posts keep getting bigger and bigger with each visit I make to this thread?? :D

Haha, well, probably shorter than Olbermann's rant.  Also, don't read the articles at the end of the post if you don't have time.

I do suggest you open up the link to the video.  I rather liked the message at the end.

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #65 on: March 05, 2010, 07:00:06 pm »
Curtis, you ask for my reaction?  Hahaha, you already know my reaction. We’ve discussed this theme already. The fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing President our country has ever seen is of absolutely no relevance in Mr. Olbermann’s mind. 
When you start your rant with an assertion like this, it's hard to take any of it seriously. To claim that your assessment is a "fact" is absurd on its face.

That people are fearful of what Obama’s policies will do to us as a country, both in terms of long-term economic damage and economic burden on hard working Americans, is not on Mr. Olbermann's radar.  That people disagree with Obama on key social/moral issues is unimportant to Mr. Olbermann. That Obama is not vigorously confronting the foreign threats we face, while downplaying terrorism here at home, is cause for alarm, but not for Mr. Olbermann.

Instead, Olbermann attributes all criticism of President Obama to one thing: Racism.
No, he merely points out that racism is surely a component. You, on the other hand, would apparently have us believe that racism is completely absent from the entire Tea Party movement.

But, you know what, never mind. You seem more interested in wrestling Mr. Olberman to the ground instead of assessing honestly what might be accurate.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #66 on: March 07, 2010, 07:30:51 am »
Curtis, you ask for my reaction?  Hahaha, you already know my reaction. We’ve discussed this theme already. The fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing President our country has ever seen is of absolutely no relevance in Mr. Olbermann’s mind. 
When you start your rant with an assertion like this, it's hard to take any of it seriously. To claim that your assessment is a "fact" is absurd on its face.

Not at all. The concerns people have regarding the President's policies and goals are legitimate, and the disagreements very substantive.

Which President was more left-wing, in your view?  (This is not to say that Obama may at times be forced to temper what he would like to do, because of political realities, but to deny his "Progressive" history, his past closest associates, some of his appointments and attempted appointments, his goals, etc ... to ignore all this is absurd).

What impresses me about many of the Tea Party Protesters is that they are principled. They don't refrain from pointing the finger at certain Republicans as well as Democrats, where Republicans have supported massive government expansion. They are not mere partisan hacks.

That people are fearful of what Obama’s policies will do to us as a country, both in terms of long-term economic damage and economic burden on hard working Americans, is not on Mr. Olbermann's radar.  That people disagree with Obama on key social/moral issues is unimportant to Mr. Olbermann. That Obama is not vigorously confronting the foreign threats we face, while downplaying terrorism here at home, is cause for alarm, but not for Mr. Olbermann.

Instead, Olbermann attributes all criticism of President Obama to one thing: Racism.
No, he merely points out that racism is surely a component. You, on the other hand, would apparently have us believe that racism is completely absent from the entire Tea Party movement.

But, you know what, never mind. You seem more interested in wrestling Mr. Olberman to the ground instead of assessing honestly what might be accurate.

Sheesh. You really can't stand people expressing points of view you disagree with. Your dismissive response and distortion of what I've said speaks for itself. :P 

Also seems, from past experience and here, that you really don't like people identifying the faulty arguments and flawed logic contained in the polemics of those whom you admire.  It is also amusing, how you repeatedly, here and in other posts, attempt to re-frame what other people say. You do so with Olbermann's rant. You do so with Reginald's posts. You do so with my posts. Instead of being satisfied to simply speak for yourself.

All I did above is demonstrate the absurdity of Olbermann's overreaching rant. 

I've never said there are no racists involved in the Tea Party Movement. Curtis, I assume you've read my posts on this thread (and on the Captain America "Tea Party" thread) and thus you know fully well that I have of course acknowledged that on the Right there are some racists. But Olbermann goes much much further than this in his rant, to smear all Tea Partiers and to essentially characterize as racist any outspoken critic of Obama ... if that person is white. This is absurd. It is a transparent tactic to try to delegitimize and intimidate and foster hatred against those who disagree with folks like you and Mr. Olbermann. As suggested above, this is likely to backfire. Because it is grossly unfair.

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #67 on: March 07, 2010, 09:05:48 am »
By the way, was Olbermann's rant discussed on another thread?

This discussion we are having now really doesn't belong here, on the "Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building" thread.  This is really a different topic.

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #68 on: March 07, 2010, 12:13:11 pm »
Curtis, you ask for my reaction?  Hahaha, you already know my reaction. We’ve discussed this theme already. The fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing President our country has ever seen is of absolutely no relevance in Mr. Olbermann’s mind. 
When you start your rant with an assertion like this, it's hard to take any of it seriously. To claim that your assessment is a "fact" is absurd on its face.

Not at all. The concerns people have regarding the President's policies and goals are legitimate, and the disagreements very substantive.
Who said that all of the concerns are illegitimate? That doesn't mean there is no racial component in both the assessments people make of the administration and the manner in which they express their concerns. Frankly, that seems obvious to me. Why should this be different from anything else? I know you don't believe that there is a racial component to nearly everything in America but frankly, you couldn't be more wrong on that. IMHO, of course.
 
Which President was more left-wing, in your view?  (This is not to say that Obama may at times be forced to temper what he would like to do, because of political realities, but to deny his "Progressive" history, his past closest associates, some of his appointments and attempted appointments, his goals, etc ... to ignore all this is absurd).
Here's a radical idea: how about looking at his policies and accomplishments as President instead?
He strikes me as a centrist Democrat, not all that much different from Bill Clinton.

What impresses me about many of the Tea Party Protesters is that they are principled. They don't refrain from pointing the finger at certain Republicans as well as Democrats, where Republicans have supported massive government expansion. They are not mere partisan hacks.
Well, it's true that their orthodoxy doesn't correspond to current party lines. That's not quite the same thing as principled. It also doesn't mean their principles aren't nutty.

That people are fearful of what Obama’s policies will do to us as a country, both in terms of long-term economic damage and economic burden on hard working Americans, is not on Mr. Olbermann's radar.  That people disagree with Obama on key social/moral issues is unimportant to Mr. Olbermann. That Obama is not vigorously confronting the foreign threats we face, while downplaying terrorism here at home, is cause for alarm, but not for Mr. Olbermann.

Instead, Olbermann attributes all criticism of President Obama to one thing: Racism.
No, he merely points out that racism is surely a component. You, on the other hand, would apparently have us believe that racism is completely absent from the entire Tea Party movement.

But, you know what, never mind. You seem more interested in wrestling Mr. Olberman to the ground instead of assessing honestly what might be accurate.

Sheesh. You really can't stand people expressing points of view you disagree with. Your dismissive response and distortion of what I've said speaks for itself. :P 
Actually, I don't care at all about you expressing whatever. I just can't be bothered to take this one seriously. I believe that is my choice to make.

Also seems, from past experience and here, that you really don't like people identifying the faulty arguments and flawed logic contained in the polemics of those whom you admire.  It is also amusing, how you repeatedly, here and in other posts, attempt to re-frame what other people say. You do so with Olbermann's rant. You do so with Reginald's posts. You do so with my posts. Instead of being satisfied to simply speak for yourself.
You seem to be speaking of yourself here.
Part of the dialogue process is reaching a shared understanding. You sometimes seem to think that your assertions are objective. I know my perceptions are merely that and so I seek to understand others' perspectives while stating my own views. You seem to attribute other motivations to my posts which is purely speculative on your part. I humbly suggest you would do better to simply take what I say at face value.

All I did above is demonstrate the absurdity of Olbermann's overreaching rant. 

I've never said there are no racists involved in the Tea Party Movement. Curtis, I assume you've read my posts on this thread (and on the Captain America "Tea Party" thread) and thus you know fully well that I have of course acknowledged that on the Right there are some racists. But Olbermann goes much much further than this in his rant, to smear all Tea Partiers and to essentially characterize as racist any outspoken critic of Obama ... if that person is white. This is absurd. It is a transparent tactic to try to delegitimize and intimidate and foster hatred against those who disagree with folks like you and Mr. Olbermann. As suggested above, this is likely to backfire. Because it is grossly unfair.
Do you deny that the Tea Party movement seems to be pretty much all white? If it is, we can all decide how we feel about that but facts are facts. Either it is or it isn't.

If there is some hope for common ground here perhaps it is in the following:
Can we agree that there is a racial component present in the Tea Party movement? Not that it is solely or even primarily racially motivated. But a component. In other words, can we agree not to ignore the elephant in the room?
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2010, 06:56:21 am »
Curtis, if you seriously think I cannot stand people expressing views contrary to my own, query: Why do I frequent the HEF?  Am I just a masochist? As a general rule I enjoy hearing different points of view. Except when I am confronted with an outright bigot, I'm pretty darned tolerant of folks on the Forum, even when we strongly disagree. That doesn't mean that I don't express my disagreement in strong terms. But at least when I do so, I try to explain why (usually in a pretty detailed fashion, time permitting).  

I don't see Obama as a moderate Democrat. To turn a blind eye to where a man is coming from (the so-called "Progressive" wing of the Party), to ignore his past closest associates, and to ignore the Socialist "share the wealth" sentiments he expressed to Joe the Plumber during the campaign, and to pretend that time commenced only with the November election, is not something I'm willing to do. It does not make sense to "re-frame" Obama as though he just hatched from an egg. His programs have not been moderate, in terms of the unprecedented growth of the deficit and the national debt, interference in the free market system on a number of fronts, and the massive expansion of government programs and the attempted creation of huge new ones. As Phase One. The controversies surrounding some of his appointments and attempted appointments have been revealing. As have his interactions with Leftists in Latin America vs. his treatment of those who would be our strongest allies. Then there is also his weakness in dealing with Iran. I see him as a "Progressive" (i.e. Leftist) Democrat who, due to political realities is forced to package what he is doing to try to make it palatable to the electorate and Members of Congress.

Do you deny that the Tea Party movement seems to be pretty much all white? If it is, we can all decide how we feel about that but facts are facts. Either it is or it isn't.


Do I deny? In even asking this question, it is clear that you did not really read what I posted, above. That is the frustrating thing here.

I would suggest, with regard judging those who participate in Tea Party Rallies, there is nothing to feel about the fact that a relatively small percentage of those participating in the rallies are black. It is not the fault of those opposed to President Obama's policies (on a number of very legitimate grounds) that the vast majority of African-Americans support Obama. The low black turnout at the rallies is not the fault of those who, for good reason, are opposed to Big Government.  

An objective indicator of racism or racial bias is the extent to which there is racial "inclusion" vs. "exclusion." Racial bias can be evaluated objectively by seeing to what extent ethnic minorities, including blacks, are welcome as supporters at Tea Party rallies, Tea Party participation in Town Hall meetings, and the like. My impression is that they are very welcome (as clearly evidenced in the video included in my post, above). This really shows that Olbermann's reference to Tea Partiers as the "Tea Klux Klan" is asinine.

I suppose a feeling one might be justified in feeling is sadness that black Americans who dare to express Conservative points of view are routinely stigmatized and demeaned, as though black Americans were not entitled to exercise their intellects and express their points of view like every other American (but rather must conform to some Leftist racial party line). In this regard, the degree of racism that Conservative blacks are forced to endure from the Left is astounding. As is the acceptance of it.  Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that if this racial stigmatizing were eliminated, that we would see a sea of black faces at Tea Party Rallies. But we might see more. To deny that this stigmatizing creates a "chilling effect" on free expression flies in the face of what we all have observed in the mistreatment of outspoken black Conservatives and even African-Americans (and members of other ethnic minorities) who have served the American People in Republican Administrations.

If there is some hope for common ground here perhaps it is in the following:
Can we agree that there is a racial component present in the Tea Party movement? Not that it is solely or even primarily racially motivated. But a component. In other words, can we agree not to ignore the elephant in the room?


A "movement" is comprised of individuals. Of course some "movements" embrace racist or bigoted ideologies (such as the antisemitism of Nazism and Radical Islam or the racism of the KKK and Skinheads), and to the extent persons join those movements, it is fair to infer that those persons are at least in part motivated by religious and racial bigotry.  However, the Tea Party Movement is not one of those movements.

The focus of the Tea Party Movement is for Individual Liberty, and against Big Government (addressing issues such as Socialized Medicine, Taxation, 2nd Amendment, and the like). While the Tea Partiers are not all rigid ideological Libertarians, there is a strong libertarian streak surrounding the issues the movement focuses on. That as a nation we should embrace respect for the rights to life, liberty and property. To vest power in the Individual, not in the central Authority.

I've acknowledged that for some who participate in this movement, the mere fact that President Obama is black may constitute a "racial component" in those persons' minds (just as some people on the Left form expectations and demands based on race, and then react to individuals based on their race).  For many others who participate in the Tea Party Movement, the race of the President is wholly irrelevant. For them, this is an ideological struggle, surrounding the proper role of Government and the degree of independence that should be accorded the Individual. Evidenced by the fact that the Tea Party movement is critical not only of Obama, but also of white Democrats and Republicans who have fostered the unfettered growth of Government and Government Control. Of course this is a grassroots movement, so there is no single platform or candidate to point to. But this is how I see it.  

Curtis, you claim that on the forum you do not wish to read people's minds.  Yet this is exactly what Keith Olbermann was doing in his rant. In the most disparaging way imaginable (and, in his condemnation, he did go way beyond the Tea Party Movement, to smear all outspoken Conservative critics of the Administration).  

To summarize, the Tea Party Movement, in terms of the broad principles it stands for, is not based on race or racism or bigotry. As evidenced by the fact that all persons, of all ethnic and religious backgrounds, are welcomed (and cheered - see the video).  Now, as to what might be motivating any individual participant in the movement, neither you nor I can read each person's mind.  Only Keith Olbermann claims to enjoy this incredible psychic power.

For individuals who express bigoted sentiments, whether they are involved in the Tea Party Movement, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Right, the Left ... that of course is another matter entirely.

I understand you see things differently than I do.  I won't, however, speak for you. I think, in expressing unfettered support for Olbermann's rant, without acknowledging any flaws in his arguments or his logic (discussed in my prior post), you've pretty much let me know where you stand on the issue.

By the way, I really did like the racial message of the video I posted, above, produced by folks active in the Tea Party Movement. Didn't you? (You may argue it is not representative, that it is propaganda, and so forth, but ... on its face it does contain a very decent message):

« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 08:34:19 pm by michaelintp »

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2010, 08:20:39 am »
Curtis, if you seriously think I cannot stand people expressing views contrary to my own, query: Why do I frequent the HEF? 
You know, Mike, I don't think that of you. I can't imagine why you accuse me of the same.

I don't see Obama is a moderate Democrat. To turn a blind eye to where a man is coming from (the so-called "Progressive" wing of the Party), to ignore his past closest associates, and to ignore the Socialist "share the wealth" sentiments he expressed to Joe the Plumber during the campaign, and to pretend that time commenced only with the November election, is not something I'm willing to do.
That's nice. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You don't think that your opinions are facts though, do you?

Do you deny that the Tea Party movement seems to be pretty much all white? If it is, we can all decide how we feel about that but facts are facts. Either it is or it isn't.

Do I deny? In even asking this question, it is clear that you did not really read what I posted, above. That is the frustrating thing here.
I've read it twice and I still don't know whether the answer is yes or no.

I would suggest, with regard judging those who participate in Tea Party Rallies, there is nothing to feel about the fact that a relatively small percentage of those participating in the rallies are black. It is not the fault of those opposed to President Obama's policies (on a number of very legitimate grounds) that the vast majority of African-Americans support Obama. The low black turnout at the rallies is not the fault of those who, for good reason, are opposed to Big Government. 
If you don't mind (actually, even if you do), I'll decide how I feel about things. Instead of "relatively small", I would suggest "minuscule". By the way, nobody is suggesting there are whites only signs although the Niggar placard does that pretty well.

An objective indicator of racism or racial bias is the extent to which there is racial "inclusion" vs. "exclusion." Racial bias can be evaluated objectively by seeing to what extent ethnic minorities, including blacks, are welcome as supporters at Tea Party rallies, Tea Party participation in Town Hall meetings, and the like. My impression is that they are very welcome (as clearly evidenced in the video included in my post, above).
Thanks for the primer but I'm actually pretty good at detecting racial bias. I have a lifetime of experience.

If there is some hope for common ground here perhaps it is in the following:
Can we agree that there is a racial component present in the Tea Party movement? Not that it is solely or even primarily racially motivated. But a component. In other words, can we agree not to ignore the elephant in the room?

A "movement" is comprised of individuals. Of course some "movements" embrace racist or bigoted ideologies (such as the antisemitism of Nazism and Radical Islam or the racism of the KKK and Skinheads), and to the extent persons join those movements, it is fair to infer that those persons are at least in part motivated by religious and racial bigotry.  However, the Tea Party Movement is not one of those movements.
So, the Tea Party movement is not the KKK. Got it. Of course, an absence of explicit racist ideology does not imply an absence of racial motivations or racism, right? So, about that elephant...

The focus of the Tea Party Movement is for Individual Liberty, and against Big Government (addressing issues such as Socialized Medicine, Taxation, 2nd Amendment, and the like). While the Tea Partiers are not all rigid ideological Libertarians, there is a strong libertarian streak surrounding the issues the movement focuses on. That as a nation we should embrace respect for the rights to life, liberty and property. To vest power in the Individual, not in the central Authority.

I've acknowledged that for some who participate in this movement, the mere fact that President Obama is black may constitute a "racial component" in those persons' minds (just as some people on the Left form expectations and demands based on race, and then react to individuals based on their race). 
Is that a yes?

I understand you see things differently than I do.  I won't, however, speak for you. I think, in expressing unfettered support for Olbermann's rant, without acknowledging any flaws in his arguments or his logic (discussed in my prior post), you've pretty much let me know where you stand on the issue.
Sure, you can probably extrapolate from "I liked it" to build a strawman for me on anything now. Knock yourself out.

By the way, I really did like the racial message of the video I posted, above, produced by folks active in the Tea Party Movement. Didn't you? (You may argue it is not representative, that it is propaganda, and so forth, but ... on its face it does contain a very decent message):
That message:
"Some of my best friends are black."
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2010, 06:55:33 pm »
The concerns people have regarding the President's policies and goals are legitimate, and the disagreements very substantive.
Who said that all of the concerns are illegitimate?. That doesn't mean there is no racial component in both the assessments people make of the administration and the manner in which they express their concerns. Frankly, that seems obvious to me. Why should this be different from anything else? I know you don't believe that there is a racial component to nearly everything in America but frankly, you couldn't be more wrong on that. IMHO, of course.

So what is the problem with people expressing legitimate criticism of the Government?  God bless ‘em, the Tea Party Protesters are raising not only legitimate, but fundamental questions, as to the proper role of Government vis a vis the Individual.  Questions that hearken back to the positive ideals that served as the foundation of our Republic.

Why is Olbermann so obsessed with trying to portray legitimate criticism of Government as racist?  Curtis, he did not just say there is a “racial component” (as you re-frame his comments ... jeepers, please stop that).  He referred to the Tea Party Movement as the “Tea Klux Klan” and expressed the view that all those white folk at those rallies are bigots because there is not a large black turnout.  He similarly slurred any Conservatives who have the audacity to criticize the Obama Administration.

It is not surprising that the black turnout would be “miniscule,” as you say, given that blacks comprised 13% of those who voted (and roughly represent the same percentage of the population), that 96% of blacks supported Obama in the last election, and that there is significant ethnic/social pressure for Conservative blacks to maintain a low profile (for fear of being demeaned and stigmatized).  I raised all these points in my prior posts, but for some reason you either ignored my comments or claimed you did not understand what I was saying.  Which is why any attempt at real “dialogue” here is very frustrating.  Arghhhh!

As to your racial component point, I’ll address your later comment below.

Well, it's true that their orthodoxy doesn't correspond to current party lines. That's not quite the same thing as principled. It also doesn't mean their principles aren't nutty.

Belief in Individual Liberty is nutty?  The belief that Government should not grow so large that it dominates the Individual is nutty?  The belief that a man deserves to keep most of the fruits of his labor rather than it being expropriated by the State for purposes of “redistribution of income” is nutty?  Well, here, we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement.  No amount of “dialogue” will resolve this disagreement.

Because, when the majority, or a significant minority, of our population becomes dependent on the State for their very survival (a concern that will become all the more real, when virtually all of my “Baby Boomer” Generation comes to retirement age), our very democracy (founded on the principle of the protection of individual rights) will be threatened.  Instead of the electorate voting on the basis of principle, they will merely vote based on “who promises to line my pockets.”  When it gets to that stage, our nation becomes nothing but a tyranny by the majority.  Our Republic was intended to protect against that, by way of the Constitution, which itemized fundamental rights that would be protected no matter what, and that clearly limited the role of the Federal Government (as the “Federalists” so argued vs. the “anti-Federalists” at the time the present Constitution was adopted – a point that I also made, above).  The sad irony is that almost everything the Federalists assured everyone would NOT happen did happen, in terms of the expansion of the power of the Federal Government.  Much of this happened in the 20th Century, and much after the election of FDR.  I have little confidence, in this day and age, that the Supreme Court over the long run (particularly with potential Obama appointments) will protect individual rights.  In light of all this, the concerns expressed by the Tea Party Protesters are anything but nutty.  What they are doing is raising fundamental questions, regarding the future of our Republic and what it stands for:  Sovereignty of the Individual or Domination by the State.

The thrust of the Tea Party Protests pertain to the expansion of Government on the economic front.  As I said above, this is a legitimate area of controversy.

Curtis, if you seriously think I cannot stand people expressing views contrary to my own, query: Why do I frequent the HEF?  
You know, Mike, I don't think that of you. I can't imagine why you accuse me of the same.

Because you consistently don’t respond to what I actually say (particularly in those instances where I point out the logical fallacies of those whom you quote or reference with favor) or you refuse to respond to the actual points I make (instead just stating that you disagree), or you fail to respond altogether (after asking me to read an article or watch a video, and after I’ve spent a heck of a lot of valuable time trying to sort it out and raise questions).  That’s why.  Because, instead of my just responding, “Oh Curtis, you are so right” I instead raise a number of questions and point out analytic flaws or at least reasonable matters that merit further inquiry.  

Also, sometimes, all I get from you are snippy remarks, regarding how you personally find my manner of presentation irritating, instead of posts that actually address the substance of why you think my comments are off base.  As to this latter type of comment, I think it is fair to say that you do not apply the same standard to people you agree with.  Folks, like Reginald and others, who often recount facts and express opinions as they see ‘em (without the silly little “IMHO” tag line at the end) are accepted by you without critical comment.  Which naturally leads me to the conclusion that you are more disturbed by, and critical of, folks you disagree with, because points of view you don’t embrace bother you more (which is typical of any person – this is not a terribly damning condemnation).  My only point in raising this is not to whine but rather to simply point out that you don’t apply the same standard of criticism to those you agree with.  I urge you to think about this, before shooting off some response.

I don't see Obama is a moderate Democrat. To turn a blind eye to where a man is coming from (the so-called "Progressive" wing of the Party), to ignore his past closest associates, and to ignore the Socialist "share the wealth" sentiments he expressed to Joe the Plumber during the campaign, and to pretend that time commenced only with the November election, is not something I'm willing to do.
That's nice. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You don't think that your opinions are facts though, do you?

This is a typical example of exactly what I am talking about.  

Do you deny that the Tea Party movement seems to be pretty much all white? If it is, we can all decide how we feel about that but facts are facts. Either it is or it isn't.
Do I deny? In even asking this question, it is clear that you did not really read what I posted, above. That is the frustrating thing here.
I've read it twice and I still don't know whether the answer is yes or no.

Here is another example of where you disregard what I wrote above.  I’ve tried to AGAIN explain my position in this post, but it was NOT ambiguous in the prior post.  I am mystified that you would claim to not to understand what I was saying, above.  

I would suggest, with regard judging those who participate in Tea Party Rallies, there is nothing to feel about the fact that a relatively small percentage of those participating in the rallies are black. It is not the fault of those opposed to President Obama's policies (on a number of very legitimate grounds) that the vast majority of African-Americans support Obama. The low black turnout at the rallies is not the fault of those who, for good reason, are opposed to Big Government.  
If you don't mind (actually, even if you do), I'll decide how I feel about things. Instead of "relatively small", I would suggest "minuscule". By the way, nobody is suggesting there are whites only signs although the Niggar placard does that pretty well.  

I’m not telling you how to feel. Feel what you want. But try to think about your feelings.

You reference a photo of one man, on the sidelines, not raising his sign at a rally, with a stupid ass sign.  You don’t know why he was standing on the sidelines, why a photo was NOT shown of him raising the sign among a throng of Tea Party Protesters (had he positioned his sign among a throng of white folk at an actual rally, you can be sure some photographer would have taken the picture, if for no other reason than a partisan one).  Neither you, nor I, know the back story as to why he was standing on the sidelines clutching his sign.  Might someone have told him that his sign was inappropriate, not representative of the substantive message that the Tea Party Movement wishes to convey?  You don’t know, and I don’t know.  No doubt this photo has circulated throughout the Progressive Press and on Progressive Blogs, with thousands of people seeing it.  This is one stupid handwritten misspelled sign, in a grassroots movement, where there is no central authority publishing the signs or telling people what to put on their signs.  (The only Tea Party site someone on the Left referred me to advised signs that dealt with socialized medicine, taxation, and the like ... the issues that the Tea Party Movement is actually interested in ... that did not include any racist text whatsoever;  some of the suggested signs were of course critical of Obama and Obamacare, sure, but not racist in any way).  I suspect the guy has an IQ of a peanut with his stupid handwritten sign “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar” (though I don’t think he was referencing slaveowners with favor, given that he is equating ‘em with Congress, haha).  I believe the point that he was inartfully, and racistly ... if that is a word ..., trying to convey, is a point that I happen to agree with ... that we should not allow Congress to turn American taxpayers into Slaves of the State. The way he conveyed the point makes me want to puke, because the racial content of what he wrote on his sign totally undermines the substantive point he wanted to make.  This is true, notwithstanding  the fact that both black folk and white folk (on the Left) use the term “Nigger” to refer in a disparaging way to those made subservient.  I agree with you that this one sign was stupid and racist.  

An objective indicator of racism or racial bias is the extent to which there is racial "inclusion" vs. "exclusion." Racial bias can be evaluated objectively by seeing to what extent ethnic minorities, including blacks, are welcome as supporters at Tea Party rallies, Tea Party participation in Town Hall meetings, and the like. My impression is that they are very welcome (as clearly evidenced in the video included in my post, above).
Thanks for the primer but I'm actually pretty good at detecting racial bias. I have a lifetime of experience.

Thanks for the primer? C’mon Curtis. Here we go again. You are blowing off my comments, without any substance of your own other than vague references to personal experience.  As a personal example in my own life, guys in interviews (and the like) have treated me “unfairly” too, they’ve even accused me of lying about my credentials.  From that do I conclude that they are all antisemites?  No ... they are just assholes.  

Curtis, based on your comment, ANY criticism of President Obama can be condemned as coming from a place or “racism” or “racial bias.” Very convenient.  As a way of avoiding the legitimate substance of the criticism.  In your comments, above, you agreed that the criticisms of the Obama Administration (and Republicans who now and in the past have favored Big Government) are “not illegitimate.”  Even if you don’t agree with ‘em, if their concerns are legitimate, why don’t you agree that they are entitled to express their concerns, without being villified, instead of citing with approval Keith Olbermann’s reference to them all as the Tea Klux Klan?  

If there is some hope for common ground here perhaps it is in the following:
Can we agree that there is a racial component present in the Tea Party movement? Not that it is solely or even primarily racially motivated. But a component. In other words, can we agree not to ignore the elephant in the room?
A "movement" is comprised of individuals. Of course some "movements" embrace racist or bigoted ideologies (such as the antisemitism of Nazism and Radical Islam or the racism of the KKK and Skinheads), and to the extent persons join those movements, it is fair to infer that those persons are at least in part motivated by religious and racial bigotry.  However, the Tea Party Movement is not one of those movements.
So, the Tea Party movement is not the KKK. Got it. Of course, an absence of explicit racist ideology does not imply an absence of racial motivations or racism, right? So, about that elephant...

Olbermann explicitly referred to the Tea Party Movement as the “Tea Klux Klan” and emphasized the point.  You referenced him with favor.  I assume you now repudiate his “Tea Klux Klan” reference?

The focus of the Tea Party Movement is for Individual Liberty, and against Big Government (addressing issues such as Socialized Medicine, Taxation, 2nd Amendment, and the like). While the Tea Partiers are not all rigid ideological Libertarians, there is a strong libertarian streak surrounding the issues the movement focuses on. That as a nation we should embrace respect for the rights to life, liberty and property. To vest power in the Individual, not in the central Authority.
I've acknowledged that for some who participate in this movement, the mere fact that President Obama is black may constitute a "racial component" in those persons' minds (just as some people on the Left form expectations and demands based on race, and then react to individuals based on their race).  
Is that a yes?

Curtis, here is yet another example of what I am talking about, in terms of our interaction, that drives me nuts.  Except here, it is even funnier, because you are using the same tactic one finds in the Progressive Press and in Progressive Blogs, of using a partial quote, while leaving out key content. The hilarious thing is that I specifically addressed your question in my post above.  For convenience, I’ll repeat myself (which again, should really not be necessary).

Here is how my comment (which you apparently ignored) continued:

Quote
For many others who participate in the Tea Party Movement, the race of the President is wholly irrelevant. For them, this is an ideological struggle, surrounding the proper role of Government and the degree of independence that should be accorded the Individual. Evidenced by the fact that the Tea Party movement is critical not only of Obama, but also of white Democrats and Republicans who have fostered the unfettered growth of Government and Government Control. Of course this is a grassroots movement, so there is no single platform or candidate to point to. But this is how I see it.
 
Curtis, you claim that on the forum you do not wish to read people's minds.  Yet this is exactly what Keith Olbermann was doing in his rant. In the most disparaging way imaginable (and, in his condemnation, he did go way beyond the Tea Party Movement, to smear all outspoken Conservative critics of the Administration).  

In other words, Curtis, in response to your question, for some people “yes” and for many other people, “no.”

With respect to matters of "bias" (regarding racial bias/expectations/intolerance or religious bigotry) the same observation ("yes 'n no") can be made with regard to people on the Left.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 10:07:42 pm by michaelintp »

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2010, 06:57:51 pm »

I understand you see things differently than I do.  I won't, however, speak for you. I think, in expressing unfettered support for Olbermann's rant, without acknowledging any flaws in his arguments or his logic (discussed in my prior post), you've pretty much let me know where you stand on the issue.

Sure, you can probably extrapolate from "I liked it" to build a strawman for me on anything now. Knock yourself out.

No “strawman.”  You said you liked Olbermann’s rant.  Now it sounds like you are having some second thoughts.  At this point, what parts of his rant are you willing to say were extremist, off base, and unfair?

Do you really think that if instead of President Obama, we had President Condoleezza Rice, or President Colon Powell, or President Clarence Thomas, that the Tea Party Movement would have gotten off the ground? (See the article cited, above).  If not, then that goes a long way in establishing that the Tea Party Movement was precipitated by the policies and objectives of the current Administration (and those others who support Big Government), rather than the President’s “race.”

By the way, I really did like the racial message of the video I posted, above, produced by folks active in the Tea Party Movement. Didn't you? (You may argue it is not representative, that it is propaganda, and so forth, but ... on its face it does contain a very decent message):
That message:
"Some of my best friends are black."

Your response here is terrible.  When it comes to your (in your mind?) adversaries, “Tails I win, heads you loose” ... or, put another way, “Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.”   If some schmuck on the sidelines of a rally is clutching a racist sign, you stigmatize everyone there with it.  When folks meaningfully involved in the Tea Party Movement produce a video demonstrating that they are inclusive and are not racist, and welcome black participation, you characterize it as “Some of my best friends are black.”  Curtis, this is just silly.

I really have concluded that this whole discussion is just silly and pointless. There really is no dialogue here.  Instead, what we are seeing is exactly what you were joking about, in the cartoon you posted, above (which I did think was funny).  I think we both have to accept that, on this issue, we fundamentally disagree.

As to my broader motivation for, from time to time, talking about Politics on the HEF:  I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind on the Forum, when it comes to political issues.  If anything, my only hope is that, perhaps, someone may be interested in hearing a different point of view (just for the fun of it) and understand that much of the slander against those who express a Conservative point of view is unjustified.  To suggest a possibility for real mutual understanding (even among those who strongly disagree with one another on political issues).  I hope this is not a vision that is too idealistic.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 10456
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #73 on: March 17, 2010, 01:01:02 pm »
As to my broader motivation for, from time to time, talking about Politics on the HEF:  I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind on the Forum, when it comes to political issues.  If anything, my only hope is that, perhaps, someone may be interested in hearing a different point of view (just for the fun of it) and understand that much of the slander against those who express a Conservative point of view is unjustified.  To suggest a possibility for real mutual understanding (even among those who strongly disagree with one another on political issues).  I hope this is not a vision that is too idealistic.



But your point-of-view isn't really conservative.  It is something else, politically.

michaelintp

  • Guest
Re: Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into Office Building.
« Reply #74 on: March 18, 2010, 07:47:51 am »
As to my broader motivation for, from time to time, talking about Politics on the HEF:  I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind on the Forum, when it comes to political issues.  If anything, my only hope is that, perhaps, someone may be interested in hearing a different point of view (just for the fun of it) and understand that much of the slander against those who express a Conservative point of view is unjustified.  To suggest a possibility for real mutual understanding (even among those who strongly disagree with one another on political issues).  I hope this is not a vision that is too idealistic.


But your point-of-view isn't really conservative.  It is something else, politically.


Battle, you've exposed me ... I am something else ...

I have powers that human beings never dreamed of ...



Beware of the power of my subliminal message ...

... the power to make you fly ...

... even though I am far away.