Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Token on April 27, 2010, 01:46:34 PM
-
http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html (http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html)
"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Game Over.
-
Here is why this does not hold water:
I will give you $100 if you can come up with ONE tape or any proof that a single Tea Party rally has included any violence. The Tea Party protests/rallies have been nothing but civil excerises in the right to free speech as it pertains to disagreeing witht he current direction of the federal government.
I can go and find 1,000's of video of VIOLENT protests from the Blacks and Latinos. LA Riots, Rodney king, Black Panther voter intimidation, and on and on and on.
-
Here is why this does not hold water:
I will give you $100 if you can come up with ONE tape or any proof that a single Tea Party rally has included any violence. The Tea Party protests/rallies have been nothing but civil excerises in the right to free speech as it pertains to disagreeing witht he current direction of the federal government.
I can go and find 1,000's of video of VIOLENT protests from the Blacks and Latinos. LA Riots, Rodney king, Black Panther voter intimidation, and on and on and on.
Mark, with all due respect, I think you missed the point.
This piece raises some good questions.
-
Mark, with all due respect, I think you missed the point.
This piece raises some good questions.
I don't think I missed the point at all. The article tries to intimate that if the Tea Partiers were black that we would all think they are violence inciting mobs bent on the overthrow of the government. I for one don't buy this as the Tea Partiers (white as they may be) have shown ZERO tendency toward violence.
Just like I have no problem with the Million Man March, as it was a peaceful display of that groups right to assemble, I refuse to let people pigeon hole the Tea Party into something it is not.
Oh and by the way, where was all the disgust from the left media when the left was calling for the death of Bush. When a lefty like this says imagine if a "black Person" were doing the same thing as the Tea Partiers now he forgets that they have already done those things many times over.
-
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Didn't HuffPo pretty much do this very thing when Bush's daughter got married a couple of years ago.....I also seem to remember some pictures of Bush as Hitler in the same photo shoots.
-
I don't believe the author is trying to call the TEA party racist. Rather, he's saying they are conducting themselves in the manner in which is considered "normal citizens protesting in assembly" where, if the protesters were black acting in the same manner, the protests would NOT be considered "normal citizens protesting in assembly".
I think he has a lot of valid points in his argument. But, I don't think the question should be, "how would it be viewed if the TEA party was black?". The real question to be answered is "why would it be viewed differently if the TEA party was black?".
-
I don't think I missed the point at all. The article tries to intimate that if the Tea Partiers were black that we would all think they are violence inciting mobs bent on the overthrow of the government. I for one don't buy this as the Tea Partiers (white as they may be) have shown ZERO tendency toward violence.
Just like I have no problem with the Million Man March, as it was a peaceful display of that groups right to assemble, I refuse to let people pigeon hole the Tea Party into something it is not.
Oh and by the way, where was all the disgust from the left media when the left was calling for the death of Bush. When a lefty like this says imagine if a "black Person" were doing the same thing as the Tea Partiers now he forgets that they have already done those things many times over.
The problem with your analysis is that you say that the "Tea Partiers" (that is, the current group of protesters) are not violent, while intimating that all people of color who would protest ARE violent based upon historic (your most recent example is an unorganized mob riot twenty years ago) events.
You're using past acts of non-affiliated (with the current analogue) groups to declare the hypothetical a farce. It doesn't work.
-
This piece raises some good questions.
Yeah... Like, why isn't the media calling those Arizona protesters violent racists?
And... With all of the recent healthcare fanfare, when Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and others marched around Washington later claiming that they were spat on and called various names, why didn't any of the cameras, tape recorders or reporters in the media circus catch even a glimpse of that?
-
I don't believe the author is trying to call the TEA party racist. Rather, he's saying they are conducting themselves in the manner in which is considered "normal citizens protesting in assembly" where, if the protesters were black acting in the same manner, the protests would NOT be considered "normal citizens protesting in assembly".
I think he has a lot of valid points in his argument. But, I don't think the question should be, "how would it be viewed if the TEA party was black?". The real question to be answered is "why would it be viewed differently if the TEA party was black?".
Yes.
-
Yeah... Like, why isn't the media calling those Arizona protesters violent racists?
And... With all of the recent healthcare fanfare, when Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and others marched around Washington later claiming that they were spat on and called various names, why didn't any of the cameras, tape recorders or reporters in the media circus catch even a glimpse of that?
Those are lovely straw men, Dororthy.
-
The problem with your analysis is that you say that the "Tea Partiers" (that is, the current group of protesters) are not violent, while intimating that all people of color who would protest ARE violent based upon historic (your most recent example is an unorganized mob riot twenty years ago) events.
You're using past acts of non-affiliated (with the current analogue) groups to declare the hypothetical a farce. It doesn't work.
How about this then: If 30,000 blacks showed up in Atlanta, or BHam, or Washington to peacefully protest the over taxation of the producers, the over reach of the federal government, the expansion of the welfare state, etc I would be behind them 1000%
However, because the current "black" establishment and most of their constituents are the ones fighting for the handouts from the government and the spreading of the wealth, I seriously doubt we will ever see this happening. Just because you don't believe in the values of the Tea party does not mean that you can turn them into a racist, violent group.
The best measure of future actions is past behavior. To say that the Black Panthers and their organized violence is a thing of the past, or the LA Riots were and unorganized event, or the Hispanics rioting in Arizona is unorganized does not make their actions any less violent. The writer is pinning his position on the FACT that the black population in large part is seen as a violent cancer on many of our cities. Look at the inner cities all over this country: Detroit is a killing field, Chicago is contemplating bringing in the national gaurd to stem violence, BHam has one of the highest murder rates in the country (do i need to go on?). It is not my fault that the black community is viewed the way that it is. Until they straighten up their own, they will be viewed the way their past actions have caused them to be viewed.
-
The problem with your analysis is that you say that the "Tea Partiers" (that is, the current group of protesters) are not violent, while intimating that all people of color who would protest ARE violent based upon historic (your most recent example is an unorganized mob riot twenty years ago) events.
You're using past acts of non-affiliated (with the current analogue) groups to declare the hypothetical a farce. It doesn't work.
How about the SEIU (organized thugs) beating up Town Hall attendees last year? How about the vandalism and harrasment perpetrated by the organized Acorn Thugs all over the country last year? Are these current enough or organized enough for you?
-
How about this then: If 30,000 blacks showed up in Atlanta, or BHam, or Washington to peacefully protest the over taxation of the producers, the over reach of the federal government, the expansion of the welfare state, etc I would be behind them 1000%
Commendable.
Just because you don't believe in the values of the Tea party does not mean that you can turn them into a racist, violent group.
No one is trying to do that. This is where I think you missed the point in the original article. The article was simply a hypothetical juxstaposition of public attitude had a group of color done the things (show up to the capitol ARMED) that the TP has.
-
A little off the original title, but...
Will these folks come under the same scrutiny as the tea party folks on NBC, MSNBC? How about it Mr. Oberman. I'm sure they're "freedom fighters" to people on the far left.
Literally.....refried bean swastikas.... seriously....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/refried-beans-swastika-arizona_n_552201.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/refried-beans-swastika-arizona_n_552201.html)
-
A little off the original title, but...
Will these folks come under the same scrutiny as the tea party folks on NBC, MSNBC? How about it Mr. Oberman. I'm sure they're "freedom fighters" to people on the far left.
Literally.....refried bean swastikas.... seriously....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/refried-beans-swastika-arizona_n_552201.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/refried-beans-swastika-arizona_n_552201.html)
Hardly anyone (Fox or MSNBC) is objective anymore. Olbermann is one of the biggest ideologues Ive ever seen.
-
Commendable.
No one is trying to do that. This is where I think you missed the point in the original article. The article was simply a hypothetical juxstaposition of public attitude had a group of color done the things (show up to the capitol ARMED) that the TP has.
Here is where I think you are missing the point. An article like this is ABSOLUTELY trying to marginalize the Tea Party as racist. By saying that if they were Black that they would be seen as a violent mob and therefore what they are doing is wrong and should also be seen a violent mob.
If he is truly asking WHY blacks would be seen as different under the same circumstances, the writer would have gone into the same things I have brought up. He would be writing this with a spin as to how to fix the "wrong" perception (in his mind) that Blacks are seen diffently and how they can fix this going forward. Instead he ends his article by stating how wrong the Tea Partiers are by using the term GAME OVER.
In other words, the Tea Party is racist....."GAME OVER"
When the black population quits killing themselves, having fatherless children at an alarming rate, expecting unending gov't handouts, quits dropping out of school at an much higher rate than whites, quits turning every city into a war zone, they will start to fix the "stereotype" they currently have. The biggest problem in the Black community is that the successful ones don't have the balls to stand up to the dead beats. Just look at how Cosby is villified when he tells it like it is.
-
Here is where I think you are missing the point. An article like this is ABSOLUTELY trying to marginalize the Tea Party as racist. By saying that if they were Black that they would be seen as a violent mob and therefore what they are doing is wrong and should also be seen a violent mob.
If he is truly asking WHY blacks would be seen as different under the same circumstances, the writer would have gone into the same things I have brought up. He would be writing this with a spin as to how to fix the "wrong" perception (in his mind) that Blacks are seen diffently and how they can fix this going forward. Instead he ends his article by stating how wrong the Tea Partiers are by using the term GAME OVER.
In other words, the Tea Party is racist....."GAME OVER"
When the black population quits killing themselves, having fatherless children at an alarming rate, expecting unending gov't handouts, quits dropping out of school at an much higher rate than whites, quits turning every city into a war zone, they will start to fix the "stereotype" they currently have. The biggest problem in the Black community is that the successful ones don't have the balls to stand up to the dead beats. Just look at how Cosby is villified when he tells it like it is.
I guess we're just going to disagree. I don't read this article as an attempt to paint the TP as a bunch of racists Rather, I read it as an attempt to provoke the readership to examine its reaction to TP activities. The whole "imagine" activity is designed to get the reader to insert someone else into the TP's shoes and attempt to react to that hypo.
Through this process we're hopefully left not with a negative impression of citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights, but with a sense of empathy should another, non-white group attempt the same tactics.
-
Mark, with all due respect, I think you missed the point.
This piece raises some good questions.
It raises nothing but bullshit.
-
Those are lovely straw men, Dororthy.
I thought that was bullschit that I was smelling...
-
I guess we're just going to disagree. I don't read this article as an attempt to paint the TP as a bunch of racists Rather, I read it as an attempt to provoke the readership to examine its reaction to TP activities. The whole "imagine" activity is designed to get the reader to insert someone else into the TP's shoes and attempt to react to that hypo.
Through this process we're hopefully left not with a negative impression of citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights, but with a sense of empathy should another, non-white group attempt the same tactics.
Opinions of the article aside, Wes. You're second paragraph raises an interesting point in my eyes. It illustrates something I've pointed out in other threads here in the SGA forum.
I think what most "white" groups take offense to is not so much that there are ethnic groups exercising their 1st Amendment rights, but the assertion that any tactic taken regardless of the circumstances automatically pins question of racial and harmful intent on them.
A lot of this is the fault of activists that have completely lost touch with the true causes of their origins, and instead have taken the cause of self promotion and the very basic naked cause of making noise to make noise. Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson are the shining examples of this, but there are countless others that take advantage of the misinformed and misguided people that otherwise have no voice, or at minimum, no way of knowing how to, or have the ability to voice their concerns appropriately.
I see a lot more examples of people that have common ground, rather than total disagreement, but that gets lost in the sensationalization of making a scene, rather than solving problems.
I would argue, that despite the more extreme ends of the spectrum, there are vast majority of the people that would rather come to true compromise. However, there is a huge divide right now between the basic left and right that keeps that from happening, NOT because of common beliefs and wants for the people of this country, but more because of the means it takes to accomplish those beliefs and wants.
Just like even some of the most LEFT people on this board, I'd love to see the border secured, but ultimately open to any and all looking to make themselves a better life, and in the end make this country better. Because I disagree with the timing of doing it now, and because I do believe in taking measures that in an immediate sense curb what I see as a crisis, doesn't make me a racist, or someone that would rather people suffer.
While it's a current issue that drove me to post in the SGA, this represents a summation of why I've never really participated on this political board, and it's something that I've been reminded of over and over the past few days while I have.
There's just been too much of a demonization of the person, rather than an opposing plan that either needs to be voted up or down based on the wants and representation of the people of this country.
November is going to be a bitch for a LOT of people on BOTH sides of the aisle.
-
Through this process we're hopefully left not with a negative impression of citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights, but with a sense of empathy should another, non-white group attempt the same tactics.
I know that I'm stuck on this... I realize the intent of the blog, but with regard to the TP-ers and a lot of the latest scuttlebutt in DC, I see a fairly strong representation from all races right now. I think it's the lamestream media and the extreme left "who be" portraying these rallies and movements as a bunch of angry white folks, but that's far from honest at best. I mean seriously... The strongest voice behind these campaigns in the Atlanta area has been Herman Cain. Personally, I've found all of the attacks against the TP-ers to be highly offensive, especially from the current regime and the Hollywood left. So, I guess I'm just one o' dem angry white folk... I'm sure there's enough racial profiling on both sides of this argument, but I'm tired of it. You can bet that I get into some interesting conversations with the locals up here in Detroit on it, especially when I'm the only "white folk" in the local watering holes... And, I've got stories.
-
Ok, for starters, I think that particular article was in no way trying to paint the teabaggers as racist. Wes nailed it. Seems pretty obvious that they're playing the "what if" game to make you question your own prejudices.
Also, I think that by and large for the most part, the tea partiers are well-intended, and their primary objective is to advocate smaller government and lower taxes.
That being said...there are definitely idiots giving it a bad name. Much like many of the conversations here, I agree with the message, but the way the presentation and supporting arguments make me cringe.
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/3444736449_a55b5c6067.jpg)
(http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/theclog/files/2010/04/obama-racist-latest.jpg)
(http://www.newyorkslime.com/tea-party-racist-signs-04-back-to-kenya.jpg)
(http://simmerdown3.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/teapartysign1sm1.jpg)
(http://chattahbox.com/images/2010/01/teaparty_robertson_spelling_racist_problem.jpg)
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/racism.jpg)
(http://www.newyorkslime.com/tea-party-racist-signs-07-white-slavery.jpg)
(http://i29.tinypic.com/11rr8le.jpg)
(http://simmerdown3.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/protestor_allowed.jpg)
(Read his "censored" shirt)
Just sayin. No, I don't think this is representative of the tea party protesters. But you wouldn't hear such negative commentary on them if idiots like this wouldn't provide ammunition.
-
Ok, for starters, I think that particular article was in no way trying to paint the teabaggers as racist. Wes nailed it. Seems pretty obvious that they're playing the "what if" game to make you question your own prejudices.
Also, I think that by and large for the most part, the tea partiers are well-intended, and their primary objective is to advocate smaller government and lower taxes.
That being said...there are definitely idiots giving it a bad name. Much like many of the conversations here, I agree with the message, but the way the presentation and supporting arguments make me cringe.
Just sayin. No, I don't think this is representative of the tea party protesters. But you wouldn't hear such negative commentary on them if idiots like this wouldn't provide ammunition.
No question these are idiots and are in the very, very small minority. I do think it's interesting though that the media, knowingly, chooses to use these people to paint the larger picture of the group as a whole.
This takes me to what bothers me most about the way the Tea Party people are viewed, and that's the way our President mocks and makes disparaging, condescending remarks about them. He mentions how the conservatives of our country want to vote out a lot of Democrats come November, and what does he say? "bring it on".
In my lifetime, he is by a million miles the least presidential President I've seen. Meaning, I think it's inexcusable for the President of the United States to take shots and make a mockery of what is likely the majority of the population (those who did not like the Health Care bill or the way it was passed). It's simply beneath the position he holds to act like that. Even ole' Bill was a near perfect President publicly.
-
In my lifetime, he is by a million miles the least presidential President I've seen.
W used to call Vladimir Putin "Pootie Poot".
-
As for the article, I don't think there is a right or wrong way to take it, and probably, looking at it from both perspectives makes the most sense.
I like Token's changing of the question to "why". And I think it's good to answer it from both perspectives. As a nation, why would I suspect violence if the group were black? Well, the answer, honestly, would have a lot to do with experience and history. To me, I would ask myself if that's fair for me to anticipate something based on other historical situations that are not entirely related to the current "gathering".
However, it does seem strange to me that the author doesn't also make the obvious connection to history and experience to answer the question of "why" a lot of America would anticipate a certain outcome. The fact that he doesn't look at history or make that connection, to me at least, does indirectly and passively imply that the answer is simply racism, and nothing more.
And that is something I take great offense to. In the same way that I'm not allowed to dislike Obama without being racist (I dislike his white HALF just as much as his black HALF).
Anyway, I don't think it's a bad idea for us to examine not only why we might react a certain way, but then move ourselves to asking if it's right. BUT, I also think it's a good idea for the writer to open his eyes and see that there are, in fact, real, NON RACIST, reasons all over our society that help explain why violence might be an expectation of a large gathering of black protesters.
Both perspectives are fair, and both should be exorcised.
-
W used to call Vladimir Putin "Pootie Poot".
But that was an endearing term between old buddies. :poke:
Seriously though, I still think a President openly mocking an enormous part of his nations citizens, repeatedly, is darn near blasphemy. It is so disrespectful of the position.
Take a basketball coach. He can be disrespectful or his position by making a fool of himself and screaming at refs or yelling at another coach. He can get thrown out for language and even throw a chair on the floor. All of these things are not good ideas. But, the ultimate disrespect to his position would be to disparage his fans, mock the university he represents, and look down on them in a mocking manner.
Fans and a university could handle all of the other stuff. But as soon as he condescended to them and humiliated them, they would call for his head.
To me, that's the difference. We've had presidents say dumb things and make diplomatic mistakes, all of which may be embarrassing. But for our own leader to mock us, the very people he is to SERVE, to me is unforgivable.
It's the kind of thing that takes me from not agreeing with him, to also not respecting him. There are lots of people I don't like or agree with, but are forced to respect because they are deserving of it. For me, I never liked him, but only recently have come to disrespect him.
-
W used to call Vladimir Putin "Pootie Poot".
Has any President before Obama (any party) ever insulted so many of the nation's citizens directly? and tried to minimize, marginalize or just plain silence them because he didn't agree with them? I have never seen it or heard of it before. If the argument was "has there ever been a dumber president" you would be correct. But thats not the argument.
Chad - people will continue to hark the Kenyan thing until the LONG form of his Birth Certificate is presented to the public. If there is nothing to hide then why not show it? There is something to this. All they have shown so far is a short form photocopy which proves nothing really. If this were Bush, I would be saying the same thing.
-
Ok, for starters, I think that particular article was in no way trying to paint the teabaggers as racist. Wes nailed it. Seems pretty obvious that they're playing the "what if" game to make you question your own prejudices.
Of course... From that angle, I completely understand, but seriously, we all have prejudices, right or wrong. We all discriminate. The blog just fails to recognize that similar prejudices exist by everyone, and there are the same sorts of prejudices fueling those who disagree with the TP-ers. It works both ways.
Just sayin. No, I don't think this is representative of the tea party protesters. But you wouldn't hear such negative commentary on them if idiots like this wouldn't provide ammunition.
I disagree. You're always going to find idiots from all sides of an issue (ie. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, etc.), but everyone knows or should at least realize that they don't speak for these movements. You'd still hear the negative commentary, ammunition or not. Don't forget the idiotic assertion that if you disagree with Obama, you must be a racist by default.
-
Of course... From that angle, I completely understand, but seriously, we all have prejudices, right or wrong. We all discriminate. The blog just fails to recognize that similar prejudices exist by everyone, and there are the same sorts of prejudices fueling those who disagree with the TP-ers. It works both ways.
I disagree. You're always going to find idiots from all sides of an issue (ie. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, etc.), but everyone knows or should at least realize that they don't speak for these movements. You'd still hear the negative commentary, ammunition or not. Don't forget the idiotic assertion that if you disagree with Obama, you must be a racist by default.
Nevermind the fact that the left has had these "plant" operatives like the crazy guy in the Northwest - showing up to TP's and appearing as right wing extremists. Its hard to tell - thats what sucks.