Buy or sell??

[GarMan]

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.  

[AUChizad]

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.

















(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.

[jadennis]

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. 

[wesfau2]

In my lifetime, he is by a million miles the least presidential President I've seen. 

W used to call Vladimir Putin "Pootie Poot".

[jadennis]

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.

[jadennis]

W used to call Vladimir Putin "Pootie Poot".

But that was an endearing term between old buddies.  

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.

[GH2001]

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.

[GarMan]

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. 

[GH2001]

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.