Ah, those gentle, Tea Party patriots!

[RebLem]

As nerves fray, and they lose ground, the Tea Partiers lose all control, and reveal what they've always really been about. RebLem

Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

by Sam Stein, Huffinton Post columnist
First Posted: 03-20-10 04:56 PM | Updated: 03-20-10 07:10 PM

Abusive, derogatory and even racist behavior directed at House Democrats by Tea Party protesters on Saturday left several lawmakers in shock.

Preceding the president's speech to a gathering of House Democrats, thousands of protesters descended around the Capitol to protest the passage of health care reform. The gathering quickly turned into abusive heckling, as members of Congress passing through Longworth House office building were subjected to epithets and even mild physical abuse.

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protesters shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit-ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."

"It doesn't make me nervous as all," the congressman said, when asked how the mob-like atmosphere made him feel. "In fact, as I said to one heckler, I am the hardest person in the world to intimidate, so they better go somewhere else."

Asked if he wanted an apology from the group of Republican lawmakers who had addressed the crowd and, in many ways, played on their worst fears of health care legislation, the Democratic Party, and the president, Clyburn replied:

"A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this, much of this is not about health care a all. And I think a lot of those people today demonstrated that this is not about health care... it is about trying to extend a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful."

UPDATE 6:55 PM ET: Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's office released the following statement:

For many of the members of the CBC, like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and for Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on during turbulent times.

This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.

This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the "n" word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans. That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting. He looks forward to taking a historic vote on health care reform legislation tomorrow, for the residents of the Fifth District of Missouri and for all Americans. He believes deeply that tomorrow's vote is, in fact, a vote for equality and to secure health care as a right for all. Our nation has a history of struggling each time we expand rights. Today's protests are no different, but the Congressman believes this is worth fighting for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 07116.html

[Corlyss_D]

^^^

Probably a false-flag op by SEIU. Better than having their purple-shirted thugs makin' 'em look bad beating up peaceful demonstrators.

[NancyElla]

^^^

Probably a false-flag op by SEIU. Better than having their purple-shirted thugs makin' 'em look bad beating up peaceful demonstrators.

My, they've been busy then--first Walmart, then the Congress. . .

[Corlyss_D]

^^^

Probably a false-flag op by SEIU. Better than having their purple-shirted thugs makin' 'em look bad beating up peaceful demonstrators.

My, they've been busy then--first Walmart, then the Congress. . .

Do you know without looking it up who the most frequent visitor to the WH is? How many visits he's paid there since Jan 09? About his role in writing Obamacare?

I've seen footage of pro-Obamacare demonstration with the SEIU thugs ducking quickly into the crowd to avoid being caught on film. No doubt the bulk of the Obama town halls audiences as well as the pro-Obamacare demonstrations have been orchestrated by SEIU.

[RebLem]

^^^

Probably a false-flag op by SEIU. Better than having their purple-shirted thugs makin' 'em look bad beating up peaceful demonstrators.

My, they've been busy then--first Walmart, then the Congress. . .

Do you know without looking it up who the most frequent visitor to the WH is? How many visits he's paid there since Jan 09? About his role in writing Obamacare?

I've seen footage of pro-Obamacare demonstration with the SEIU thugs ducking quickly into the crowd to avoid being caught on film. No doubt the bulk of the Obama town halls audiences as well as the pro-Obamacare demonstrations have been orchestrated by SEIU.

SEIU is now a good responsible union most places. It didn't used to be. In the 1960's, it was very corrupt, and my union local began when we broke away from the corrupt SEIU local in Chicago in the mid-1960s. For about 10 years, we were an independent union outside the AFL-CIO because SEIU insisted on exclusive rights to organize us, and the rest of the AFL-CIO honored that demand. Eventually, when they cleaned themselves up, they gave up that exclusive right,m and we affiliated with AFSCME. The law firm which provided us with representation during much of this period was the one which Barack Obama would later join. In fact, we were their first client, and it was our agreement to go with the two founding members of the firm which enabled them to break away from another firm where they were associates, and start their own firm. It is indeed ironic, therefore, that throughout the primary process, SEIU supported Obama and AFSCME supported Clinton. But such are the exigencies of Illinois politics.

SEIU used to have lots of thugs; their specialty was sweetheart contracts with employers, particularly local government agencies, which did not adequately represent the interests of the members. That's why we broke away from them,. But they've cleaned themselves up. SEIU is an important part of Obama's base now, as is AFSCME and many other unions, both trade unions and industrial unions, just as many corporate board rooms with no or only token minority representation are an essential part of the goper base.

[Corlyss_D]

^^^

You must have missed them rousting the Tea Partiers and critics of the administration at town hall meetings last year, esp. the beat-down they put on the one guy in Mo., which the authorities refused to investigate, even though it was caught on tape by news crews. Glad they cleaned up their act. You must know they are owned and operated by the ACORN people and George Soros. I know. It all sounds so conspiratorial, but when they have established ties with both, what's to like about them? They are just the most recent incarnation of the mobs that traditionally latch on to unions for their pension funds, only this time the mob is the union.

[david johnson]

It all sounds fake to me.

[Teresa B]

As nerves fray, and they lose ground, the Tea Partiers lose all control, and reveal what they've always really been about. RebLem

Yes.

Teresa

[rwetmore]

As nerves fray, and they lose ground, the Tea Partiers lose all control, and reveal what they've always really been about. RebLem

Yes.

Teresa

No.

[Teresa B]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Teresa

[JackC]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Teresa

Yes it's upsetting when it happens, but I don't tar a whole group of people because of the the acts of a few.

It would be nice if you had the same reaction when the hatred spills forth from your side, but you don't. It the same old, same old. You only get worked up when your opponents do something inappropriate.

Doing this also helps you come to a conclusion that you want so badly to reach, that your opponents are immoral and illegitimate in some sense.

[Barry]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Teresa

Yes it's upsetting when it happens, but I don't tar a whole group of people because of the the acts of a few.

It would be nice if you had the same reaction when the hatred spills forth from your side, but you don't. It the same old, same old. You only get worked up when your opponents do something inappropriate.

Doing this also helps you come to a conclusion that you want so badly to reach, that your opponents are immoral and illegitimate in some sense.

Ditto. I've got no patience for someone who would yell those things. But to claim because a few people did something that hateful that the entire tea-party movement is tarred is absurd. And the people who do it are the first people who get upset when anyone stereotypes an ethnic or racial group based on the actions of a minority. I have no doubt that most of the tea-party movement has little to do with racism and everything to do with unhappiness about the direction the Democrats are taking the country on the economony and healthcare. I can (and have, on many occasions) posted photos and videos of people at left-wing rallies acting just as hatefully, doing things like waving signs comparing Bush to Hitler and wearing shirts claiming "Sarah Palin is a c*nt." I'm sure Rob and Teresa would have a fit if I or someone else on here tried to paint everyone who agrees with their liberal agenda as being as ignorant and hateful as the people who waved those signs and wore those shirts. The only difference is that the media jumps all over every incident like the "n**ger" shouts, but ignores the hate coming from the left, in the process making it easier for the Robs of the world to say, "See; I told ya so." Thankfully those on the other side of the aisle now have Youtube to turn to for evidence in support of their claims.

[rwetmore]

Ditto. I've got no patience for someone who would yell those things. But to claim because a few people did something that hateful that the entire tea-party movement is tarred is absurd. And the people who do it are the first people who get upset when anyone stereotypes an ethnic or racial group based on the actions of a minority. I have no doubt that most of the tea-party movement has little to do with racism and everything to do with unhappiness about the direction the Democrats are taking the country on the economony and healthcare. I can (and have, on many occasions) posted photos and videos of people at left-wing rallies acting just as hatefully, doing things like waving signs comparing Bush to Hitler and wearing shirts claiming "Sarah Palin is a c*nt." I'm sure Rob and Teresa would have a fit if I or someone else on here tried to paint everyone who agrees with their liberal agenda as being as ignorant and hateful as the people who waved those signs and wore those shirts. The only difference is that the media jumps all over every incident like the "n**ger" shouts, but ignores the hate coming from the left, in the process making it easier for the Robs of the world to say, "See; I told ya so." Thankfully those on the other side of the aisle now have Youtube to turn to for evidence in support of their claims.

You are assuming these people were not planted in there by some left wing group.

[Barry]

Ditto. I've got no patience for someone who would yell those things. But to claim because a few people did something that hateful that the entire tea-party movement is tarred is absurd. And the people who do it are the first people who get upset when anyone stereotypes an ethnic or racial group based on the actions of a minority. I have no doubt that most of the tea-party movement has little to do with racism and everything to do with unhappiness about the direction the Democrats are taking the country on the economony and healthcare. I can (and have, on many occasions) posted photos and videos of people at left-wing rallies acting just as hatefully, doing things like waving signs comparing Bush to Hitler and wearing shirts claiming "Sarah Palin is a c*nt." I'm sure Rob and Teresa would have a fit if I or someone else on here tried to paint everyone who agrees with their liberal agenda as being as ignorant and hateful as the people who waved those signs and wore those shirts. The only difference is that the media jumps all over every incident like the "n**ger" shouts, but ignores the hate coming from the left, in the process making it easier for the Robs of the world to say, "See; I told ya so." Thankfully those on the other side of the aisle now have Youtube to turn to for evidence in support of their claims.

You are assuming these people were not planted in there by some left wing group.

I wouldn't rule that out. But I also think it's beyond denial that there are SOME racists among the tea partiers. I just don't buy for a minute that racism is the driving force behind the movement, rather than displeasure with the health care reform and fiscal irresponsibility.

[jbuck919]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Teresa

Yes it's upsetting when it happens, but I don't tar a whole group of people because of the the acts of a few.

It would be nice if you had the same reaction when the hatred spills forth from your side, but you don't. It the same old, same old. You only get worked up when your opponents do something inappropriate.

Thank you, Jack, for raising my consciousness. Next time I'm in a liberal crowd facing a right-wing speaker and they start shouting "backward thinking unenlightened person!" I'll be sure to vamoose.

[Teresa B]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Teresa

Yes it's upsetting when it happens, but I don't tar a whole group of people because of the the acts of a few.

It would be nice if you had the same reaction when the hatred spills forth from your side, but you don't. It the same old, same old. You only get worked up when your opponents do something inappropriate.

Thank you, Jack, for raising my consciousness. Next time I'm in a liberal crowd facing a right-wing speaker and they start shouting "backward thinking unenlightened person!" I'll be sure to vamoose.

Me too, John. I knew when I condemned teabaggers for hurling racist epithets that people on this board would claim it's only a tiny few that feel that way, and a "liberal" would never criticize the left, etc etc. We don't really know the percentage of teabaggers who act out of racism, so just saying "it's only a few" is only true of the actual "n--" shouters. It is hard to ignore the hate language on all the signs, the guns carried openly by individuals, and speeches given by political leaders containing racist language which are not condemned by anyone in their audience.

I don't say every individual in the Tea Party is there because of racism, just that there is overall a very nasty undercurrent of intolerance (some of which may be based on fear) that seems to be propelling them. And claiming that the racist/homophobic insults may have been shouted by left wing plants is a stretch indeed, typical of right wingers who are straining mightily to place all the evil on "liberals".

Nothing wrong with conservative and liberal views clashing in a good discussion, but I find it astonishing that some seem to think the media should not treat such heinous racist mudslinging as the bad news it is.

Teresa

[Barry]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Teresa

Yes it's upsetting when it happens, but I don't tar a whole group of people because of the the acts of a few.

It would be nice if you had the same reaction when the hatred spills forth from your side, but you don't. It the same old, same old. You only get worked up when your opponents do something inappropriate.

Thank you, Jack, for raising my consciousness. Next time I'm in a liberal crowd facing a right-wing speaker and they start shouting "backward thinking unenlightened person!" I'll be sure to vamoose.

Me too, John. I knew when I condemned teabaggers for hurling racist epithets that people on this board would claim it's only a tiny few that feel that way, and a "liberal" would never criticize the left, etc etc. We don't really know the percentage of teabaggers who act out of racism, so just saying "it's only a few" is only true of the actual "n--" shouters. It is hard to ignore the hate language on all the signs, the guns carried openly by individuals, and speeches given by political leaders containing racist language which are not condemned by anyone in their audience.

I don't say every individual in the Tea Party is there because of racism, just that there is overall a very nasty undercurrent of intolerance (some of which may be based on fear) that seems to be propelling them. And claiming that the racist/homophobic insults may have been shouted by left wing plants is a stretch indeed, typical of right wingers who are straining mightily to place all the evil on "liberals".

Nothing wrong with conservative and liberal views clashing in a good discussion, but I find it astonishing that some seem to think the media should not treat such heinous racist mudslinging as the bad news it is.

Teresa

What's astonishing isn't that they cover it. It's that they only cover it when it comes from one side. Does that not trouble you in the least? If your argument is that one side does things based solely on race and the other based on policies, that argument simply isn't supported by facts. Why should there be one standard for people who hate Obama's policies to use the N-word in public, but another standard for people who hate Palin to call her a c**t in public? Why is one considered to be representative of their larger movement, but not the other?
http://images.google.com/images?q=palin ... =en&tab=wi
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:SXWJ ... 044img.jpg

[Teresa B]

What's astonishing isn't that they cover it. It's that they only cover it when it comes from one side. Does that not trouble you in the least? If your argument is that one side does things based solely on race and the other based on policies, that argument simply isn't supported by facts. Why should there be one standard for people who hate Obama's policies to use the N-word in public, but another standard for people who hate Palin to call her a c**t in public? Why is one considered to be representative of their larger movement, but not the other?

So, if they hadn't covered the Palin insult, how would you know about it? (Just asking.) I did not argue that one side did things based on race and the other based on policies. I specifically said the Teabaggers do things based on race. I never have included the entire general conservative/right political end to be in the same category.

There should expressly not be one standard for one side and another for the other, nor should the people who used that term for Palin be forgiven either. It is just as appalling.

Teresa

[Corlyss_D]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

My point is, the Tea-Partiers didn't do it. Agents provacateurs did it. We don't know. The only thing we will hear about is that someone in the crowd shouted "nigger." If anything definitive turns up 6 months from now to the effect that SEIU/OFA/ACORN plants did it, you will never hear/read about it.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Honestly, Teresa! That someone in the crowd shouted epithets at some icon of the civil rights movement IS the story! You manifest precisely the desired result: 1) people of good will will hear only about the epithet; 2) they will blame the TPs; 3) the movement is further branded a fringe racist organization; mission accomplisshed. The object wasn't to get the TPs to attack ops, because the TPs are older nice middle class people horrified at what the government is doing, not violence prone white supremacy gang. Most of them have never engaged in political activity of any kind aside from voting. They are the people who line the streets for 4th of July parades and attend high school football games on Friday nights. They aren't accustomed to dealing with the kinds of political thuggery that community organizers routinely deploy against their opponents, including false-flag operations.

I still say you know nothing about the TPs, most liberals don't, because the only coverage you guys expose yourself to is the liberal take on them. That clip from the CNN report is typical. The marching orders from the editors were to go out and film the outrageous signs, avoid interviews with the grandmas and grandpas, the families, young people, and minorities, focus on solo big white guys who look angry and scruffy, preferrably carrying a nasty sign. You call them idiots, I say "how would you know what they are?"

[rwetmore]

I still say you know nothing about the TPs, most liberals don't, because the only coverage you guys expose yourself to is the liberal take on them. That clip from the CNN report is typical. The marching orders from the editors were to go out and film the outrageous signs, avoid interviews with the grandmas and grandpas, the families, young people, and minorities, focus on solo big white guys who look angry and scruffy, preferrably carrying a nasty sign. You call them idiots, I say "how would you know what they are?"

Spot on. I have no doubt those were indeed the marching orders.

[Barry]

What's astonishing isn't that they cover it. It's that they only cover it when it comes from one side. Does that not trouble you in the least? If your argument is that one side does things based solely on race and the other based on policies, that argument simply isn't supported by facts. Why should there be one standard for people who hate Obama's policies to use the N-word in public, but another standard for people who hate Palin to call her a c**t in public? Why is one considered to be representative of their larger movement, but not the other?

So, if they hadn't covered the Palin insult, how would you know about it? (Just asking.) I did not argue that one side did things based on race and the other based on policies. I specifically said the Teabaggers do things based on race. I never have included the entire general conservative/right political end to be in the same category.

There should expressly not be one standard for one side and another for the other, nor should the people who used that term for Palin be forgiven either. It is just as appalling.

Teresa

I honestly don't remember how I first heard about these specific incidents. Some of the anti-Palin shirts were worn at a Philadelphia rally, so it could have even been via word of mouth. I could have also seen an on-line post from someone local. I don't believe it was from a report in the MSM. As far as the Bush=Hitler comparisons and signs, I've seen left wingers on message boards (less this one than a couple others) compare Bush and Republicans to Hitler and fascists generally so many times as virtually a matter of routine, that all I had to do was a Google photo search for "Bush and Hitler." The samples seem to go on forever.

And I continue to think it's hypocrisy for people who are so opposed to stereotyping various groups of people based on the actions of a few to jump to the conclusion that the tea-party movement is largely motivated by race. You're jumping to conclusions based on a few reports of what a few people said or did. If there was equal coverage of such occurrences at left-wing rallies, perhaps your sense of which side is more motivated by hate wouldn't be so skewed.

[Teresa B]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

My point is, the Tea-Partiers didn't do it. Agents provacateurs did it. We don't know. The only thing we will hear about is that someone in the crowd shouted "nigger." If anything definitive turns up 6 months from now to the effect that SEIU/OFA/ACORN plants did it, you will never hear/read about it.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Honestly, Teresa! That someone in the crowd shouted epithets at some icon of the civil rights movement IS the story! You manifest precisely the desired result: 1) people of good will will hear only about the epithet; 2) they will blame the TPs; 3) the movement is further branded a fringe racist organization; mission accomplisshed. The object wasn't to get the TPs to attack ops, because the TPs are older nice middle class people horrified at what the government is doing, not violence prone white supremacy gang. Most of them have never engaged in political activity of any kind aside from voting. They are the people who line the streets for 4th of July parades and attend high school football games on Friday nights. They aren't accustomed to dealing with the kinds of political thuggery that community organizers routinely deploy against their opponents, including false-flag operations.

And you know all this is subterfuge by the "community organizers" how? If you don't have a personal source for this, then your point of view of the Teabaggers is no more valid than mine.

I still say you know nothing about the TPs, most liberals don't, because the only coverage you guys expose yourself to is the liberal take on them. That clip from the CNN report is typical. The marching orders from the editors were to go out and film the outrageous signs, avoid interviews with the grandmas and grandpas, the families, young people, and minorities, focus on solo big white guys who look angry and scruffy, preferrably carrying a nasty sign. You call them idiots, I say "how would you know what they are?"

Again, I have to ask, how do you know the marching orders from the editors? You make these arguments against my point as though your theories about it are fact, and people like me are dumb enough to be duped. Why do you feel it necessary to make excuses for the Teabaggers? (I didn't call them idiots, by the way, I called them racist.) Sometimes things are pretty much what they look like, and over and over we have seen (I know, on the media that's distorting it) the same white crowd, same signs, etc. I've seen some interviews with the grandmas and grandpas; they seem to be afraid of something, but they don't articulate very well what it is. They say stuff like "We want to take back our country" or "We want less government". I don't know how you know them any better than I do, for that matter.

The real issue in my mind is, why is a health care plan the springboard for all these people to decide it's the end of the world as we know it? They weren't out there when the Bush administration approved the bailout, or spent billions of our grandchildren's money on wars. They got out there when OBAMA took on the responsibility for the economic situation and has been basically trying to do what a Democratic president would be expected to do. Those on the far left think he should have put in another stimulus, fought for a single payer health care plan, and gotten us out of Afghanistan. He is nowhere close to the darling of the left any more.

Sorry, but I don't buy the positive spin on the Tea Party or the necessity to defend them.

Teresa

[Barry]

I don't see how Democrats and Republicans alike can not be outraged by repeated shouts of "n---" at a respected civil rights leader, ostensibly because he is voting for the health care plan. Perhaps it's not pure racism; it includes homophobia, since Barney Frank was also the target of hurled epithets.

My point is, the Tea-Partiers didn't do it. Agents provacateurs did it. We don't know. The only thing we will hear about is that someone in the crowd shouted "nigger." If anything definitive turns up 6 months from now to the effect that SEIU/OFA/ACORN plants did it, you will never hear/read about it.

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

Honestly, Teresa! That someone in the crowd shouted epithets at some icon of the civil rights movement IS the story! You manifest precisely the desired result: 1) people of good will will hear only about the epithet; 2) they will blame the TPs; 3) the movement is further branded a fringe racist organization; mission accomplisshed. The object wasn't to get the TPs to attack ops, because the TPs are older nice middle class people horrified at what the government is doing, not violence prone white supremacy gang. Most of them have never engaged in political activity of any kind aside from voting. They are the people who line the streets for 4th of July parades and attend high school football games on Friday nights. They aren't accustomed to dealing with the kinds of political thuggery that community organizers routinely deploy against their opponents, including false-flag operations.

And you know all this is subterfuge by the "community organizers" how? If you don't have a personal source for this, then your point of view of the Teabaggers is no more valid than mine.

I still say you know nothing about the TPs, most liberals don't, because the only coverage you guys expose yourself to is the liberal take on them. That clip from the CNN report is typical. The marching orders from the editors were to go out and film the outrageous signs, avoid interviews with the grandmas and grandpas, the families, young people, and minorities, focus on solo big white guys who look angry and scruffy, preferrably carrying a nasty sign. You call them idiots, I say "how would you know what they are?"

Again, I have to ask, how do you know the marching orders from the editors? You make these arguments against my point as though your theories about it are fact, and people like me are dumb enough to be duped. Why do you feel it necessary to make excuses for the Teabaggers? (I didn't call them idiots, by the way, I called them racist.) Sometimes things are pretty much what they look like, and over and over we have seen (I know, on the media that's distorting it) the same white crowd, same signs, etc. I've seen some interviews with the grandmas and grandpas; they seem to be afraid of something, but they don't articulate very well what it is. They say stuff like "We want to take back our country" or "We want less government". I don't know how you know them any better than I do, for that matter.

The real issue in my mind is, why is a health care plan the springboard for all these people to decide it's the end of the world as we know it? They weren't out there when the Bush administration approved the bailout, or spent billions of our grandchildren's money on wars. They got out there when OBAMA took on the responsibility for the economic situation and has been basically trying to do what a Democratic president would be expected to do. Those on the far left think he should have put in another stimulus, fought for a single payer health care plan, and gotten us out of Afghanistan. He is nowhere close to the darling of the left any more.

Sorry, but I don't buy the positive spin on the Tea Party or the necessity to defend them.

Teresa

That's pretty disturbing to me. Sorry. I know you think you're entitled to your view and that it's a valid one. But you're painting a fairly large movement that over and over expressly addresses issues related to the economy and health care. Out of hundreds or even thousands of people present, a few make racist comments, and you think the entire movement isn't "worthy of defense." What exactly does our democracy stand for if a movement of people peacefully protesting domestic policies they're upset with aren't worthy of defense? Since when is someone a racist because he shows up at a rally on health care or fiscal irresponsibility and they happen to be in the same space as a few obnoxious pigs? Think about that the next time you throw out the charge of "McCarthyism" against anyone.

[rwetmore]

That's pretty disturbing to me. Sorry. I know you think you're entitled to your view and that it's a valid one. But you're painting a fairly large movement that over and over expressly addresses issues related to the economy and health care. Out of hundreds or even thousands of people present, a few make racist comments, and you think the entire movement isn't "worthy of defense." What exactly does our democracy stand for if a movement of people peacefully protesting domestic policies they're upset with aren't worthy of defense? Since when is someone a racist because he shows up at a rally on health care or fiscal irresponsibility and they happen to be in the same space as a few obnoxious pigs? Think about that the next time you throw out the charge of "McCarthyism" against anyone.

I think you're misunderstanding their motivations here. You have to understand that they want to believe the tea party movement is a bunch of racists and kooks. It provides an easy way to dismiss entirely any substantive basis for the whole movement. At least that's my sense of what's going on here. It's the same reason the media is deliberately covering the tea party movement inaccurately - because they know it's substantive and effective.

[Corlyss_D]

This terrible behavior could be incited by political sources, unions (what, are they trying to incite the idiot teabaggers to make themselves look worse?), or whatever; no matter, any crowd that can be stirred to this kind of hate speech is expressing racism and bigotry.

And you know all this is subterfuge by the "community organizers" how? If you don't have a personal source for this, then your point of view of the Teabaggers is no more valid than mine.

I've seen this kind of op before. It's standard politics for some groups. They used to be called "dirty tricks," a Dem specialty. Look up Dick Tuck or "dirty tricks" sometime. Or read Chris Matthews' Hardball or any other insider story of how this or that candidate triumphed. Of course I don't have a "personal source." The story is too fresh for the facts to come out. But a week from now a month from now 6 months from now, the facts won't matter. The damage has been done. You don't even know if the story is true. It's been denied by people who were there; in all the footage of the demonstration, no one has found corroboration for the story, and the only people who have claimed to have heard it are the Democratic civili rights icons and a CNN reporter, the same one responsible for the execrable incounter with the TPs last fall. But itt fits with your received narrative about TPs, so of course it must be true.

I still say you know nothing about the TPs, most liberals don't, because the only coverage you guys expose yourself to is the liberal take on them. That clip from the CNN report is typical. The marching orders from the editors were to go out and film the outrageous signs, avoid interviews with the grandmas and grandpas, the families, young people, and minorities, focus on solo big white guys who look angry and scruffy, preferrably carrying a nasty sign. You call them idiots, I say "how would you know what they are?"

Again, I have to ask, how do you know the marching orders from the editors? You make these arguments against my point as though your theories about it are fact, and people like me are dumb enough to be duped.

First, the results were remarkably consistent from sources other than conservative media. I watched much of the TP demonstrations in DC, the town halls, and the 9/12 demonstrations, and the crowds were quiet, peaceful, like a parade minus bands, not the rowdy racist violent people portrayed in the MSM reports. So how could so many outlets be telling a tale directly contradictory to what I saw myself? When you read staff memos by people like CBS political editor Mark Halperin occasionally leaked to the press, which largely contain directions (to willing ears, no doubt) to selectively report the "truth" about conservatives, with no parallel mandate to tell the "truth" about liberals, how hard is it to devine the intent here? One has to be selectively disinterested to think politics are dictating the choices. Ordinary people are simply unaccustomed to question what they hear. Witness how quick everyone was to denounce the TPs for the remark whose origin is still unknown.

Why do you feel it necessary to make excuses for the Teabaggers?

Because what's happening to them in the MSM is so blatantly obvious, and because well-educated people like you have settled on the liberal narrative about the TPs and because there was no similar coverage of the anti-war demonstrators, even when they were violent. The anti-war demonstrators were given extensive favorable coverage for doing exactly the same things, only much less violently, that the TPs are doing. And yet the portrayal of them is dismissive if not contemptuous.

(I didn't call them idiots, by the way, I called them racist.)

What's the difference between "idiot teabaggers" and "idiots?" I left your quote up at the top so you could see what you think you didn't say.

Sometimes things are pretty much what they look like, and over and over we have seen (I know, on the media that's distorting it) the same white crowd, same signs, etc.

Duh! That's the point, Teresa. What do you want? The heads of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC to issue a public statement that they have skewed the coverage to make the TPs look bad? Is that what it would take to convince you? If it is, further discussions are pointless. You'll never get evidence suitable for presentation in a court of law, or "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I've seen some interviews with the grandmas and grandpas; they seem to be afraid of something, but they don't articulate very well what it is. They say stuff like "We want to take back our country" or "We want less government". I don't know how you know them any better than I do, for that matter.

By the same token, you never heard any of them say they were opposed to Obama because he was black, did you? They didn't attack the interviewer or anyone in the crowd, did they? If you want to call them racists because they seemed confused about what exactly to demand of their government, God help us.

The real issue in my mind is, why is a health care plan the springboard for all these people to decide it's the end of the world as we know it?

Because of what we know about the debt, the deficit, the unfunded liability, the ability of government to turn all well-intentioned programs into something quite different from what the voters bought into, because no entitlements program has ever been reduced, only expanded . . . I'm getting tired of making the same arguments over and over.

They weren't out there when the Bush administration approved the bailout,

Speed or legislative action precluded the kinds of demonstrations we see now: Lehman's went bust in the second week of Sept 2008 and the second bailout package was enacted 3 Oct 2008. Governmentally, the bailout happned at the speed of light. If you will recall, the first bailout package failed on 30 Sept 2008 - that was where we got to have the most influence. When the footage of the traders on the floors of the exchanges watching the vote and the subsequent sell-off went viral, it virtually assured the passage of the second bailout.

. . or spent billions of our grandchildren's money on wars.

The canard about saving trillions in entitlements spending by eliminating a few billion in defense spending has been debunked so often I'm surprise you cite it. Currently entitlement spending is 9% of GDP. Defense spending is around 4%. Defense spending is temporary. Entitlement spending is permanent and growing.

They got out there when OBAMA took on the responsibility for the economic situation and has been basically trying to do what a Democratic president would be expected to do.

Well, you're certainly manifesting what many of us said in 08: any opposition to Obama would be dismissed as latent or overt racism. Timing was important for your bailout example. Whoever was president, if he'd adopted the same policies, would have gotten the same pushback. It's the policies that are offensive, not the man. The policies are as much Pelosi/Reid's doing as Obama's, in fact they are probably more so. The TPs are equal opportunity opposers of both Pelosi/Reid and Obama.

Sorry, but I don't buy the positive spin on the Tea Party or the necessity to defend them.

Right. You buy the negative spin on them.

[Barry]

David Brooks wrote about this last year:
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
No, It’s Not About Race

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 17, 2009

You wouldn’t know it to look at me, but I go running several times a week. My favorite route, because it’s so flat, is from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol and back. I was there last Saturday and found myself plodding through tens of thousands of anti-government “tea party” protesters.

They were carrying “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, “End the Fed” placards and signs condemning big government, Barack Obama, socialist health care and various elite institutions.

Then, as I got to where the Smithsonian museums start, I came across another rally, the Black Family Reunion Celebration. Several thousand people had gathered to celebrate African-American culture. I noticed that the mostly white tea party protesters were mingling in with the mostly black family reunion celebrants. The tea party people were buying lunch from the family reunion food stands. They had joined the audience of a rap concert.

Because sociology is more important than fitness, I stopped to watch the interaction. These two groups were from opposite ends of the political and cultural spectrum. They’d both been energized by eloquent speakers. Yet I couldn’t discern any tension between them. It was just different groups of people milling about like at any park or sports arena.

And yet we live in a nation in which some people see every conflict through the prism of race. So over the past few days, many people, from Jimmy Carter on down, have argued that the hostility to President Obama is driven by racism. Some have argued that tea party slogans like “I Want My Country Back” are code words for white supremacy. Others say incivility on Capitol Hill is magnified by Obama’s dark skin.

Well, I don’t have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama’s critics, so I can’t measure how much racism is in there. But my impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.

For example, for generations schoolchildren studied the long debate between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Hamiltonians stood for urbanism, industrialism and federal power. Jeffersonians were suspicious of urban elites and financial concentration and believed in small-town virtues and limited government. Jefferson advocated “a wise and frugal government” that will keep people from hurting each other, but will otherwise leave them free and “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Jefferson’s philosophy inspired Andrew Jackson, who led a movement of plain people against the cosmopolitan elites. Jackson dismantled the Second Bank of the United States because he feared the fusion of federal and financial power.

This populist tendency continued through the centuries. Sometimes it took right-wing forms, sometimes left-wing ones. Sometimes it was agrarian. Sometimes it was more union-oriented. Often it was extreme, conspiratorial and rude.

The populist tendency has always used the same sort of rhetoric: for the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the small towns and against the financial centers.

And it has always had the same morality, which the historian Michael Kazin has called producerism. The idea is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country. In this free, capitalist nation, people should be held responsible for their own output. Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work, and it should not be sucked off by condescending, manipulative elites.

Barack Obama leads a government of the highly educated. His movement includes urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age professionals. In his first few months, he has fused federal power with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy sector.

Given all of this, it was guaranteed that he would spark a populist backlash, regardless of his skin color. And it was guaranteed that this backlash would be ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else.

What we’re seeing is the latest iteration of that populist tendency and the militant progressive reaction to it. We now have a populist news media that exaggerates the importance of the Van Jones and Acorn stories to prove the elites are decadent and un-American, and we have a progressive news media that exaggerates stories like the Joe Wilson shout and the opposition to the Obama schools speech to show that small-town folks are dumb wackos.

“One could argue that this country is on the verge of a crisis of legitimacy,” the economic blogger Arnold Kling writes. “The progressive elite is starting to dismiss rural white America as illegitimate, and vice versa.”

It’s not race. It’s another type of conflict, equally deep and old.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html

Here is a more recent column by him in which he is highly critical of the tea-party movement, but manages to criticize them without bringing race into the discussion:

New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
The Wal-Mart Hippies

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 4, 2010

About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.

Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.

There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.

But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.

These days the same people who are buying Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” on Amazon.com are, according to the company’s software, also buying books like “Liberal Fascism,” “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” and “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.” Those last two books were written by David Horowitz, who was a leading New Left polemicist in the 1960s and is now a leading polemicist on the right.

But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements go in big for conspiracy theories. The ’60s left developed elaborate theories of how world history was being manipulated by shadowy corporatist/imperialist networks — theories that live on in the works of Noam Chomsky. In its short life, the Tea Party movement has developed a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the Fed, the F.B.I., the big banks and corporations and black helicopters.

Because of this assumption, members of the Tea Party right, like the members of the New Left, spend a lot of time worrying about being co-opted. They worry that the corrupt forces of the establishment are perpetually trying to infiltrate the purity of their ranks.

Because of this assumption, members of both movements have a problem with authority. Both have a mostly negative agenda: destroy the corrupt structures; defeat the establishment. Like the New Left, the Tea Party movement has no clear set of plans for what to do beyond the golden moment of personal liberation, when the federal leviathan is brought low.

Recently a piece in Salon astutely compared Glenn Beck to Abbie Hoffman. In it, Michael Lind pointed out that the conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s built a counter-establishment — a network of think tanks, activist groups, academic associations and political leaders who would form conservative cadres, promoting conservative ideas and policies.

But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization. As one activist put it recently on a Tea Party blog: “We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is ‘led’ by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up.”

For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html

[jbuck919]

Someone who cites Andrew Jackson as an example for modern broad-based populism, and doesn't know there's a hill in his run. Hmmmm.

[Corlyss_D]

doesn't know there's a hill in his run. Hmmmm.

Eh?

[Teresa B]

Corlyss, I concede the "idiot" adjective, and apparently I must have forgotten it. All the rest of your comments are just as much conjecture and arising from your own biases as mine are. (Note I also concede bias on my part while noting it on yours, and everyone else's for that matter.) If you watched the Tea Party gatherings, where did you watch them? Were you actually in the midst of the gatherings? Otherwise you had to see them brought to you by media. I can submit that the media you watched distorted what you saw. Come on, no one has a premium on what is true. Everyone sees these things through a particular lens. It boils down to: The proof is in the pudding. If health care reform does not result in the end of the world as we know it, or even has some positive consequences, then as you say, all this cr*p will be forgotten anyway.

Teresa

[jbuck919]

doesn't know there's a hill in his run. Hmmmm.

Eh?

Rhetoric killer!

You wouldn’t know it to look at me, but I go running several times a week. My favorite route, because it’s so flat, is from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol and back.

(Yes, folks, I'm aware that Capitol Hill is a modest hill. Around here that would be considered a flat run.)

[Barry]

Corlyss, I concede the "idiot" adjective, and apparently I must have forgotten it. All the rest of your comments are just as much conjecture and arising from your own biases as mine are. (Note I also concede bias on my part while noting it on yours, and everyone else's for that matter.) If you watched the Tea Party gatherings, where did you watch them? Were you actually in the midst of the gatherings? Otherwise you had to see them brought to you by media. I can submit that the media you watched distorted what you saw. Come on, no one has a premium on what is true. Everyone sees these things through a particular lens. It boils down to: The proof is in the pudding. If health care reform does not result in the end of the world as we know it, or even has some positive consequences, then as you say, all this cr*p will be forgotten anyway.

Teresa

There is of course plenty of truth to the above. What I find galling is that someone would jump to the conclusion that a large group of people is racist because of what a few people say. I know this isn't a criminal case, but when it comes to racism, I always think it's best to assume innocence until I see or here solid evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. Physical proximity to a racist isn't solid evidence IMO.

As I've indicated on here before, I think the willingness of many liberals to assume racism without actual evidence of it does a lot of damage to race relations in this country because of the bitterness is leads to from those being accused.

This is a perfect example not seeing the trees through the forest. I've posted several articles about violent and disruptive activities that young inner-city African-Americans from economically depressed areas are committing. As I've pointed out on here many times, this type of behavior, in large part, goes to the break down of the black family in inner-city areas. It's one of the biggest tragedies and problems in the country. I repeatedly find, including here in the Pub, that liberals ignore those problems and go nuts every time there is an incident in the press about some white person saying something racist. I ask you: what is causing more damage to African-Americans in this country? We're never going to avoid having some racist jerks in our society. Thankfully, their numbers reduce with each generation. The breakdown of the family and resulting associated problems is an on-going problem that is showing no signs of getting better.

I don't know whether to blame it on the extent to which PC has infiltrated our society and the left or just pure willful ignorance. Wake up, for crying out loud! Rome is burning and you're throwing a fit because some as*hole insulted someone!

[Teresa B]

As I've indicated on here before, I think the willingness of many liberals to assume racism without actual evidence of it does a lot of damage to race relations in this country because of the bitterness is leads to from those being accused.

I did cite the other evidence-- racist signage and the rhetoric of Tancredo, etc, along with the overt racist shouts that occurred recently--it's kind of hard to miss the racism behind all of that. To twist it such that it's really the liberals who call this behavior out who are damaging race relations is absurd.

Teresa

[IN278S]

I haven't been following all the political discussion here, so perhaps this ground has already been covered. Just in case, let's review the definition of teabagging. From Wikipedia:

Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea, though the term could also be interpreted as a combination of "T" (as in testicle) and "bag" (as in the scrotum).

My point is that this term, as applied to the tea-party movement, is and should be clearly understood as derogatory. It's not that I'm offended by it, to the extent that I sympathize with some of the tea partiers' views. I'm not at all prudish, and I swear and crack poor-taste jokes with the best of 'em. But in political discussion, certain words signal "preaching to the choir" rather than willingness to engage in serious discussion with others who have different views. On the right you'll hear "libtard" or "feminazi"; on the left they talk about "Rethuglicans" such as the former "resident", "Bushitler". Partisan forums and blogs are full of such things, but outside the left and right echo-chambers, these terms tend to discourage civil debate on political issues.

[karlhenning]

I've never heard that before, don't much care for it now that I have heard of it. And I refuse to act as if that locker-room usage "owns" the expression tea-bagging.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Teresa B]

I've never heard that before, don't much care for it now that I have heard of it. And I refuse to act as if that locker-room usage "owns" the expression tea-bagging.

Cheers,
~Karl

Ditto.

Teresa

[IN278S]

I've never heard that before, don't much care for it now that I have heard of it. And I refuse to act as if that locker-room usage "owns" the expression tea-bagging.

Cheers,
~Karl

From the Wikipedia article:

The term was used to ridicule those in the Tea Party movement due to its sexual connotation.

The sexual usage was first, and inspired the political usage.

Maybe those people who were using nasty insults at the recent rally were refusing to act as if racists and homophobes "owned" those words.

To me, it's like a white person saying "When I use the word n****r I'm not talking about all black people, just the bad ones." (Yes, I've heard white people say that.) Try as you might to redefine it, it's still an insult. (Not that I consider "teabagger" to be nearly as bad, as insults go.)

[IN278S]

Ditto.

Teresa

A dittohead! Now we know.

[karlhenning]

Misinformation in the Party? Say it ain't so!

What does the Tea Party stand for? Bruce Bartlett, drawing on research by David Frum's staff, says:

"Tuesday's Tea Party crowd. . . . thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

"To follow up, Tea Partyers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710, the median $10,000. In percentage terms this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

"Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669. . . .

"Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same. . . . federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president."

Cheers,
~Karl

[jbuck919]

I would not be surprised if the group that brought the term into currency was simply ignorant of another usage. I didn't know what it meant, Karl didn't know what it meant, a lot of people didn't know what it meant. I didn't know what BOHICA meant until it appeared on a local billboard and caused some people offense (look it up). I remember at my Catholic high school's graduation another teacher asked me how to wear his academic hood and I pointed out that after putting it on right-side-out one must fluff it a little in the back, so I jokingly said, "May I fluff you?" Years later I learned that this also has a usage from the realm of adult films (never mind the details).

Sometimes one feels tempted to conclude that there aren't that many things left that are not open to a possible unfortunate double meaning.

[IN278S]

I would not be surprised if the group that brought the term into currency was simply ignorant of another usage. I didn't know what it meant, Karl didn't know what it meant, a lot of people didn't know what it meant. I didn't know what BOHICA meant until it appeared on a local billboard and caused some people offense (look it up). I remember at my Catholic high school's graduation another teacher asked me how to wear his academic hood and I pointed out that after putting it on right-side-out one must fluff it a little in the back, so I jokingly said, "May I fluff you?" Years later I learned that this also has a usage from the realm of adult films (never mind the details).

Sometimes one feels tempted to conclude that there aren't that many things left that are not open to a possible unfortunate double meaning.

Well, I'm sure a lot of people use "teabagging" without any idea that it has possibly unsavory connotations. But if there's anyone who can be said to have brought the term into currency, it's probably the hosts and commentators on MSNBC. David Shuster, filling in for Keith Olbermann last April 13, had this to say:

For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It’s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.

They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending – spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama’s tax rates – which will be lower for most of them -- and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That’s teabagging in a nut shell.

Okay, it is kinda funny.

[Teresa B]

Ditto.

Teresa

A dittohead! Now we know.

Now, to anyone of even slightly liberal persuasion, that's a worse insult than "teabagger"!

Teresa

[HoustonDavid]

As someone of slightly liberal persuasion, I say "Ditto".
God and Barrack and Nancy must love 'ya Teresa, you've been carrying this thread
on your liiberal shoulders and doing a great job of it. I'm beginning to think Corlyss
has become paranoid over this Tea Party thing, blaming a union for infiltrating rallies
and spreading seeds of racism, as if the conservatives can't find a few racists of
their own. We all own our own faults, no tar baby goes unblemished, but we don't
need to add paranoia to our well-mixed differing opinions here at CMG.

[Barry]

This is a perfect example not seeing the trees through the forest. I've posted several articles about violent and disruptive activities that young inner-city African-Americans from economically depressed areas are committing. As I've pointed out on here many times, this type of behavior, in large part, goes to the break down of the black family in inner-city areas. It's one of the biggest tragedies and problems in the country. I repeatedly find, including here in the Pub, that liberals ignore those problems and go nuts every time there is an incident in the press about some white person saying something racist. I ask you: what is causing more damage to African-Americans in this country? We're never going to avoid having some racist jerks in our society. Thankfully, their numbers reduce with each generation. The breakdown of the family and resulting associated problems is an on-going problem that is showing no signs of getting better.

I don't know whether to blame it on the extent to which PC has infiltrated our society and the left or just pure willful ignorance. Wake up, for crying out loud! Rome is burning and you're throwing a fit because some as*hole insulted someone!

Just within the past half hour, while walking back to work from home, I passed by what must have been a 15-17 year old African-American girl with one of her friends. In her obnoxiously loud voice, every other word was sh*t this and f*ck that. I hear stuff like that every week. This is what infuriates me about the impact of the way liberals treat race in this country.

I know most of the board's liberals will probably blow this off, but I think it's fairly obvious that by going nuts every time there is an incident where some white person uses a racist word or says something inappropriate with a racial slant, while simultaneously continuing to say nothing about the extent to which black society is breaking down in large swaths of our inner-cities, liberals are ramming the message into the heads of economically depressed inner-city African-Americans that the main cause of their problems is the fact that there is still racisim in our society and not the fact that their own failure to form families and have children as married couples and to properly nurture those children is killing the chances of those children to live productive lives and even remain free from prison.

That was a very long sentence. But I had the thought and wanted to get it out while it was fresh in my mind after what I had just witnessed, not as an isolated incident, but as something tragically common-place (and tie this in with the various other stories I've posted lately on violent and disruptive behavior by inner-city youths).

This doesn't mean I don't get angry when I hear people use the N-word. But it's important to have some perspective about what's really doing the most damage and not re-enforce destructive messages by way of emphasis and lack thereof IMO.

[jbuck919]

Just within the past half hour, while walking back to work from home, I passed by what must have been a 15-17 year old African-American girl with one of her friends. In her obnoxiously loud voice, every other word was sh*t this and f*ck that. I hear stuff like that every week. This is what infuriates me about the impact of the way liberals treat race in this country.

So now liberals are responsible for the bad behavior of black youth? That's exactly what it sounds like you're saying. That's as bad as the alleged liberal sense (which I am not endorsing) that such behavior should be excused because the person's deprived environment is really responsible.

[Barry]

Just within the past half hour, while walking back to work from home, I passed by what must have been a 15-17 year old African-American girl with one of her friends. In her obnoxiously loud voice, every other word was sh*t this and f*ck that. I hear stuff like that every week. This is what infuriates me about the impact of the way liberals treat race in this country.

So now liberals are responsible for the bad behavior of black youth? That's exactly what it sounds like you're saying. That's as bad as the alleged liberal sense (which I am not endorsing) that such behavior should be excused because the person's deprived environment is really responsible.

Not entirely responsible. Ultimately, the people acting that way are responsible for their own behavior. But yes; liberals have done their share of damage with the extent to which they've de-emphasized the self-destructive behavior within A-A inner-city communities while also making great pains to what I think is over-emphasize the role that racisim currently plays in our society. And actually, it goes much deeper than just that issue in terms of the damage the left has done to those who comprise much of the inner-city underclass. The best book on the subject is Myron Magnet's The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties' Legacy to the Underclass, which goes into the various ways the messages put forth by the new left of the 60s helped spawn the underclass. In essence, it's a form of enabling.

As I said, I didn't expect you and the board's other liberals to plead guilty. And I'll stand by my position that many of you are wearing destructive blinders on the topic.

[jbuck919]

Just within the past half hour, while walking back to work from home, I passed by what must have been a 15-17 year old African-American girl with one of her friends. In her obnoxiously loud voice, every other word was sh*t this and f*ck that. I hear stuff like that every week. This is what infuriates me about the impact of the way liberals treat race in this country.

So now liberals are responsible for the bad behavior of black youth? That's exactly what it sounds like you're saying. That's as bad as the alleged liberal sense (which I am not endorsing) that such behavior should be excused because the person's deprived environment is really responsible.

Not entirely responsible. Ultimately, the people acting that way are responsible for their own behavior. But yes; liberals have done their share of damage

Well, thanks. And the environment really has been an enabling factor, you know.

So how do you propose, under this new we-are-immune-to-cries-of-racism world, to effect an improvement of all that bad behavior?

[HoustonDavid]

Barry, you don't think poverty and its resulting effect on the environment might have something to do
with people's behavior?

[JackC]

Just within the past half hour, while walking back to work from home, I passed by what must have been a 15-17 year old African-American girl with one of her friends. In her obnoxiously loud voice, every other word was sh*t this and f*ck that. I hear stuff like that every week. This is what infuriates me about the impact of the way liberals treat race in this country.

So now liberals are responsible for the bad behavior of black youth? That's exactly what it sounds like you're saying. That's as bad as the alleged liberal sense (which I am not endorsing) that such behavior should be excused because the person's deprived environment is really responsible.

Not entirely responsible. Ultimately, the people acting that way are responsible for their own behavior. But yes; liberals have done their share of damage

Well, thanks. And the environment really has been an enabling factor, you know.

So how do you propose, under this new we-are-immune-to-cries-of-racism world, to effect an improvement of all that bad behavior?

There is little else that the white community can do for the black community. The devastating effects that well-intended social programs had is clear. If the black community wants to get out of the death spiral that it is in, it will have to do it itself.

It will need to have new leaders. They will have to listen to folks like Bill Cosby who used to harshly criticize th ghetto culture and say things like -- who would want to go to a doctor or a lawyer or whatever when they could barely speak intelligible english and every third word out of their mouth was **** or ****. When Cosby made these points before he was called an Uncle Tom by other leaders in the black community.

[Barry]

Just within the past half hour, while walking back to work from home, I passed by what must have been a 15-17 year old African-American girl with one of her friends. In her obnoxiously loud voice, every other word was sh*t this and f*ck that. I hear stuff like that every week. This is what infuriates me about the impact of the way liberals treat race in this country.

So now liberals are responsible for the bad behavior of black youth? That's exactly what it sounds like you're saying. That's as bad as the alleged liberal sense (which I am not endorsing) that such behavior should be excused because the person's deprived environment is really responsible.

Not entirely responsible. Ultimately, the people acting that way are responsible for their own behavior. But yes; liberals have done their share of damage

Well, thanks. And the environment really has been an enabling factor, you know.

So how do you propose, under this new we-are-immune-to-cries-of-racism world, to effect an improvement of all that bad behavior?

It's a lot easier for me to say what shouldn't be done than what should be done. I don't know if there is a program for placing the importance of family and the family structure first. Because ultimately, as you know, I think all of the other problems stem from that one. In the mean time, stop (not you, personally ... there are others on this board who could use this advice a lot more than you) helping to entrench the situation by putting forth the message that white racism is the cause of all of the problems currently faced by blacks in disproportionate numbers.

[Corlyss_D]

So now liberals are responsible for the bad behavior of black youth? That's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

I thought my position at least on this issue was fairly well known here: the so-called welfare programs are enormously destructive of both families in the way they are constructed (no aid to families with an adult male present), by failing to encourage marriage between parents of children (of course, the way black males live off the ADC money paid to a harem of women who birthed their kids would make picking just one mother problematic), by producing generations of wards of the state, with a dependent mentality, no job skills, no prospects, no hope, and for fostering an intire industry devoted to pimping these unfortunates for their votes for one party, and we all know who that party is. IMO that's the closest thing to pure evil ever produced in modern America.

So how do you propose, under this new we-are-immune-to-cries-of-racism world, to effect an improvement of all that bad behavior?

Short of crimes, and I mean real crimes, not phony crimes like "hate speech", what business is it of the government's how you, I, or anyone else acts? Since when did enforcing proper etiquette become one of the enumerated powers?