quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's why the constitution includes things like the "two witnesses" bit for treason. People can talk themselves into anything, including condemnation for something that hasn't happened.
It's a convenient way to demonize, but it takes willful enmity to do it.
You don't think the constitution forbids suspicion, do you? Personally I don't see wilful enmity in the suggestion that Tea Partiers *could* become violent. It's a new fringe movement, and we don't really know yet what it may turn into. It would be wrong to suggest that they *are* violent when they have not been, but pointing out that there is a danger of violence among an angry fringe group with an alarmist conservative agenda is hardly demonizing. Acting on that suspicion of a threat by punishing these people would be wrong. Being suspicious? Acting on that suspicion by exercising caution? Not so much. We're suspicious of lots of people, and we don't punish them for it, or at least we should not punish them- when our caution gets the better of us and we start infringing their rights to speech and assembly and the security of their persons, then we have a problem. That's why suspecting Tea Partiers or extremist Muslims of having violent intentions is not wrong, but wire tapping them without warrants and preventing their assembly is.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Fun Fact:
quote:...Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a photograph vendor on Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car to the police’s attention...
COINCIdENCE??!?!?/11
Not at all. The guy deserves a medal. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Or terror supporters. But it's extremely common among Muslims to at least support such things. And when something like this happens, it's good odds that it was Islamically motivated.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the Tea Partiers do keep threatening violence.
Can you give us a source please? The only "threats" I've seen are ones that people say have been made but can never be substantiated by proof. Please show me a source that does not consist of a news outlet with someone on that just claims to have heard these threats. I want video of a tea partier threatening someone.
To go one step further, If one tea partier does something violent, is it the tea party as a whole or one person that is responsible?
If one muslim commits a horrific act, does it mean that all muslims are violent?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your post wasn't very clear, are you saying that if you have a gun on you, that you are threatening violence?
Goodness, we have open carry here in Las Vegas. I see people with holstered weapons all the time in the grocery store, cofee shops, and malls. Are these people threatening me by having this gun, or are they law abiding citizens?
If I misunderstood you I apologize, your post was just unclear to me.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't write "having a gun"; I wrote "Making a point of the fact that one has a gun".
Signs like, "We vote with bullets",or "If Brown can't stop it a Browning can", are threats of violence.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes a particular kind of tendentious enmity to assume the worst of people in the face of contrary evidence. An unpleasant, nasty kind.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice slur, there. You are revealing your prejudices.
----
I believe that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. Even people who part of a movement attractive enough to topple your favorite political candidates.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear. Fear of the genuine power of large numbers of people voting as a bloc, driven by ideals which your favorite candidates do not serve.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Geraine: Goodness, we have open carry here in Las Vegas. I see people with holstered weapons all the time in the grocery store, cofee shops, and malls. Are these people threatening me by having this gun, or are they law abiding citizens?
We have open carry in most places in Michigan too, yet in all my life the only guns I've seen up close are hunting rifles, and one time, my uncle's hand gun when my cousin was playing with it. I never felt threatened by those (well, my cousin spooked me a little) because I knew the people who owned them, and it wasn't randomly in public. But most people around here would be pretty leery about seeing someone with a gun in a grocery store, and probably would find it somewhat threatening. I'd be willing to bet that legal gun ownership in Michigan is higher than in Nevada, per capita, as well, so it's not like we're unfamiliar with guns, just with openly displaying them like that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, no insult intended. I've really been paying very little attention to the whole Tea Party thing. Is Tea Partiers the preferred term?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that's the source of the slurs - fear. Fear of the genuine power of large numbers of people voting as a bloc, driven by ideals which your favorite candidates do not serve.
Surely at least some of it is motivated by signs threatening violence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nice slur, there.
Not necessarily.
quote:Feb. 27, 2009: At the first anti-stimulus "New American Tea Party" rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!" The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it "the best sign I saw."
quote:April 1: Several Tea Party protest sites encourage readers to "Tea bag the fools in DC." Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online later admits: "Conservatives started [using the term]... but others ran and ran with it."
quote:September 10: Badges with the message "Proud to be a Tea Bagger" are still on sale at Tea Party events, according to an article written later in the year.
quote:April 14, 2010: Prominent conservative Andrew Breitbart posts a video on the site Big Government in an attempt to reclaim the term. "I'm Proud to be a Tea Bagger" currently has over 90,000 views.
posted
If they were only threatening to vote, I would not have accused them of threatening violence. They are threatening to use guns. How is that not threatening violence?
"I want X", is worlds different than, "I want X and I have a gun."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I believe that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. Even people who part of a movement attractive enough to topple your favorite political candidates.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear.
The tea party is really a "movement attractive enough to split the vote of my least favorite political candidates" and a fearful, emotionally-driven movement that is continuing the gradual reduction of conservative electability by punishing moderacy in the G.O.P.
It's a comforting implication of motive for you to use, but I don't think nearly anyone here actively fears the tea party.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sure don't, for the same reasons I don't fear the possibility of Sarah Palin ever actually running a part of this country ever again.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, because a few people have signs that say these things, the entire movement is full of a bunch of potential terrorists?
Goodness, we see signs like this in every rally from every type of protest. Two weeks ago someone smeared a swastika made of refried beans on the door of a government building in Arizona. Should we assume now that all illegal immigrants are vandal?
I have not seen the signs that say "We vote with bullets" but if you can provide pictures, please post a link. I'd be interested in seeing them.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There have been zero instances of Tea Party terrorism. At the major Tea Party in DC earlier this year, there were zero arrests. This myth that the Tea Party is a seething cauldron of violence that could erupt at any moment is absurd.
How long has the Tea Party been around?
Noemon, that's unworthy of you. Your argument is that the Tea Party is violent, even though there has been zero evidence of it, because you are sure someone WILL be? You are willing to think the very worst based on a guess that something that hasn't happened will happen? In the face of zero evidence and stated intentions otherwise, you have based your opinion on future hypothetical? [/QB]
No, that's not my argument. I'm kind of puzzled as to why you thought that it was, but I'm also okay with letting it go if you don't feel like going into it. I've reread your post a couple of times, trying to figure out if you were making a point that wasn't on the surface--a critique of my style of argument or something--but I'm not seeing anything like that in there.
My argument was that the Tea Party is in its infancy, and that there are currently a number of different directions in which members and sympathizers could take it. Violence is one of those directions. I don't think that it's certain that it will go that way, but I definitely think that it could. I think this because of the Tea Party sympathizers I personally know. A few of them are fairly sober conservatives, but many the others, while not prepared to pick up a gun themselves, are actively praying for the death of a number of our elected leaders, and would be happy if someone were to kill those leaders. This isn't a scientific sampling, of course--the Tea Party sympathizers I personally know may not be representative of the group as a whole. It's enough, though, to make me think that violence is a direction that the movement may gravitate toward as it matures.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, because a few people have signs that say these things, the entire movement is full of a bunch of potential terrorists?
Well, no. But the fact that the movement accepts signs like this is bothersome. It's not one guy holding up a "Obama = Hitler" sign, it's that same guy in a large crowd that accepts his contribution to their rally.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Geraine: Goodness, we see signs like this in every rally from every type of protest. Two weeks ago someone smeared a swastika made of refried beans on the door of a government building in Arizona. Should we assume now that all illegal immigrants are vandal?
Emphasis mine. Why would the assumption be that an illegal immigrant, and not a legal one did this?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn’t time, and hopefully that time will never come. But one thing is certain: “Now is the time to rattle your sabers.” If not now, then when?
When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers. It’s all about accountability. So long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it.
I understand that sounds harsh, but these are harsh times. Now is the time to rattle the saber. Now is the time to answer the very personal, very serious, very intimate question: “When do I remove the saber from its scabbard?”
I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that’s not enough. The politicians have to hear it too. They have to hear it, and they have to believe it.
Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let’s rattle some sabers and show the government we’re still here. We are here, and we are not silent!
quote:From Geraine: Goodness, we see signs like this in every rally from every type of protest. Two weeks ago someone smeared a swastika made of refried beans on the door of a government building in Arizona. Should we assume now that all illegal immigrants are vandal?
Emphasis mine. Why would the assumption be that an illegal immigrant, and not a legal one did this?
Why would you be under the assumption that a tea party support was holding the sign that says "We vote with bullets" and not someone from crashtheteaparty.org ?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would you be under the assumption that a tea party support was holding the sign that says "We vote with bullets" and not someone from crashtheteaparty.org ?
That actually doesn't really matter. If the Tea Party participants accept that sign as a valid contribution to their rally, then it becomes a message of the rally, regardless of the identity of the author.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with you on that point Matt. There are nuts on every spectrum of the political landscape, but the actions or opinions of a few do not represent the actions or opinions of the majority. The tea party isn't a group of people from one party. There are democrats, republicans, and members from other parties there. There is no policing unit that tests you to see if you pass the bar to be able to participate in a rally or protest. If it were a republican or democratic event, then I would be a little more understanding of your position. In this case I have to disagree. For all we know someone could have asked the guy to take the sign down, and he could have refused. What other recourse would they have?
I went to a tea party rally last year here in Vegas, and I saw none of those signs. I mostly went to take a look, and I didn't see a huge right wing fringe group like the media portrays. There were Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and even Greens there, and many of them spoke. Candidates had booths set up meeting people, and there was not an atmosphere of hate and violence like the media is portraying.
Listen, let's assume I am a journalist and I am at a tea party rally for coverage. I see one guy with an inflammatory sign. I know that if I make a big deal over this sign and show it on national television, it could help out my career because it will bring in ratings. What do you think I am going to do?
Again, the opinions of a few do not represent the opinions of the majority.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I disagree with you on that point Matt. There are nuts on every spectrum of the political landscape, but the actions or opinions of a few do not represent the actions or opinions of the majority.
Well, the opinions of the majority also tend to be pretty discouragingly wacky.
what percentage of them still think Obama is a Muslim? That he wasn't born in the U.S.?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Probably quite a few. On the flip side, how many believe Bush planned 9-11? How many think Republicans did not have an alternative health care plan?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, really, really bad comparisons. Well, maybe not the Republican thing, but certainly the Bush/9-11 thing. Didn't a recent poll show that something like a third or half of the nation think he's a secret Muslim, and that he might not be an American citizen? You aren't going to find more than a tiny fraction who think that Bush planned 9-11.
And I wouldn't call what the GOP had a plan, so much as a set of ideas. Individual GOPers had a couple plans, but the GOP leadership pushed a dozen page leaflet with ideas and hopes in it, rather than a comprehensive bill. They spent most of their time demonizing, not promoting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QB]But it's extremely common among Muslims to at least support such things.
I have seen no evidence for this. Can you provide any?
Read up on the biographies of some of the men quoted in that link you provided. The ones you touted as proof that Muslim clergy don't support terrorism.
The second quoted individual condones terrorist attacks against Israel.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Do you even follow your own links? Man. Very first article that brings up tries to lump the 9/11 truthers, a thoroughly leftist group of loons, with the Tea Party. It's true they sometimes show up at Tea Parties... so do LaRouchers (LaRouchers are typically the ones sporting Obama-as-Hitler signs, by the way). This doesn't mean either group are actually Tea Partiers. They show up to pretty much any protest that happens in their area. Those types of kooks live for protests.
Also, I have yet to locate an actual photo of that sign. There certainly aren't any evident with a quick google search, the way you implied. I'm willing to believe someone, somewhere, had a sign that said that, but barring any evidence I doubt it's a widespread sentiment.
Also, with regard to certain fringe elements, Tea Partiers do often try to identify them with "infiltrator" or "not a Tea Partier" signs. The only Obama-as-Hitler signs I've ever personally seen at a Tea Party were flagged that way.
Whereas the countless Bush-as-Hitler signs I've seen at leftist protests were always embraced by the protesters and even by the media.
posted
I'll admit. I know very little about Islam and the Middle East. I read what I can, but you can spend a lifetime studying and still not understand it.
But from what I see, time and time again, is that most Muslims do not support terrorism.
I've been trying to provide links for what I find. Does anyone have a source that shows that a majority of Muslims support terrorism?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: How many think Republicans did not have an alternative health care plan?
Very few. Most recognized that they had presented an alternative model, but not very coherently, it was not an organized response. And it was not a very good plan.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, the health care plan I read (and is still available for those who care to look) was more than just a set of ideas over a couple of dozen pages. It was 219 pages to be exact. A simple google search would have shown you this.
Its not hard to find. Its on the GOP website if you care to look.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Not much. wasn't even given much of a recommendation by comptrollers or the CBO. Tort reform is pretty wedge-issuey at this point anyway, considering that it gives nearly no end benefit to the healthcare situation or patients.
Avoiding regulation was also a terrible idea. Make health care reform the next usury.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Not much. wasn't even given much of a recommendation by comptrollers or the CBO. Tort reform is pretty wedge-issuey at this point anyway, considering that it gives nearly no end benefit to the healthcare situation or patients.
Avoiding regulation was also a terrible idea. Make health care reform the next usury.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nice slur, there. You are revealing your prejudices.
I think that's the source of the slurs - fear. Fear of the genuine power of large numbers of people voting as a bloc, driven by ideals which your favorite candidates do not serve.
You said that twice. And as long as *your* making assumptions about other people's prejudices, I'm going to venture that you are pushing that language because you want to belittle the American liberal movement in a way that has been popular of late among conservatives, by construing political or ideological alignment with a cult of personality centered on "celebrity" candidates. It'd be a neat trick, but you've never been anywhere near as subtle as you think you are. Would you like me to start referring to Tea Partiers in the same way, say, referring to "the candidates they hate?" See, it doesn't feel very nice to have your politics demeaned that way.
I mean, I do it all the time, so it's not like I can cry foul over it- at least I'm aware of how I sound. You crying foul over this stuff though, it's a laugh.
quote: tendentious enmity
I struggled with the meaning of this a bit before I figured out that you don't know what "tendentious" means, or at least how to use it. The word collocates most with words related to expression, such as "tendentious speech," or "history," "art," "book," etc. It does not collocate with nouns related to feeling such as "hate," "love" "enmity," etc. A quick phrase match search in google scholar and google books brings zero results matching these from tens of millions of pages of source material... meaning your construction is at least... unique. I wonder if the problem might have been that you thought "enmity" was used to describe a type of expressive behavior? Like, "She silenced them with her blazing enmity?" If so, no, enmity isn't commonly used that way either.
In conclusion, either look up words before you use them, or don't use words you found in a dictionary unless you've read a few examples first. You don't help your case trying to sound cleverer than you are.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Lyrhawn, the health care plan I read (and is still available for those who care to look) was more than just a set of ideas over a couple of dozen pages. It was 219 pages to be exact. A simple google search would have shown you this.
Geraine, something to keep in mind about the legislative process is that this 219 pages would, almost unavoidably, spool out to the same length as the bill that was passed given a similar legislative process and environment. Republicans don't point out that their adding of amendments to the different bills padded its length, or that their fierce opposition to reform was manifested in a great deal of nitpicking, which led to finer and finer language and more and more exceptions to exceptions in order to satisfy as well as stave off criticism. There is also the fact that the particular reform bill in question was big. It needed to be big because it was and continues to be a complex plan. Complex doesn't equal bad- I know that's a big conservative pundit bugbear, and I don't personally see why. The health care industry is immensely complex, and to deal with it simply and broadly is, I think, naive. Especially considering the amount of time and money spent by that same industry making sure that legislation can be and is rendered ineffectual.
The Republic bill proposes some disastrously bad policies which would be fought against by a progressive administration and the progressive cohorts of house and senate. It would also not pass under a Democratic president, which is why, Geraine, it was not brought to the floor. If the progressive health care bill seemed doomed by staunch opposition, this bill died in-vitro. In fact it is not a real bill, with any real kind of legislative purpose. It's a prop that was thrown together by GOP leadership because they were being criticized for "obstructing without constructing." The fact that it is beyond fantasy that any of the key proposals unique to that bill would pass is mostly immaterial to the PR campaign- hey, they got you to believe it meant something, so clearly it worked.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Besides tort reform and allowing insurance companies to cross state lines (thus avoiding regulation) what was in the Republican plan?
Not much. wasn't even given much of a recommendation by comptrollers or the CBO. Tort reform is pretty wedge-issuey at this point anyway, considering that it gives nearly no end benefit to the healthcare situation or patients.
Avoiding regulation was also a terrible idea. Make health care reform the next usury.
You forgot, "scrap, shelve, pitch, toss, ditch, forsake, abandon, shutter, scupper, reset the bill, start over, rinse, repeat.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
