TeaParty mob spit on Congressmen, call them N#ggrs & F@ggots

Politics International Politics
61

Rahm Emmanuel didn’t “criticize mentally challenged people”, he used “retards” as an insult, a very common thing that many of use have said. And he’s aimed his insult at liberals. He’s not a liberal; Emmanuel is very much a conservative.

Reid put his foot in his mouth: he said something that would have been considered enlightened back in the 1950s - a very common occurrence among older people (my own mother, who was an active anti-racist, used descriptions that would raise eyebrows nowadays, such as “he’s so articulate”). Reid also apologized for his choice of words. Plus you should consider his voting record on matters of civil rights.

Byrd? Are you kidding? He was a KKK member briefly in his youth (he’s in his 90s now), and has renounced, apologized for and washed his hands of that stage of his life. Since that time he has been one of the strongest defenders of the US constitution. Plus you should consider his voting record on matters of civil rights.

Right-wing apologists keep trying to draw equivalences between racism on the right and perceived “racism” on the left. There is no equivalence. Racism by definition is a right-wing trait, since it divides people into categories of “worthy” and “unworthy”, a central trait of right-wingerism; left-wingerism, on the other hand, sees all humans as equal. If a “liberal” is racist, he’s not a liberal.

62

Chris, that really is a ridiculous statement.

63

[quote=“Chris”].

Right-wing apologists keep trying to draw equivalences between racism on the right and perceived “racism” on the left. There is no equivalence. Racism by definition is a right-wing trait, since it divides people into categories of “worthy” and “unworthy”, a central trait of right-wingerism; left-wingerism, on the other hand, sees all humans as equal. If a “liberal” is racist, he’s not a liberal.[/quote]

Chris, many ill-informed and intellectual-novice expats on Forumosa seem to believe the left is socially pure, intelligent and open minded, while the right is rigid, uncaring, and unintelligent. Why pidgeonhole racism as right-wing? To me you can’t classify racist politicians (e.g a David Duke, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or a Pat Buchanan etc) as being all right wing. There are just as many on the left as on the right. Just as there are plenty of mainstream politicians in both parties that are tolerant. You seem to have major issues with all Republicans. You should really work on that or people will think that you are intolerant in the most uncouth way. :wink:

64

Rahm Emmanuel didn’t “criticize mentally challenged people”, he used “retards” as an insult, a very common thing that many of use have said. And he’s aimed his insult at liberals. He’s not a liberal; Emmanuel is very much a conservative.

Reid put his foot in his mouth: he said something that would have been considered enlightened back in the 1950s - a very common occurrence among older people (my own mother, who was an active anti-racist, used descriptions that would raise eyebrows nowadays, such as “he’s so articulate”). Reid also apologized for his choice of words. Plus you should consider his voting record on matters of civil rights.

Byrd? Are you kidding? He was a KKK member briefly in his youth (he’s in his 90s now), and has renounced, apologized for and washed his hands of that stage of his life. Since that time he has been one of the strongest defenders of the US constitution. Plus you should consider his voting record on matters of civil rights.

Right-wing apologists keep trying to draw equivalences between racism on the right and perceived “racism” on the left. There is no equivalence. Racism by definition is a right-wing trait, since it divides people into categories of “worthy” and “unworthy”, a central trait of right-wingerism; left-wingerism, on the other hand, sees all humans as equal. If a “liberal” is racist, he’s not a liberal.[/quote]
:bravo:

Chris, I hope that ALL of your future IP posts are as clear and succinct as this one is in illuminating what you truly think.

Bravo! :popcorn:

65

Chris, that really is a ridiculous statement.[/quote]

It’s a completely ridiculous statement if one defines “right” and “left” more or less the way that you and I would, or the way that most other people do.

For Chris, though, it is a statement that is perfectly consistent with the way he views the right and the left. For him, the left is basically defined as that which is good and virtuous, and the right is defined as that which is base or ignorant or evil. For him, the political world is basically a children’s cartoon, where there are simply good guys and bad guys.

His approach might make it difficult to have much in the way of a productive political discussion, but it does explain his intense vitriolic dislike for those on his “right”. After all, by definition, no intelligent and well-meaning person could support such a political position. :idunno:

66

On the very basic level, I define “left” as that which expands individual (as opposed to corporate) freedom, and “right” as that which limits it. This is borne out by my observations of the behaviors of the American left and right. Of course the reality is considerably more complex, but this lies at the heart of my worldview. What I want to see is the maximization of individual liberty.

The American right is consistently in opposition to legislature that benefits the common man, and in favor of that which benefits the wealthy and the corporations.

67

Is this also a “basic liberal observation”, or are you just speaking for yourself?

Urgh, how can one reply when you keep editing?

The new post:[quote]
On the very basic level, I define “left” as that which expands individual (as opposed to corporate) freedom, and “right” as that which limits it. This is borne out by my observations of the behaviors of the American left and right. Of course the reality is considerably more complex, but this lies at the heart of my worldview. What I want to see is the maximization of individual liberty.

The American right is consistently in opposition to legislature that benefits the common man, and in favor of that which benefits the wealthy and the corporations.[/quote]

68

I have a major issue with most Republican politicians and pundits; more so now than, say, 10 years ago when Olympia Snowe wasn’t the only remaining non-far-right Senator in the Senate. The GOP has swung so far to the right that it’s scary.

One reason I have such contempt for Republican leaders (besides their constant assault on the institutions of what made America a great country) is that they are such liars and hypocrites. They campaign not on the issues, but instead they create rumors, they dig into people’s personal lives, they engage in guilt by association, they play dirty. Instead of having civil debates about why they believe a bill or proposal is wrong, they spread lies (“death panels”), cry doomsday, make appeals to god and patriotism, and filibuster everything. They espouse “family values” but end up soliciting hookers or seeking gay trysts in bathrooms.

This is not how it used to be. It started in 1988 with Willie Horton (and Lee Atwater), and has only grown worse. The Republicans are unfit to govern.

69

Is this also a “basic liberal observation”, or are you just speaking for yourself?[/quote]
I’ve heard stories of so-called “liberals” who say disparaging things about minorities. In such cases, I would not consider them liberals, as they are breaking what I consider a necessary condition of liberalism: non-racism.

70

Well, no.

As I’ve said on many occasions, I view “left” as the preservation and expansion of individual freedom, and “right” as its antithesis. If “good” and “evil” come into the picture, they are merely consequences that grow out of the actions of those advocating in favor of or against individual liberty.

This is why, in the past, as I’m sure you’ve seen before, I’ve condemned Stalin as a rightist.

71

First, you need to observe a great deal more than American politics.
Second, given that you acknowledge that reality is a great deal more complex, you ought to be ashamed to reduce your model to such a simplistic binary choice. (What would you have to say about reducing other areas of life to ‘black & white’? Seriously, knee jerk reactions are for jerks.)

[quote=“Chris”]I’ve heard stories of so-called “liberals” who say disparaging things about minorities. In such cases, I would not consider them liberals, as they are breaking what I consider a necessary condition of liberalism: non-racism.[/quote]Congregations of various kinds have always been willing to excommunicate blasphemers. That, in itself, has never been a very convincing argument that the exiled weren’t really representative of their
erstwhile communities. (The example of Stalin is on point, albeit not in the way you’d like.)

“Maximization of individual liberty” sounds good, but may mean a great many things. I get the sense that by that you mean something like the Capabilities approach of Sen and Nussbaum (a favorite of mine). If so, great. But the spectrum of political and economic choices contributing to ‘development as freedom’, is pretty broad. Muhammad Yunus, for instance, isn’t exactly a darling of the left, but pioneered an approach that has benefited millions in ways you ought to applaud.

72

First, you need to observe a great deal more than American politics.[/quote]
Well, my definitions here are aimed pretty much only at post-Civil Rights Act US politics. (Sure I may sometimes extend it to describe Hitler or Gandhi or some such, but that’s more to make a point than to analyze the political contexts of their times and nations.)

Well, the choice here is racist vs. non-racist; they are logical complements, kind of like atheism and theism, Jew or Gentile. Their intersection is the null set; their union is the universe. And since I say non-racism is a necessary condition for being a liberal… well, I’m sure you’ve studied critical thinking and logic.

[quote]

[quote=“Chris”]I’ve heard stories of so-called “liberals” who say disparaging things about minorities. In such cases, I would not consider them liberals, as they are breaking what I consider a necessary condition of liberalism: non-racism.[/quote]Congregations of various kinds have always been willing to excommunicate blasphemers. That, in itself, has never been a very convincing argument that the exiled weren’t really representative of their
erstwhile communities. (The example of Stalin is on point, albeit not in the way you’d like.)

“Maximization of individual liberty” sounds good, but may mean a great many things. I get the sense that by that you mean something like the Capabilities approach of Sen and Nussbaum (a favorite of mine). If so, great. But the spectrum of political and economic choices contributing to ‘development as freedom’, is pretty broad. Muhammad Yunus, for instance, isn’t exactly a darling of the left, but pioneered an approach that has benefited millions in ways you ought to applaud.[/quote]
Indeed. I applaud Yunus for the micro-loans that have helped poor people establish businesses and thrive. It’s in the spirit of helping others to help themselves that I admire.

I like Nussbaum’s ideas; the first three of her ten capabilities are especially relevant in the healthcare debate. Some libertarians see freedom as a kind of absolute: “Leave me totally alone and unconnected to anyone else, and I’ll be free”. But can one be truly free if one is seriously ill or injured and can’t afford treatment? If one is homeless and destitute? I say no; if you don’t have the capacity to help yourself, you need help from elsewhere in order to attain maximal freedom. And though NGOs can play their part, their fortunes easily rise and fall, and are rarely adequately funded to achieve all their stated goals. There needs to be an institution with constancy and reliability, one whose interests are not directed inward (to shareholders or management, for instance), but to the people. That can only be government that’s accountable to the people.

What is freedom anyway? I see it as the ability to pursue one’s interests, dreams and desires unhindered (so long as you harm no one else in the process) - the so-called “Wiccan Rede” idea.

73

Well, the choice here is racist vs. non-racist; they are logical complements, kind of like atheism and theism, Jew or Gentile. [color=#0000FF]Their intersection is the null set[/color]; their union is the universe. And since I say non-racism is a necessary condition for being a liberal… well, I’m sure you’ve studied critical thinking and logic.[/quote]

False. Tigerman may jump in here to school you, but there’s positive and negative discrimination, just as there’s positive and negative freedom. There’s also institutional and social racism. If, as in France, the government is constitutionally non-racist (prohibited from acknowledging racial difference), but society discriminates, is that the proper (freedom-promoting) approach? Affirmative action: positive racism (unless you happen to be a better-qualified but disqualified member of the majority… not such a positive experience then, is it?).

Jew or Gentile? What about the whole “Judeo-Christian” schools of theology and of political thought? (To say nothing of intermarriage. Or Sartre’s “Anti-Semite and Jew”?) Not so cut and dried.

If anything, a liberal approach ought to be characterized by flexibility. Not in the sense of being a weathervane and bending whichever way the wind blows, but in resisting easy answers, categorization and simplification.

Whatever. Your “the right is fundamentally wrong” approach manifests some of the worst aspects of what you claim belong exclusively to the right.

74

All this bickering over Chris’ comments is off topic.

Same for the digression about whether people are drawing stereotypes.

The title to this thread may be offensive, but only because it’s TRUE.

A couple hundred members of the teaparty did gather in a mob, shouting outside Congress and heckling Congressmen and other passersby.

At least one of that mob did spit on a Congressman.

Members of that mob did repeatedly call some Congressmen n#ggers and another a f@ggot and homo.

And, rather than try to calm the out-of-control mob, several Republican lawmakers intentionally incited them further, cheering them on and holding up signs encouraging their raucous disruption of civility.

Countless news accounts will back that up, supported by multiple, credible eyewitness accounts.

But that’s not the end of it.

Recall just a few months ago when a Republican lawmaker shouted out “YOU LIE” in the middle of an Obama speech. Recall how that behavior was widely criticized for being rude, inappropriate, immature, and in violation of the established rules of decorum.

Well, it happened again. This time another Republican lawmaker shouted out “BABY KILLER” at a Democratic lawmaker who was speaking on the House floor. Again, the comment was completely rude, inappropriate, immature, and in violation of the established rules of decorum.

So it’s not just a bunch of fringe nutcases. It’s REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, egging on those nutcases and engaging in the same sort of tactics themselves.

Next thing you know they’ll be throwing cell phones and bian dangs at each other and strangling their counterparts as they do in Taiwan. That is, unless the Replublicans will learn to behave and rein in the loonies in their midst.

75

Well put MT, don’t forget to add that the “baby killer” remark was shouted at an anti-abortion Democrat who had weighed the sides are agreed that the new legislation didn’t provide for federal funding of abortion, so agreed to the bill - wasn’t even a pro-choice lawmaker!

76

Intermarriage? Judeo-Christian? Sure, why not? But if we use ~ as the logical complement symbol, Gentile = ~Jew; atheism = ~theism, etc. Doesn’t mean they can’t marry, interact, cooperate or agree.

Yes, governments can be non-racist (But France outlawing the hijab is something I see as government-level racism), while their societies can be filled with racism. I’m not disputing this. A single person, however, can’t be both racist and non-racist at the same time. A and ~A.

Affirmative action means that, from a pool of equally qualified candidates, an institution should strive to accept candidates in a manner that reflects the racial makeup of the general population in the community. (A better-qualified candidate should not be passed over for a worse-qualified candidate on the basis of race, however: I’d consider this an abuse of AA.) I consider this strategy “anti-racist” rather than "positive racism: it’s there to neutralize institutional racism and level the playing field.

EDIT: OK, MT… I’ll get back to the topic henceforth.

77

Is this also a “basic liberal observation”, or are you just speaking for yourself?[/quote]
I’ve heard stories of so-called “liberals” who say disparaging things about minorities. In such cases, I would not consider them liberals, as they are breaking what I consider a necessary condition of liberalism: non-racism.[/quote]

ergo, you think that being racist is a necessary precondition to being conservative?..or was that Republican?

[quote]
Whatever. Your “the right is fundamentally wrong” approach manifests some of the worst aspects of what you claim belong exclusively to the right.[/quote]
You JUST discovered this? :laughing:

Anywho, it seems to me that Chris’ definitions are Chris’ alone, and that being the case, I contend that smearing all liberals would only serve to prove him right in some illogically black and white way that only he would comprehend, so I opt to vote “present.”

78

Last time I looked, Islam was a religion not an ethnic group. :ponder:

79

[quote=“hardball”]ergo, you think that being racist is a necessary precondition to being conservative?..or was that Republican?
[/quote]
Just let me respond to this, MT.

The answer is “No.”

80

Well, then THIS must have burned your butt[quote]
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that 20 white New Haven firefighters who were denied promotion were victims of illegal racial discrimination. But while critical of New Haven for using “raw, racial statistics” to invalidate a promotional examination, the court stopped short of ordering broad changes to race-and-hiring law sought by the firefighters and their supporters.

The 5-4 decision, which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, leaves intact the portion of the law that New Haven used to invalidate the examination after no black applicants scored high enough to qualify for promotion. But analysts said the decision could raise the standard that employers must meet in the future to reject test results in similar circumstances.[/quote]
courant.com/news/connecticut … 4581.story

But I do see how this could be a problem to those seeking “justice and fairness”[quote]
Civil rights groups said the decision would create a hurdle for employers, especially in the public sector, seeking to diversify their workforces without violating the law. [/quote]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01608.html

Because certainly, a diverse workplace is the best way to go!