How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 A Plea For Sanity   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

A Plea For Sanity

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


275 posted 04-12-2010 01:36 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Humor me, it's my unbirthday. Just one more.

100% conservative values

Tea Party NY Gov Candidate's E-Mails Exposed: Racism, Porn, Bestiality

“An online news outlet in New York state has obtained dozens of emails, many of them racist and sexually graphic, which it reports were sent by Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York, to a long list of political and business associates. One email shows a video of an African tribal dance, entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," while another depicts hardcore bestiality.

Paladino, a wealthy western New York real-estate developer, has become a darling of the Tea Party movement over the last year, and launched his campaign for governor last week after being urged to do so by Tea Party leaders. Paladino is staunchly opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, and has said he considers himself "the only Republican in the race who agrees 100 percent with conservative values."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/tea_party_gov_candidates_racist_sexually_graphic_e.php?ref=mp
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


276 posted 04-12-2010 07:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     I told you what my definition of hate speech was, Mike.  I quoted it to you from Wiki.  I was specific about which of those quotes I thought were hate speech and why.  I spoke to you about the "Fighting Language" exception to  political speech and I was very forthcoming.

     What you wanted me to do was for me to say that I agreed or disagreed with Jennifer.

     I told you that I wasn't interested in playting a game of watch Bob and Jennifer fight for the amusement of Michael Mack.  Was there something unclear about that?  Was there some reason for you not to believe me when I said that?  Did you think I meant something else when I said that?  Or do you think if you keep asking in a provocative enough way, I will give up and start a fight with Jennifer for your entertainment.  You know everything about my thoughts and feelings in this matter that I believe it is necessary for me to reveal, and certainly a great deal more than you have shared with me.

     I don't see that you have risked any exposure in return foir the fairly large amount that you've requested from me, and your response has been to call me a hypocrite.  I am reasonably forthcoming, but I am not a masochist and I am not stupid.  If you want something more from me, perhaps you can address why I should stick my neck out for you here.  It seems a pretty much one way street in return for which you give me a fair amount of personal abuse.  "Hypocrite," is a pretty good example for a guy who has defined what he thinks defines hate speech — responding to your request — and who has gone further in defining "personal loathing" as a separate personally defined catagory of unpleasant but understandable commentary.  

     You press me for further details without venturing any notions of your own.  Hah!  Not to mention your "Answering questions with questions" business, a comment that you should know better than to try with me without expecting to get called on it.

     As in the old Jewish Joke, which you know as well as virtually everybody else on tyhe planet:

"Why do Jews always answer a question with a question?"

and ,—

"Why shouldn't we?"

     Good one, Mike.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


277 posted 04-12-2010 08:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, would you make up your mind? You call things not hate speech by it's definition and then show how the same things can be hate speech due to some scenarios you create. You didn't have to type all of that just to avoid answering my question which still goes unanswered. Why would you and Jennifer fight over anything? It was simple question and your faked outrage is not even well-done as a diversion. I should have expected it. As I said before, as far as the question is concerned - never mind.

As far as your fascination for the "Barney the aging queen" being hate speech is concerned, my answer would be "so what?" It was a line in a comedy video on the internet. Did a republican create it? I don't know....do you? Could be an independent, could be a disgruntled democrat. Does he have any connection with the tea party movement? With the Republicans? I'm sure you don't know. How then can one apply his Frank line as being connected to either republicans or tea-partiers? Do you see the RNC selling 25,000 copies of video to raise funds? Are Leno, Letterman an O'Brien hate-mongers, too? They come up with some pretty good ones.

I don't know how you can apply the term "hate mongerers" to the republican party or the tea-party movement since it is obvious you can't even define what it is....unless you claim that it is whatever you want it to be, which appears to be the case.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


278 posted 04-13-2010 02:55 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Sure a Republican had something to do with it, Mike.  You presented it, and you defended it, and you are still trying to act as though it was a bland nothing.

     Since you are not a mind-reader, your ability to understand what goes on inside my head is about as good as your training.  Where did you train, by the way?  Every time you try that mind-reading trick on me, I've been meaning to ask.  Leno and Letterman and company seem to leave me out of their jibes pretty well.  They don't seem to get touchy about me not enjoying being the butt of anti-semitic remarks that I've noticed, nor do they accuse me of faking my reaction to them.  Their jokes, you may notice, cut both directions, as I make an effort to have my own do.  

     It's not the first time folks try to call people overly sensitive for objecting to anti-semitic remarks.  Won't be the last.  I gave you a good enough accounting of exactly what I meant.  Your ability to reciprocate seems to be somewhat vestigial, and I see no reason to confide further in you about this sort of personal information until you've shown your ability for some authentic reciprocity.  I know you have it; I've seen it before.

     If you want to have this conversation as a conversation, I'm happy to comply, but I'm certainly not interested in being the butt of a series of attacks this way.  

quote:

Bob, would you make up your mind? You call things not hate speech by it's definition and then show how the same things can be hate speech due to some scenarios you create.



     There you have the issue, Mike.

     You see, I'm not a lawyer.

     Far as I'm concerned, It's not about me making up my mind.  I think there's a line in the New Testament someplace that has Jesus saying something on the order of God created The Sabbath for man, not man for The Sabbath.  It's one of the many smart things he said.  Rules are supposed to help people, as a general principle, not people help the rules.

     The way you use the information I give you about Hate Speech, suggests that we are here to serve the absolute rules about Hate Speech or the absolute rules about anything.  It appears you want me to lay down a lawmaker's statute around which you can catch me up in contradictions, in the same way that I've quoted, above.  I'm not offering you laws.  I'm neither a legislator nor a lawyer.  Sorry about that.

     In Jewish Law, there are many many laws about not being allowed to do work on the Sabbath.  You're not allowed to cook or clean.  You're not allowed to drive.  You're not allowed to walk outside of unblessed areas.  You're not allowed to turn a light on or off.

     But if somebody is in danger, no matter what, you are obligated to put everything aside and go to help.

     Yes, it's a contradiction.  You probably could make a case for letting somebody or something die, but you'd be wrong, and that's a pretty solid principle in Jewish law.  Life tends to be over overriding importance.  It's a contradiction you simply have to live with, even the most rigid of folks have to deal with that contradiction, and there are all sorts of ways people have to explain why it's not a contradiction.  Some of them might even be valid.  But the reality is that there are contradictions that you just have to live with, like being angry with people you love, or loving people you don't always like.

     I suspect that Hate Speech is like that.

     I suspect that it's probably a lot like pornography and obscenity.  Who was the Supreme Court Justice who came up with the comment about obscenity, "I can't define it, but I know it when I hear it."

     Well, I took a shot at defining Hate Speech, and I think I did a pretty decent job of it.  I know it when I hear it.  Clearly you disagree about what it is; and since you seem to disagree, it's time for you to stick your neck out, Mike, and give it a shot.  And good luck to you.  Maybe the two of us can do a better job together than I can alone.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


279 posted 04-13-2010 09:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sure a Republican had something to do with it, Mike.  You presented it, and you defended it, and you are still trying to act as though it was a bland nothing.

As it is. Did a republican  create it? You don't know. Has it incited a rash of hate? I haven't seen any.

Leno and Letterman and company seem to leave me out of their jibes pretty well.  

I wasn't referring to you, Bob, as I'm sure you know. I was referring to their jibes against Obama, as you also know. They've come up with some pretty heavy stuff lately. Is that hate speech? Is Tina Fey's jabs and insults against Palin hate speech? From what you are saying you must think so.

Every time you try that mind-reading trick on me,

I don't need to read your mind, Bob. I read your words and I'm assuming they come from your mind although, if they come from another body part, then I apologize,

Well, I took a shot at defining Hate Speech, and I think I did a pretty decent job of it.  I know it when I hear it.

Actually, Bob, you have done just the opposite. This conversation began with my asking you to define what hate speech is to you. Both you and Jen have accused the right as using hate speech so I asked for your definition of it, since it is your accusation. I asked you if you felt Jen's video represented hate speech. You responded with a cut and paste definition of hate speech from Wikipedia. I responded by saying I didn't ask for a standard definition of hate speech, asking if YOU considered it hate speech. You did not answer.

I then presented other comments and asked you if they were hate speech to you and you responded by saying none of the things I presented were  hate speech. You then present a poll by media matters, go back to the Wikipedia definition and then claim that the examples I gave, which you declared were not hate speech, actually COULD be considered hate speech. You then went back to the Wiki definition by sayiing I told you what my definition of hate speech was, Mike.  I quoted it to you from Wiki.

The way you use the information I give you about Hate Speech, suggests that we are here to serve the absolute rules about Hate Speech or the absolute rules about anything.

Well, I asked you for YOUR interpretation of hate speech and what I got was the standard Wiki definition, which you seemed to feel was the absolute definition, or at least absolute enough for you to respond with. You then go into Jesus, Jewish law and a Supreme Court justice comment to get away from the topic once again. I can assure you that if you, as a prosecutor, present a case to that Justice with your case being "I know it when I see it", good luck on getting a favorable verdict.

it's time for you to stick your neck out, Mike, and give it a shot. I'll be happy to, as soon as I understand what your version is. YOU are the one who has leveled the claim that the right engages in hate, not me. You are the one to be called upon to defend that claim. I still have no idea what you consider it to be. We have gone from your presentation of a standardized definition to an admission that examples were not hate speech to a poll, leading to a reversal of your statement to an acknowledgement that you can't say what hate speech is but you "know it when you see it". That's an amazing comment from a man ro constantly demands factual evidence and proof from statements others make. Read you mind, Bob? I wouldn't even make the attempt! I'm reminded of a Judy Collins song, for some reason..

I've looked at hate from both sides now
From Left and Right and still somehow
It's hate's illusions I recall
I really don't know hate at all.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


280 posted 04-13-2010 11:10 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I don't think one may usually make a case for hate-speech, just from one or two words.  "Chick" to refer to a woman is somewhat derogatory and involves gender, but most of the time it is obvious that hate is not involved.   But in a very different context, it could be coloured otherwise.  If it were part of a speech against women in which there were an apparant intent or character of hate, or violence, in such a speech, I think it could then be considered hate speech.  Something needs to be showed to have an apparant intent or character of hate, otherwise there is not enough ground to back up accusing it of being hate-speech.  Just one word, such as "chick" or "queen", however, aren't enough to back up an accusation of hate.  There is nothing about the use of queen in "an aging queen", even though it may be derogatory, that suggests an intent or character of hate or violence.
 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


281 posted 04-13-2010 11:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I could not agree more, ess. Thank you..
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


282 posted 04-13-2010 11:43 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

What would I call inciteful?

Rachel Maddow's Lies Lead To Death Threats Against Conservatives

    On her MSNBC show last night, the left-wing Air America host Rachel Maddow took a swipe at the conservative Shirley & Banister Public Affairs firm, specifically President and CEO Craig Shirley. Maddow accused Shirley of being behind a grassroots Web site funded by the group Grassfire.org, based on a research provided by the “independent watchdog group Public Citizen,” and she showed still images from an incendiary “Obama=Hitler” video that’s posted on the Grassfire’s ResistNet.com Web site.

    But Maddow was wrong. The Public Citizen web page she cited is several years old. Shirley & Banister hasn’t represented Grassfire.org since 2004. And Diana Banister, a partner and Vice President at Shirley & Banister, told NewsBusters that Maddow’s false report has led to hate mail and even death threats to the public relations firm. (Let’s see if the left-wing thuggery gets any attention from the MSM.)

    Craig Shirley and Diana Banister are demanding a retraction and apology from Maddow.
http://www.politikditto.com/2009/08/rachel-maddows-lies-lead-to-death.html

Strange behavior from a woman with such "amazing loyalty to the truth".
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


283 posted 04-13-2010 01:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

What do I call hate speech and incitement?
http://crashtheteaparty.org/

For those of you finding that to be a good, worthwhile site, here's more info..
http://www.facebook.com/crashtheteaparty.org http://twitter.com/tpartycrasher

Run by a gentleman from San Francisco (what a surprise) who states "Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not,  Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."

His activities include "Crashing Tea Party Events"

Favorite TV Shows:    The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, Countdown With Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow Show

About Me:    All I want is to destroy the Tea Party Movement.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


284 posted 04-13-2010 02:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course, what liberal loony tunes like that don't think about (if they are capable of thinking at all) is that, by announcing their intentions publicly of infiltrating the tea party movement and conducting acts which are despicable, in the future one will not be able to determine whether such actions were done by tea partiers or the infiltrators. In other words, when our anti-tea partiers here say "Look at what the tea partiers are doing!", you won't be able to say that with certainty because you won't really know.

Clever, huh?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


285 posted 04-13-2010 03:06 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Oklahoma Republicans Conspire With Tea Parties To Form Anti-Federal Government Militia

“The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma tea party leaders, “frustrated by recent political setbacks,” are working with right-wing Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature to create a new “volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” State Sen. Randy Brogdon (R-OK) and State Rep. Charles Key (R-OK) have met with tea party leaders, like J.W. Berry of the Tulsa-based OKforTea group, to plan legislation for a state-authorized militia. Brogdon, who is running for Governor and sponsored the right-wing anti-health reform “state sovereignty” resolution in his state, explained that he believes his anti-federal government militia has constitutional backing:

The founding fathers “were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren’t even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other,” Brogdon said. “The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government.”

But critics say the tea party militia idea could “throw fuel in the fire of radicals.” Even some Republicans are opposed to Brogdon’s initiative. “If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard,” said Sen. Steve Russell, (R-OK), a retired Army lieutenant colonel. “Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution.” Indeed, the news of the state-sponsored militia movement arrives shortly before the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, on April 19.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/13/oklahoma-turner-diaries/
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


286 posted 04-13-2010 05:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I've got to say that I think that was a well put together reply, Mike, or set of replies; and that in order to give you a decent response, I'm going to need to think about it.  I'm fairly steamed right now, and I'm afraid that if I simply wrote back right now on this subject,  what you'd get is more anger and frustration than the sort of reasonable and honest reply you deserve.  Your list of our interactions, in particular, seems accurate.  I think it is tilted from your point of view, but then I didn't write it, you did, so it would have to be from your point of view; and I need to consider what that means in terms of the discussion.

     I still believe that the right has indulged itself in a fair amount of provocative speech, and some of it is Hate Speech.   Some of the poorly spelled signs using "n----r" in them, for example, seem to me to be hate speech; and who was the guy in the Republican party a few years back who spoke about Congressman Frank as "Barney "F-g?"  There really has been a lot of that and it really has been going on for a long time.  Typically, there's been a half-hearted back-off from that sort of thing, and typically the statements of explanation have been, to my ears at least, unconvincing.  What was the explanation for the Barney Frank line?  And the most recent business with the words "Baby Killer" shouted out on the floor of Congress seemed very very thin to me as well.  

     Both that guy and the Guy who called The President a Liar on the floor of the House during The State of The Union speech both apologized for their outbursts publicly.  I doubt they returned any of the money that came in from contributions, however.  Both comments appeared to crank up the level of tension in the country.  Both seemed to contribute to that level of tension.  "Baby Killer" on the floor of the House seemed to me to be hate speech, should you want my personal opinion, just as Bill O'Reilly calling the late Dr. Tiller "Tiller, the Baby Killer" seemed hate speech to me as well.  It was a bumper-sticker response where a paragraph was called for, calculated to notched the heat of the situation up just a little bit further.  Yes, it gets by on Freedom of speech in politics.  Yes, it's hate speech.

     When I'm a bit less worked up, in a day or two, I'll reply more fully.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


287 posted 04-13-2010 08:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jennifer, I think that is a dumb idea. I can understand their thoughts behind it but the cons would outweigh the pros and their energy could be better spent elsewhere.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


288 posted 04-14-2010 09:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"I just made the tea party people spend a lot of money that wasn't necessary on all these ads they had to use against me so they can't use it on somebody else. I'll take credit in sucking their treasury dry." --Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


289 posted 04-14-2010 09:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Gotta love that maturity exhibited by Stupak!

Check out these photos! I never would have spotted these folks a mile away as Crashers!

They just blended right in, don't ya think?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140889
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


290 posted 04-14-2010 09:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and no hate speech on display or anything! Just a bunch of fun-loving liberals....
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


291 posted 04-14-2010 10:37 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
Speaking of hateful baseless smears:

"No surprise that Harris poll finds Republicans believe GOP smears of Obama

A Harris poll released on March 24 found that a majority of Republican respondents believe that President Obama "is a socialist," "wants to take away Americans' right to own guns," "is a Muslim," "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government," and "has done many things that are unconstitutional." The findings follow a year of such smears and attacks on Obama by conservatives." http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250048

Makes you wonder, are Republicans/conservatives/teabaggers really so gullible they'll believe any sort of rubbish as long as it smears the President? Seems like hate is running their brains as well as their mouths


Jennifer and Mr. Bob who repeated the above quote in post #366

Polls would find Hitler still alive and well with a million friends on Facebook. If you want to label all conservatives as hate mongering idiots, you’ll need more than a poll or a popular internet-farmed opinion. We can’t even put a person in position of president under those terms. Unless you also believe the Facebook rumors about Obama, too.

Inciting attacks on others through speech or propaganda, as well as inciting an attack on one’s self and then screaming “I’ve been attacked!” are known grievances of mischiefs of faction. The U.S. Gov is fully aware of all free-thought scheming one can muster to try and censor one’s critics. They are “strictly prohibited by the First Amendment from regulating the content of speech.” (wiki) They are hard-pressed to define criminal speech as well as find grounds for prosecution within their restrictions, but for the exceptions that apply.

So no matter how we try and “define” the things said that we don’t like, our liberty is not repressed to oppose, agree, lash back, remain silent, make charges, file suit, or continue to think about it without being interrogated by the Thought Police or becoming real-life characters within Newspeak. (Orwell)


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


292 posted 04-14-2010 11:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I am unsure exactly what I am supposed to have said that is a hateful, baseless smear, that the Harris Organization got such data?  This is, indeed, what the data the Harris organization gathered seems to say.  Review it yourselves:
http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryI D=37050&GoTopage=1&Category=1777&BzID=1963

     I drew no conclusions about Tea Party Folk from that data that I can recall other than the data that the Poll reported.

     And of course the folks in the still pictures were crashing the Tea Party Meetings.  And of course it was obvious.  That's the problem with the whole notion of secret infiltrators slipping into Tea Party Meetings.  The two groups are so much like oil and water, it's really pretty tough for the one to pass itself off as the other for more than thirty seconds.

     I'm trying to imagine Denise trying to show up a some sort of Dance Rave to check out the local goings on without sticking out like a sore thumb, or me trying to walk into a Tea Party Meeting without my political sympathies being clear pretty much within five minutes.  People try to do this sort of thing all the time for one reason or another, for information, for discussion, to be provocative.

     Being an agent provocateur is probably a bit more difficult.

     Besides, who needs them when you have situations like the one in Oklahoma, where the State is considering legislation to form and arm a State militia specifically for the purpose of keeping the Federal government out.  They may have overlooked that while the second Amendment allows people to bear arms to form well regulated Militias, that the President is The Commander and Chief of not only the Army but of all the state militias as well.

      A little bit of information would go a long way here.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


293 posted 04-14-2010 11:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The two groups are so much like oil and water, it's really pretty tough for the one to pass itself off as the other for more than thirty seconds.

Actually, I have to disagree, Bob. These particular examples, yes, obvious infiltrator who WANT to be recognized. Those who do not want to be recognized, however, and don't carry signs would blend in very well. All it would take would be for one of them to scream out the N-word, berate a man in a wheelchair or do something else to cast dispersions on the tea-party movement and they could get away with it very easily. They have claimed they are doing it now. I'm sure they are.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


294 posted 04-15-2010 01:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Who says "they" are doing it now?  And where are "they" saying it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


295 posted 04-15-2010 03:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Guess you don't read my posts, Bob....not that I blame you. Go to response 283.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


296 posted 04-16-2010 02:00 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     But Mike, you defend sorts of guys anyway.  You say you don't support the violence, but you do understand the rage.  You don't differentiate between which rageful speech you do and don't support.  If these guys are indistinguishable from your regular Tea Party Activists, then you support the more extreme and more violence provoking sorts of speech, don't you?  Only if it's uttered by a "Tea Party Crasher," you don't support it.  But you don't supply any way of telling the players apart except by the list of names you offer, which may or may not be accurate.

     Besides, anybody can go to one of these meetings; they aren't restricted, are they?  And if they are, to whom are they restricted?  Members only?  Sympathizers only?  Curious folks only?

     Once you start setting limits like that, you can't say you are having public meetings, can you? And you start abridging the rights of others to Free Speech as well.  It gets pretty messy pretty quickly.

      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


297 posted 04-16-2010 05:54 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I have no idea what your last comment means.


Oregon teacher, anti-Tea Party activist put on leave


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon middle school teacher whose "Crash the Tea Party" Internet campaign drew national attention has been put on paid leave while school officials investigate whether he used school equipment or time to work on his website.

Beaverton educators were deluged with e-mails and phone messages after Jason Levin's Web page went public earlier this week. On it, Levin encouraged people to infiltrate the Tea Party movement to discredit the conservative activists.

The site, crashtheteaparty.org, now links to a different Web page that sells T-shirts in support of the movement. Levin didn't return calls and e-mails from The Associated Press seeking comment Thursday.

Beaverton School District spokeswoman Maureen Wheeler says Levin was placed on administrative leave Thursday. That's the same day tea party groups staged Tax Day protests around the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-16-crash-tea-party-activist_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories +%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


298 posted 04-16-2010 07:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     What is it you don't follow, Mike?

quote:

     But Mike, you defend sorts of guys anyway.  You say you don't support the violence, but you do understand the rage.  You don't differentiate between which rageful speech you do and don't support.  If these guys are indistinguishable from your regular Tea Party Activists, then you support the more extreme and more violence provoking sorts of speech, don't you?  Only if it's uttered by a "Tea Party Crasher," you don't support it.  But you don't supply any way of telling the players apart except by the list of names you offer, which may or may not be accurate.



     In the past, you've said that you don't approve of violence, but you do understand the rage, isn't that correct?  You've made the statement, and defended it in the past?  You understand how people are frustrated with The President and the Democrats and feel as though they've been pushed to the wall by the President and the Democrats in Congress, yes?

     If the person who says what to my mind is such a foolhardy thing is a member of the TEA Party or somebody who is pretending to be a member of the TEA Party, then, what's your quarrel with it?  You agree with that outrage anyway, don't you?  You understand and sympathize with it, isn't that what you've said?  And if you can't tell the difference between what these gate crashers say and what the regular folks in the TEA Party say — at least enough to condemn the position of wanting to take to the streets with guns, for example, or to condemn the racist stuff they're spouting — then for all practical purposes, you yourself can't tell the difference between the two positions, can you?  The positions of the "Gate Crashers" who say the evil things that you want no part of, and the regular TEA Party folks whose positions you support.

     The only difference between the two groups that (was it you, Mike, or was it Denise?) you've supplied is a list of names and a rogues gallery of pictures.  The degree of certainly that you and Denise have demanded to prove that this sort of thing is true has been video and sound recordings, not still pictures which could be from anywhere or anytime.  I think that it's simply better to believe you that you've got left wing folks showing up with signs at meetings, though what exactly these folks are trying to do doesn't seem as clear to me as it seems to you.

     Why you would characterize selling Tee-shirts encouraging folks to show up at TEA Party meetings as Hate Speech is beyond me.  I don't follow logic.  I'm sure you have some; I simply don't follow it.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


299 posted 04-16-2010 08:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Who says "they" are doing it now?  And where are "they" saying it?

That was the question you asked and I provided the link. They have publicly announced that they are infiltrating the tea party movement and doing things to discredit the tea partiers. Ok, so how in the world does that relate to your response?

You say you don't support the violence, but you do understand the rage.  You don't differentiate between which rageful speech you do and don't support.  If these guys are indistinguishable from your regular Tea Party Activists, then you support the more extreme and more violence provoking sorts of speech, don't you?  Only if it's uttered by a "Tea Party Crasher," you don't support it.  But you don't supply any way of telling the players apart except by the list of names you offer, which may or may not be accurate.

I'll swear that I have read that half a dozen times or more and I still make no sense of it with regards to the topic. These "guys" are indistinguishable from tea partiers in appearance, not actions. Their violent provoking speech - which I have never supported, by the way - is not rage against the administration, taxes, government take-overs, or any topics the tea-baggers rebel against. Theirs is only to discredit tea baggers, by appearing to be one of them and creating despicable actions like hate speech or violence, which the press can blame on tea partiers. What part of that don't you understand?

Why you would characterize selling Tee-shirts encouraging folks to show up at TEA Party meetings as Hate Speech is beyond me.

It's beyond me, too, since I have never done it. if you think I have, show me where.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> A Plea For Sanity   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors