Frank Rich: Teaparty = Racists

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

I’ll be even simpler with you. You’re upset because people are profiling the tea party members, right? [/quote]

WRONG FUCKTARD.

WHY DON’T YOU TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS?

IT MAKES READING MUCH EASIER.

I’VE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PROFILING. NOTHING ABOUT CATAGORIZING.

I’M NOT GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF.

HEAD. ASS. TAKE OUT OF AND READ. OR FUCK OFF.

[/quote]

Katz, you are by far my favoite Masshole. FWI

V[/quote]

I had to Wiki Masshole because I have never heard that term before. I lol’d.[/quote]

I’m still trying to figure out what FWI is. Is Vegita totally insulting me or what?? LOL!

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
(knowing full well your “ploy”…LOL)[/quote]

I’m sure.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out what FWI is. Is Vegita totally insulting me or what?? LOL!
[/quote]

Floating while intoxicated!

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out what FWI is. Is Vegita totally insulting me or what?? LOL!
[/quote]

Floating while intoxicated![/quote]

I actually like that better than the origional meaning. For What Its Worth. Don’t ask me where the last W went. It’s just not there.

V

Actually Maybe I meant to do FYI and for whatever reason my brain manufactured FWI as a new acronym. Yes, I catually think that IS what happened.

V

Yeah, well all of you can just go FWI for all I care.

A new acronym; I’m liking it :wink:

I actually looked up FWI online and it something For Wiki Information. I decided to Wiki it and find out what Masshole meant.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[/quote]

You really have to be one of the biggest boneheads I have come across on this board.

Do you really think I didn’t see your “hippy” bait? LOL. Again: what I said (knowing full well your “ploy”…LOL) about hippies is demonstratably true; Mr. Rich’s piece about Tea Partiers is filled with so many lies, I’m not sure where to start (what would you like me to to? - cut and paste the whole thing for you? LOL) If you can’t see that, you are indeed a brainwashed little fellow.

You are so busy being impressed with yourself and your “hippy” red herring - and so full of your own verbal diarrhea about nothing - that you don’t reallize how off the mark you are.

[/quote]
You did exactly what I wanted you to do; you stereotyped every hippie who has ever lived as a bunch of dirty lazy hypocrites. I would very much enjoy reading why you think that’s demonstrably (<–this is how you spell that word) true because all i would have to do is provide a counterexample and immediately prove you wrong.

Again, you’re incredibly angry that the author is telling lies about the tea party. But if what the author’s doing is just stereotyping tea party members based on what he’s seen them do, than he’s no different than you!

But here’s the best part Katzen , you’re too blinded with rage too understand that I agree with you that this is a bad article. Judging whole groups of people because of individuals actions, such as the people who vandalized congressmen’s houses, is totally wrong. But what I proved with the hippie example is that you would write an equally wrong article about hippies if you were given the chance.

If you can’t understand this, YOU are a bonehead.

[quote] Schlenkatank wrote:
You did exactly what I wanted you to do; you stereotyped every hippie who has ever lived as a bunch of dirty lazy hypocrites. I would very much enjoy reading why you think that’s demonstrably (<–this is how you spell that word) true because all i would have to do is provide a counterexample and immediately prove you wrong.

Again, you’re incredibly angry that the author is telling lies about the tea party. But if what the author’s doing is just stereotyping tea party members based on what he’s seen them do, than he’s no different than you!

But here’s the best part Katzen , you’re too blinded with rage too understand that I agree with you that this is a bad article. Judging whole groups of people because of individuals actions, such as the people who vandalized congressmen’s houses, is totally wrong. But what I proved with the hippie example is that you would write an equally wrong article about hippies if you were given the chance.

If you can’t understand this, YOU are a bonehead.[/quote]

You must be high or something. I’ll say it again: I’m not talking about stereotyping (or profiling, or catagorizing, or whatever) - I’m talking about lying.

L. Y. I. N. G.

That^^ spells “LYING.”

Look it up.

If I were to write an article about hippies, I’m sure I would make generalizations; one cannot write or even think without using them. It’s YOU who keeps bringing that up.

But if I were to write such an article, I would not base such an article on baldfaced lies.

I have already pointed out one of them. I could, if I chose, point out many more.

However - and I am quite serious; and I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m going to have to say it - you obviously are hung up on something. I don’t know if it’s too much ganga, or whatever it is you’re smoking, but you seem unable to escape this hangup.

Am I correct in assuming that you either grew up with hippies? Or maybe even your parents are hippies? You are from Vermont after all.

Anyhoo, whatever it is, pease don’t burden me with it.

Fair enough?

Anything else you’d like to discuss?

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote] Schlenkatank wrote:
You did exactly what I wanted you to do; you stereotyped every hippie who has ever lived as a bunch of dirty lazy hypocrites. I would very much enjoy reading why you think that’s demonstrably (<–this is how you spell that word) true because all i would have to do is provide a counterexample and immediately prove you wrong.

Again, you’re incredibly angry that the author is telling lies about the tea party. But if what the author’s doing is just stereotyping tea party members based on what he’s seen them do, than he’s no different than you!

But here’s the best part Katzen , you’re too blinded with rage too understand that I agree with you that this is a bad article. Judging whole groups of people because of individuals actions, such as the people who vandalized congressmen’s houses, is totally wrong. But what I proved with the hippie example is that you would write an equally wrong article about hippies if you were given the chance.

If you can’t understand this, YOU are a bonehead.[/quote]

You must be high or something. I’ll say it again: I’m not talking about stereotyping (or profiling, or catagorizing, or whatever) - I’m talking about lying.

L. Y. I. N. G.

That^^ spells “LYING.”

Look it up.
[/quote]
gee, thanks for spelling that out for me…

He’s not exactly lying if there are racist people at the tea parties is he? We disagree conceptually here, but I think it’s pretty clear that he’s not lying perse. What he’s doing is stereotyping the tea party because of images like this one that was in a tea party email. I hope you’re not saying there was zero racism at the tea parties? If you are you’d be wrong, look at the picture.

Anywho, I think I got this pretty straight with my last post. You may not get what I’m saying, but that doesn’t mean I’m high. Really, I challenge you to think about the difference between stereotyping and lying because there is an important distinction. Its also a distinction that makes you a hypocrite.

Bingo, racism at a tea party.

Bingo, racism at a tea party.


3rd time is the charm

Edit: sorry for the overpost, my computer is not on my side today

I know this is going to be a big waste of time. But what the hell, here goes: son, it’s YOU who haven’t seemed to grasp that there is a difference between “LYING” and “STEREOTYPING.” For some reason, you seemed obsessed with the latter. You also seemed confused about it: for not all stereotyping is illegitmate, as you seem to think it is.

But again, I’m not talking about stereotyping. I’m talking about the string of lies he either knowingly or unknowingly puts forth in his piece.

Now, is that^ so hard to understand?

As far as the lying, here is a REPOST from above:


How about starting with this:

There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis…

THAT ^^ - and just about every other sentance in the piece - is a BALD FACED LIE.

Nota Bena: I have said nothing about catagorizing, or generalizing, or profiling, or whatever else you’re fantasizing about.


I think lying with such impunity about so explosive an issue is deplorable in the extreme.

Now, what do YOU think?

And please try and refrain from using the words “categorizing,” “profiling,” and “stereotyping.” I know it’s hard for you to type without using those words. Perhaps it’s a kind of tourette’s syndrome?

Because the Healthcare Bill is clearly unconstitutional (“If the government can’t force you to buy shoes, then how can they force you to buy an insurance policy?” – Judge Napolitano, Fox), the goal is to distract the American people with articles such as this.

While I think we have a lot of people who’re as dumb as a stone (mostly Obama voters), the Supreme Court members are not dumb AND they just might remember their humiliation in Congress during President Pinko’s State of the Union address.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
3rd time is the charm

Edit: sorry for the overpost, my computer is not on my side today[/quote]

How is this racism? Equating Obamacare to what you would recieve through a “witchdoctor”?? It seems like because Obama is black, ANY chariacture of him is deemed racism. Politicians and presidents have been chariactured in political cartoons and signs since politics began. This is our first black president and now anything done to show him in a bad light is instantly labeled racism. I posted a sign in another thread that was racism, it said vote right, vote white. THAT is racist, it is saying he is wrong because he is black. This sign and any of the others you nincompoops have posted do not have that element, so therefore are not racist.

V

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Because the Healthcare Bill is clearly unconstitutional (“If the government can’t force you to buy shoes, then how can they force you to buy an insurance policy?” – Judge Napolitano, Fox), the goal is to distract the American people with articles such as this.

While I think we have a lot of people who’re as dumb as a stone (mostly Obama voters), the Supreme Court members are not dumb AND they just might remember their humiliation in Congress during President Pinko’s State of the Union address.[/quote]

One can always hope. Perhaps even the wise Latina will see that the powers of the Federal Government are not unbounded; that the Commerce Clause is not an escape clause; that the Enumerated Powers were not merely suggestions. Et Cetera!

These absurd accusations on both sides of the isle during their respective administrations has become increasingly tiresome. In fact, almost to the point of parody.

Being a libertarian has been quite difficult during the last two administrations, although admittedly somewhat amusing given the reactionary nature of the elite and followers of both parties. Being anti-war paleo-libertarians were accused of “blaming America first; being terrorist sympathizer; being liberal; being isolationist” and other overly-simplistic and derogatory absurdities. Despite not holding a desire to “kill brown people” overseas, we are yet and now “racists, sexists, bigots,” and so forth for protesting the equally despecable policies of the current administration. This has occurred despite opposing the statist agenda of both administrations.

The strange part is that since Misesian-style or Rothbardian-style libertarians cannot approve of the statism of the Republicans or Democrats they are equally attacked by both sides depending on who currently holds the reigns of power. Conservatives cannot justifiably criticize the statism of the Left while hypocritically approving of the statism of Liberals. The reverse also holds true. Wither one believes in liberty or otherwise.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I know this is going to be a big waste of time. But what the hell, here goes: son, it’s YOU who haven’t seemed to grasp that there is a difference between “LYING” and “STEREOTYPING.” For some reason, you seemed obsessed with the latter. You also seemed confused about it: for not all stereotyping is illegitmate, as you seem to think it is.

[/quote]

My words are as plain as day. Stereotyping infers an oversimplification of a group of people which is what the article does to the tea party. After all, your quote shows that yes? It reads “there’s nothing worse than watching A BUNCH OF GOONS…” or whatever. Either of the pictures I posted can be interpreted as racist; you might think he’s lying but from someone else’s perspective he’s not. Because of the very subjective nature of racism you would find it almost impossible to prove that he’s lying, but you can easily prove that he’s oversimplifying.

To make my point I would like you to prove to me that he’s lying. I think you will find it absolutely impossible.

Furthermore, stereotyping is actually by nature wrong because it infers OVERsimplification. Forming schemas is of course ok, but drawing broad brush strokes like the author does is wrong.

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
To make my point I would like you to prove to me that he’s lying. I think you will find it absolutely impossible.
[/quote]

This is getting unbelievable. I’m really starting to think that you’re writing to me from an insane asylum.

I am not talkinga about the reference to “goons” and could care less about your fixation on “stereotyping.”

In that sentence I quoted, I am talking about the assumptive bit that he elevates to truth:

this bit >>that there were racist remarks directed at Lewis.<<<< THAT

This^^ is false. There is NO EVIDENCE TO support that anyone yelled racist remarks at him.

What the fuck is so hard to understand about this???

In fact, during their little “crowd-baiting” exercise, which is what it was, they had trailing cameras (I was there) to pick up anything said - and you can look at the video evidence yourself. Nothing. Although, that doesn’t stop them from still making the (unfounded) claim.

You’re asking ME to prove a NEGATIVE?

Are you really that^ stupid?