Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

And for all your claims of inciting stuff, the tea partiers did not put on the kind of show that the left wing anti-capitalists put on at G20.

And you won't catch me defending that bullsmurf.  You, on the other hand, can't help yourself.  Remember when, for a few moments, you rightly criticized those throwing tantrums at the town hall meetings?

Then you realized you were wildly out-of-sync with what the talking heads on the far-right were shrieking, and you obediently changed your tune.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

And for all your claims of inciting stuff, the tea partiers did not put on the kind of show that the left wing anti-capitalists put on at G20.

And you won't catch me defending that bullsmurf.  You, on the other hand, can't help yourself.  Remember when, for a few moments, you rightly criticized those throwing tantrums at the town hall meetings?

Then you realized you were wildly out-of-sync with what the talking heads on the far-right were shrieking, and you obediently changed your tune.

I never switched.

I very clearly in that thread stated that they should have their right to be heard as long as doing so did not infringe upon the rights of others.

I still stand by that, regardless of the point of view.

I know that's a concept you have trouble grasping.

lulz

You mis-understood.

I wasn't using the song to "defend" any philosophy.
I was using the song to point out the absurdity of left-wing backed sin taxes that are aimed to model society into conformance. The song does that extremely well.

iSeamas wrote:

I'm not misunderstanding.
I'm simply disgusted by your spin doctoring.

The left has never had much use for conformity, now or ever.

Yeah - diversity.

There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

Yes, she was a communist.
What does that have to do with anything?

resedit wrote:

I never switched.

I very clearly in that thread stated that they should have their right to be heard as long as doing so did not infringe upon the rights of others.

I still stand by that, regardless of the point of view.

I know that's a concept you have trouble grasping.

Are you challenging me to find instances of you defending the screamers at the town hall meetings?

resedit wrote:

I defended "the screamers" having their right to be heard.
I never defended them interfering with the right of others to be heard.

Who ever claimed they didn't "have a right to be heard?"  What we talked about was their bad behavior of interrupting meetings, shouting down those who were trying to speak, and just generally being smurfs.

Another case of you making assumptions about me and my positions. Which is funny, because you specifically remember me stating that they shouldn't have a right to interfere with the rights of others.

Go back and read that post where I say they don't have a right to stop others from being heard, you'll see me saying they themselves have a right to be heard.

I've noted repeatedly that, initially, you faulted those intent upon making a scene.  From that point, you repeatedly defended them (and from what I've just read) avoided numerous opportunities to agree that their behavior was inappropriate.

But if you're stating now, unequivocally, that those who were screaming at meetings were wrong and that Republican politicians and pundits should have criticized and condemned their behavior instead of egging it on--great.  Is that what you're saying?

resedit wrote:

However, it was not just bad behavior that you (perhaps not you specifically, the left here) were griping about.
You were griping about them in general, complaining that they were lying (a hard charge to back up given that Obamacare is a huge bill written such that even Politicians can't understand it without help)...

They were lying--talk of "death panels" dominated the discussion.  You acknowledged several times that the "death panel" talk was bullsmurf.

...accusing them of having racist motives...

Some clearly did--we saw the signs.

...making lude sexual references to describe them ("tea baggers"), etc.

Are you aware that they are STILL selling buttons saying "proud to be a teabagger" at these events?  Just saw it the other day regarding the rally in D.C.  I maintain that your anger on this point remains misdirected.

That's what I was arguing against. The bullsmurf from the left because they didn't want the voice of dissent against Obamacare to be heard.

You're certainly right that it was the voice of "dissent"--the minority view.

Res, you really, really seem to struggle with criticism of speech (which is ALSO a form of speech, you'll note).  Your reaction is often to insist that others are trying to silence dissent or infringe upon speech.  If you can demonstrate that "the left" around here was interested in doing such a thing, please demonstrate it. 

I am glad that you agree the bad behavior at the Town Hall meetings was wrong and should not have been condoned by republican pundits and politicians.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-09-26 6:51 pm)

Some clearly did--we saw the signs.

Sean Hannity has a left wing nut on the air refusing the condemn the violence that took place at G20.
Would you think it fair of me to then generalize those who oppose capitalism don't mind the use of violence to get their point across?

Just last week Tallgeese posted links to black people with Swastika tatoos. Would it be fair to thus generalize black people as hating Jews?

Every year at the gay pride parade in San Francisco, gay individuals engage in acts of public sex display. Would it be fair for me to generalize all the gays who take part in the parade that way?

sturner wrote:

It would be fair if there were mulitple national talkshow hosts that espoused those ideas. There aren't

So because some talk show hosts say they are racist it's fair to call them racist?

That makes no sense.

There is a dynamic going on - historically this country was racist, quite recently it was racist, numerous people are still alive from before MLK etc.

Racism doesn't die easily. People tend to hate what they fear and fear what they don't know. Integration of races in conservative rural areas is no where near what it is in modern cities. However, the constant racist accusations IMHO hurt the healing process that needs to take place.

When there is genuine racism, call it for what it is. But making accusations of racism where it isn't is judging a people based upon their political viewpoint which isn't that different from judging people based upon the color of their skin. Furthermore, such accusations put those accused of being racist on the defensive, and it detracts from any meaningful discussion of the topic on hand.