You're right, this is a pretty dumb response. Almost as dumb as Breitbart using footage from after the racial slurs were made to "prove" that it never happened.
Hmmmmm. Right.Let me ask you, friend:Do you have any video evidence actually supporting the claims that these racial epithets were heard?If so, I hope it's more convincing than the "spitgate" video.
I just don't think the video is the smoking gun it's being made out to be, and it certainly doesn't prove that the slurs were never made, like Breitbart is claiming.
It seems to me that you're misunderstanding where the burden of proof actually lies.The buren of proof does not lie on Andrew Breitbart to prove that racial epithets were not uttered. The burden of proof lies with the people who are claiming they were.
How is that so? You can't prove a negative. It seems to me that Andrew Breitbart has the uphill battle here.
Didn't Breitbart offer a $10K award if someone could prove by either audio or video that the slurs really occured?I haven't heard that he is poorer by $10K as yet.What does that say?
Actually, he increased it to $100,000.The Huffington Post then indulged themselves in the privilege of changing the terms of the offer (from proof of racial epithets to proof of spitting), and produced the spitgate video.(Considering that it conclusively demonstrates neither spitting -- although it provides enough circumstantial evidence to assume that it actually occurred -- nor intent, that was a pretty epic fail.)But that seems to be the way that the left-wing approaches the topic of goalpost shifting. Breitbart wouldn't move the goalposts, so they moved the goalposts for him. Aren't they a considerate bunch?
I would make that bet too if I knew that the racial slurs weren't caught on tape.
Perhaps you can prove a negative, but you can prove a positive.The claim being made by people like yourself is not that the racial epithets weren't made. It's that they were.The burden of proof for those claims is on the people making them. The burden of proof is not on Andrew Breitbart.You're really just digging yourself deeper into a hole here.
What I think the Tea Party is really upset about here is that the world wasn't shocked to find out that racist slurs were being hurled around at Tea Parties. I don't know if you are all in collective denial, or if it's ignorance, but these incidents have occurred so much that the movement itself is being associated with racism. There are many plausible theories as to why that is happening. The bottom line is that the Tea Party is on the defense, not because these politicians are lying, which there is no evidence to prove that they are, but because these incidents keep happening over and over to the point that no one is shocked anymore to hear about it. I'm not for or against the Tea Party movement per say, I just think that you have compromised the principles in order to build your numbers, and now you have a large group of people with very different ideas about how to govern our country.
Including a small group who believe that the movement is about taking back white America. Kick them out!
Yap, yap, yap.Turntable douchebag just can't figure this one out.First off, it's no surprise that some racist individuals have participated in Tea Party rallies and count themselves as members of that movement.Bright lights attract flies.But this isn't the argument you're trying to make: you aren't trying to argue that a few racist individuals have been attracted to Tea Party protests, you're trying to argue that racism pervades the entire movement.It's what we'll call the "Janeane Garofalo thesis". (For the purpose of it we'll exclude her limbic brain semi-psyciatric hackery.)As with the saliva on the face of Emanuel Cleaver, I'll easily cede to you the presence of some racist individuals at Tea Party rallies. But that isn't what you need for your argument: you need deep-rooted racism at the very core of the movement.That you cannot demonstrate, and even some of the most famous cherry-picked examples of Tea Party racism don't support it. Some of them, as a matter of fact, are not conclusively racist at all.Consider this particular photo.A lot of people like yourself have made the argument that this man's sign is racist because it features the words "slave owner" and "niggar".However, what you decide to overlook is that this is not a sign that attributes positive virtues to slave ownership. Rather, it attributes negative viture to slave ownership.Therefore, there is not a racist message in this sign.But I suppose that you think that when someone has wrapped himself in the Texan flag you can pass that off as nearly anything you like.But I don't expect you to make an honest statement about this. Rather, I expect you to continue dissembling.This is why an honest conversation about these topics is not possible with individuals like yourself -- you are simply too motivated to find racism everywhere at these rallies, to the extent that you cite it where it does not exist, and where you cannot support it.You self-servingly reject the burden of proof, and expect us to believe that things are as you say they are because you say they are so.And then you act indignant when we don't accept these things on your own say-so.It's pretty clear why: you have no evidence that racial epithets were uttered at these congressmen. Not a shred.The Andrew Breitbart video is far more compelling evidence than what you've argued, which is none.Game over.
I believe that I made it clear I do not think that racism is at the heart of the movement. It is a part of the movement, but it does not pervade the entire group. I like that you started your post off with name-calling, and then continued to completely misinterpret what I said. Very mature.I'm also glad you brought up that sign, because it is in fact racist. By using any derivative of the n-word you are bringing race into the subject. That sign is to be interpreted as, "black people are taxing me into slavery." The quote came from a blogger that quoted one of our founding fathers referring to taxation by the British as slavery. The reason for this was not how high they were, but that they had no say. We now have a Democratic system that elected the officials who raise our taxes. We only have ourselves to blame. The analogy to slavery doesn't work in that context. So the sign is fundamentally ignorant from the start. That guy was a candidate for a leadership position in the tea party. Is there any doubt as to why he wasn't promoted to that position?
Ah ha.Despite the fact that the sign reads "congress = slave owner", not "black people = slave owner".If it were the latter, you would have an argument. Because it is the former, you do not.And, by the way, bringing up race as a topic is not, in and of itself, enough to be racist. If that were the case, the entire Obama campaign of 2008 would have been racist.Of course, the Obama campaign was not racist -- although Harry Reid clearly has his own issues -- because bringing up race as a topic is not in and of itself racist.Now I have to admit that I've grown tired of you. You began to stretch the limits of my civility at about the time that you essentially offered "things are as I say they are because I say they are" as your argument.It's clear you can't defend your argument logically. To pretend as if you were when you clearly are not is, quite frankly, a douchebag argumentative strategy.
So the N-word is there for show eh.
No. The N-word is there to draw a link between two things the maker of the sign has a negative attitude toward: taxation and the slavery of African Americans.You may not consider it to be an appropriate comparison. I would actually agree with you. But we aren't debating whether or not it's reasonable to compare tax payers to black slaves. We're debating the topic of racism.The use of the N-word alone is not enough to make it racist. Context matters. Harry Reid's famous "negro dialect" remark is far more racist than this sign.
He is trivializing a word that once brought great pain and suffering to an entire race of people. It's insensitive at the very least, racist all around.
Oh, and the fact that you don't think it's racist, makes you racist. Just so you know.
LOLGod, but we all knew you were going to drop that one.Does he trivialize the historical plight of black slavery? I actually agree. Is triviliazing that racist? It can be, but not necessarily.If one were to trivialize the matter as if slavery didn't matter, that could very clearly be racist.But trivializing slavery comparing it to taxation (to which it is not reasonably equivalent) isn't racist, so long as one considers both of these things to be bad.It's very clear that the man holding this sign considers taxes to be bad. So he drew a false equivalent to something else that he thought was bad, that the vast majority of people recognize as very bad indeed.It doesn't make him -- or anyone who catches on to that detail -- racist. It merely makes him illogical.Try again, Turntable Douchebag. Try harder.
Call me some more names, it makes you look right! LOL
Yeah, bud. Call me racist for not agreeing with you.That definitely takes the race-baiting ball out of my court, don't it?
Post your comments, and join the discussion!Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.