Tea-Partiers Spit on "nigger" and "faggot" Congress Critters

[BT]

Let's review.

We have video of the event with the congressmen in question walking by the crowd in question and we do not hear the N word.

We heard that arrests were made then they weren't. And we have charges by a conressmen who won't press charges. Why because pressing false charges is a crime.

We had the original story showing up on HuffPO based on an AP report by no link to the AP report.

People believe what they want to believe, so the truth doesn't matter.

[Michael Tee]

<<I know one thing FOR SURE and that's Democrat politicians have been lying a lot lately.>>

It's all relative.  Compared to the lies that come out of Republican mouths, "a lot" doesn't look like so much.    I still believe  the Congressman.  He heard "Nigger," they said "Nigger."  Fifteen times.

[Amianthus]

People believe what they want to believe, so the truth doesn't matter.

QFT

[Michael Tee]

<<Let's review.

<<We have video of the event with the congressmen in question walking by the crowd in question and we do not hear the N word.>>

ROTFLMFAO.  What we actually have is a video of the event in which not a single word from the crowd is distinguishable unless chanted in unison by the zombies in the mob.  Why on earth the word "Nigger" should be uniquely distinguishable on  tape when not chanted in unison by zombies, when no other word of that din is distinguishable on tape unless chanted in unison by zombies, has not been explained to us by anyone.

<<We heard that arrests were made then they weren't. >>

Wrong again.  We heard that a man was arrested and then released when the Congressman declined to press charges.

<<And we have charges by a conressmen who won't press charges.>>

Wrong again.  We have no charges pressed by a Congressman who won't press charges.

<<Why because pressing false charges is a crime.>>

Fear of pressing false charges would have to be at the very bottom of a long list of reasons for not pressing charges, simply because very few complainants are ever charged with that offence unless there is clear evidence that the person knew the charge to be false when it was pressed, and even fewer are actually convicted, due to difficulties of proof.  Since all available evidence (the crazy and violence-ridden irrationality of the signs, the vehemence of the mob's emotions, the virtually all-white composition of the mob, etc.) points to the charges being true, I think it's ludicrous to point to fear of prosecution for spreading false charges as an explanation for the Congressman's reluctance to press charges.

The likeliest reasons for not pressing charges would include inability to ID the perp, not wanting to get involved, fear of right-wing violence if charges were pressed, (the mob carried signs advocating shooting as a legitimate means of political opposition,) practical difficulties of proof or a misguided attempt to appear magnanimous and/or scrupulously favourable to freedom of speech.  

<<We had the original story showing up on HuffPO based on an AP report by no link to the AP report.>>

Therefore it never happened?  Absurd.

<<People believe what they want to believe, so the truth doesn't matter.>>

Truth matters, most people I know what to believe that what they believe in is true, but in conservative circles, I note as in this thread, that the most preposterous reasons are advanced to justify a refusal to believe what is glaringly obvious.

[BT]

ROTFLMFAO.  What we actually have is a video of the event in which not a single word from the crowd is distinguishable unless chanted in unison by the zombies in the mob.  Why on earth the word "Nigger" should be uniquely distinguishable on  tape when not chanted in unison by zombies, when no other word of that din is distinguishable on tape unless chanted in unison by zombies, has not been explained to us by anyone.

Except the original purpose of the HuffPo piece and your post was to slur the group, not some outlier individual;, so it makes sense that if tea partiers are the knuckle dragging white boy hillbillies you claim them to be then they would have at the minimum expressed their displeasure of the bill and their displeasure with minorities loud enough for it to be picked up by the audio. Otherwise the group slur is false.

Your logic is like saying that white democrat congressmen are racists because they are not members of the CBC. There can be no other explanation for their lack of membership.

The likeliest reasons for not pressing charges would include inability to ID the perp, not wanting to get involved, fear of right-wing violence if charges were pressed,

How can you cause someone to be arrested without an ID? Your logic fails. Fear of right wing violence? John Lewis braved Selma and Bull Connors dogs, now he is a coward? Please. As far as i know the only protester injured was a black opponent to the HCB and he was roughed up by union goons. Facts are not your friend today. Neither is the provided video.

That's OK though. Tomorrow is another day, perhaps you can try again with some other manufactured outrage.

[Kramer]

I bet this kid is against health care legislation

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100320_16-year-old_charged_in_Wal-Mart_bias_incident.html

[Amianthus]

I bet this kid is against health care legislation

Well, we know all those southern states like New Jersey are just filled with racists.

[BT]

Perhaps it's South Jersey

[Amianthus]

Yeah, it is; Philly / Camden area.

[Michael Tee]

<<Except the original purpose of the HuffPo piece and your post was to slur the group, not some outlier individual . . . >>

Right.  Shoot the messenger.  They report that the Congressman heard the word "nigger" about 15 times from the crowd, so this proves (a) the Congressman must be lying and (b) the only possible reason the press would report the facts is to slur the group.

<< so it makes sense that if tea partiers are the knuckle dragging white boy hillbillies you claim them to be then they would have at the minimum expressed their displeasure of the bill and their displeasure with minorities loud enough for it to be picked up by the audio. >>

As I said before, the only words that could be heard on the tape were those chanted in unison.  So if individual hillbillies in the crowd were "expressing their displeasure with minorities," as long as they weren't chanting it in unison, it wouldn't have been any more distinguishable on tape than all the other utterances from within the mob that weren't being chanted in unison.

<<Otherwise the group slur is false.>>

I think the group slur is right on the nose.  These are obviously a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and the fact that 15 racial slurs came from within their ranks proves it.  Your argument boils down to "If they didn't chant 'nigger' in unison so as to be heard clearly on the tapes, then they can't be racists."  A more ludicrous argument I have yet to encounter.

<<Your logic is like saying that white democrat congressmen are racists because they are not members of the CBC. There can be no other explanation for their lack of membership.>>

That is such an absurd comparison I am not even going to waste my time responding to it.


<<[MT claims that:  The likeliest reasons for not pressing charges would include inability to ID the perp, not wanting to get involved, fear of right-wing violence if charges were pressed>>

<<How can you cause someone to be arrested without an ID? Your logic fails.>>

First of all, you've obviously misunderstood my meaning.  I meant that the Congressman would not be able to ID the perp arrested as one of the individuals who shouted the slurs.  So my logic doesn't fail at all.  It's quite logical if there are no witnesses who can testify for sure that the man under arrest was the man who shouted the slur, there is no point in arresting him.  So if (to pick one example) the Congressman or someone else ID'd the guy when the police nabbed him and then had second thoughts, "I don't really think that's the guy," they let him go.  Secondly, your logic is a few bricks short of a full load - - if lack of ID were a shield against arrest, demonstrators would appear without any ID and refuse to give their names to the arresting officer.  According to your insane theory, they would thereby become immune from arrerst.  Arrests without ID, FYI, can be made as John Doe arrests.

<< Fear of right wing violence? John Lewis braved Selma and Bull Connors dogs, now he is a coward?>>

When he braved Bull Connors' dogs, he had everything to gain and little to lose.  Now he's a lot older, with a lot more to lose and a lot less to gain.  At Selma he was fighting for freedom for his people.  Here he's fighting . . .  to administer some Mickey Mouse slap on the wrist (at most) on some ignorant schmuck for spitting?   Please.   And since you bring up Selma, why would a hero of the Civil Rights movement risk his reputation and his integrity by fabricating a charge of spitting against some unknown schmuck?  Your theories get crazier and crazier the faster you spin 'em out.

<<As far as i know the only protester injured was a black opponent to the HCB and he was roughed up by union goons. >>

Well the signs carried by that mob indicated that Browning pistols were their last-resort agents of political persuasion.  I think that is a threat of violence not negatived in the least by the fact that some Tom was "roughed up."  The Brownings threaten something a lot more serious than getting "roughed up," whatever THAT means in these circumstances.

<<Facts are not your friend today.>>

You obviously don't know what the straight facts are, BT.  You've managed to twist them into something quite unrecognizable and certainly not facts, but I am sure that whatever you shaped to take the place of facts in this debate are not my friends today.  Otherwise why bother to create them?

<<Neither is the provided video.>>

The provided video, as I seem to have proven without rebuttal, is of no assistance whatsoever to either side in determining whether or not members of the mob hurled racist insults at the Congressman.  Except insofar as it demonstrated the violent and hostile nature of the nutcases en masse, and therefore provided at least circumstantial evidence of the likelihood that the members of the mob would be likely to resort to racist and gay-baiting insults.

<<That's OK though. Tomorrow is another day, perhaps you can try again with some other manufactured outrage. >>

Is that the current equivalent of "Declare Victory, hit ENTER?"  Sure sounds like it.

[BT]

Right.  Shoot the messenger. 

No need to shoot the messenger , they do a good enough job of shooting themselves.

The HuffPo and you have been on a mission to discredit the tea parties, first by assigning a gay slur as a derogatory name for them, then claiming they are lily white, when photo evidence indicates they aren't, then saying a placard is more violent than an actual physical beat down, then minimizing the victims pain, by calling him another racial slur, then changing the meaning of the term ID from identify to identification when your original premise falls apart.

And then you have the balls to say video evidence is inconclusive when it is as spot on as the Zapruder film, why? , because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Pathetic.

[Plane]

The provided video, as I seem to have proven without rebuttal, is of no assistance whatsoever to either side in determining whether or not members of the mob hurled racist insults ....

  So you beleive it really happened , even though it happened on camera and on the camera didn't happen?

Is there a tecnique for shouting insults at a frequency that the human ear can record but microphones cannot?

If the Congressman heard "nigger!" 15 times, I believe him.  Just because nobody heard it in the videos is absolutely meaningless. 

Just that an American politician might lie should be considered rediculous seems rediculous , but there is the effect of white noise.
 Ever see pictures in the TV static snow? Ever hear the music in the street noise? Your brain can compose patterns in the random input finding patterns in the tile on the floor , the whorls of the wood grain , the clacking of the train wheels or the noise of the croud. The result is not information about the input , but about the state of ones brain.


      I think it quite possible that this congressman heard "nigger" because he expected to , and that a mechanical record doesn't bear him out because the shout wasn't outside his head , it was originateing on the inside.


     Because Politicians do lie , and because honest persons also report hearing things that were not really spoken due to several sorts of mistake, I would consider a mechanical device of no possible bias being present to be very important in bearing out the truth.








http://holisticgender.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/the-rorschach-view/


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090220214958AAy9YJR

Rorschach Pattern - Sprouting Bulbs


http://middleastforum.blogspot.com/2010/02/middle-east-rorschach-pattern.html

http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000214589/en

[Michael Tee]

<<No need to shoot the messenger , they do a good enough job of shooting themselves.>>

Now you're gonna deny shooting the messenger?  Your post didn't go away, BT, it's still there.  Need or no, you DID respond first by shooting the messenger.  And without any proof at all that it deserved to be shot.

<<The HuffPo and you have been on a mission to discredit the tea parties . . . >>

Huh?  No need to discredit the tea parties, they do a good enogh job of discrediting themselves.

<< . . .  first by assigning a gay slur as a derogatory name for them>>

I did?  The Hufpo did?  Please enlighten me, I've really forgotten all about it.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, racism and fascism do have a rather inflammatory affect on most decent people.

<< . . . then claiming they are lily white, when photo evidence indicates they aren't>>

My photoanalysis indicates they are lily-white and they throw in a few Toms for colour, usually at the head of the line.

<< . . . then saying a placard is more violent than an actual physical beat down>>

How could I say that, not knowing the extent of the alleged "beat-down?"  What I indicated was that I had seen no evidence whatsoever of the extent of the violence involved in the beat-down, but the threat implicit in posters advocating the use of semi-automatic pistols as agents of political persuasion promised a lot more violence than a mere beat-down and (I would have thought) conclusively answered your rather silly question of what he (the Congressman who didn't press charges) could have been afraid of.

<< . . . then minimizing the victims pain>>

Impossible, not knowing how much he suffered, or even if he really had been "beaten down."

<< . . .  by calling him another racial slur>>

Please.  "Tom" indicates he betrays his own people.  It's "racial" the same way that "black" or "white" or "Asian" are racial in that they necessarily indicate which race one is talking about.  You are taking political correctness to a ludicrous extreme by attempting to stigmatize the word as a racial slur as if it were no better than "nigger."  "Nigger" slurs every member of the race, regardless of character or accomplishment, "Tom" slurs only those who by their own disgraceful conduct have brought the slur down on their own heads.

<<then changing the meaning of the term ID from identify to identification when your original premise falls apart.>>

My original premise stands untouched, especially when considering the absurdity of the alternative interpretation you offered, which would make any protestor immune from arrest if he merely left his ID at home and refused to identify himself to the arresting officers.  An interpretation so absurd in fact that I believe you must have understood perfectly well the natural meaning of what I said, which is STILL the likeliest explanation of why charges weren't pressed, and tried to discredit it by pretending to misunderstand it.  ID is short for identify and identification, and while I concede that ID most commonly refers to identification papers, its use in this case ("to identify") was easily apparent from the context.  The absolute absurdity of the alternative explanation you offered should have made that perfectly apparent by now.

<<And then you have the balls to say video evidence is inconclusive when it is as spot on as the Zapruder film, why? , because it doesn't fit your agenda.>>

Well, you tell me - -   apart from "Kill the Bill" chanted in unison by the mob, what other word or phrase can be distinguished on the audiotape in all that din?  What is your next pathetic argument, that the videotape proves the complete absence of small flying insects at the scene?  What's apparent to me is that the tape quality isn't good enough to pick up spoken words from a noisy mob UNLESS they are chanted in unison.  As I said before, your pathetically lame argument boils down to this:  They weren't chanting "Nigger" in unison, therefore no individual members of the mob could have been shouting out "Nigger." 

<<Pathetic.>>

Your arguments, as made in this thread?  Yes, they ARE pathetic, aren't they?

[Michael Tee]

<<So you beleive it really happened , even though it happened on camera and on the camera didn't happen?

<<Is there a tecnique for shouting insults at a frequency that the human ear can record but microphones cannot?>>

plane, just use your own ears.  In all that din, was there one word or phrase that you could distinguish, apart from what was chanted in unison by the mob?  You know that there wasn't.

Does that mean that one guy could not distinguish a single word shouted out to him at close range?  Of course  not.  The camera wasn't everywhere and it didn't pick up everything that the Congressman heard.  Why is that so hard to believe?

(a) from the recording, you could not pick out a single word unless it was chanted in unison.
(b) Do you really believe that if you were in that crowd and a guy a few feet away from you shouted, "Fuck!"  "Shit!" or "Nigger," that you wouldn't have heard it, just because the cameras didn't pick it up?

You really think John Lewis was lying?  Why is it so hard to believe that people were shouting "Nigger" and that Lewis heard them and that the cameras weren't positioned or equipped to pick out single words from the ambivalent crowd noise?  What on earth is so unlikely about Lewis' version? 

You yourself couldn't pick out one single word from the recording, unless it was chanted in unison.  Does that mean that all the other crowd noises were made by people shouting gibberish?  That nobody in the crowd was shouting words that could be found in any English dictionary simply because you couldn't recognize them from the recording?  Don't you think that's a little crazy?

[BT]

Please.  "Tom" indicates he betrays his own people.

You can't be an Uncle Tom unless you are black.

And you can't betray your people unless your people are expected to act in a certain way.

Expecting people to act in a certain way , based on race, is racist.