Just to add that the mandate idea was one that was first implemented by a Republican governor who is a contender for the Republican presidential nomination and also developed by the noted conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
To follow on Sweet Lou's point do you think that Muslims bear a responsibility to address the extremists who claim to be Muslims? Afterall Islam has no central religious authority like Catholicism and anybody can claim to be a Muslim.
Of course, if there isn't proof, it isn't true. My sense is that I heard about the epithet one day and crowing for proof the next. If there isn't proof, it didn't happen, just like in the bad old days of open racism. If I heard a racial epithet in a crowd that was supporting my position and I called him out on it, which I would, I would make sure that the press knew about the incident and my participation in the censuring. Of course I am theorizing, I am doing it based on the available evidence and what I believe to be credible. I don't need more than a Congressman's word about a racial epithet. If he were quoting Medicare reimbursement rates, I would check out the deal on politifact, but I don't see an upside for him lying about being called a n***er. People who believe that all liberals are willing to lie simply to make the GOP look bad see an upside, but I don't watch Faux, so that opinion hasn't been drilled into me. Once again, are you freaking kidding me? Byrd was elected by the Democrats in 1959, before the Democrats lost the South by supporting the Civil Rights Act, which he filibustered, a move he later regretted. Unfortunately, a lot of people have done a lot of talking for the Tea Parties. Some have been reasonable and some have been racist.
We all bear some responsibility for each other to a degree. It's not an absolute thing but it is an expectation of an active and responsible citizenry. That ideal has practical limitations for sure. FB and GR seem to proceed with the assumption that fellow TPers smiled with glee and chuckled when someone (probably) hurled a racial epithet. They have no idea what happened in that circumstance. There is zero evidence that anyone responded that way. If there has been inadequate apologies from the TP it is likely due to: 1) dis-organization, 2) lack of conviction about the accuracy of the charge, and 3) primary focus on rejection of the slander. If someone wrongly accused you of something, would you focus on apologizing for it? No. If your cousin uttered a racist remark somewhere in Nebraska, would you sit idly by while your entire family was denigrated by association? No... and you wouldn't spend a whole lot of time apologizing for your cousin-- especially when doing so did not stem the tide of criticism aimed at your family. It's a huge leap when one equates a suicide bomber with a name-caller. Okay, you take the suicide bomber and I'll take the name-caller. Good luck, let's meet for lunch!
I can't say for sure about the timeline either; I just remember seeing the video which allegedly contained the proof... and it was very muffled and proved nothing.... yet the charges persisted. It's a quite natural course of action to demand the proof when the proof asserted and offered up fails to deliver. It shifts the focus to "perhaps" trumped up charges rather than any ugliness which may have really occurred. I would disagree: something can be true without proof. That's a fact. I'm not busy denying that it happened. I'm just not willing to denigrate the whole protest or the whole TP effort for the lack of couth of one participant. In a rowdy crowd like that I doubt you would hear anything that was not shouted right at you. That may be why the AV which seemed to capture the moment does not deliver the evidence desired. It comes out cacophonous. Who said anything about any Liberal lying? Not me. I cited you for theorizing and believing in your own theories too much. That's different from lying. I've accused them of exaggerating. They are hyping an unfortunate utterance to denigrate an entire activist movement. I don't watch Fox either. Wikipedia on Robert Byrd:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd KKK Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him the top officer of their unit.[8] According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[8] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[8] In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:[10] “ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ” — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [8][11] When running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[8] However, in 1946 or 1947 he wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[12] In 1997, he told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics, but to "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[13] In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[14] Byrd also said, in 2005, “ I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." POLITICS In 1952, Byrd was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives for West Virginia's 6th Congressional District,[6] succeeding E. H. Hedrick, who had decided to step down to run for Governor of West Virginia. He was reelected to the House twice, and served in total from January 3, 1953 to 1959.[6] Byrd defeated Republican incumbent W. Chapman Revercomb for the United States Senate in 1958—a campaign in which Revercomb's record supporting civil rights became an issue which played in Byrd's favor. I find it hugely amusing that you are more ready to forgive Byrd's 14-hour filibuster than you are some spectator's brief utterance....
I was not alone in that assessment. I should have applied the term moribund instead, for at that time it was. However, the Democare bill was like watching a horror movie where everybody in the devastated area thinks the monster is dead. Instead, the monster regenerates and wreaks even more death and destruction until the good guys render it harmless.
So you are saying there is no need for Muslims to denounce anti-Jewish and anti-American groups. That Islamic fanatics are just a few bad seeds and Muslims can't be worried about that. And that anyone who judges muslims based on these radicals are out of line? So when the President of Iran says the holocaust didn't happen, that's just a few words and says nothing about Muslims right? Because that's very contradictory to your prior arguments.
The difference is that Robert Byrd has attempted to atone for his wrongs. That's the whole issue. I'm not saying tea baggers rejoiced when their members shouted the N word or spit on anyone. I'm saying that tea baggers as unorganized as they may be, get together to put out spin and propaganda, and to invite Tancredo to give a racist speech. But when it comes time to try and clean up tea party rallies from racism, they just can't seem to be able to put forth the effort there. They aren't required to. They are welcome to have as many racists come give speeches, hold up racist signs, shout out racial slurs, and anything else that the racist supporters feel like doing. That's up to them. But you shouldn't be alarmed when people note what is allowed to pass under the tea party banner, and remark on the fact the tea baggers don't try and stop it. By not stopping it, they are saying "it's OK." If I had a get together at my house, or I organized a picnic in the park and someone who was there as part of that group started holding up racist signs, shouting racial slurs or anything else, I would ask them to leave. I wouldn't have it associated with my group. The tea party isn't willing to do that.
Giddy, if it was only the one incident that would be different. It isn't just one incident. It happens over and over again, including racist speech at the tea party convention. They can organize to spin a positive image of the tea party, why not organize to really clean up the group instead of just portraying a cleaned up image on TV? They can organize enough to hold a convention. Why not take that time to outline some guiding principles which could include statements against racism. Why not denounce the politician who came there and advocated the policies of racism which so damaged our nation until just a few decades ago? Trust me, if anyone associated with me publicly did any of the racist things that some of the tea baggers have done, I would work tirelessly to correct it. The tea baggers haven't worked at all to correct it, but have worked hard to deny that it's even a problem.
Not saying that at all, however equating Muslims who religion has been around for thousands of years and who fanatics are killing innocent people to Tea Partiers who have only been a dot on the radar for less than a year and whose most egregious offense is a ugly name-calling seems like a huge stretch. So, in essence, you are saying that "radical" Tea Partiers deserve the same scrutiny as "radical" Muslims? I thought not.
It's easy for Robert Byrd to atone for Robert Byrd's mistakes; he has controlling interest over Robert Byrd. The so-called Tea Party is not really a party at all. You really overstate the "racism" of the Tea Party. You make it sound like every sign, indeed every speech, is laced with racist invectives. Did you read the article I posted? The event where Tancredo spoke was $400 a ticket. It was essentially a private event. Other Tea party groups objected to the content as well as to the perception that this was some kind of official TP event. No one has the right to make or infer such a claim. Is immigration really a race issue or is it the illegality of most immigration that is the real issue?
Personally, I don't give a good god damn what "radical Muslims" are doing or not doing in the context of this discussion. What I do care about is the constant parading of racist Tea party members/supporters/whatever the hell you call yourselves without a serious attempt to stop it. You obviously don't care, because instead of denouncing that fact, you are busy, giddy, making excuses. It doesn't reflect well on you, buddy. I repeat, you are busy making excuses. That the leadership of this "Tea Party" has done little to nothing to stop it, while people like you make excuses for that, is outrageous. Why don't you, just once, stop splitting hairs and simply call out these people you obviously support for supporting racism. Saying they "can't do anything about it" is a damned lie.
You liar. What's up with you? You've turned cranky and unreasonable. Did you turn 60 or something? Not having control over what thousands of people choose to do of their own accord is not a lie; it's reality. Those of you who so graciously afford Robert Byrd decades to shrug off his racist past (wonder how many times he used the N word) won't give the Tea Partiers (hundreds of thousands of independent agents) a few weeks or months or even years to shape their group. That's just absurd.
What does Byrd's history from the 1940's have to do with the Tea Party? I remember the days when "but Bush did it!" was no excuse. Seems like it was just last week.
Nothing. It has to do with the critics who have tolerated Byrd yet blister the loose coalition of tea partiers for the behavior of a few of them.
Has Byrd been making racist statements recently? All I have heard is that 60 years ago he was a part of an organization that a lot of people in his generation are ashamed to have once been a part of. I think there's a difference between Dems tolerating someone's half century old past and Tea Baggers making excuses and pointing fingers when one of their members goes off the rails. A proper comparison would be to a current Democrat that calls others by racial slurs and is subsequently defended by the Dems. Got any examples of that?
Show me where I have "shrugged off" Byrd's racist past. "Not having control over what thousands of people choose to do of their own accord is not a lie; it's reality." Bull ****. What has people pissed off, excepting yourself, is the complete lack of a real effort to curb the blatant racism that shows itself again and again at "Tea Party" rallies. You had a convention. There is organization within the "Tea Party." That organization has made little to no effort to curb this consistent behavior. That is the truth. The lie is that there is nothing they can do. That's a lie supported by an excuse... by you. You wonder why I'm pissed off? I'm sick of reading this crap. I'm sick of reading the excuses, when every day racism rears its ugly head at "Tea Party" rallies. Open your eyes for once, giddy. Clean your movement of the racists within it and denounce their behavior, instead of trying to excuse it. Saying there is nothing that can be done is, as I said, a damned lie. That, or willful ignorance.
Giddy, you are the one who takes what I say as if every sign and every word from a tea bagger is racist. I never said that. I know what the tea party convention was, and the fact that some factions of the tea party didn't like it, isn't really relevant. The criteria you are laying out is just stupid. Because not everyone in the tea party gets orders from a central organization then none of the tea baggers should reflect negatively on the tea party movement or mob or whatever they are. That's what you are saying, and that is lame and a chicken***** way to excuse their problems. I'm not even saying every single tea party organization has to do something about racism. I'm saying the fact that some of them can get together and hold an official tea party convention, or many of the groups can get together and form the tea party federation shows that to some degree they can organize. They have shown that is decentralized as they are, at least parts of the tea party can organize and get together. My question is why haven't they tried to organize in someway to drive out the racists? Why do tea party groups continue to support racist candidates? Why do they spend more time trying to deny the problem than fix it. I'm not asking to see every single tea party organization come out in a unified stand against racism in their groups(though there isn't any reason why they can't or shouldn't). But I find it telling that NONE OF THEM do. Not one group has put forth a greater organized effort to deal with the problem. So don't give me the BS that because they are all on their own nothing at all can be done about the racism. The fact is that various groups have organized for different causes. One of those causes is to put a spin out there that there is no racism among the tea baggers. I know they are all different groups, but if they can organize for propaganda they should at least attempt to organize to fix their racism problem. Also your double standards about Muslim radicals and racist tea baggers is telling. It doesn't matter how old Islam is vs. how old the tea party is. That was never one of the many excuses you made for the tea baggers. Your excuse is that they don't have a centralized organizing power to exert that kind of control over all their members. When comparing efforts to drive out radicals that is the only similarity. The fact that some radical Muslims support terrorism is different than radical tea baggers supporting racism, isn't the issue. The issue is should one group without a centralized organization get a pass at driving to stamp out the extremism, while another group without centralized organization not get pass.
