Where is the outrage?

[NM_Shooter]

Why is racism and violence only wrong and only news when directed at the left?  Where is the media coverage?  Where is the outrage? 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1

[Woodsrule]

The sad truth about this story is that liberals USED to stand for free speech, but now only stand for speech they deem correct. Just think of "hate speech", "free speech zones", "hate crimes", "bullying legislation" and on and on. There is a conservative author I have read named Larry Elder. I read an article awhile ago and thought he was great, so I ordered his book. When it arrived, I was surprised to learn that he is a black man. Now, shame on me for assuming that he was not, but this fact underscores that most of us assume that black folks are NOT conservative, a stance I have since changed. I have done a bit of research on this and have found that, no only Larry Elder, but any minority author or group who espouses conservative ideals is castigated by a large majority of his/her community as well as the left-leaning media. Just think of this: When a person is featured on CNN,CBS,MSNBC and other channels, and is a conservative, they label he/she with a tag under their name. They sometimes write "Conservative", "Right Wing" or some other label. When a liberal/progressive is on the show, the tag never reads "liberal." Just food for thought.

[pagan]

Woods,

Just trying to follow you here and if I'm reading your post correctly you're claiming that calling someone racially derogatory names and bullying is free speech.

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I just want to be clear.

[Woodsrule]

Pagancelt,

I was not implying that all speech is protected. We all know that is not the case. What I was trying to underscore is the attempt by "progressives" to limit speech they don't like. What is your opinion on free speech zones and hate crimes? My opinion on hate crimes is that they attempt to decide what is in the mind of the perpetrator - a dangerous proposition. Also, if someone bops me over the head and steals my money than I am the victim of a strong-arm robbery. If the perpetrator calls me a name while doing it, then is the crime any different? I'm still left with a bump on the head and I no longer have my money. Also, "bullying" legislation will be challenged much like pornography laws have been. How are we to quantify bullying? I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it? Lastly, do you believe that a black person who calls a white person a cracker is guilty of racially derogatory names? Or does the offense only apply to a certain class?

[pagan]

Woods,

I think the "free speech zones," which our elected officials have used to great affect for avoiding any contact with unhappy citizens, are ridiculous. Then again our elected officials seem to feel the constitution is simply a damn piece of paper anyway, so why should they follow the law?

Bullying, yeah, how to you call that one? We could settle these issues like my old drill sergeant...here're the boxing gloves and there's the ring. Although that might work in the Army I doubt it would function well in public schools. I got bullied in high school by a guy who was two inches taller than me and he had a good twenty pounds on me as well. Not a fair fight by any standard. He was relentless. One day after he accosted me in the parking lot at school I chased him a round the parking lot in my friends 1968 Pontiac Bonneville. Although I didn't hit him, my passenger said I missed him by less than an inch a few times. The next day in school the bully informed me about what he was going to do to me in the parking lot after school. I told him I had the Bonneville and this time I wouldn't miss. I actually waited for him and he never showed. Two days later I put my hand through a gigantic plate glass window at school and nobody bothered me again. I wouldn't recommend either of these methods to anybody. By the way, the bully had a heart attack on a Florida highway and died alone at the ripe old age of 41. Karma will get you every time, I guess. Any anti-bullying legislation will come about through knee jerk reactions that will only make growing up even more difficult.

Hate crime is a whole new ballgame. I had a 20 something year old black guy pick a fight with me years ago and the whole time he kept telling me how he was going to put my lily white ass in the hospital, and that's if I even survived. He spoke like some rapper so it was difficult to understand him most of the time. I also remember him calling me "Wonder Bread" at the very beginning and I laughed which really set him off because, I assume, I was supposed to be greatly offended by the comment. He was a fairly good sized fellow and although I have a few years of martial arts training I didn't see the point of allowing the altercation to go further. I knew he didn't know my martial arts background and that was to my advantage. He also did not know that I was armed, although when I drew out my stainless steel 9 3/4" barreled Ruger Super Redhawk 44 Magnum the look on his face was priceless and let's just say he wasn't talking smack anymore. Was he violating my civil rights? Given what he had said, had he hit me would it have been a hate crime? Probably not. But had I hit him while using any racial terms I surly could have been charged with a hate crime, even though he started the whole fracas.

I believe that if we are, as a society, going to hold racially derogatory speech as a criminal act then any person using the racially derogatory words should be held accountable for the offense regardless of race. Here's the problem...at what point does this go from racial to sexual? Meaning, when do we start prosecuting men who use sexually derogatory words for women? Once you start down this path it seems to never end and with every turn comes a new issue to address.

Sorry this is so long.

[wendigo]

Why is racism and violence only wrong and only news when directed at the left?  Where is the media coverage?  Where is the outrage? 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1

You are kidding right?

Where is the media coverage? - You just linked to an AP Press article.
It seems to me that you are expressing outrage.

Maybe, just maybe you could take a step back and realize that some people suck. Doesn't depend upon their political leaning, no one group has a stronghold on suck.

Or you could keep painting a picture with an "us versus them" attitude and keep on getting what we are getting. Because that seems to really open discourse and an exchange of ideas in a civilized manner.

[NM_Shooter]

I was trying to make a point about the disparity of news coverage depending on the party of aggravation.

When members of congress claimed that they were spit upon or called racially derogatory terms, this was ALL over the mainstream news. 

I had to dredge up a small news snippet off of the corner of awareness to even know about the flip side of this. 

My point is that leftists are completely outraged about racism and violence when it is against their own, but tend to look the other way when one of their own is the culprit.

I get pretty dang mad at anyone who stoops to racist or sexist comments.  I get a lot more mad at hypocrites.  I see the left as being incredibly hypocritical. 

[wendigo]

That is fine and all, but I will wager you find just as many hypocrites on the right, and in the middle.
To point your finger at the "leftists" does nothing more than emphasize your point of view to yourself and those who are sympathetic to that viewpoint. It does nothing productive or proactive, but is excellent at maintaining the current status which generates an "us vs. them" atmosphere, though last time I checked everyone was a US citizen.

My general feeling is that discourse in this nation has declined to a point where it is inane at best often asinine and malicious or violent at worst.

[kenhill]

The day the discourse (civil or not) dies is the day freedom is buried.  That is why it took so many years between the formation of the Continental congress (1774) and the ratification of the Constitution (1788)

[ScottA]

Seems no matter who you talk to the other side is always wrong and deserves to be shot for whatever they have to say. Nothing ever changes. You simply can not make people be fair or honest no matter how much sense it makes. 

[NM_Shooter]

That is fine and all, but I will wager you find just as many hypocrites on the right, and in the middle.

There is certainly no shortage on both sides. 

On a fair balance you would lose your wager by a landslide.

[curlewdave]

Not really... Some segments seem to not respond so vocally and with such venom.  Loss of power fuels angry , often extreme statements,  that rationalize feelings that in our society  many try to hide.  The Virginia governor recently very succiently  brought this to light. The realization that life such as it has been for many generations  is now threatened by a changing society is very difficult to deal with by a segment of our society.

[NM_Shooter]

by a segment of our society.

Yeah!  The majority.

[OlJarhead]

I think the issue is that we're not dealing with your typical issues today.  Worse still the new President is a Marxist and intent on dividing the nation -- it is the Marxist way after all.

For those who don't think he's a Marxist here's a link for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07fuhtXS0M

If you still feel BHO is a free market capitalist then you're probably delusional  

[glenn kangiser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luQhAc6RNqI

[OlJarhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luQhAc6RNqI

Hmmm....being that this is the " Off Topic - Ideas, politics, humor, inspiration " forum I'm assuming that you're not suggesting we shouldn't mix politics and this forum (after all, there is a lot of that going on here).  So the song doesn't seem to fit.  I'm a little confused.

My point is simple:  politics divides (that is really the point of Cash's song after all) but some political ideologies follow a specific pattern of 'divide and conquer' (Alinski method perhaps but certain the Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Communist way).

The founders knew this but though they'd created a system that would prevent what we have today -- they did but we started ignoring it around 1907-1910 in a big way (some would say 1865) and since we've drifted further and further away from the system they created.

What does that have to do with the original post?  Everything.  You see, Racism isn't an issue today in the traditional sense -- it is an issue only in that it is used to demonize people with the intent of ruining or diminishing their political power.  So, if they aren't of that group, then don't go after them but if they are say 'Tea Party People' well then it's open season and it doesn't matter what's true or not.

[glenn kangiser]

No-- I was just thinking about the differing opinions and it reminded me of the song, but when you get back and look at them you see that above it all they are all still doing the bidding of the elite....

[pagan]

Glenn,

Exactly.

[Ndrmyr]

The traditional belief has been that conservatives are intolerant and liberals are, by their very nature, tolerant. Strangely, it appears that nothing could be further from the truth.  Many of todays liberals seem to feel that they and they alone have a lock on truth.  Someone else's beliefs are dispised and ridiculed.  I have a very good friend who is a closet liberal after working for years in a bastian of conservatism, a monstrous old world investment bank.  We have never had a cross word since i respect his opinion, and he mine. Of course, we both feel the other is deluded. But still, the core belief that allows us to co-exist is respect. I see little of it these days. Sad....

[NM_Shooter]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/16/nbc_reporter_to_black_man_at_tea_party_have_you_ever_felt_uncomfortable.html