Please provide evidence of the n-word incident.
I think they were just race baiting. They were deliberately trolling the crowd to get them to do it, and when they couldn’t, they just lied about it. It’s all they have.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Andrew Breitbart says they’re not going to take any more of this.
So, a Congressman walking through public areas of the Capitol is “trolling the crowd” while if they took the secure subway they would be “ducking their constituents” or “ignoring the voice of the people.”
Sounds like “heads I win tails you lose” accounting.
Horseshit, Chris. They take the subway all the time. They were trolling (especially Queen Nancy, with that ginormous gavel).
Take the subway = hiding.
Walk through a crowd = trolling.
Heads I win tails you lose.
You’re the only person who has said taking the subway is “hiding,” Chris. This is a vile rhetorical tactic to cover up for the liars falsely accusing the protesters of racism.
My issue is your accusation of “trolling.” I don’t know or care what the crowd did or did not say to the Congressmen. I care what you said.
So, since when is it in any way offensive, improper or otherwise problematic for a Congressman to walk through a crowd of voters?
When it is a raw attempt to intimidate them (remember the gavel?), and try to provoke them.
I say we give the Black Caucus the benefit of the doubt and assume they were just passing through the crowd because they’re sincerely concerned with the concerns of the Tea Party. They may make a living out of playing the race card and by legalized looting, but that’s no reason to assume base intentions.
Intimidate? What, Nancy was going to hit them with a gavel?
So, if a Congressman goes to a town hall knowing that some people disagree with his policies, is he “provoking” them?
It’s interesting that carrying a ceremonial gavel is intimidation, but,
protesters carrying guns is “Excercising their 2nd amendment rights”.
I hadn’t realized how provocative a wooden gavel is.
“It’s interesting that carrying a ceremonial gavel is intimidation, but,
protesters carrying guns is ‘Excercising their 2nd amendment rights’.
Well, yeah. We Second Amendment types are only carrying the means of defending our liberty.
Nancy “the Kraken” Pelose’s gavel is a weapon she weilds to threaten our liberty.
No need to thank me, jack. It’s what I do.
Chris, the irony that you of all people would be arguing with Rand over the meaning of the word “trolling” is priceless.
Mmm…good one. I like my sarcasm dry, but that’s farther than I’d usually go simply because most folks wouldn’t get it.
So, if a Congressman goes to a town hall knowing that some people disagree with his policies, is he “provoking” them?
No, when an icon of the black civil rights movement known for having endured beatings at the hands of racists, amid nonsensical talk about how this is the next step in that movement, is paraded through an angry crowd that the paraders fantasize is racist, that’s an intention to provoke them. Fortunately, their fantasies didn’t materialize. So they just lied about it instead.
So merely showing up at a public forum where people disagree with you is “trolling?” If that’s the definition of trolling, why would any Congressman ever talk to anybody but a campaign donor?
It’s good that their tactics are being exposed. They’ve moved their agenda forward with the most vile tactics without any critical review by the press. It’s about time some disinfectant light is being shined on this.
The saddest thing is the people they are trying to vilify are probably the best defenders of civil rights for all.
Every time I read the words “Black Caucus” I think of National Lampoon’s “Ivory,” a spoof of the magazine EBONY. One of the articles was “Your White Congressmen.” I think P. J. O’Rourke was on the NatLamp staff at the time, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was his handiwork.
So merely showing up at a public forum where people disagree with you is “trolling?”
You really believe they merely showed up at that public forum? I can hear it now…”Oh no, all the good parking places were taken! Our only route back to the office is through that park filled with gun-toting racists that cling to their religion!”
Ah, it’s the old campfire “Bear Hunt” song…
Going to waste taxpayer dollars
I’m not afraid
Got a Black Caucus with me
Right by my side
Oh, Oh
What do I see?
Oh look, it’s some gun-toting, religion clinging whities
Can’t go over them (the 757 is at the airport)
Can’t go under them (it’s a sunny day and the tunnels are dark)
Can’t go around them (too late to setup a motorcade)
Got to go through them
Oh, it’s dangerous in here
I feel something
Is that spit on me?
Was that the n word?
It’s racists!!
I’m not afraid
Chris seems to be taking Jim lessons.
When a stroll through a crowd is followed by unsubstantiated claims of racial epitaphs, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that said stroll is in this case, an act of political theatre. Since the false accusation followed the walk, and fit very well with the narrative that the walkers tried to propagate afterward, one can reasonably conclude it was the purpose of the walk.
Leland wins the thread.
So, if there is any hostility or disagreement whatsoever, merely showing up is trolling? If that’s the case, why would any Congressman bother to listen to anybody other than campaign donors? After all, they’re just “trolling.”
Second time I’ve asked that question. Anybody care to answer it?
So, if there is any hostility or disagreement whatsoever, merely showing up is trolling?
No.
Second time I’ve asked that question. Anybody care to answer it?
It’s been answered several times, in several ways. It’s not our fault if you’re too (deliberately?) obtuse to understand it.
Step 1: Sanitize the act to be defended by removing the salient point (e.g.: “merely showing up”).
Step 2: Defend the sanitized action with breathless over-the-top, if not outright comical, righteous indignation.
amirite?
Someday I would like to hear a good definition of the word “trolling”. Rand, I would also like to understand the comment policy on this website. Do you desire respectful debate? If so, do you want to encourage your commenters to debate each other? In particular, do you want the sort of people who usually vote for candidates from the Democratic party to visit your website and engage in respectful debate with you and with their fellow commenters?
I feel foolish commenting where I’m not welcome.
I’m happy with the Wikipedia definition: “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
“…primary intent of provoking others into a desired emotional response.” It certainly works for what happened at the Capitol.
In my own personal definition, an important characteristic of the online troll that I see is the diversion of the narrative.
To paraphrase an old joke, I don’t think Gerrib comes here for the hunting.
I feel foolish commenting where I’m not welcome.
And that’s sort of the point Rand is making. These Congressional Black Caucus members (note they are Democrats, not just Congressmen of a particular color) were paraded into a crowd of people that they, the Congressmen, claimed were all white. The crowd was also described by all parties as being against the legislation the Congressmen were headed off to vote on. One would think a crowd described as hostile, but at the very least disagrees with the action you about to take, would be uncomfortable to go through.
So the question, why go through them? You’re just going to work. Why not go the way you go almost everyday? Why go out of your way to be in an uncomfortable situation and wade through a crowd of people, who are not welcoming you?
pdb – I actually come here for space news, then I see Rand calling Congressmen trolls for holding at best a mini-parade before the most significant vote many of them will ever take.
Bottom line – if they don’t face the crowd, they’re “sneaking in the back door.” If they do, they’re provoking the crowd, even though we’re assured nothing happened.
Heads I win tails you lose.
I think this blog is much more interesting if there is thoughtful dissent from the original post. When people thoughtfully explain why they disagree with Jim or Chris (or me, etc), I think this blog is terrific. I think interestingness goes down when people say things like “you troll!”, and it goes up when people actually have a thoughtful disagreement. But Rand, it is your blog. I wish I knew what you wanted, and really, I wish everyone here knew what you wanted. I wish everyone knew whether people like Jim and Chris and me were welcome, or if we are just “trolls”.
Leland – why would a black man feel uncomfortable in a crowd of white people? After all, the Tea Partiers aren’t racist.
After all, the Tea Partiers aren’t racist.
They are, according to your friends in the media and in Congress. They tell us so, every day. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt either.
How many other groups have been called-out for “sneaking in the back door” at this event? I counted zero, but perhaps I missed a few. Is there any evidence for this theoretical charge which might have existed in some quantum reality of yours?
Well, if they are in fact not racist, then walking through them shouldn’t be “trolling.”
Titus – this blog has screamed for months about “back room deals” with regards to health care. This blog has screamed for months about how Congress is “ignoring the will of the people.”
Why is it such a logical leap to assume that, had the Congressmen not faced the crowd, the Congressmen would be accused of deliberately avoiding the crowd?
Well, if they are in fact not racist, then walking through them shouldn’t be “trolling.”
It would be if they believed they were racists. So are you saying they’re lying about that, too? That they call them racists even though they know it’s not true?
These congressmen made false accusations afterward, accusations that seem to fit their political purposes quite well. Concluding that their stroll was done to provide a backdrop for those accusations is not out of line.
“Leland – why would a black man feel uncomfortable in a crowd of white people?”
Actually, its more like why would State-humpers who promotes Obamunism feel uncomfortable among Tea Partiers. For the same reason Tories might have felt uncomfortable attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776.
Chris, they did ignore the crowd. They just imperiously walked through it. With Queen Nancy’s gavel.
P.S. Why isn’t simply keeping a respectful distance an option? I mean, not getting in people’s faces is normative human behavior. You argue that they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t, but there’s no damnation in taking the least-worst option. Sure, there will always be partisan loonies, but so what? That’s not a factor of the moral calculus.
The gavel does suggest political theatre doesn’t it.
Because no one makes big deals about non-events.
LOL! They meant this with respect to representation of their interests. They weren’t asking the CBC to personally come to their tea party. Don’t take things so literally.
I frequently see other seniors out taking evening strolls with golf clubs, sticks or the like…
The burden of proof is always on the claimant. They claim racial slurs were directed at them. Video evidence suggests otherwise. It’s up to them to prove the slurs happened, not the Tea Partiers to prove they didn’t. Since they’ve offered no proof, their claim is without merit.
@Chris G
First, nice job of deflecting and then changing the direction of the comments. The main point of the article was that members of the CBC claimed that they “claimed the crowd screamed the “N-word fifteen times,” at them”. Mr Brietbart produced video (and audio), showing them walking through the crowd. That word was never heard in the video.
They (CBC) have now decided to not address this issue anymore.
So I ask you, what do you have to say about the CBC’s false accusations? Why, if it were so prevalent that they thought they might soon be under physical attack, can they not produce one shred of evidence to back up their statements?
Per Titus and Bilwick1, this crowd was clearly hostile. So hostile, in fact, that the mere act of parading through it was threatening, intimidating and insulting.
But yet, the crowd was so well-behaved that nobody in it would dare say anything improper. So well-behaved that any claim of improper behavior demands extraordinary proof.
A peculiar crowd. A very peculiar crowd indeed.
Chris, watch the available videos. Figure out your own description of what they were actually doing.
Chris G.
Actually, we are just asking for proof beyond the word of people who have a vested interest in the outcome. Those congressmen made accusations they can not (despite the fact that there were lots of cameras around) prove. If you claim a UFO landed on the 50 yard line at the Super Bowl, but can’t provide proof, excuse me for thinking it didn’t happen.
But yet, the crowd was so well-behaved that nobody in it would dare say anything improper.
Straw man alert…