@sqrl
See, her speech brings up questions.

She said she is in favor of people dissenting (2003)
She said these tax parties are about racism (2009)

In the full interview she said that some people just couldn't understand what they were doing wrong.

Now, if I were to use you as an example, if I may...
what don't you understand about what she said in the video you posted?
Are you saying that the racism IS dissent and that she should support it because she supports dissent?
Or are you saying that she shouldn't have called them racist because she should be supporting dissenters?

If the latter scenario is true, do you also believe that she should support kkk members (for instance)? Or do you think she should be a human being and support what she believes in?

See you're taking something that is true (ie that a small group of misguided folks do dissent just based on skin color) and being completely ridiculous by trying to say that it is a large part of the dissent of the entire group.  This is absolutely false, the folks who dissent on that basis in any way are an extreme minority and Garofalo and others are simply using them as a reason to marganalize the whole group.  Hell Garofalo is more racists than the average tea party-goer...most people simply don't look at the race issue but folks like Garofalo are obsessed with it and view most of the world through a race-based prism...they mean well but they end up engaging in racism themselves (ie she can't imagine how a bunch of white folks can disagree with a black man and it not be based on racism, she certainly doesn't provide any support for her claim, but most people don't see it as white man/woman disagrees with black man...they just see one man/woman disagrees with another man).

The fact that you believe the worst about over 400k people based on what nutjubs like Garofalo and the crazies MSNBC and CNN interviewed is no more valid and no less offensive than if these networks would have put up Black Supremisists at the Million Man march showing them talk about "Black Power" and then laughing at them while declaring that the protest was mostly racist and engaging in crued sexual jokes to marganlize them.

Her assumption that they are doing it based on skin color is patently false. 

Neither of your options are fully valid because the overwhelming majority of people at these events were there for idealogical and not racial motivations.  To be completely clear though:

I didn't tell her to say that dissent was patriotic and then bash dissent 5 years later...those are her words.  She is explicit in saying that anyone should be able to go out and dissent.

I don't expect her to support them though, I just expect her and others not to engage in this kind of deception where they are trying to convince people that the entire movement is based on racism.  It's not, the very notion is ridiculous.

So I'm saying she shouldn't call them racists because they aren't racist!

Wow, that was just insulting and just plain wrong. That woman is so out of touch with America today, it's kinda sad really.

Yes the government IS forcing banks to make bad loans as well as making it profitable. I can't see how anybody could think that giving out bad loans would be good for the economy. Thats insane, I mean just look at this mess, was it really good for the economy? I think my point is proven.

As someone who agrees with you on the larger point I disagree on the bolded.  I think it's really easy to fall into the trap of being convinced yourself and assuming it is enough for anyone...but to truly "prove" a point you should be able to easily convince others with irrefutable proof...something neither side has due to the complexity of the issues.  Thus we are more or less resigned to continuned bickering over the same crap year after year /sigh

I don't fault you the frustration though, but I imagine it is mutual.

So the econoies's state is not substantial evedence?

sqrl
my whole observation was based on that video you posted. Those two assertions I made were solely based on it and why you posted it. It obviously had some meaning, so I was asking was that meaning was.

Our disagreement is solely based on the prevalence of the racism. I think it is probably about 20% (honestly the garofalo video instantly made me say, "please stop talking you're making us look bad") but you think it is like

No, most don't even pay taxes, so these "tax cuts" are just another form of welfare. Also the tea was a symbol, I saw no costumes but if there were any then they were only to serve as an even further symbol. This was not as much of a protest on taxes as it was a protest on spending, get it right.

Sure.  But evidence of what specifically?  You have to link it to something with equally substantial evidence to each aspect of a set of policies for it to actually prove or disprove the validity of a given set of policies. 

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, I see things very similar to yourself but I don't see that there is the kind of overwhelming evidence of exactly what caused what and how much each thing effects the other.

it is quite simple, HUD, Section 8, and then there is Freddy and Fanny. All these are the government overreaching into the private sector, and it worked out so well...or did it?