So again: is the Tea Party, at least in part, a racist movement?

LOL...just as guilty. I get it! Funny stuff.

But oddly enough here at CF, conservative thought = bulls#!t. Liberal thought = tasty meal….more like tasty bullsh#!t if you ask me, but it’s your palate and what you’re use to. Dude, call it what you want but it's still all bulls#!t. And that's why you don't see me battling politics, especially in this bastion of liberalism.

And BTI, I do listen to myself. I’m very liberal with my immediate surroundings. What I can control, I’m Mr. Liberal. The difference between you and me is I choose to be liberal where as you wish to choose for other people to be liberal. Sorry, that’s just not me.

 

I didn't say a THING about conservative thought. I was pointing out that you are chastising others for vilifying the Tea Party when you yourself vilify "the liberals" with your statements. THAT is the bullsh#!t you're serving up. Until we can all get past that bullsh#!t, we're never going to get anywhere.

 

If you refuse to accept facts because the facts are against your side, then there is a problem. And I actually don't have a problem still trusting scientists.

There have been racists on the left before, but the difference is that rather than deny it when they exhibit racism they get called on it by other members of the left.

It isn't anyone screaming that's causing tea party members to answer questions and surveys in ways that expose their racism.

Obama hasn't put forward a liberal agenda in most cases and I won't scream racism if the tea party stops being racist. It's as simple as that. But when racism rears its ugly head I'll scream racism as loud as I can. The real question is why aren't you screaming at the racism as well.

No, I've disagreed with the tea party about many things including their lack of knowledge about the constitution and brought plenty of policy issues up in discussions about the tea party.

This thread however was about tea party racism, so I've limited my comments to that.

 

ter·ror·ism
-noun
1. the use of violence and threats to obtain political demands

The entire American Revolution was an act of terrorism.

The Tea Party uses colonial revolutionary images and language, because they think it makes them super-patriots.

They're really just trying to overthrow their "oppressive" American government.

 

link?

 

Terrorism refers to threats or acts of violence against non-combatants. Claiming the American Revolution was an act of terrorism is wrong and sounds a lot like the dialog spewing from middle eastern terrorists today.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I want to be clear.

The car bomb attack in Beirut that killed all those Marines was not a terrorist attack since it targeted combatants?

The hijacked airplane that attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 was not a terrorist attack?

 

No it doesn't, it refers to those acts against the state or public. I don't think you'll disagree that the state or the public for that matter can not be or have never been combatants.

 

Since when is terrorism only directed at non-combatants?

I'm not saying the American revolutionaries were wrong to be terrorists, I'm just saying let's call it what it is.

The Tea Party has come out to demand a right to arm themselves, to make threats against politicians, and to call for the shrinking of the big, bad government.

Threatened government haters with guns?

The writing is on the wall.

I brought up the American Revolution to remind people that terrorists don't have to be brown, and that we seem to be allowing a group of them to organize in our backyard.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

you are using some ridiculous definition to try and group American Revolutionaries (and Tea Party supporters) in with people who strap bombs to children.

wanting to arm yourself is not a threat.

What you are looking for is more like this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

You think the Tea Party is a lot like American Revolutionaries? I agree. Did you mean that as an insult to them?

 

Please don't use wikipedia if you're arguing against someone, you can't win with that. According to Merriam Webster, the definition of terrorism is: "the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion"

Anyone should willingly (and hopefully) use a more reputable source.

 

And you're laboring under the ridiculous assumption that Middle Eastern killers are the end-all, be-all of terrorists, despite your highly reputable wikipedia link that stated there was no clear definition of terrorism.

No, wanting to arm yourself is not a direct threat, but they sure seem to want those guns for something.

What I was looking for was more like this:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8d_x5KXgyP_KtH6W_PPYhBn48babSmCjJyx_RgvnQJlQLmCxd

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/s9/uploads/We-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/JIMMYLIMO1/TEAPARTY1GUNS.jpg

The American people have the right to assemble, and they have the right to bear arms.

They do not have the right to assemble while bearing arms (unless it was as part of a militia, which these TPers seem to think they are).

I don't think they're like the American revolutionaries at all, I only said that they copied American revolutionary symbols to mask their hatred and threats of violence as patriotism.

The only way they're like the revolutionaries is that they intend to cause harm to the government ruling them, which is America in this case.

So yes, I do intend that as an insult.

 

This would seem to suggest you are only not a racist if you believe (1) blacks could not be as well off as whites if they tried harder and (2) that blacks should not work their way up without special favors. Those seem like worse indicators of racism than the opposite ideas that tea partiers agree with. What horrible poll questions.

The first would mean that you think black people are inherently inferior (or that there is such pervasive racism) that even working harder would never allow black people to succeed on the level of white people. The second means that you either think black people should not work their way up, or they should receive special favors. I certainly disagree with the negations of the poll questions.

If polls like these are where you guys are getting evidence of Tea Party racism, you might want to look for new sources.

 

StupidMoniker-

what do you think about those photos from the Glenn Beck rally?

they aren't isolated incidents either. there's hundreds more where they came from, to top leaders of organized local Tea Party groups

 

I think you are misreading the study. While others who weren't tea party members answered in a way that would indicate racism, tea party members answered in a way that would indicate racism more often than non tea party members.

It goes on to talk about other questions on the survey and shows that tea party members had a greater chance when answering in ways that were anti-immigrant, or anti black.

You are skipping over one answer and then adding extra meaning into the question. If you answered the way 73% of the tea party members it means that you have the belief that blacks don't work as hard towards success as whites.

And the second question means that you believe blacks only achieve success by getting special favors and their achievements aren't earned.

To get to the place where you say the problem with the question lies, you'd have to get past those assumptions mentioned above.

The poll seems perfectly valid in finding people's attitudes towards a race.

 

Personal safety.

None of those are threats. Some of them are just people carrying their guns (Who cares?). The phrase 'let's take those SOBs out'; now that is a threat.

Oh I see. You make up random conditions to the Bill of Rights. Like Americans have the right to bear arms, just not on Tuesdays because clearly the Bill of Rights says nothing about Tuesdays.

 

On a roll here, FB. -

 

The point is that the answer to the two questions I was talking about don't indicate racism. I looked at the link and couldn't find the text of the questions, only the "analysis" of the results, so I don't know how the other questions were phrased, but the two quoted questions are flawed.

I think it is you that is adding extra meaning to the question. My understanding it that the question is something along the lines of:
Blacks would succeed on the levels of whites if they only worked harder: do you agree or disagree (or variations on those like strongly agree or somewhat disagree). The question doesn't even imply that blacks don't work as hard as whites, let alone state it outright. The text of the question is whether or not blacks will achieve success through working harder? The only premises are that blacks are less successful than whites now, and that there is a possibility that they can work harder than they work now. If you believe that black people can be as successful as white people (I do) and you believe that working harder would not be a detriment to achieving that level of success (I do) then you have to agree with the statement. If you disagree it means that you think if a black person works harder, the will not achieve success on the level of a white person. To me, that seems the more racist answer.

Again, it seems you are putting your spin on the question. Looking at the quoted question, it does not say anything about the ability to work one's way up without special favors. It says, should blacks work their way up without special favors. To agree means that you think (1) blacks should work their way up, and (2) that they should not receive special favors. Neither of those is a racist sentiment, they are sentiments stating the American dream and the idea of a meritocracy respectively. To disagree means you either think (1) blacks should not work their way up, or (2) blacks should receive special favors. Those again seem like the more racist options. That is why the questions are flawed.

Even the ability to have two reasonably intelligent people read them as you and I have should show you that the questions are flawed. My breakdown of the questions does not add a single assumption, it relies solely on the language of the questions themselves.

 

I don't know what you think the tree of Liberty is watered with, but it's not the right to bear arms. It's blood.

A man holding that poster with a gun strapped to his leg is making a very clear threat.

"We came unarmed (this time)." What happens next time, when you are armed?

Fat, discontented rednecks marching around with assault rifles?

You're either very dense, or a hideous troll.

And apparently, you don't get it.

A group of people protesting the government while holding signs is the right to peaceably assemble.

A group of people protesting the government while holding guns and making threats is one step away from treason.

 

I found the clock, but I didn't see any extremist party under it.