You didn't answer the question. What racism have you found from the Tea Party?
Sorry for the delay, but I've been away for the weekend. My point in all this was not to paint the Tea Party as racists, but to merely say that these accusations that everyone is making go both ways. Our political system, coupled with the news media panders to the extremes. It gets votes, and it increases ratings. In my opinion, the Republican Party would be more favorable to the general populace if they would distance themselves from the extreme. The ideas of smaller government and fiscal conservatism get cloudy when they start to tie themselves in with ideals from "the religious right" for example.
You ask for examples of racisim from the Tea Party? If I spend enough time online I am sure that I could find many, but you would call them ingenuine and I would have wasted my time. Although, since you insist, here is an article originally from Newsweek that cites a University of Washington study stating that "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters".
Again, I didn't come here to call the Tea Party a bunch of racists, my point was to simply state that these accusations of hate and anger against political opponents goes both ways. In my opinion it is a waste of time and detrimental to our political system. People are turning politics in this country into an episode of Jersey Shore. Who knows, maybe MTV will start to offer political coverage to increase their ratings.
IP: Logged
10:51 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Although skeptics deride The Tea Party as AstroTurf*, the Tea Parties are an undoubtedly popular mass movement without a figurehead. They have strong support among typical middle- and working-class white Americans. Their motives are varied, including everything from fiscal conservatism (fed by massive bank bailouts in fall 2008, a faltering economy, and rising unemployment) to racist backlash to President Obama to nativism. Although enamored of some Republicans such as Sarah Palin and, especially, Ronald Reagan—many tea partiers pride themselves on being outsiders who aren’t part of the Washington political machine.
Some tea-party leaders have said forming a third party would be a bad idea, but others worry about the movement being co-opted and corrupted by the mainstream GOP—not unlike most of its predecessor movements. The greatest test for the movement, however, will be whether the anger and frustration it has harnessed is able to survive an improving economy.
*Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.
Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, or highly organized professional groups with money from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often, the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research. Beneficiaries are not "grass root" campaigners but distant organizations that orchestrate such campaigns.
Originally posted by KidO: Sorry for the delay, but I've been away for the weekend. My point in all this was not to paint the Tea Party as racists, but to merely say that these accusations that everyone is making go both ways. Our political system, coupled with the news media panders to the extremes. It gets votes, and it increases ratings.
My dislike for President Obama didn't require the news media. I've read excerpts from his book. When he himself says things like "I sought out the Marxist professors" and talks about the strong influence of his mentor "Frank" - who is almost certainly Frank Marshall Davis, a Marxist with a thick FBI file - and he has been quoted as saying things like "when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody", then I can draw my own conclusions. And his skin could be green or polka dotted, it doesn't matter. I don't buy his political ideology. I strongly believe it is bad for this country and what made this country successful.
quote
In my opinion, the Republican Party would be more favorable to the general populace if they would distance themselves from the extreme. The ideas of smaller government and fiscal conservatism get cloudy when they start to tie themselves in with ideals from "the religious right" for example.
Well, I'd have to know what it is you are concerned about from "the religious right". I can tell you what I'm concerned about from the left, who are currently in power. It would be a long list of things they were doing or trying to do before the last election, when we were able to stop them. The Democratic party currently is having their agenda being driven by the FAR left. I can't sit still for that.
quote
You ask for examples of racisim from the Tea Party? If I spend enough time online I am sure that I could find many, but you would call them ingenuine and I would have wasted my time.
What you would find, including the Newsweek article, is that there is a widespread effort to PAINT the Tea Party as racist. They couldn't do it directly, with evidence from Tea Party rallies, speaker or groups. So now, they are trying it from the outside, trying to *imply* they *might* be racist because they are mostly white, because they are against *illegal* immigration (therefore they are against Hispanics or whatever), because the the president skin color is black therefore they MUST be racist, and on it goes. There is an all out effort to paint us as racist, so they can dismiss us, and so the establishment of BOTH PARTIES and the general Washington business-as-usual folks can get back to gaining power and lining their pockets.
Originally posted by KidO: You ask for examples of racism from the Tea Party? If I spend enough time online I am sure that I could find many, but you would call them ingenuine and I would have wasted my time. Although, since you insist, here is an article originally from Newsweek that cites a University of Washington study stating that "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters".
Fierobear and I engaged in a rather lively discourse on that very subject a few months ago and, yes, he would likely call then "disingenuious" and, yes, you would be wasting your time.
but they want you to believe they are not racist [just anti-welfare, anti-affirmative action, anti-voting rights, anti-civil-rights, = racist !!!!!!!!!!!! ]
but they want you to believe they are not the GOP but we know they mostly are GOP members or supporters
but they want you to believe they are not puppets on astro-turf but follow the money back to the string pullers k bros + a long list of NEO-con PAC's
they are a GOP BIG LIE start to finish and top to bottom controlled, financed, and owned by the CORPrats
IP: Logged
02:32 PM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
My dislike for President Obama didn't require the news media. I've read excerpts from his book. When he himself says things like "I sought out the Marxist professors" and talks about the strong influence of his mentor "Frank" - who is almost certainly Frank Marshall Davis, a Marxist with a thick FBI file - and he has been quoted as saying things like "when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody", then I can draw my own conclusions. And his skin could be green or polka dotted, it doesn't matter. I don't buy his political ideology. I strongly believe it is bad for this country and what made this country successful.
Reading your response had me going what the f***? Where did this come from? It's obvious you do not like Obama, but it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. You have many times accused others of delfecting in an argument, but you do it yourself regularly. But whatever, you don't like Obama, or his political ideology. However, I need to say that the green with polka dots would look kinda funny when he was painted up in a WWII Nazi uniform with a liitle Hitler moustache.
Again, my posts were not meant to call you or the Tea Party racist, but simply point out that there is plenty of "news" out there already doing that.
Just out of curiosity though, where did you read the excerpts from Obama's book? More than likely from some right-wing political hate chain email sent out by some anti-Obama organization, or another Tea Party member to instill anger and hate in the ranks. You can misrepresent anyone by taking a quote out of the context in which it was written. If you want to have an opinion about a book, I suggest that you read it. Until then your opinion does not count for much.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Well, I'd have to know what it is you are concerned about from "the religious right". I can tell you what I'm concerned about from the left, who are currently in power. It would be a long list of things they were doing or trying to do before the last election, when we were able to stop them. The Democratic party currently is having their agenda being driven by the FAR left. I can't sit still for that.
I don't agree with religion driving the politics. You want examples, here are just a few:
Abortion - A womens right to choose Gay Marriage Morality Laws
Policing these things will not lead to smaller government, and they put more government control in our lives. From what I hear out of you Tea Party guys, less government is supposed to be a top priority. You support the GOP, and the GOP panders to religion, or the Christian Right to be more specific.
What you would find, including the Newsweek article, is that there is a widespread effort to PAINT the Tea Party as racist. They couldn't do it directly, with evidence from Tea Party rallies, speaker or groups. So now, they are trying it from the outside, trying to *imply* they *might* be racist because they are mostly white, because they are against *illegal* immigration (therefore they are against Hispanics or whatever), because the the president skin color is black therefore they MUST be racist, and on it goes. There is an all out effort to paint us as racist, so they can dismiss us, and so the establishment of BOTH PARTIES and the general Washington business-as-usual folks can get back to gaining power and lining their pockets.
I said it earlier and will say it again. You have a very narrow view of the world. You refuse to look outside that view and see anything else. I can appreciate that you are passionate about your opinion, but your passion is limited by your political tunnel vision. You will disregard anything I or anyone else says that goes against what you want to believe. Your passion will only take you so far. If your goal is to convince others to take your side, you need to have depth and substance to truly succeed with your argument.
IP: Logged
06:27 PM
PFF
System Bot
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by KidO: Reading your response had me going what the f***? Where did this come from? It's obvious you do not like Obama, but it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
YES, it DID have something to do with the conversation. The narrative they want to put on the Tea Party is that we object to Obama and his policies BECAUSE he's black, not so much because of the polices. My point is WHY I object to Obama, and gave EXAMPLES of why. I suppose if I just said "I object to his policies", then you'd accuse me of not backing up what I say.
quote
Again, my posts were not meant to call you or the Tea Party racist, but simply point out that there is plenty of "news" out there already doing that.
I, too would put "news" in quotes, because the supposed accounts of the Tea Party being racist isn't based on news, but on propaganda. The political establishment (including establishment GOP) want the Tea Party to go away so they can keep their political machine going. That machine is oiled by the news media, who like things they way they are, as well.
quote
Just out of curiosity though, where did you read the excerpts from Obama's book?
Here is an article from Snopes on a related subject (Obama being a racist, which I *haven't* said) that covers the quote about Marxist professors. Snopes says "mostly true". It does not contradict my point about Marxist professors.
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.
In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's. "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then. As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[20] Obama also remembered Frank later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer and took some time one day to visit the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book, "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." [21] In the opinion of Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to the CPUSA publication Political Affairs, Davis was "a decisive influence in helping Obama to find his present identity" as an African-American.[22] Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were made by Jerome Corsi in his anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.[23] A rebuttal released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, confirmed that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis, but disputes those claims about the nature of their relationship.[24]
Frank Marshall Davis and communism, from Wikipedia
Robert M. Kempa, a Communist party informant who agreed to cooperate with government investigators, reported,
“ Late in the fall of 1950, I started contacting Frank Marshall Davis in connection with Communist Party matters, and relaying to him information received from my superior contact in the Communist Party, either James Freeman or [redacted]. During a portion of 1950, 1951 and part of 1952, I continued contacting Frank Marshall Davis and also transmitted dues for the Communist Party received from him to my contact above. During the period of my contacts with Frank Marshall Davis, he advised me that his wife, Helen was a member of Group #10. ...During a portion of 1951 [redacted] took over contacts with the Davis group but I resumed contacting Davis in 1952 and continued meeting him on Communist Party matters until I left the Party in June of that year."[15] ” Koji Ariyoshi and six others of the movement were arrested by the FBI in synchronized raids. They were charged with plotting to overthrow the Territorial Government.
The Revolution was a success in ousting white rule and the power of the plantations had been broken.
===============
More about the Obama - Frank Marshall Davis connection
I said it earlier and will say it again. You have a very narrow view of the world. You refuse to look outside that view and see anything else. I can appreciate that you are passionate about your opinion, but your passion is limited by your political tunnel vision. You will disregard anything I or anyone else says that goes against what you want to believe. Your passion will only take you so far. If your goal is to convince others to take your side, you need to have depth and substance to truly succeed with your argument.
Actually, my world view is formed not by a narrow view but a wide view of experience. I've mentioned before that I've been poor, middle class and rich. I've had my own businesses, worked for small, medium and large companies and was in a union for 6 years. My view is VERY wide. That's how I know what works and what doesn't. I know these things, and the differences between them FIRST HAND through experience.
Capitalism, for all it's faults, WORKS. Socialism and Communism does NOT work. Big government with a dependency class makes is NOT good for people. People do their best when motivated to succeed for their own gain. When you remove that incentive, and make people dependent on the government, they stagnate. They stop trying so hard, they don't bother to innovate, and they sure as hell don't work harder than the guy next to them if it means they all get the same reward in the end. You can debate that point all you want, the proof is in human history and human nature.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 09-05-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
Sep 6th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
The Tea Party seems to be *growing* in strength, despite Neptune's wet dreams of the opposite. Are the GOP candidates pandering to them? Maybe. But you don't pander to a group that has no power or influence.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Pledging fidelity to the Constitution and vowing to carry the tea party's priorities to the White House, the Republicans chasing the GOP's presidential nomination pitched themselves Monday to their party's libertarian activists as the strongest candidates to roll back four years of President Barack Obama's tenure. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Obama administration flouted the Constitution to push a political agenda. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota stridently called Obama's policies "unconstitutional" at the same tea party-backed forum on Labor Day. And Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the third member of his party's top tier, told a separate town hall-style audience earlier in the day that he has a better record on jobs than the president. With Labor Day marking the unofficial start to the 2012 campaign, the contenders were painting themselves to the tea party during an afternoon forum with Sen. Jim DeMint in his home state — site of the first nominating contest in the South. The event was designed to probe the candidates on their views of spending, taxes and the Constitution — bedrock principles for the tea party activists whose rising clout is likely to shape the nominating process. "I don't think I've ever seen an administration who has gone further afield from the Constitution ... than the Obama administration, not just with regulation, but with energy policy, with financial regulatory policy and, with the worst example, Obamacare," Romney said, outlining conservatives' broad indictment of Obama's tenure. It also was a prime opportunity for the candidates to level pointed — though, in many cases, familiar — criticism of Obama. "The track record we have creating jobs, I'd put up against anyone running for president of the United States, particularly the current resident of the White House," said Perry, whose late entry into the race threatens Romney's one-time aura of inevitability with support from tea partyers. And Bachmann sought to sustain her status as a movement darling and suitable alternative to Romney. Although she never engaged him directly, her remarks seemed centered on Romney. Bachmann warned that Obama and Democrats' health care legislation was taking away freedoms and giving Washington abject power. "They will become a dictator over our lives," she said of federal requirements included in the overhaul that requires Americans to have health insurance. Massachusetts requires a similar mandate. "This is the foundation for socialized medicine. Make no mistake about it. It will change the face of this nation forever," she warned. After keeping the tea party at arm's length most of this campaign, Romney appeared at two tea party-related events this holiday weekend, first in New Hampshire on Sunday and then Monday here. He slightly tweaked his pitch and acknowledged critics of Massachusetts' health plan. "Our bill dealt with 8 percent of our population, the people who weren't insured," Romney said. "He dealt with 100 percent of American people. He said, 'I'm going to change health care for all of you.' It's simply unconstitutional. It's bad law. It's bad medicine. ... It has got to be stopped and I know it better than most." Aware of the tea party's potential to pick the nominee, all candidates have tailored their pitches to appeal to the libertarian and grassroots activists. Bachmann, a former federal tax lawyer, called the Constitution "that sacred document" and challenged Obama's understanding of his powers under it. She cited Obama's advisers, whom she called "czars," the Justice Department's decision not to appeal a court's overturning of a federal marriage law, and his immigration policies. "These are areas where we see unconstitutionality," she said of Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich played up the founding fathers' writings on liberties during his appearance: "These rights are inalienable. That means no politician, no bureaucrat, no judge can take that away from you." Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a favorite of the GOP's libertarian wing, decried government largesse: "People were supposed to carry guns, not bureaucrats." He also warned against a Washington that gives the Federal Reserve too much power, a favorite rallying cry for his steadfast supporters. And pizza magnate Herman Cain of Georgia, who does well during these forums with amusing quips but hasn't built a serious campaign organization, again was critical of Washington. "The idea in Washington, D.C. ... is if you reduce the growth, that's a cut," he said. "That's not a cut. That's deceiving the American people." Ahead of the forum, Perry spoke at a town hall-style meeting before heading home to Texas in a last-minute schedule change to monitor raging wildfires. He phoned DeMint to apologize for his schedule change; DeMint said Perry needed to be home. Romney, who had initially planned to bypass the South Carolina forum, changed his schedule last week to join DeMint, whose backing he enjoyed during his first presidential bid. While DeMint is tremendously popular here in his home state and with his party's tea party faction, he isn't rushing to publicly pick a favorite this time and has suggested he might not back a candidate in the primary. That's not to say wooing the tea party is without peril. After Washington's debt showdown this summer, an Associated Press-GfK poll found that 46 percent of adults had an unfavorable view of the tea party, compared with 36 percent just after last November's election.
IP: Logged
12:37 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
I dont think he meant reds as in red states. I think when he was referring to "Reds" , it was Communists. Earlier in the same post, he asks:
quote
bear are the reds still under the beds ?
Additionally, to speak to your link...many southerner democrats who were pro segregationist (DIXIECRATS) like Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party in the 60s. You do know that, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
George Wallace was pro-segregationist Democrat who jumped ship and became and ran for president as an independent conservative. That worried Nixon that he might split the conservative/ Republican vote and cause a loss for the Republicans.. not the Democratic/Liberal candidate (Humphrey) And ole George was a total racist and segregationist. He threw around the "N Word' with more gusto than most human beings ever did. Once a Democrat, but that changed when the party lost the "dead weight" in my opinion. Still, those are votes, and the Republicans weren't gonna tell them 'no we dont want you either'... but I think they should have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
Let's go back to the first Republican president.. Lincoln was a segregationist who wished to send freed slaves to a colony or country that was not the US, like Liberia. For this attitude, Wendell Phillips (a famous boston abolitionist) called Lincoln a "First Rate, Second Rate man".. meaning that Lincoln may have wanted to free the slaves, but he sure did not want them on equal footing with himself. Does that make his position accurate to all republicans today?
So it stands to reason that the opinion of some Democrats, primarily in the South in the early and mid 60s, on segregation and racism are not the same opinion of the Democratic party today. (Particularly since their presidential candidate is BLACK.) Your link speaks to the political climate in this country 50 years ago, the parties in the 60s were not exactly the platform of either party today. A lot has changed.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 09-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:09 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
I just love how every time light is shed on the true history of the democrat party people like to say "a lot has changed since then".
Has it? What I see going on today are members of the democrat party trying to stur up violence against the tea party, republicans, or anyone else who doesn't share their same thoughts or opinions. Sounds like the same old game to me: one group hating another group just because they are different.
I just love how every time light is shed on the true history of the democrat party people like to say "a lot has changed since then".
Has it? What I see going on today are members of the democrat party trying to stur up violence against the tea party, republicans, or anyone else who doesn't share their same thoughts or opinions. Sounds like the same old game to me: one group hating another group just because they are different.
Can you? Your assertion is all Democrats are racists based on a link about 50 year old news and very limited modern evidence (one example case, which, by the way, I do agree is overly racial in its tone and sounds ignorant) and one article that has nothing to do with racism at all ( The Hoffa article) Not sure why you included it as part of your democrats-are-racists premise.
By the way, racism is prevalent in many places. Tea Party is not immune. Like grady Warren from FL. Watch this:
"All the nigra race pimps out there" ??????? Yeah, thats totally acceptable languge and not racist at all. (SARCASM!!!!!)
I guess my point is, we cannot yet free ourselves of it, but exceptions and not the rule are what we see nowadays... unlike the 50 year old news you posted earlier, when racism was an INSTITUTION. Like I said, things change, just not as fast as most sane people would like.
I will not point at any political party today and say its whole modern platform is founded on racism, nobody should without real evidence of it being so .
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 09-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:36 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
Can you? Your assertion is all Democrats are racists based on a link about 50 year old news and very limited modern evidence (one example case, which, by the way, I do agree is overly racial in its tone and sounds ignorant) and one article that has nothing to do with racism at all ( The Hoffa article) Not sure why you included it as part of your democrats-are-racists premise.
I'm sorry, did I say ALL democrats are racist? No. You are making the assertion that I meant that when, in fact, I didn't say it nor did I mean it. I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 09-06-2011).]
I'm sorry, did I say ALL democrats are racist? No. You are making the assertion that I meant that when, in fact, I didn't say it nor did I mean it. I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
So the damning picture you painted of 50 year old news, the new story on Andre Carson and the question "Should I go on", not to mention this quote:
quote
I just love how every time light is shed on the true history of the democrat party people like to say "a lot has changed since then".Has it?
..was not an assertion of prevalence of racism in the Democratic party? Then what was it?
If you dont think ALL democrats are racist, thats awesome. I would hope the incidents of this nonsense are very low in all parties. I apologize for "putting words in your mouth".. but from the links you gave and quotes of you I just provided, it sounds like you at least have a serious axe to grind with them (Democrats) about race. Am I wrong?
Like I said, we are talking about isolated instances of racism today, not an institution of it. This is not the 1960s, and links that provide evidence of racism from that time are hardly indicative of the climate in any party. I am ashamed and befuddled by Carson's comments... they aren't helping the cause, nor are Hoffa's. But that does not mean the same kind of thing is not happening in the Tea Party as well. (See video I posted above..) Its shameful on all accounts.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 09-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:54 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
The Hoffa article is about political racism which is the term I'm assigning it. I suppose it could be more accurately described as discrimination. But the point I'm making is still valid. One group is advocating violence against another group that is different. And on top of that, the president said he is "proud" of Hoffa after those comments were made. So what am I supposed to think about that?
IP: Logged
02:00 AM
PFF
System Bot
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
If you dont think ALL democrats are racist, thats awesome. I apologize for "putting words in your mouth".. but from the links you gave and quotes of you I just provided, it sounds like you at least have a serious axe to grind with them (Democrats) about race. Am I wrong?
I have a serious axe to grind with ANYONE who is a racist. But what really vexes me is how it always seems to be democrat racists who get a "pass" on being racist or making racist remarks.
I have a serious axe to grind with ANYONE who is a racist. But what really vexes me is how it always seems to be democrat racists who get a "pass" on being racist or making racist remarks.
Not from me they don't .. I already told you I dont approve on Carson's commentary AT ALL. Its all the same to me- people behaving badly. We are not as different as our argument probably makes us sound. If their is a legitimate prevailing racist wind in any political party in this country, I fail to see it.. only isolated bad behavior. And it makes me wonder if the old adage "No such thing as bad press" could actually be wrong in this case, as that is very bad press in today's political climate, no matter who you are.
IP: Logged
02:15 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
So it stands to reason that the opinion of some Democrats, primarily in the South in the early and mid 60s, on segregation and racism are not the same opinion of the Democratic party today. (Particularly since their presidential candidate is BLACK.) Your link speaks to the political climate in this country 50 years ago, the parties in the 60s were not exactly the platform of either party today. A lot has changed.
Then it stands to reason that any alleged racist elements in the Republican party of *then* can't be associated with the Republican party of today. And rayb's contentions are no longer valid.
IP: Logged
02:18 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by tbone42: But that does not mean the same kind of thing is not happening in the Tea Party as well. (See video I posted above..) Its shameful on all accounts.
Then are you willing to concede the point that racism is not prevalent (isolated, not majority or typical) in the Tea Party as well as the Democratic party?
IP: Logged
02:22 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
If their is a legitimate prevailing racist wind in any political party in this country, I fail to see it.. only isolated bad behavior.
Depends on your definition for racism I suppose.
I wonder if the term "isolated bad behavior" would be used to explain away some rant by a republican congressperson or senator if he or she advocated violence against democrats or suggested that members of said party wanted to see republicans or white people hanging from trees... Somehow I get the feeling a "republican" who would make such a comment would quickly be tarred and feathered so badly he or she would be asked to step down from their position of power immediately. But not so if there is a "D" next to their name or they represent a labor union it seems...
I just call it like I see it; and that's what I have been seeing.
Then it stands to reason that any alleged racist elements in the Republican party of *then* can't be associated with the Republican party of today. And rayb's contentions are no longer valid.
Well, I was not speaking to the validity of Ray's comments, but yes, that is essentially correct. If Ray provides a lot of links, however, I might be more predisposed to think it is more prevalent among a group, depending on what and how much he provided. If a modern Republican/Tea Party member makes racial slurs or have racist agendas, yes, it can be attributed to them alone until many pick up that mantle. Until then, its just relegated to the idiots who espoused them until it becomes prevalent. (Like the video I posted above.) All parties.
Another point to consider.. someone who does not prove they are racist can still be, but just be low key about it. So Ray saying it may be more than a coincidence in *some* states could be a valid point.
Reminds me of a joke.. how does every racist joke start? *Looks Left*.. *Looks Right*... "Okay.. so there was this..."
quote
Then are you willing to concede the point that racism is not prevalent (isolated, not majority or typical) in the Tea Party as well as the Democratic party?
Until they prove otherwise. See answer in above paragraph. Still, I never accused any party of being racist here, merely trying to dispel the notion that any one party is racist as a majority (and I even got the intent of that post wrong apparently...) We will always have whackos in all walks of life.. Thats a fact.
I'm still not talking to you. Ah.... shoot. I just did.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 09-06-2011).]
yes the conservative democrats mostly southern vote against civil rights as did the conservative republicans neally all from your red states and very few from blue states
and moderates and liberals of both partys voted for it yes there were real liberal republicans back then esp in civil rights saddly missed and extinct today and the nut-con's even call the few moderates remaining RINO's
btw a very high number of the democratic anti-civil rights people became republicans after 65
the reds are racist was a joke and about commies not red states
but there were and I think still a lot of racists in the red states and a lot of teapuppets in those same states so maybe it is a cowinkidink but I do not think so
IP: Logged
02:38 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
Who do you consider to be a nut-con? Anyone who doesn't hold your same opinions on issues?
I thought the line was self defined to those who call the moderates of the GOP RINO's
''the nut-con's even call the few moderates remaining RINO's''
you know who they are and they are not most people or even most conservatives but there is a very rabid hard core of nut-con's and they flock to the tea party
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
03:18 AM
Darth Fiero Member
Posts: 5921 From: Waterloo, Indiana Registered: Oct 2002
I thought the line was self defined to those who call the moderates of the GOP RINO's
''the nut-con's even call the few moderates remaining RINO's''
you know who they are and they are not most people or even most conservatives but there is a very rabid hard core of nut-con's and they flock to the tea party
Would you consider yourself to be a liberal? If not, what?
Would you say there are neo-lib's out there that you don't approve of?
What is your stance on personal rights and the rights the constitution guarantees 'we the people'?
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 09-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:33 AM
PFF
System Bot
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Hoffa on tea party, congressional conservatives: ‘Let’s take these sons of bitches out!’
While warming up a Detroit crowd for President Barack Obama’s Labor Day speech, Teamsters union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. said unions need to fight a “war” against tea partiers and congressional Republicans. “President Obama, this is your army,” Hoffa said. “We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches out and take America back to where America we belong.”
“We gotta keep an eye on the battle that we face, a war on workers, and you see it everywhere in the tea party,” he told an enthusiastic crowd of union supporters. “And, there’s only one way to win that war, the one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know, what, they got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner, it’s going to be the workers up in Michigan and America. We’re going to win that war.”
Hoffa, Jr., whose father still hasn’t been found after police suspected that he was murdered decades ago in connection with his union activities, was opening up for Obama’s speech in Detroit, which is expected to preview “jobs plan” that he will present in a joint session of Congress on Thursday evening.
AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, SEIU president Mary Kay Henry and UAW president Bob King also joined Obama in Detroit. It’s unclear if Obama, Henry, King or Trumka will denounce the vitriolic rhetoric against conservatives that Hoffa Jr. touted on stage while opening up for and representing the president.
In his speech, Obama — who was not present when Hoffa delivered his incendiary speech — did not denounce the labor leader or call for the “civility” that he has promoted in other public settings.
IP: Logged
10:12 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
"We have Saddam Hussein," declared billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, apparently referring to President Barack Obama as he welcomed hundreds of wealthy guests to the latest of the secret fundraising and strategy seminars he and his brother host twice a year. The 2012 elections, he warned, will be "the mother of all wars."
Charles Koch would probably not publicly compare the president of the United States to a murderous dictator. (As a general rule, he and his brother don't do much politicking or speechifying in public at all.)
The Kochs also bankrolled the fledgling tea party by making massive investments in right-wing political advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity, as detailed by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker last year. More generally, the brothers have dedicated a portion of their vast wealth—and that of their benefactors—to influencing elections across the nation and swaying public opinion on everything from health care and fracking to labor policy and government spending.
IP: Logged
09:35 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
After the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, liberals went crazy claiming that “violent rhetoric” led to the shooting...Let’s see if we hear Democrats denounce Hoffa and compel him to resign from his union post. Don’t hold your breath.
This just shows how they are hypocrits.
IP: Logged
11:32 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by fierobear: And here is the HEAD of the DNC, who WON'T answer the question of whether those comments by Hoffa were appropriate...
and, here is more example of why this topic is so true. out of context BS forgot to leave in the the part about "going to the ballot box" for takeing them out.... but, dont worry - we already knew y'all are misrepresenting liars, so....go ahead....
there is NOTHING inappropriate about going to ballot boxes and taking out the trash......is there?
yes the tea-party supporters do love the BIG LIE and will use the BIG LIE anytime they can but as they have no facts all they have are LIES so they do what they can with what they have
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Would you consider yourself to be a liberal? If not, what?
Would you say there are neo-lib's out there that you don't approve of?
What is your stance on personal rights and the rights the constitution guarantees 'we the people'?
Wow, the sound of the crickets chirping is deafening, isn't it? You can't ever get a straight answer to this kind of question. because the short answer from them is proibably "yes", "no", and "the what?"
