[quote]DBCooper wrote:
.[/quote]
Explain the racism. Is it racist to call and african american african?
Either way that is one old lady’s sign. No t-parties mention anything about his continent of origin (not race) in anything that is in actual association with them.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
.[/quote]
okay, the watermelon thing does strike me as racist. So, did you get that from a t-party website, or are you just posting it for no reason?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
.[/quote]
Monkey comparisons are commonplace unrelated to race.
[/quote]
Specieism! It’s even worse than racism!
[quote]ron22 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
.[/quote]
Monkey comparisons are commonplace unrelated to race.
[/quote]
Specieism! It’s even worse than racism![/quote]
At least the comparison is linked to a real criticism of Obama’s presidency.
Also on a funny note, I’m not sure the link between political cartoon and the t-party.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All that same imagery was used by liberal groups against bush.[/quote]
And if the imagery were used by blacks against Bush, it would be racist too. But I don’t remember going to any anti-war protests and seeing a bunch of angry blacks calling Bush a honky. But I do remember going to a couple Tea Party protests and seeing/hearing a lot of people, albeit not a majority at all, calling Obama nigger and other such slurs.[/quote]
You went to anti war protests AND Tea Party protests??? I am calling bullshit.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Yeah, the NAACP has zero reason for these trumped up charges.[/quote]
That’s not a racist picture…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Yeah, the NAACP has zero reason for these trumped up charges.[/quote]
Explain the racism.[/quote]
Some people have made racist images about obama, none of which is supported by the Tea Party movement. So what do these pictures have to do with anything?
Was it not Jesse Jackson who called obama a “Fucking half-breed nigger”? Yes, yes it was…
[quote]pat wrote:
Was it not Jesse Jackson who called obama a “Fucking half-breed nigger”? Yes, yes it was…
[/quote]
Pat, didn’t you know black people can’t be racist?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All that same imagery was used by liberal groups against bush.[/quote]
And if the imagery were used by blacks against Bush, it would be racist too. But I don’t remember going to any anti-war protests and seeing a bunch of angry blacks calling Bush a honky. But I do remember going to a couple Tea Party protests and seeing/hearing a lot of people, albeit not a majority at all, calling Obama nigger and other such slurs.[/quote]
I have to agree with this. Obviously the Tea Party does not endorse the few racist people that attend the gatherings, but they ARE there. They are often holding racist signs or shouting racist comments. What the NAACP is pissed about (from what I’ve heard) is that not all politicians are acknowledging this or coming out against these people (i.e. Sarah Palin?). There are some Tea Party politicians that have in fact acknowledged that these racists aren’t apart of their Tea Party movement, so the NAACP has no gripes with them.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All that same imagery was used by liberal groups against bush.[/quote]
And if the imagery were used by blacks against Bush, it would be racist too. But I don’t remember going to any anti-war protests and seeing a bunch of angry blacks calling Bush a honky. But I do remember going to a couple Tea Party protests and seeing/hearing a lot of people, albeit not a majority at all, calling Obama nigger and other such slurs.[/quote]
I’ve had the misfortune of having to pass through an anti-war protest to get to my shul. I saw no black people in the crowd. Not one. Just lots of old fat hippies and people in union shirts.
I did get lots of “F—g kyke” and “End Zionism Now!” screamed in my face.
Not sure when it became cool for liberals to hate Orthodox Jewish people, but I guess that’s the trendy thing.
They left crap and paper cups everyone.
I also attended a TEA party event in NYC, this time voluntarily.
I was greeted warmly.
I was asked the pray for the group and for the safety of the protestors and the police, which I did. Lots of blacks, apparent Jewish people, hispanics in the crowd.
The TEA party crowd cleaned up after itself.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All that same imagery was used by liberal groups against bush.[/quote]
And if the imagery were used by blacks against Bush, it would be racist too. But I don’t remember going to any anti-war protests and seeing a bunch of angry blacks calling Bush a honky. But I do remember going to a couple Tea Party protests and seeing/hearing a lot of people, albeit not a majority at all, calling Obama nigger and other such slurs.[/quote]
I have to agree with this. Obviously the Tea Party does not endorse the few racist people that attend the gatherings, but they ARE there. They are often holding racist signs or shouting racist comments. What the NAACP is pissed about (from what I’ve heard) is that not all politicians are acknowledging this or coming out against these people (i.e. Sarah Palin?). There are some Tea Party politicians that have in fact acknowledged that these racists aren’t apart of their Tea Party movement, so the NAACP has no gripes with them.[/quote]
You can say the same about every political group ever. They all have fringe elements. The tea parties have done more to denounce these elements than any other group I can remember. Just because there are a couple racists that show up at a gathering doesn’t mean racism is a part of the movement.
The NAACP is an outdated organization that’s outlived it’s usefulness, and not acts against the interests in claims to represent.
When there was institutionalized racism to be fought, organizations like that had a place. Now their mere existence is a roadblock to the color-blind world their founders sought.
On the other hand, if the Tea Party isn’t just filled with xenophobic racists, they’ve done a really poor job of calling out and decrying the racists who have infiltrated, and stolen the spotlight.
I agree with 90% of what the Tea Partiers claim they believe and what makes them the “Tea Party”. However, I’m not convinced that the legitimate policy/political grievances aren’t incidental to the movement. I know it’s the standard non-racial criticism of the Tea Party but:
Where the hell were you guys for the eight years before Obama when our national debt exploded, we wasted billions on two wars, and our civil liberties were trampled?
It goes back to my strong belief that once your run-of-the-mill NeoCon, big government, socially-conservative Republicans take back the house and the senate, the Tea Party will magically disappear.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The NAACP is an outdated organization that’s outlived it’s usefulness, and not acts against the interests in claims to represent.
When there was institutionalized racism to be fought, organizations like that had a place. Now their mere existence is a roadblock to the color-blind world their founders sought.
On the other hand, if the Tea Party isn’t just filled with xenophobic racists, they’ve done a really poor job of calling out and decrying the racists who have infiltrated, and stolen the spotlight.
I agree with 90% of what the Tea Partiers claim they believe and what makes them the “Tea Party”. However, I’m not convinced that the legitimate policy/political grievances aren’t incidental to the movement. I know it’s the standard non-racial criticism of the Tea Party but:
Where the hell were you guys for the eight years before Obama when our national debt exploded, we wasted billions on two wars, and our civil liberties were trampled?
It goes back to my strong belief that once your run-of-the-mill NeoCon, big government, socially-conservative Republicans take back the house and the senate, the Tea Party will magically disappear.[/quote]
That may be true. The Potomic water apparently makes people into human leeches.
But, I would note that professional RINOS (Bennet) and many other big-gumbmint Republican leeches lost in the Republican primaries this year.
That’s never happened.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The NAACP is an outdated organization that’s outlived it’s usefulness, and not acts against the interests in claims to represent.
When there was institutionalized racism to be fought, organizations like that had a place. Now their mere existence is a roadblock to the color-blind world their founders sought.
On the other hand, if the Tea Party isn’t just filled with xenophobic racists, they’ve done a really poor job of calling out and decrying the racists who have infiltrated, and stolen the spotlight.
[/quote]
How the hell have they done a poor job? What else should they do? They can’t physically remove people from a public street.
I believe all the pent up frustration was there. The election of a socialist was just the final straw.
[quote]
It goes back to my strong belief that once your run-of-the-mill NeoCon, big government, socially-conservative Republicans take back the house and the senate, the Tea Party will magically disappear.[/quote]
We’ll have to see.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The NAACP is an outdated organization that’s outlived it’s usefulness, and not acts against the interests in claims to represent.
When there was institutionalized racism to be fought, organizations like that had a place. Now their mere existence is a roadblock to the color-blind world their founders sought.
On the other hand, if the Tea Party isn’t just filled with xenophobic racists, they’ve done a really poor job of calling out and decrying the racists who have infiltrated, and stolen the spotlight.
I agree with 90% of what the Tea Partiers claim they believe and what makes them the “Tea Party”. However, I’m not convinced that the legitimate policy/political grievances aren’t incidental to the movement. I know it’s the standard non-racial criticism of the Tea Party but:
Where the hell were you guys for the eight years before Obama when our national debt exploded, we wasted billions on two wars, and our civil liberties were trampled?
It goes back to my strong belief that once your run-of-the-mill NeoCon, big government, socially-conservative Republicans take back the house and the senate, the Tea Party will magically disappear.[/quote]
That may be true. The Potomic water apparently makes people into human leeches.
But, I would note that professional RINOS (Bennet) and many other big-gumbmint Republican leeches lost in the Republican primaries this year.
That’s never happened.[/quote]
So instead of RINOS we’re getting REAL REPUBLICANS?
I thought the idea was that the Tea Party wasn’t just angry Republicans looking for “real” Republicans, but something else…
Like I said in a Repiblican thread that got derailed a couple days back: the Republicans, even with their official platform, don’t have a philosophically consistent view of government. After reading their official platform, in fact, I think the Post-Regan Republicans/Neo-Cons/RHINOS are the real “Republicans”: big intrusive government (except on a couple issues, like the 2nd), powerful executive, lower taxes (never mind they don’t pay for their tax cuts), big military spending for wars on the other side of the planet, and most importantly: socially conservative, in my business with their “values”.
God, I just keep hoping for a legitimate REAL Libertarian movement in this country.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The NAACP is an outdated organization that’s outlived it’s usefulness, and not acts against the interests in claims to represent.
When there was institutionalized racism to be fought, organizations like that had a place. Now their mere existence is a roadblock to the color-blind world their founders sought.
On the other hand, if the Tea Party isn’t just filled with xenophobic racists, they’ve done a really poor job of calling out and decrying the racists who have infiltrated, and stolen the spotlight.
I agree with 90% of what the Tea Partiers claim they believe and what makes them the “Tea Party”. However, I’m not convinced that the legitimate policy/political grievances aren’t incidental to the movement. I know it’s the standard non-racial criticism of the Tea Party but:
Where the hell were you guys for the eight years before Obama when our national debt exploded, we wasted billions on two wars, and our civil liberties were trampled?
It goes back to my strong belief that once your run-of-the-mill NeoCon, big government, socially-conservative Republicans take back the house and the senate, the Tea Party will magically disappear.[/quote]
That may be true. The Potomic water apparently makes people into human leeches.
But, I would note that professional RINOS (Bennet) and many other big-gumbmint Republican leeches lost in the Republican primaries this year.
That’s never happened.[/quote]
So instead of RINOS we’re getting REAL REPUBLICANS?
I thought the idea was that the Tea Party wasn’t just angry Republicans looking for “real” Republicans, but something else…
Like I said in a Repiblican thread that got derailed a couple days back: the Republicans, even with their official platform, don’t have a philosophically consistent view of government. After reading their official platform, in fact, I think the Post-Regan Republicans/Neo-Cons/RHINOS are the real “Republicans”: big intrusive government (except on a couple issues, like the 2nd), powerful executive, lower taxes (never mind they don’t pay for their tax cuts), big military spending for wars on the other side of the planet, and most importantly: socially conservative, in my business with their “values”.
God, I just keep hoping for a legitimate REAL Libertarian movement in this country.[/quote]
YAY! we agree on something.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I believe all the pent up frustration was there. The election of a socialist was just the final straw.
[/quote]
See, I think it’s not about him being “socialist”. Because the grip isn’t about the size and scope of government. It’s not that he “broke the camel’s back” by making the Federal government bigger, or the executive more powerful.
It’s that he has a different social agenda than Bush did.
It was okay(or not as bad) with Bush, not because of the debt, or the over-reaching fed, or the elected emperor-like executive, but because Bush used those tools to further a socially-conservative social agenda, where as Obama is using those exact same tools to further a liberal social agenda.
And that’s what this is really about.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Where the hell were you guys for the eight years before Obama when our national debt exploded, we wasted billions on two wars, and our civil liberties were trampled?[/quote]
I don’t necessarily agree with the tea party, but isn’t this kind of missing the point? Isn’t the point that they’re here NOW and that that’s all that matters? Granted, by the very nature of politics people are hypocritical and tend to “take sides”, so from that standpoint you have good reason to be frustrated.
Unfortunately this is most likely correct. Once they get “their guy” in there, the strong language and stances will cease. Even if a true limited government conservative tea partier was elected to office, he couldn’t do jack shit (with the exception of perhaps reducing the military overseas).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All that same imagery was used by liberal groups against bush.[/quote]
And if the imagery were used by blacks against Bush, it would be racist too. But I don’t remember going to any anti-war protests and seeing a bunch of angry blacks calling Bush a honky. But I do remember going to a couple Tea Party protests and seeing/hearing a lot of people, albeit not a majority at all, calling Obama nigger and other such slurs.[/quote]
I have to agree with this. Obviously the Tea Party does not endorse the few racist people that attend the gatherings, but they ARE there. They are often holding racist signs or shouting racist comments. What the NAACP is pissed about (from what I’ve heard) is that not all politicians are acknowledging this or coming out against these people (i.e. Sarah Palin?). There are some Tea Party politicians that have in fact acknowledged that these racists aren’t apart of their Tea Party movement, so the NAACP has no gripes with them.[/quote]
You can say the same about every political group ever. They all have fringe elements. The tea parties have done more to denounce these elements than any other group I can remember. Just because there are a couple racists that show up at a gathering doesn’t mean racism is a part of the movement.[/quote]
Well we agree with each other then, but I don’t recall the Tea Party being too active against their racist ‘fringe-people’.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
I don’t necessarily agree with the tea party, but isn’t this kind of missing the point? Isn’t the point that they’re here NOW and that that’s all that matters? Granted, by the very nature of politics people are hypocritical and tend to “take sides”, so from that standpoint you have good reason to be frustrated.
[/quote]
Because it’s disingenuous, and shrinks a potentially larger coalition.
If the Tea Party was really about small government, and their candidates were really independently minded, and could feel comfortable throwing out all the social conservative BS - (That’s not to say alter their personal ethics/morals/religion/exe, but take a stand that their personal beliefs ethics/morals/religion/exe have no place in the federal government.) - they would suddenly have many more allies.
There are many on the left who might “like” a single-payer system, or “like” a more comprehensive welfare program… but in the here and now would vote for a candidate who wants to reign in spending, balance the budget, end the wars, restore civil liberties, reign in the executive, exe. But they will NEVER do that if there’s the whiff of the moral majority in the air.