[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
lol…oooook…
Why is it that every time someone posts a picture of a monkey in a poltical context all the liberals think they are talking about black people?[/quote]
B/c liberals are racists. They view people as black and white and not as people.
[quote]DBCooper wrote
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]
Do you remember anyone in N.O. calling Bush a cracker or a honky after Katrina??? And were THEY ever accused of being racist?
Thats terrible that you heard racial slurs at a tea-party rally. But when people legitametly (sp?) go after Obama for his terrible/socialist IDEAS, and the wreckless BILLS he has passed this is not racism, this is what the TEA-PARTY stands for, NOT the few racist assholes that show up.
so please, instead of calling your opponents racist, just explain why your agenda is going to be a successful one for America…we’ll be waiting, but try to let us know before November
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Let’s be honest here. You don’t really care about limited government or constitutional principles and neither do the other people on here who are saying that they do, but denounce the tea party for other things. If you REALLY cared about those things, all of this other stuff that keeps getting mentioned like racism and religious extremism wouldn’t even matter much. Especially on the small-scale on which they are occurring. Their message is only being drowned out because people like you keep talking about these unimportant things.
That being said, I think the Tea Party is doomed to failure as well, but for reasons that are different from yours.
[/quote]
Actually, religious extremism is totally relevant.
It’s a philosophical contradiction to talk about a small government, that stays the hell out of our buisness, and then in the next sentence start talking about how we need to be a more Christian nation. There are a number of “Tea Party Candidates” (Running as Republicans, not independents of course) doing the old “God wants me to win.”, “God’s on my side.”
Guess what, I want real small government advocates to want to represent their consultancies, not the voices in their heads.
The social-conservative agenda (which I had really hoped would not be part of the Tea Party platform) is philosophically inconsistent (I know I already said that), and more, guarantees that the Tea Party will never be more than a group of angry Republicans, who will end up voting Republican anyways.
And I will say, I don’t think the Tea Party is racist, as an organization, or that the racism we see by those in the Tea Party is representative.
However, there is clearly a cultural aspect to the Tea Party: it’s not just about small government, and fiscal reprehensibility. The Tea Party has a look and feel to it. It even has stupid costumes that go along with it. It’s anti-urban. It’s anti-“intellectual”, as far as I can tell, it’s anti-drug (I’d love to hear these small-government Tea Partiers say “legalize it”).
All in all, the Tea Party is a lot of things it doesn’t it doesn’t need to be, and shouldn’t be, if it’s members are really interested in putting together a broad coalition of people who’s primary concerns are small, limited government and fiscal responsibility.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Let’s be honest here. You don’t really care about limited government or constitutional principles and neither do the other people on here who are saying that they do, but denounce the tea party for other things. If you REALLY cared about those things, all of this other stuff that keeps getting mentioned like racism and religious extremism wouldn’t even matter much. Especially on the small-scale on which they are occurring. Their message is only being drowned out because people like you keep talking about these unimportant things.
That being said, I think the Tea Party is doomed to failure as well, but for reasons that are different from yours.
[/quote]
Actually, religious extremism is totally relevant.
It’s a philosophical contradiction to talk about a small government, that stays the hell out of our buisness, and then in the next sentence start talking about how we need to be a more Christian nation. There are a number of “Tea Party Candidates” (Running as Republicans, not independents of course) doing the old “God wants me to win.”, “God’s on my side.”
Guess what, I want real small government advocates to want to represent their consultancies, not the voices in their heads.
The social-conservative agenda (which I had really hoped would not be part of the Tea Party platform) is philosophically inconsistent (I know I already said that), and more, guarantees that the Tea Party will never be more than a group of angry Republicans, who will end up voting Republican anyways.[/quote]
It depends. Many are inconsistent. But advocacy of christian values aren’t necessarily inconsistent with small government. Advocating self governance based on christian values is not inconsistent (I’d even call it necessary). It’s also not inconsistent for a public servant to rely on his christian values in the execution of his position.
Advocating writing laws to mandate christian values would be the inconsistent kind.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Advocating writing laws to mandate christian values would be the inconsistent kind.[/quote]
Advocating writing laws to mandate Christian behaviors would be inconsistent. Laws, like you can’t buy beer on Sunday 'till after noon, if at all. Laws regulating and restricting marriage (marriage being a religious institution, the government should only be in the buisness of civil unions) don’t mandate that I be a Christian, they just mandate I submit to Christian dogma.
There are lots of these types of laws on the books. Is the Tea Party categorically against the,?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
And I will say, I don’t think the Tea Party is racist, as an organization, or that the racism we see by those in the Tea Party is representative.
However, there is clearly a cultural aspect to the Tea Party: it’s not just about small government, and fiscal reprehensibility. The Tea Party has a look and feel to it. It even has stupid costumes that go along with it. It’s anti-urban. It’s anti-“intellectual”, as far as I can tell, it’s anti-drug (I’d love to hear these small-government Tea Partiers say “legalize it”).
All in all, the Tea Party is a lot of things it doesn’t it doesn’t need to be, and shouldn’t be, if it’s members are really interested in putting together a broad coalition of people who’s primary concerns are small, limited government and fiscal responsibility.[/quote]
You sound like you don’t know that much about it. Nice “look and feel” comment by the way, good way to dodge actual intellectual engagement.
How is it anti-intelectual and anti-urban and anti-drug?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Advocating writing laws to mandate christian values would be the inconsistent kind.[/quote]
Advocating writing laws to mandate Christian behaviors would be inconsistent. Laws, like you can’t buy beer on Sunday 'till after noon, if at all. Laws regulating and restricting marriage (marriage being a religious institution, the government should only be in the buisness of civil unions) don’t mandate that I be a Christian, they just mandate I submit to Christian dogma.
There are lots of these types of laws on the books. Is the Tea Party categorically against the,?[/quote]
I am.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Advocating writing laws to mandate christian values would be the inconsistent kind.[/quote]
Advocating writing laws to mandate Christian behaviors would be inconsistent. Laws, like you can’t buy beer on Sunday 'till after noon, if at all. Laws regulating and restricting marriage (marriage being a religious institution, the government should only be in the buisness of civil unions) don’t mandate that I be a Christian, they just mandate I submit to Christian dogma.
There are lots of these types of laws on the books. Is the Tea Party categorically against the,?[/quote]
I am.[/quote]
Good to hear. Is the Tea Party? Are the Tea Party Candidates?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You sound like you don’t know that much about it. Nice “look and feel” comment by the way, good way to dodge actual intellectual engagement.
How is it anti-intelectual and anti-urban and anti-drug?[/quote]
Show me that it’s not.
The people who have become the defacto spokespeople for the movement certainly feel that way. We’ve all heard about how “real America” is rural America, where “Real Americans” live. Maybe Sarah Palin doesn’t really represent the Tea Party?
I need to hear from you folks who consider yourselves part of the movement who a legitimate spokesperson to listen to is, because the one’s I hear speak, speak like Republicans, angry at the Republican party for not being Repiblicany enough. They aren’t showing me where they are ideologically different, just where they believe that the Republican party has institutionally failed.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote
“…Do you remember anyone in N.O. calling Bush a cracker or a honky after Katrina??? And were THEY ever accused of being racist?..”[/quote]
Which Bush was it that was President…in 1972???
Mufasa
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Advocating writing laws to mandate christian values would be the inconsistent kind.[/quote]
Advocating writing laws to mandate Christian behaviors would be inconsistent. Laws, like you can’t buy beer on Sunday 'till after noon, if at all. Laws regulating and restricting marriage (marriage being a religious institution, the government should only be in the buisness of civil unions) don’t mandate that I be a Christian, they just mandate I submit to Christian dogma.
There are lots of these types of laws on the books. Is the Tea Party categorically against the,?[/quote]
I am.[/quote]
Good to hear. Is the Tea Party? Are the Tea Party Candidates?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You sound like you don’t know that much about it. Nice “look and feel” comment by the way, good way to dodge actual intellectual engagement.
How is it anti-intelectual and anti-urban and anti-drug?[/quote]
Show me that it’s not.
[/quote]
No, you back up you accusation or retract it. Saying it “feels” that way isn’t gonna cut it.
I’m gong to need some siting of this “real americans” quote(s).
[quote]
I need to hear from you folks who consider yourselves part of the movement who a legitimate spokesperson to listen to is, because the one’s I hear speak, speak like Republicans, angry at the Republican party for not being Repiblicany enough. They aren’t showing me where they are ideologically different, just where they believe that the Republican party has institutionally failed.[/quote]
It’s a non-official group. There is no direct leader or spokesmen.You have to talk to the people. Most of the people I know in it and that I’ve heard speak, speak like libertarians.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Actually, religious extremism is totally relevant.
It’s a philosophical contradiction to talk about a small government, that stays the hell out of our buisness, and then in the next sentence start talking about how we need to be a more Christian nation. There are a number of “Tea Party Candidates” (Running as Republicans, not independents of course) doing the old “God wants me to win.”, “God’s on my side.”
Guess what, I want real small government advocates to want to represent their consultancies, not the voices in their heads.
The social-conservative agenda (which I had really hoped would not be part of the Tea Party platform) is philosophically inconsistent (I know I already said that), and more, guarantees that the Tea Party will never be more than a group of angry Republicans, who will end up voting Republican anyways.[/quote]
The point is, that if you really gave a damn about limiting the out-of-control government, you might be willing to grit and bear the social conservatism in the name of a smaller, more constitutional government. Maybe it’s just me, but I can live with people singing praises to God if they share common goals with me. Now, forcing their religion on me is something entirely different, but I don’t really see that in the Tea Party. I think you’re not supporting it for the wrong reasons.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote
“…Do you remember anyone in N.O. calling Bush a cracker or a honky after Katrina??? And were THEY ever accused of being racist?..”[/quote]
Which Bush was it that was President…in 1972???
Mufasa[/quote]
I think ya got yourself mixed up here buddy. Katrina was a few years ago. You know that, you must be distracted or something. Or I missed something.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Advocating writing laws to mandate christian values would be the inconsistent kind.[/quote]
Advocating writing laws to mandate Christian behaviors would be inconsistent. Laws, like you can’t buy beer on Sunday 'till after noon, if at all. Laws regulating and restricting marriage (marriage being a religious institution, the government should only be in the buisness of civil unions) don’t mandate that I be a Christian, they just mandate I submit to Christian dogma.
There are lots of these types of laws on the books. Is the Tea Party categorically against the,?[/quote]
I am.[/quote]
Good to hear. Is the Tea Party? Are the Tea Party Candidates?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You sound like you don’t know that much about it. Nice “look and feel” comment by the way, good way to dodge actual intellectual engagement.
How is it anti-intelectual and anti-urban and anti-drug?[/quote]
Show me that it’s not.
The people who have become the defacto spokespeople for the movement certainly feel that way. We’ve all heard about how “real America” is rural America, where “Real Americans” live. Maybe Sarah Palin doesn’t really represent the Tea Party?
I need to hear from you folks who consider yourselves part of the movement who a legitimate spokesperson to listen to is, because the one’s I hear speak, speak like Republicans, angry at the Republican party for not being Repiblicany enough. They aren’t showing me where they are ideologically different, just where they believe that the Republican party has institutionally failed.[/quote]
You mention Sarah Palin but don’t mention the other side of the tea party Ron Paul. Want to hear the Tea Party talk about anti drugs come listen to us. You don’t understand the movement.
Tirib:
This wasn’t related to Katrina…
I’m sure one of you guys may find it on “You-Tube” somewhere…
But calling white people “Honky” or “Cracker” is something out of a bad “Blackploitation” flick of the Seventies.
It’s like saying "GROOVY, man!!! in 2010.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Tirib:
This wasn’t related to Katrina…
I’m sure one of you guys may find it on “You-Tube” somewhere…
But calling white people “Honky” or “Cracker” is something out of a bad “Blackploitation” flick of the Seventies.
It’s like saying "GROOVY, man!!! in 2010.
Mufasa [/quote]
I take it as an insult, it is someone insulting me because of the color of my skin. It is a racial slur.
There are clearly racist individuals who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party. But that is true amonst Democrats and traditional Republicans. The issue is whether Tea Party mouthpieces endorse such racism or fail to repudiate to a greater degree than other parties. That is harder to pinpoint. And I don’t know the answer.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
There are clearly racist individuals who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party. [/quote]
Could you provide examples?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
There are clearly racist individuals who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party. [/quote]
Could you provide examples?[/quote]
well, it’s an anecdotal example, but right after Obama was elected I remember my friend’s dad literally screaming and yelling about how a “fucking nigger” had just been elected to White House. He’s been to every single Tea Party gathering in the Sacramento area since then.
The NAACP stands for the advancement of COLORED people, so does that not make them racist. Why not advance all people. As a tea party member I have seen no racism in our group. The pics that were posted by DB dont have any evidence of being from a tea party. I also know for a fact liberals are planting posers to act like idiots in the crowd at tea party events. Glenn Beck wont denounce the “racist” because he is not a leader of the Tea party, no one is,