Zo's Tea Party Speech

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
bunch of nonsense
[/quote]

Ron Paul has people writing about him all the time, you can’t expect him to know what everyone is saying. And the fact that it took that long for it to show up tells me that it is fake. Just like all the lies people made about Rush.

Then again expecting the democratic(socialist) party to argue the truth is a lot to ask for isn’t it.[/quote]

No, I can’t expect him to know what everyone is saying, but I can expect him to know what is in The Ron Paul Political Report.

Furthermore, you’re still dodging questions. For someone who is so sure of his correctness, you don’t have much to say.

Why all the race stuff if his policies are the only point of contention?

Why would the good doctor Paul allow someone to write nasty stuff that he disagrees with (and which could make him extremely politically vulnerable) in his name for 20 years? Why would he only get around to denying it at election time?[/quote]

Who gives a fuck if he were racist?
OMG THE BOOGEY MAN

I honestly think anyone who says they are 100% not racist is full of shit.
I would never trust anyone without a bit of prejudice in them.
Because racism is an extension of the ego, how can someone love others without loving themself, and how could someone love themself without loving their race?

You should become support one of those fat white girls who only let black guys fuck them, according to you, they’d be more capable at politics than Ron Paul. :wink:

62

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
bunch of nonsense
[/quote]

Ron Paul has people writing about him all the time, you can’t expect him to know what everyone is saying. And the fact that it took that long for it to show up tells me that it is fake. Just like all the lies people made about Rush.

Then again expecting the democratic(socialist) party to argue the truth is a lot to ask for isn’t it.[/quote]

No, I can’t expect him to know what everyone is saying, but I can expect him to know what is in The Ron Paul Political Report.

Furthermore, you’re still dodging questions. For someone who is so sure of his correctness, you don’t have much to say.

Why all the race stuff if his policies are the only point of contention?

Why would the good doctor Paul allow someone to write nasty stuff that he disagrees with (and which could make him extremely politically vulnerable) in his name for 20 years? Why would he only get around to denying it at election time?[/quote]

Who gives a fuck if he were racist?
OMG THE BOOGEY MAN

I honestly think anyone who says they are 100% not racist is full of shit.
I would never trust anyone without a bit of prejudice in them.
Because racism is an extension of the ego, how can someone love others without loving themself, and how could someone love themself without loving their race?

You should become support one of those fat white girls who only let black guys fuck them, according to you, they’d be more capable at politics than Ron Paul. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think it is an issue of whether or not someone has racism in them, but whether their actions are influenced by that racism.

Example - do people disagree with Obama because he is black versus people disagreeeing with Obama because they have conflicting opinions about his policy?

63

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
bunch of nonsense
[/quote]

Ron Paul has people writing about him all the time, you can’t expect him to know what everyone is saying. And the fact that it took that long for it to show up tells me that it is fake. Just like all the lies people made about Rush.

Then again expecting the democratic(socialist) party to argue the truth is a lot to ask for isn’t it.[/quote]

No, I can’t expect him to know what everyone is saying, but I can expect him to know what is in The Ron Paul Political Report.

Furthermore, you’re still dodging questions. For someone who is so sure of his correctness, you don’t have much to say.

Why all the race stuff if his policies are the only point of contention?

Why would the good doctor Paul allow someone to write nasty stuff that he disagrees with (and which could make him extremely politically vulnerable) in his name for 20 years? Why would he only get around to denying it at election time?[/quote]

Who gives a fuck if he were racist?
OMG THE BOOGEY MAN

I honestly think anyone who says they are 100% not racist is full of shit.
I would never trust anyone without a bit of prejudice in them.
Because racism is an extension of the ego, how can someone love others without loving themself, and how could someone love themself without loving their race?

You should become support one of those fat white girls who only let black guys fuck them, according to you, they’d be more capable at politics than Ron Paul. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think it is an issue of whether or not someone has racism in them, but whether their actions are influenced by that racism.

Example - do people disagree with Obama because he is black versus people disagreeeing with Obama because they have conflicting opinions about his policy?[/quote]

Some people by the former.

Some people by the latter.

Some people by both.

64

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…

65

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…[/quote]

Because they know they will still be called a racist. It doesn’t matter whether religion, color, place of birth are even mentioned. If you disagree with a minority, you are automatically a racist.

66

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…[/quote]

Because they know they will still be called a racist. It doesn’t matter whether religion, color, place of birth are even mentioned. If you disagree with a minority, you are automatically a racist. [/quote]

I understand this bullshit. I am a yellow skinned cholo, and my black boss asked me if I’ve ever been with a black woman. I said no. She said why? I said, I am unattracted to black women and never would date one. This is what some call ‘being real.’ Needless to say, she accused me of racism, and I am not one of her favorites anymore.

Reverse the situation, with a black woman, saying she would not date any man but a black one…she’d get a goddamn medal.

This is the fallacy of the whole ‘racist,’ bullshit, and why I won’t even play that game for one second. I’ll say exactly how I think or feel, and if it is offensive, I won’t say anything at all. I won’t sacrifice what I know and feel to be true, for the sake of some lopsided 'DIVERSITY!!!" political agenda.

The strength of human diversity, is not found in the color of people’s skin…but in the strength of their wills and minds.

67

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…[/quote]

Because they know they will still be called a racist. It doesn’t matter whether religion, color, place of birth are even mentioned. If you disagree with a minority, you are automatically a racist. [/quote]

So they do things that will definitely get them called racists (and rightfully so)? That doesn’t make sense.

68

The witchdoctor thing is just caricature. It’s clever, because his healthcare policy is rubbish and there is all the controversy over him being African. That’s all the image conveys in and of itself. Whether it’s racist depends on who’s holding the image. Sure, some of them are probably racist.

I don’t think John is saying the TEA Party has no racists. But if that is your only point, than so what?? As John repeatedly points out, every political party has nutjobs but they don’t represent the party as a whole. Not a difficult concept.

And why should Ron Paul necessarily know what is in the newsletter? If I start a Ryan P. McCarter Newsletter over here in Australia and spread disinformation, are you going to be all over it? I’m guessing you’d never even know about it. Maybe you’d hear about it if you ran for president in 20 years.

69

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…[/quote]

Because they know they will still be called a racist. It doesn’t matter whether religion, color, place of birth are even mentioned. If you disagree with a minority, you are automatically a racist. [/quote]

So they do things that will definitely get them called racists (and rightfully so)? That doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

Of course, if you are going to automatically call me a racist, I might as well do something to earn it. When I was a kid, my dad used to say, “You wanna cry? I’ll give you a reason to cry.”

What makes more sense, calling me something I am not?

70

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…[/quote]

Because they know they will still be called a racist. It doesn’t matter whether religion, color, place of birth are even mentioned. If you disagree with a minority, you are automatically a racist. [/quote]

I understand this bullshit. I am a yellow skinned cholo, and my black boss asked me if I’ve ever been with a black woman. I said no. She said why? I said, I am unattracted to black women and never would date one. This is what some call ‘being real.’ Needless to say, she accused me of racism, and I am not one of her favorites anymore.

Reverse the situation, with a black woman, saying she would not date any man but a black one…she’d get a goddamn medal.

This is the fallacy of the whole ‘racist,’ bullshit, and why I won’t even play that game for one second. I’ll say exactly how I think or feel, and if it is offensive, I won’t say anything at all. I won’t sacrifice what I know and feel to be true, for the sake of some lopsided 'DIVERSITY!!!" political agenda.

The strength of human diversity, is not found in the color of people’s skin…but in the strength of their wills and minds.[/quote]

I applaud you for speaking your mind, but you should not silence yourself because someone might find what you have to say offensive. It is that political correctness that is offensive, because it is a lie. No one can deal with a lie, you can always deal with the truth, it might not be what you like to hear, but at least you know the real deal.

71

He said, “The left would have you believe that the Tea Party is full of racists.” I posted the videos showing the obvious, that the Tea Party is full of racists, and of course he got huffy, and “made the usual rejoynders, that he ever maketh on being shown his ignorance and follie…”

Possibly, but a.) the newsletter wasn’t circulated in Australia, it was circulated in his home state of Texas b.) he possesses copies of it, and c.) he did not say that he didn’t know it being circulated, just that he didn’t write it.

72

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

This is the point I was trying to make to John, which he skillfully avoided.

If they disagree with his policies, and that’s all, then why the references to his place of birth, his religion, his skin color etc…[/quote]

Because they know they will still be called a racist. It doesn’t matter whether religion, color, place of birth are even mentioned. If you disagree with a minority, you are automatically a racist. [/quote]

So they do things that will definitely get them called racists (and rightfully so)? That doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

Of course, if you are going to automatically call me a racist, I might as well do something to earn it. When I was a kid, my dad used to say, “You wanna cry? I’ll give you a reason to cry.”

What makes more sense, calling me something I am not? [/quote]

? I assume if you are not a racist, it’s because you think it’s wrong. So why would you then do something racist simply because you think someone will call you racist in the future? Shouldn’t you, in that case, make it clear that you are not racist by not resorting to tactics that you know will be taken that way?

The logical knots that people are tying themselves into, and the incredible extent to which they are willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt is difficult to reconcile with their incessant criticism of Obama and Democrats.

73

Because it will never matter, you say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to, racist! You say chicken, I say egg, racist! The mere fact that a simple disagreement leads one to call the other racist is an argument not worth engaging in, and many from the Left use this as a deflection from the legal argument.

74

They use the fact that a great number of Tea Partiers’ objections are very obviously based on racism and that their arguments are hypocritical as a “deflection” from the argument that Tea Partiers are totally incoherent?

Seems to me it’s central to the argument.

75

No Ryan, that is what they show, those who show their extreme side. A handful of people might have signs that are clearly racist, but they never show those who have signs which are purely political statements. MSM uses extremes (and that is on both sides of the aisle) for ratings and popularity.

76

Yet we have no shortage of videos of great crowds of Tea Partiers cheering at the blatant anti-immigrant race-baiting of the likes of Tom Tancredo. Furthermore, these signs are by no means uncommon. I see them on Fox News.

You’re reaching.

77

People just might be sick and tired of illegal immigration, have you thought of that? As far as race-baiting, that again is a clear sign of the truth. We don’t see illegal Canadians marching through the streets and standing in front of Home Depot. We don’t see emergency rooms flooded with Canadians, Asians, or even Europeans who are illegal. Do you see pro-immigration groups representing Germans, Irish, Africans? They have never demanded rights and entitlements, completely disregarding the fact that they broke the law. Again, you make it about race.

78

I make it about race to the extent that I am asking YOU why YOUR GUYS make it about race.

Look, I understand that you will never admit that there is anything racist about anything that you support, so I’ll just drop it here.