FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Black Tea Party Protesters





jmi256
Black conservatives are coming out to counter the allegations by the left that the Tea Party protests are racist. And of course they have been called everything from “Oreos,” “traitors” and “Uncle Toms” because they refuse to accept the left’s argument and instead hold to the ideals of the movement.
Quote:
Black conservative tea party backers take heat

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black—or that most tea partyers are white—should have nothing to do with it, they say.

"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns—and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.

But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole—or race a reason to support it.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."

"It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."

Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.

Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election—and their distaste for his policies—with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.

For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.

"I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.

Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives—away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.

Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.

Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views.

"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"

Among the 37 black Republicans running for U.S. House and Senate seats in November is Charles Lollar of Maryland's 5th District.

A tea party supporter running against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Lollar says he's finding support in unexpected places.

The 38-year-old U.S. Marine Corps reservist recently walked into a bar in southern Maryland decorated with a Confederate flag. It gave his wife Rosha pause.

"I said, 'You know what, honey? Many, many of our Southern citizens came together under that flag for the purpose of keeping their family and their state together,'" Lollar recalled. "The flag is not what you're to fear. It's the stupidity behind the flag that is a problem. I don't think we'll find that in here. Let's go ahead in."

Once inside, they were treated to a pig roast, a motorcycle rally—and presented with $5,000 in contributions for his campaign.

McGlowan, one of three GOP candidates in north Mississippi's 1st District primary, seeks a seat held since 2008 by Democrat Travis Childers. The National Republican Congressional Committee has supported Alan Nunnelee, chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who is also pursuing tea party voters.

McGlowan believes the tea party movement has been unfairly portrayed as monolithically white, male and middle-aged, though she acknowledged blacks and Hispanics are a minority at most events.

Racist protest signs at some tea party rallies and recent reports by U.S. Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., that tea partyers shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at them have raised allegations of racism in the tea party movement.

Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think—something that offensive—you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.

"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.

Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.

"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."

Source = http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1
handfleisch
LOL @ Breitbart.com, now 100% discredited (re the fraud-smear against ACORN). Next time just cite propaganda.com or lies.com.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
LOL @ Breitbart.com, now 100% discredited (re the fraud-smear against ACORN). Next time just cite propaganda.com or lies.com.


?? That's all you got? Another personal attack? So now the Associated Press is "100% discredited" in you view. The site I quoted from pulled the story from the AP:

Quote:
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.


Regardless of how you want to characterize and stereotype them, it takes a lot of courage for them to stand up to those who label them with offensive names and slurs. The Tea Party protests are about out-of-control government that is spending money we simply don't have, is increasing taxes, taking away our liberties and increasing its scope and intrusion into private lives. Most Tea Party protesters, including these black conservatives, refuse to accept the argument put out by the Left that it's all about racism, but since that doesn't fit the narrative the Left wants to broadcast, they of course have to attempt to attack and discredit these protestors.
handfleisch
No it's just hilarious that you spend time in the fever swamps of websites like Breitbart and Newsmax, suppliers of warped fantasy politics of the vanquished and disintegrating right wing.
deanhills
Regardless of the source, I find the article quite interesting. One thing is for sure however, the Tea Party has become so tainted with negative reports like these, your average rational citizen will probably now think twice before they attend meetings of the Tea Party again. They probably will now have to find a different forum for organizing peaceful protests.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
Regardless of the source, I find the article quite interesting. One thing is for sure however, the Tea Party has become so tainted with negative reports like these, your average rational citizen will probably now think twice before they attend meetings of the Tea Party again. They probably will now have to find a different forum for organizing peaceful protests.


I disagree. I hope the average, rational person can tell that the Left is trying to smear the protesters with tactics like this, and that they can see through the Left's smokescreen. I think we'll actually see more and more people attending the protests in the coming months.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Regardless of the source, I find the article quite interesting. One thing is for sure however, the Tea Party has become so tainted with negative reports like these, your average rational citizen will probably now think twice before they attend meetings of the Tea Party again. They probably will now have to find a different forum for organizing peaceful protests.


I disagree. I hope the average, rational person can tell that the Left is trying to smear the protesters with tactics like this, and that they can see through the Left's smokescreen. I think we'll actually see more and more people attending the protests in the coming months.


Hey, how did those crafty people of "the Left" force the Tea Partiers to smear themselves by holding these signs? How come all those supposed African American tea partiers don't show up in photos, and what do they think of these signs anyway?








This one was seen at quite a few of the protests:
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Regardless of the source, I find the article quite interesting. One thing is for sure however, the Tea Party has become so tainted with negative reports like these, your average rational citizen will probably now think twice before they attend meetings of the Tea Party again. They probably will now have to find a different forum for organizing peaceful protests.


I disagree. I hope the average, rational person can tell that the Left is trying to smear the protesters with tactics like this, and that they can see through the Left's smokescreen. I think we'll actually see more and more people attending the protests in the coming months.


Hey, how did those crafty people of "the Left" force the Tea Partiers to smear themselves by holding these signs? How come all those supposed African American tea partiers don't show up in photos, and what do they think of these signs anyway?


I’m talking about the Left’s tactic of claiming the protests are all about racism and trying to portray all the protesters as ignorant racists, ignoring the vast majority of protesters’ issues. It’s really the Left’s go-to tactic of crying racism whenever anyone counters their wacko positions, but that’s another story. You can dig up pictures of isolated individuals from blogs and fringe sites like the DemocraticUnderground that show a small minority with divergent views, but those people do not represent the majority voice, no matter what liberals/progressives/left-wingers/brown shirts/whatever you people are calling yourselves these days want to claim. Tea Party protestors have come out publically to denounce these views. If your standard is that a small minority represents the whole, then I’m sure you would agree that the Democratic Party represents racists, bigots and KKK members, etc, right? So your argument is now that there are no Black people at the protests? Are you sure you want to take that stance? I guess the Associated Press and Gallup just made it up, but you know much better, right. A simple Google search once again blows your latest theory out of the water.





















ocalhoun
Is the tea party racist? Mostly no.

Is it taken over by Republicans and the right wing? Mostly yes.

I've come to the point where I view the tea party as an object lesson- one that teaches the danger that the right wing poses to any libertarian-minded group. They won't oppose you... They'll support you, and absorb you, and warp you into 'politics as usual'.


It might be fun, however, to join in a tea party gathering, and carry an anti-Republican sign... With examples of Republican waste of tax money handy to back it up. Perhaps make a few people realize the mistake that has happened.
deanhills
For me the Tea Parties were a legitimate voice of protest until the right wingers made it into something that is completely out of control, politically. I'm almost certain that there is a significant percentage of Republicans who would not want to be associated with the Tea Parties as they are right now. If Fox News has a reverence for the Tea Parties, which respectable politician who has aspirations of becoming a political leader in the future would want anything to do with the Tea Parties in their present chaotic state?
coolclay
I love political discussions on forums. They are very reminiscent of the 2 sided discussions in congress where one side accuses the other side of doing exactly the same thing as they have done in the past.

If people would just open their eyes instead of having their head stuck so far into the butt of either party maybe they could see that. I am no exception, for quite sometime I was a quality member of the vast right wing conspiracy, jumping on every bandwagon but then something magical happened, I grew up under 3 vastly different presidents with vastly different ratios in congress and house. I saw each one pulling the same sh1t on each other and then claiming it was unfair coming from the other side. I saw people bash the other side for the same exact thing just in different situations and different times.

The dems have a long standing history of racism, and being harsh on blacks that think for themselves, and decide conservatism has some merit. At the same time repubs taking digs at blacks for going with the dems, and believing whatever they say. But the fact remains that their are racists in each party and people always pick out extremes in an attempt to prove their point.

I still consider myself a paleo-conservative but see vitally problematic issues at the core of both parties.

Thanks handfleish for always spewing the worst liberal BS you can find,
Quote:
warped fantasy politics of the vanquished and disintegrating right wing.
and proving my point

Thanks jmi256 for taking the time to show us the latest conservative bandwagon to jump on.

And as always Deanhill for a pretty solid discussion.
Afaceinthematrix




Oh yeah, because me calling the following pictures racist is really a large stretch of the imagination, right?








Honestly, these people sicken me. They put clearly racist shit down on their sign and then bitch when people call them out on it? I hate Obama. I hated Obama before he got elected. But it has nothing to do with his ethnicity - it has to do with his politics. And I would never dream of making signs based on ad-hominem attacks which attack his ethnicity and origins... Why would anyone even bring that up? What in the Hell does that have to do with anything? The only signs there which aren't racist by any standards are the ones that attack him for being a socialist, because, quite frankly, some of his bills do have some socialist aspects (which I'm not against - I'm against the free market unchecked).
jwellsy
These signs are mainly the hateful neo-marxists posing as tea party members. Here's just one cesspool forum where they congregate for the purpose of supplanting the tea party.
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/phpBB3/
Of course it's great fodder for all the Maddow ,Oberman, Mahr, Huffington, Wright, Ayers, Beckell buffoon wannabes.

You are being fooled by the state controlled media if you think these signs at typical tea party signs. It's more lies and deception from the left.
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/
Bikerman
jwellsy wrote:
These signs are mainly the hateful neo-marxists posing as tea party members. Here's just one cesspool forum where they congregate for the purpose of supplanting the tea party.
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/phpBB3/
Of course it's great fodder for all the Maddow ,Oberman, Mahr, Huffington, Wright, Ayers, Beckell buffoon wannabes.

You are being fooled by the state controlled media if you think these signs at typical tea party signs. It's more lies and deception from the left.
http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/

Neo-Marxists? Do you even know what a neo-Marxist is, because I don't think you do.
Why would a Marxist (neo or otherwise) want to disrupt a meeting of know-nothings? Neo-Marxism is a serious business normally engaged in by intellectual left wingers trying to reform Marxist basic theory of the class struggle/dialectic by incorporating, normally, either critical theory, or elements of nihilistic existentialism a la Kierkgaard.
I really don't think any neo-Marxist I know would be interested in spending time with a lot of whining fatsos who can't even spell their abusive words correctly, let alone consider a nihilistic reworking of the dialectic. Any marxist worth his or her salt would consider that torture only slightly worse that being forced to eat your own head. I mean....come one...You have to be joking.

PS - I really don't get why you posted that link - it looks to me like a half-hearted and half-assed attempt by some people to have a dig at the teaparties, but instead finding that their site has been over-run with those same people. Is this supposed to be evidence of a neo-marxist plot or something?
As a general rule, you will find that marxists, neo-marxists, communists and anarcho-syndicalists are the ones who can do the crossword, spell words with more than 4 letters correctly, read without moving their lips, and understand literature of a higher grade than a comic book.
Bikerman
PS - I had a closer look at the 'crashtheteaparty' site.
It gave me a good laugh. I suspect it was setup by someone with a sense of humour that I would appreciate. There are a total of about 2500 postings - and a large number of those are from 'pro' teaparty posters. If you follow the paper-chase you see a hilarious bunch of self-important buffoons full of outrage and righteous anger at these god-damn commies and talking about civil liberties and freedom, building themselves up into a frenzy....over what? The self-righteous pomposity has to be read to be believed - and I'm not even sure I can believe it now.
You know sometimes you see something that is so pathetic and embarrassing that it actually makes you uncomfortable watching - if you have ever seen an early episode of 'The Office' with Ricky Gervais you will know exactly what I'm talking about. You feel embarrassed to watch, it makes you squirm with embarrassment for them. Well, that is exactly the feeling I just got browsing through some of the sites near the top of the hits for the crashtheteaparty Google - try it yourself and see if you have a harder heart than me.

There is a common perception of Americans here in the UK which goes something like - no sense of irony, little sense of the absurd, 'sincerity' bordering on lunacy, coupled to a naivety that is positively dangerous and an attitude that there is nothing they can't sort out if they set their mind to it.
I've always spoke against such crass generalisations, because I've worked with quite a few Americans I came to admire. But this plays right into the stereotype, big time.
Call out the national guard, some guy with a pink t-shirt has gone into a cyber-cafe - he is armed with five bucks and extremely dangerous...I think he is going for....yep, he's just shot 3 postings and a blog entry out of his keyboard...

There again, there is something about bloggers in general - not just Americans. They seem convinced that they have an inside track on the 'real truth' and further convinced that the world is waiting for them to reveal 'the truth'. I've come across quite a few. No doubt some of them are reasonable people in real life, but to me they seem like self-important pratts with little insight, little to say and a whole load of time and resource to say it in...

ROFLMAO

see how they tweet and twitter like little robins puffing out their chests because they've realised that someone is looking at them Smile
http://tweetmeme.com/story/870431614/crash-the-tea-party
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/warning-crash-the-tea-parties-are-planned-by-leftists-on-april-15th-throughout-the-nation/
http://twitter.com/tpartycrasher

I bet 'Ben Franklin' (the registered owner of the domain name - nice touch) and his student mates are laughing themselves stupid Smile
jmi256
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Honestly, these people sicken me. They put clearly racist shit down on their sign and then bitch when people call them out on it? I hate Obama. I hated Obama before he got elected. But it has nothing to do with his ethnicity - it has to do with his politics. And I would never dream of making signs based on ad-hominem attacks which attack his ethnicity and origins... Why would anyone even bring that up? What in the Hell does that have to do with anything? The only signs there which aren't racist by any standards are the ones that attack him for being a socialist, because, quite frankly, some of his bills do have some socialist aspects (which I'm not against - I'm against the free market unchecked).

Hate is a strong word, and I don’t hate Obama as a person. I just think his policies are stupid and sending this country in the wrong direction. And obviously many, many other people feel the same way and have taken up in protest to voice their concerns. Have people shown up at protests with sign that are put of the norm? Yes. But that doesn’t mean a small minority of people who have latched onto the protests represent the whole. In fact, Teat Partiers have denounced them, but opponents continue to make ridiculous claims that they represent the entire movement. The claim was made that the Tea Party protests were all about racism, and no black people attended them (or at least there were no pictures), but let me remind you of the below.


















Bikerman wrote:
Neo-Marxism is a serious business normally engaged in by ….

If by “serious business” you mean fringe jobs, of course. Actually, I think they are just self-important pri*ks with some poster board, magic markers and an elevated sense of self-defined ‘intellectualism.’ But if you want to change the subject and argue that they aren’t, I suggest you start your own thread instead of hijacking another one with your “definitions.” Just saying.
Bikerman
I don't need advice about where and what to post thank you.
I responded to a specific point about 'neo marxist' infiltrators because it is something I know about (being a former marxist). You can call marxists whatever you like, but one thing they are not is illiterate idiots. It actually requires a bit of thought, reading ability and comprehension skills, as well as a reasonable level of historical knowledge and basic socio-economic theory to read marx. You can't just 'be' a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort. Anyone can be a 'right winger'. Shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of, and call anyone who disagrees a commie. Easy peasy.
If you want to talk intelligently about marx and marxism then you need to do some reading first, otherwise it will be quite obvious (if only to real marxists) that you are talking complete nonsense.

PS - I mean 'you' in the impersonal sense, of course, not anyone in particular. I should have said 'one needs to' but it always sounds a bit la-di-dah.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
Is the tea party racist? Mostly no.

Is it taken over by Republicans and the right wing? Mostly yes.

I've come to the point where I view the tea party as an object lesson- one that teaches the danger that the right wing poses to any libertarian-minded group. They won't oppose you... They'll support you, and absorb you, and warp you into 'politics as usual'.


This is the only thing both parties agree on 100% of the time -- destroying third parties.
handfleisch
The not-at-all-racist Tom Tancredo was the honored speaker for the not-at-all-racist Tea Party mob in South Carolina and he said "we" should send Obama back to Kenya:

""If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

White House declines to respond to the "general lunacy":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTvP0mCCL4

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/this-is-the-end-of-america-sc-tea-party-rally-pumps-up-the-violent-rhetoric.php?ref=fpa
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I don't need advice about where and what to post thank you.
I responded to a specific point about 'neo marxist' infiltrators because it is something I know about (being a former marxist). You can call marxists whatever you like, but one thing they are not is illiterate idiots. It actually requires a bit of thought, reading ability and comprehension skills, as well as a reasonable level of historical knowledge and basic socio-economic theory to read marx. You can't just 'be' a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort. Anyone can be a 'right winger'. Shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of, and call anyone who disagrees a commie. Easy peasy.
If you want to talk intelligently about marx and marxism then you need to do some reading first, otherwise it will be quite obvious (if only to real marxists) that you are talking complete nonsense.

PS - I mean 'you' in the impersonal sense, of course, not anyone in particular. I should have said 'one needs to' but it always sounds a bit la-di-dah.


LOL. So all it takes to “be a right winger” is to “shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of and call anyone who disagree a commie’, but being “a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort.”? They seem pretty full of themselves, huh? How’s Marxism working out for the Soviet Union? Or East Germany? Or Cuba? How about comparing them and the conditions enjoyed by the millions of people who have actually increased their standard of living under Capitalism. Some of that “time, study and effort” Marxists claim that goes into studying might be better served if they look at the results of its failures. I guess if they have some poster board and magic markers sitting around, my personal description is pretty dead on:

jmi256 wrote:
Actually, I think they are just self-important pri*ks with some poster board, magic markers and an elevated sense of self-defined ‘intellectualism.’


Again, if you want to argue this tangent, I suggest you start another thread.

But back on topic, the latest claims that the Tea Party protestors are all racists is just one component of the attempt to discredit the Tea Party protestors by portraying them as a whole as something they are not.

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
the latest claims that the Tea Party protestors are all racists is just one component of the attempt to discredit the Tea Party protestors by portraying them as a whole as something they are not.


So it's another left wing plot? I guess the plotters used a ventriloquist to get the Tea Party keynote speaker Tom Tancredo to make this statement above? As a Tea Bagger, don't you condemn it?

How about this one, when Tea Party keynote speaker Tancredo called for "literacy tests" and blamed the election of Obama on the lack of them? "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

This is pure Jim Crow. This is people who want America going full speed backward. This is general lunacy and riling people up with this nonsense is dangerous -- remember the Oklahoma city bombing from these right wing militia types who spouted the same garbage. As a Tea Bagger, surely you condemn it?
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
LOL. So all it takes to “be a right winger” is to “shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of and call anyone who disagree a commie’, but being “a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort.”?
Yes, that's what I said and meant.
Quote:
They seem pretty full of themselves, huh?
Unfortunately yes, many Marxists are a bit blinkered, as you find if you come across a dedicated comrade - lots of Marxist analysis of just about everything.
Quote:
How’s Marxism working out for the Soviet Union? Or East Germany? Or Cuba? How about comparing them and the conditions enjoyed by the millions of people who have actually increased their standard of living under Capitalism.
How is this relevant? Are you saying that the success of capitalism and the failure of the USSR is down to the brilliance of Capitalists over the stupidity of Marxists? Surely I don't have to point out the basic flaws in that logic?
Quote:
Some of that “time, study and effort” Marxists claim that goes into studying might be better served if they look at the results of its failures. I guess if they have some poster board and magic markers sitting around, my personal description is pretty dead on:
jmi256 wrote:
Actually, I think they are just self-important pri*ks with some poster board, magic markers and an elevated sense of self-defined ‘intellectualism.’

Again, if you want to argue this tangent, I suggest you start another thread.
a) Marxists do indeed spend a lot of time studying the reasons for past failures - that is exactly what neo-Marxism is about, which is where I came in.
b) As I have already said, I don't really need advice on whether to start a new thread or not - I consider this relevant, so I'll post it here. I hope I don't have to remind you about back-seat moderation, because I really don't want to have to switch hats - honestly! It spoils my day.
The fact that you re-iterated and commented on my posting means I will re-iterate and comment on yours - that's how it works. I entered to straighten-up a comment about neo-Marxism, nothing more.
If you want to stop this side-track then let it drop, but you cannot expect me to simply let challenges go unanswered (or maybe you can, but they won't Smile )
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
the latest claims that the Tea Party protestors are all racists is just one component of the attempt to discredit the Tea Party protestors by portraying them as a whole as something they are not.


So it's another left wing plot? I guess the plotters used a ventriloquist to get the Tea Party keynote speaker Tom Tancredo to make this statement above? As a Tea Bagger, don't you condemn it?

So now I’m a “Tea Bagger”? If you want to engage in derogatory, homophobic name calling, that’s your right. If I’m supposed to be a “Tea Bagger”, I guess that makes you and your kind the ‘Tea Baggees.’ Well, I hope you at least enjoy the nuts. [/sarcasm] And I’ll leave the “vast right-wing conspiracy” rants about the federal government orchestrating 9/11, Bush poisoning the water, etc. to you. I’m just pointing out the typical trajectory liberals/progressives/whatever take in their arguments. A conspiracy connotes organization and collusion, which I haven’t seen. It appears to be more out of habit and parroting what they hear elsewhere. The typical MO has been seen throughout the last couple of years. If someone voted for Hillary over Obama in the Democratic primaries, he must be a racist. If someone voted for McCain rather than Obama, he must be a racist. If someone objects to Obama’s ‘stimulus’ plan, he must be a racist. If someone calls Obama a liar, he must be a racist. If someone objects to Obama’s government-run healthcare, he must be a racist. If someone objects to higher taxes, he must be a racist. If someone objects to more government intrusion, he must be a racist. If someone protests the general direction Obama and the Democrats are taking the government, he must be a racist. And so on. It’s really getting to be a tired-out refrain, don’t you think.



handfleisch wrote:
How about this one, when Tea Party keynote speaker Tancredo called for "literacy tests" and blamed the election of Obama on the lack of them? "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

This is pure Jim Crow. This is people who want America going full speed backward. This is general lunacy and riling people up with this nonsense is dangerous -- remember the Oklahoma city bombing from these right wing militia types who spouted the same garbage. As a Tea Bagger, surely you condemn it?

I myself am not for literacy tests, but everyone is entitled to their opinions. One person does not speak for the whole. There has been much debate about the topic of tests for elections, and I am of the opinion that voting should not be IQ based, but simple criteria should be maintained, such as the voter should be able to prove he is the person he claims to be via ID, has the right to vote (i.e. is a citizen), etc. But I don’t think IQ should be one of those criteria. Btw, you may want to brush up on what the Jim Crow laws were before you make your accusations. Hint: The Democrats instituted them, and one of their aims, along with segregating the population along racial lines (sound familiar?), was as to block freed slaves from voting. The Democrats didn’t intend them as a true IQ test to block the illiterate from voting, but rather to block blacks from voting. For example some Democrats instituted property requirements, while also instituting regulations that blacks could own property. Where/when exactly did Tancredo say that black people shouldn’t vote as you claim?
Quote:
The white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state's white population.

Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws




Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
LOL. So all it takes to “be a right winger” is to “shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of and call anyone who disagree a commie’, but being “a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort.”?

Yes, that's what I said and meant.

Doesn’t that seem at all over-simplistic and downright patronizing to you? Exactly how I described them, though.

Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
They seem pretty full of themselves, huh?
Unfortunately yes, many Marxists are a bit blinkered, as you find if you come across a dedicated comrade - lots of Marxist analysis of just about everything.

At least you can see how full of it they are.
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
How’s Marxism working out for the Soviet Union? Or East Germany? Or Cuba? How about comparing them and the conditions enjoyed by the millions of people who have actually increased their standard of living under Capitalism.

How is this relevant? Are you saying that the success of capitalism and the failure of the USSR is down to the brilliance of Capitalists over the stupidity of Marxists? Surely I don't have to point out the basic flaws in that logic?

My point exactly; It’s not relevant to the discussion, but you keep going there. If you want to argue the success/failure of the opposing ideologies, I’m just suggesting that proper venue would seem to be a thread dedicated to that, but you seem to resist that suggestion. Making such a suggestion doesn’t seem like anything new, and I have seen it done many times by others. Is that now off limits?



Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Some of that “time, study and effort” Marxists claim that goes into studying might be better served if they look at the results of its failures. I guess if they have some poster board and magic markers sitting around, my personal description is pretty dead on:
jmi256 wrote:
Actually, I think they are just self-important pri*ks with some poster board, magic markers and an elevated sense of self-defined ‘intellectualism.’

Again, if you want to argue this tangent, I suggest you start another thread.

a) Marxists do indeed spend a lot of time studying the reasons for past failures - that is exactly what neo-Marxism is about, which is where I came in.
b) As I have already said, I don't really need advice on whether to start a new thread or not - I consider this relevant, so I'll post it here. I hope I don't have to remind you about back-seat moderation, because I really don't want to have to switch hats - honestly! It spoils my day.
The fact that you re-iterated and commented on my posting means I will re-iterate and comment on yours - that's how it works. I entered to straighten-up a comment about neo-Marxism, nothing more.
If you want to stop this side-track then let it drop, but you cannot expect me to simply let challenges go unanswered (or maybe you can, but they won't Smile )

I’m not trying to back-seat moderate at all, but just suggesting that the proper place for a discussion about a non-related subject would be a separate thread. It seems we’re in a vicious cycle where I respond to you, you respond to me, I respond to you, etc., and it will result in endless back and forth. So if you prefer to just drop it, that’s fine. I won’t comment on the substance of your claim in this thread. But if you have some point on how the failure/nature of Marxism relates to this thread about Black Tea Party Protestors, then please carry on. Btw, I really am not trying to ruin your day, so if I’m hitting a nerve I’ll relent. If you noticed, as an olive branch I haven’t commented on the substance of your argument in this post, but just explained my suggestion of starting a new thread.

But back on topic once again, here’s another black Tea Party Protester commenting on the character assassination attempts and misrepresentations of the Tea Party Protests by the left.

Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
LOL. So all it takes to “be a right winger” is to “shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of and call anyone who disagree a commie’, but being “a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort.”?

Yes, that's what I said and meant.

Doesn’t that seem at all over-simplistic and downright patronizing to you? Exactly how I described them, though.
No, it is a factual observation. I know quite a few people who describe themselves as right wing. A number of them fit the description above very well when considering their knowledge of politics. What particular qualifications do you think are necessary to call yourself right-wing?
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
They seem pretty full of themselves, huh?
Unfortunately yes, many Marxists are a bit blinkered, as you find if you come across a dedicated comrade - lots of Marxist analysis of just about everything.

At least you can see how full of it they are.
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that many are obsessed with their political analysis, not that such analysis was wrong.
Quote:
My point exactly; It’s not relevant to the discussion, but you keep going there. If you want to argue the success/failure of the opposing ideologies, I’m just suggesting that proper venue would seem to be a thread dedicated to that, but you seem to resist that suggestion. Making such a suggestion doesn’t seem like anything new, and I have seen it done many times by others. Is that now off limits?
I have not, nor did I intend to, argued about the success of any political ideology. I pointed out that a posting characterising the racists at these meetings as neo-marxist infiltrators was rather unbelievable, and then explained why.
Quote:
Again, if you want to argue this tangent, I suggest you start another thread.
Suggest what you like.
Quote:
I’m not trying to back-seat moderate at all, but just suggesting that the proper place for a discussion about a non-related subject would be a separate thread. It seems we’re in a vicious cycle where I respond to you, you respond to me, I respond to you, etc., and it will result in endless back and forth. So if you prefer to just drop it, that’s fine. I won’t comment on the substance of your claim in this thread. But if you have some point on how the failure/nature of Marxism relates to this thread about Black Tea Party Protestors, then please carry on. Btw, I really am not trying to ruin your day, so if I’m hitting a nerve I’ll relent. If you noticed, as an olive branch I haven’t commented on the substance of your argument in this post, but just explained my suggestion of starting a new thread.
When you state that I am hijacking the thread and then suggest I start a new thread I regard that as getting close to back-seat moderation. Since you know I am a moderator then it is clear that you are implying that I am either unaware of, or deliberately ignoring the Terms and Conditions (specifically rule 2.d) which forbid such behaviour. I decided that since I am posting as a normal poster I would not interpret it that way, but I was also trying to let you know that you were straying onto thin ice, and to avoid that sort of implication, because it would force me, if repeated, to abandon the 'poster' hat and put on the 'mod' hat. I was, in short, trying to be as fair as possible.
jmi256
Another black Tea Party protestor making the case that the protests aren’t a black or white issue, but an American issue. But wait… I thought everyone at the Tea Party protests were racists?! How could this be?!

Bikerman
Well, a simple point of logic. For almost any group of people you will have some racists - just simple statistics. Personally I haven't put, or try to put, a number on it or, indeed, have I got involved in that debate, but to suggest that a video (or loads of videos) of black people saying a group they belong to isn't racist doesn't mean that it contains no racists. Are you maintaining that the photographs ealier are faked?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Well, a simple point of logic. For almost any group of people you will have some racists - just simple statistics.

That’s exactly what everyone has been saying. The tactic of pulling out a few isolated individuals acting on their own doesn’t constitute an overarching sentiment. But that hasn’t stopped them left from forwarding the ridiculous claim that all Tea Party protesters are racists. Sorry if this sounds “abusive” but my first reaction to your statement is “No sh*t, Sherlock.” But I’m glad to see you’re finally starting to comprehend the argument.

Bikerman wrote:
Personally I haven't put, or try to put, a number on it or, indeed, have I got involved in that debate, but to suggest that a video (or loads of videos) of black people saying a group they belong to isn't racist doesn't mean that it contains no racists.

Did I ever say there that there was no one who attended a Tea Party protest who held beliefs that are outside the norm of the group? As you pointed out you could attend any event with a group of people (teachers, politicians, cab drivers, etc.), and statistically some of them will hold a certain belief. Evidence that black people haven’t fallen for the left’s attempts to portray them and those they identify with as racists may rattle some lefties’ sensibilities and damage their position, but it does counter the fringe left’s attempts to stereotype legitimate protesters as all being racists.

Bikerman wrote:
Are you maintaining that the photographs ealier are faked?

Interesting attempt to change the subject (again). But, please, show me when/where I said that.
Bikerman
No attempt to change the subject at all.
Yes, there are racists in most groups, but there is a difference. If I saw those posters at a group of teachers, politicians or cab-drivers I would be quite shocked.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

Bikerman wrote:
Are you maintaining that the photographs ealier are faked?

Interesting attempt to change the subject (again). But, please, show me when/where I said that.


Bikerman wrote:
No attempt to change the subject at all.
Yes, there are racists in most groups, but there is a difference. If I saw those posters at a group of teachers, politicians or cab-drivers I would be quite shocked.


This is a good point and a question that needs answering. Of course in any group there will likely be X number of racists. But we can see protest gatherings by all sorts of people, and yet rarely see signs like these racist ones. But we do find them at Tea Party rallies, and we can find a lot of them. I've never seen any evidence of the racist sign carriers being regularly challenged by other Tea Partiers. This would be pretty good evidence that, yes, there is a atmosphere of acceptance and promotion of racism at the Tea Parties. Maybe the leadership officially says they are not racist, but they would have to do that, of course. Then they turn around and invite Tom Tancredo back as keynote speaker.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
No attempt to change the subject at all.
Yes, there are racists in most groups, but there is a difference. If I saw those posters at a group of teachers, politicians or cab-drivers I would be quite shocked.


So now you say there are no racist teachers, politicians, etc.? I thought you were making progress when you at least acknowledged that every group of people will statistically have some people who hold divergent views, but it looks like you’re now going backward. Pick a lane. I guess the few isolated examples below mean that all Democrats or whatever group they identify with are racist according to your criteria, huh?






















handfleisch wrote:
I've never seen any evidence of the racist sign carriers being regularly challenged by other Tea Partiers.

Have you even looked at all the videos I posted where people are saying that the Tea Party is not about racism and challenging that belief? I can’t really fault you for not seeing when you get your news from sources like Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Alternet, etc. I encourage you to take a look for yourself rather than swallowing everything they shove down your throat.




More protests based on ideals, not color:









deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
This is a good point and a question that needs answering. Of course in any group there will likely be X number of racists. But we can see protest gatherings by all sorts of people, and yet rarely see signs like these racist ones. But we do find them at Tea Party rallies, and we can find a lot of them. I've never seen any evidence of the racist sign carriers being regularly challenged by other Tea Partiers. This would be pretty good evidence that, yes, there is a atmosphere of acceptance and promotion of racism at the Tea Parties. Maybe the leadership officially says they are not racist, but they would have to do that, of course. Then they turn around and invite Tom Tancredo back as keynote speaker.
Maybe the racism is more pronounced since feelings at those Tea Parties are running high and people are expressing some loud opinions. They are much less inhibited for example than in the work place, where people have to behave in a more inhibited way and stick with the rules.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
This is a good point and a question that needs answering. Of course in any group there will likely be X number of racists. But we can see protest gatherings by all sorts of people, and yet rarely see signs like these racist ones. But we do find them at Tea Party rallies, and we can find a lot of them. I've never seen any evidence of the racist sign carriers being regularly challenged by other Tea Partiers. This would be pretty good evidence that, yes, there is a atmosphere of acceptance and promotion of racism at the Tea Parties. Maybe the leadership officially says they are not racist, but they would have to do that, of course. Then they turn around and invite Tom Tancredo back as keynote speaker.
Maybe the racism is more pronounced since feelings at those Tea Parties are running high and people are expressing some loud opinions. They are much less inhibited for example than in the work place, where people have to behave in a more inhibited way and stick with the rules.
The problem with your point is that we're not talking about stray comments uttered in the heat of the moment, we're talking about many large signs that are regularly made in advance with cold determination to proudly express racist views, signs that are apparently tolerated and/or approved of by the other Tea Partiers around these sign-carriers, since I have not heard of any sign-carrier being told by a fellow TPer that the signs are not cool. There's no other protest I know of where this happens except of course at Klan-type rallies.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No attempt to change the subject at all.
Yes, there are racists in most groups, but there is a difference. If I saw those posters at a group of teachers, politicians or cab-drivers I would be quite shocked.


So now you say there are no racist teachers, politicians, etc.?
Either you have a problem with English or you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I explicitly said that most groups contain racists - that would of course include teachers, politicians etc. The reason I didn't say ALL groups is because obviously one can posit groups which might not. I would be surprised to find racists in the 'Anti-Racism League' for example.
The point is not that there are no racist teachers, but that any meeting of teachers at which were displayed the sort of posters we see here, would be shocking and would be immediately headline news. It is assumed that a meeting of teachers (or politicians) will behave according to the standards of those professions (within some broad limits) and displaying racist posters is not something i can imagine happening - and if it did I would deplore it and speak loudly against it, as would just about all the teachers I know. Furthermore I would brand that meeting racist. If you attend a meeting where racism is openly displayed, then you are implicitly condoning it unless you speak out. The videos of the blacks speaking out merely show that THEY are not racist. What about the rest, who apparently say nothing?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No attempt to change the subject at all.
Yes, there are racists in most groups, but there is a difference. If I saw those posters at a group of teachers, politicians or cab-drivers I would be quite shocked.


So now you say there are no racist teachers, politicians, etc.?


Either you have a problem with English or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I think my English is pretty good, even as an immigrant. If your comments contradict each other, that’s a problem you have (and I don’t know if it’s with your English, logic, reasoning skills, debate skills, whatever), not others. Stop contradicting yourself or changing your stance willy-nilly to fit the moment at hand, and maybe that will help. But that’s beside the point. How exactly am I “deliberately misrepresenting” you when I respond with your comments in full quotes. I have not doctored them in any way, so if your comments make no sense or contradict each other, again, that’s your problem. You can make all the personal attacks you want. I’m sure you’ll whine about how resorting to attacking someone’s language skills is not a personal attack, but stooping to that level just shows your true colors. It’s also very revealing that the left tries to portray itself as champions of ‘diversity’ when it suits them, but then are the ones who use homophobic and xenophobic language in their arguments. English may be my second language, but I think I make myself very clear. What’s your excuse?


But back to the debate…
Bikerman wrote:
I explicitly said that most groups contain racists - that would of course include teachers, politicians etc. The reason I didn't say ALL groups is because obviously one can posit groups which might not. I would be surprised to find racists in the 'Anti-Racism League' for example.

The point is not that there are no racist teachers, but that any meeting of teachers at which were displayed the sort of posters we see here, would be shocking and would be immediately headline news. It is assumed that a meeting of teachers (or politicians) will behave according to the standards of those professions (within some broad limits) and displaying racist posters is not something i can imagine happening - and if it did I would deplore it and speak loudly against it, as would just about all the teachers I know. Furthermore I would brand that meeting racist. If you attend a meeting where racism is openly displayed, then you are implicitly condoning it unless you speak out. The videos of the blacks speaking out merely show that THEY are not racist. What about the rest, who apparently say nothing?

First of all, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Tea Party protests are part of a grassroots movement organized by individuals and small groups that attract a diverse range of individuals. There is no formal membership or targeted professions, no criteria, bouncers at the gates, ID checks, etc. so there are no “standards of those professions” to violate. They have come together to protest many different symptoms of a larger problem: the explosive growth of government size, intrusion and scope.

Second of all, the claim that Tea Party protestors have not spoken out against racism is false, no matter how many times you and your pal make the claim. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, and a simple Google search quickly squashes that claim. Yet the claim is made over and over, either out of ignorance or deceit. As I’ve said the first is somewhat understandable if you are going to a the same biased sources for news (Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Alternet, etc.). These sites feed off over each other and recycle the same old content and messages, so it’s understandable that some merely parrot what they see/read/hear if they are not shown an opposing view. Evidence and reasoning usually prevail in countering that (no matter what part of the political spectrum it comes from). The second is more problematic, as those people will forward and argue a point, such as the Tea Party protests are racist events, no matter how much evidence and sound reasoning is provided. Those people will continue to make their false claims, lob insults, change the subject, etc., but never acknowledge that evidence that counters their position exists.

Thirdly, your argument that protestors are “implicitly condoning” anything unless they speak out is faulty from ideological, factual and logistic standpoints. You and a few others continue to forward the claim that the Tea Party protests are all about racism because a few signs that do not represent the majority view have been found, and therefore according to your ‘logic’ the only way to change the label and stereotype you have placed on an entire group of people is for some type of mass protest against the protesters. But your premise is wrong, and the Tea Party protests are not all about racism. Being a diverse movement that has attracted a range of different people and views, there is bound to be views that the majority do not hold. But that does not mean the entire group needs to go around denouncing ad nauseam every instance of an idea they do not agree with. Of course not. For example if I don’t agree with someone’s point of view, it doesn’t then become my ‘job’ to denounce them. I can if I choose, but if I decide to instead focus on my own ideas, that does not mean I am “implicitly condoning” anything. Do you hold yourself to the standard you are demanding? In all the posts on Frihost, it is legitimate to say that you hold dear every claim that you have not explicitly ‘denounced’? If you are not willing to hold yourself to the same standard you demand of others, well, that can only be seen a hypocritical. As I have shown, protestors have spoken out against racism and the portrayal that all Tea Party protests are racist events. But you have turned a blind eye to that evidence, and instead choose to keep making your claim. But you can’t have it both ways and continue making that claim in the face of all the evidence I have shown and not then also keep claiming that somehow, it is still all about racism. If you are objecting the “the rest” not joining in on reaffirming the Tea Party protests are not all about racism, what in your mind is the acceptable number of people showing that the they aren’t? Will you only come to your senses once each and every person has signed some document or something? That’s just a stupid idea that from a logistical standpoint wouldn’t be possible. Simply put, in the end those from the left have decided to avoid talking about the real issues the Tea Party protesters have raised, and instead have raised the cry of racism in an attempt to do so.


More people countering your claims that the Tea Party is all about racism…

Quote:
The Tea Party Is Not Racist!



In response to the mainstream media outlets that are trying to discredit the Tea Party Movement as racist, I feel that it is imperative that the truth be presented by one who’s been there.

First of all let me say that I am a conservative African American and a veteran. I have not only attended several Tea Parties, but I organized the event in Fort Wayne, Indiana in April of 2009! The event turned out to be well attended. Our keynote speaker was also African American; former presidential candidate, Dr. Alan Keyes.

I am outraged at the biased coverage of these events. The racist accusations against the Tea Party movement are false and do not portray the truth about a movement which is waking up Americans to the principles that founded this great nation. Every day a new charge is made, and the major media outlets refuse to allow someone like me refute these allegations and defend the Tea Party, and those that attend the rallies.

Everyone in the media is bent on portraying this movement as the worst thing that anyone could attend because of all of the “shady characters” involved with it. Even Meghan McCain on "The View", and "The Captain America" Comic felt the need to try and discredit the movement.

I challenge the media to bring on a real true African American conservative patriot, and have that person evaluate the Tea Party movement based on experience. I also accept the offer to be that person, because I would like to share the truth about them from my first hand experiences.




I have attended dozens of these events, and have been featured as a speaker at several of them. I have also served on the candidate panels, and spoken at Town Hall Meetings. It has been wonderful to meet and to talk to those that attend. These are folk that love their country, share a deep respect for our Constitution and those that serve in our nation’s Armed Forces. It is a movement that unites everyone, regardless of race, based on those beliefs.

We must start now to debunk this portrayal, because it is causing a very negative impact on the movement without just cause. I can say from experience that the charges are an outright lie.

I have never encountered any racism at any of the events that I have attended throughout Indiana or in other states. I have also attended rallies in the nation’s capital, and these have also been with out any incident.

I cannot sit by and allow a movement such as this to receive unwarranted negative publicity.

The movement is driving true patriotic Americans back to our founding principles and recreating a love for our Constitution. It does this across racial and cultural barriers. The Tea Party movement is bringing us together to stand up for a common cause; that of restoring the traditional values which encompass all people who call themselves Americans. Perhaps unity is what is what the naysayers really fear and the race card is always a handy tool to divide the people.

I thank the Veterans’ Voice for letting me share my views and hope that other media outlets will do likewise. I think I am a better judge than those sitting in the anchor chairs as to whether or not these events are racist and I will give a fair appraisal to the public. Let America hear a voice from the inside, so that they can then decide. If after hearing someone that has been there if the accusations don't fit, then you must acquit.

Source = http://www.theveteransvoice.com/The-Tea-Party-Is-Not-Racist.html







Tea Partier Schools CNN's Rick Sanchez and Rep. Alan Grayson
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/30/tea-partier-schools-rick-sanchez-and-rep-alan-grayson
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
I think my English is pretty good, even as an immigrant. If your comments contradict each other, that’s a problem you have (and I don’t know if it’s with your English, logic, reasoning skills, debate skills, whatever), not others. Stop contradicting yourself or changing your stance willy-nilly to fit the moment at hand, and maybe that will help. But that’s beside the point. How exactly am I “deliberately misrepresenting” you when I respond with your comments in full quotes. I have not doctored them in any way, so if your comments make no sense or contradict each other, again, that’s your problem. You can make all the personal attacks you want. I’m sure you’ll whine about how resorting to attacking someone’s language skills is not a personal attack, but stooping to that level just shows your true colors. It’s also very revealing that the left tries to portray itself as champions of ‘diversity’ when it suits them, but then are the ones who use homophobic and xenophobic language in their arguments. English may be my second language, but I think I make myself very clear. What’s your excuse?
I don't need one.
q) Did I every say or suggest that there are no racist teachers or politicians?
a) No I didn't, rather the opposite.
q) Did you assert that I had?
a) Yep.
Conclusion - you are either trying to misrepresent me, or you don't understand the fairly plain English used.
Quote:
First of all, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Tea Party protests are part of a grassroots movement organized by individuals and small groups that attract a diverse range of individuals. There is no formal membership or targeted professions, no criteria, bouncers at the gates, ID checks, etc. so there are no “standards of those professions” to violate. They have come together to protest many different symptoms of a larger problem: the explosive growth of government size, intrusion and scope.
Err..YOU first made the comparison, not me.
Quote:
Second of all, the claim that Tea Party protestors have not spoken out against racism is false, no matter how many times you and your pal make the claim. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, and a simple Google search quickly squashes that claim. Yet the claim is made over and over, either out of ignorance or deceit. As I’ve said the first is somewhat understandable if you are going to a the same biased sources for news (Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Alternet, etc.). These sites feed off over each other and recycle the same old content and messages, so it’s understandable that some merely parrot what they see/read/hear if they are not shown an opposing view. Evidence and reasoning usually prevail in countering that (no matter what part of the political spectrum it comes from). The second is more problematic, as those people will forward and argue a point, such as the Tea Party protests are racist events, no matter how much evidence and sound reasoning is provided. Those people will continue to make their false claims, lob insults, change the subject, etc., but never acknowledge that evidence that counters their position exists.
I didn't make such a claim. I pointed out that those who don't speak out against racism in their 'group' are thereby condoning it.
Quote:
Thirdly, your argument that protestors are “implicitly condoning” anything unless they speak out is faulty from ideological, factual and logistic standpoints. You and a few others continue to forward the claim that the Tea Party protests are all about racism because a few signs that do not represent the majority view have been found, and therefore according to your ‘logic’ the only way to change the label and stereotype you have placed on an entire group of people is for some type of mass protest against the protesters. But your premise is wrong, and the Tea Party protests are not all about racism. Being a diverse movement that has attracted a range of different people and views, there is bound to be views that the majority do not hold. But that does not mean the entire group needs to go around denouncing ad nauseam every instance of an idea they do not agree with. Of course not. For example if I don’t agree with someone’s point of view, it doesn’t then become my ‘job’ to denounce them. I can if I choose, but if I decide to instead focus on my own ideas, that does not mean I am “implicitly condoning” anything. Do you hold yourself to the standard you are demanding? In all the posts on Frihost, it is legitimate to say that you hold dear every claim that you have not explicitly ‘denounced’? If you are not willing to hold yourself to the same standard you demand of others, well, that can only be seen a hypocritical. As I have shown, protestors have spoken out against racism and the portrayal that all Tea Party protests are racist events. But you have turned a blind eye to that evidence, and instead choose to keep making your claim. But you can’t have it both ways and continue making that claim in the face of all the evidence I have shown and not then also keep claiming that somehow, it is still all about racism. If you are objecting the “the rest” not joining in on reaffirming the Tea Party protests are not all about racism, what in your mind is the acceptable number of people showing that the they aren’t? Will you only come to your senses once each and every person has signed some document or something? That’s just a stupid idea that from a logistical standpoint wouldn’t be possible. Simply put, in the end those from the left have decided to avoid talking about the real issues the Tea Party protesters have raised, and instead have raised the cry of racism in an attempt to do so.

If I voluntarily belong to a group then yes, it is incumbent on me to speak when that group say things I find objectionable. If a gathering of any group I have chosen to belong to displayed those banners then yes I certainly would speak up and I would probably leave the group. I don't understand why you find that problematical.
BTW - I have never asserted that all Tea Party gatherings are racist.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I think my English is pretty good, even as an immigrant.
Your English is excellent? Your insights sound as though they are from someone born and bred in the United States, it is a great surprise to learn you are an immigrant.

Nice photos. I particularly like this portion of your last quote from theveteransvoice.com:
Quote:
I have attended dozens of these events, and have been featured as a speaker at several of them. I have also served on the candidate panels, and spoken at Town Hall Meetings. It has been wonderful to meet and to talk to those that attend. These are folk that love their country, share a deep respect for our Constitution and those that serve in our nation’s Armed Forces. It is a movement that unites everyone, regardless of race, based on those beliefs.

We must start now to debunk this portrayal, because it is causing a very negative impact on the movement without just cause. I can say from experience that the charges are an outright lie.

I have never encountered any racism at any of the events that I have attended throughout Indiana or in other states. I have also attended rallies in the nation’s capital, and these have also been with out any incident.

I cannot sit by and allow a movement such as this to receive unwarranted negative publicity.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I think my English is pretty good, even as an immigrant. If your comments contradict each other, that’s a problem you have (and I don’t know if it’s with your English, logic, reasoning skills, debate skills, whatever), not others. Stop contradicting yourself or changing your stance willy-nilly to fit the moment at hand, and maybe that will help. But that’s beside the point. How exactly am I “deliberately misrepresenting” you when I respond with your comments in full quotes. I have not doctored them in any way, so if your comments make no sense or contradict each other, again, that’s your problem. You can make all the personal attacks you want. I’m sure you’ll whine about how resorting to attacking someone’s language skills is not a personal attack, but stooping to that level just shows your true colors. It’s also very revealing that the left tries to portray itself as champions of ‘diversity’ when it suits them, but then are the ones who use homophobic and xenophobic language in their arguments. English may be my second language, but I think I make myself very clear. What’s your excuse?

I don't need one.
q) Did I every say or suggest that there are no racist teachers or politicians?
a) No I didn't, rather the opposite.
q) Did you assert that I had?
a) Yep.
Conclusion - you are either trying to misrepresent me, or you don't understand the fairly plain English used.

You say you “don’t need one” but you’re the one complaining that you’re being misrepresented, even when your full comments are included. My question about what your excuse is was more a response to your insult. But again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can try to explain away your bigotry, but at the end of the day it’s still bigotry. There are quite a few people who post on this board whose first language isn’t English, and your derogatory comments are insulting. This isn’t first time you have made similar types of comments, however. I’m willing to let the issue drop, however, since on a whole I do not thing you are a raging bigot, and am not suggesting you are. But when you make those types of offensive comments toward me, you have to expect I’m going call you out on them.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
First of all, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Tea Party protests are part of a grassroots movement organized by individuals and small groups that attract a diverse range of individuals. There is no formal membership or targeted professions, no criteria, bouncers at the gates, ID checks, etc. so there are no “standards of those professions” to violate. They have come together to protest many different symptoms of a larger problem: the explosive growth of government size, intrusion and scope.

Err..YOU first made the comparison, not me.

I was actually agreeing with you at first when you said “For almost any group of people you will have some racists - just simple statistics.” I then used those groups as examples to agree with you: “As you pointed out you could attend any event with a group of people (teachers, politicians, cab drivers, etc.), and statistically some of them will hold a certain belief.” But you then went in the other direction and started down the whole idea that a gathering of a certain profession will follow “standards of those professions.” My point about you comparing apples and oranges is that the Tea Party protests are not gatherings of certain professions, so there can be no “standards of those professions”, as I noted above.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Second of all, the claim that Tea Party protestors have not spoken out against racism is false, no matter how many times you and your pal make the claim. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, and a simple Google search quickly squashes that claim. Yet the claim is made over and over, either out of ignorance or deceit. As I’ve said the first is somewhat understandable if you are going to a the same biased sources for news (Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Alternet, etc.). These sites feed off over each other and recycle the same old content and messages, so it’s understandable that some merely parrot what they see/read/hear if they are not shown an opposing view. Evidence and reasoning usually prevail in countering that (no matter what part of the political spectrum it comes from). The second is more problematic, as those people will forward and argue a point, such as the Tea Party protests are racist events, no matter how much evidence and sound reasoning is provided. Those people will continue to make their false claims, lob insults, change the subject, etc., but never acknowledge that evidence that counters their position exists.

I didn't make such a claim. I pointed out that those who don't speak out against racism in their 'group' are thereby condoning it.

Really? You didn’t imply the Tea Party protesters are racists? As I pointed out, I could have sworn you said:
Bikerman wrote:
If you attend a meeting where racism is openly displayed, then you are implicitly condoning it unless you speak out. The videos of the blacks speaking out merely show that THEY are not racist. What about the rest, who apparently say nothing?

Basically in your mind the perceived lack of evidence to the contrary is evidence of the affirmative. Going by your standard, you “implicitly condone” every word typed in this forum that you have not explicitly denounced. I’m not going to go into a list of every little thing posted here that I think is ‘questionable’ (and that’s a kind description), but if that’s the standard I will be sure to call you out on it. For myself, I’m fine letting people make comments I don’t agree with, and my not challenging everything I’m not 100% behind does not mean I somehow then ‘condone’ it. If someone else denounces it, that’s fine too, and there is no need to pile on with a “me too.” That’s exactly what is going on with the Tea Party protesters. The small minority that may hold divergent views have been challenged by some within the protests, and there is no need for the majority to then also jump on the bandwagon. The simple truth is that there were (and very well may continue) to be a small group with divergent views who attend the parties. They have been rebuked and some Tea Party protesters have reaffirmed that the core of the protests are not about racism, but about higher taxes, bigger, more intrusive government, skyrocketing deficits, government-run X, Y and Z, etc.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Thirdly, your argument that protestors are “implicitly condoning” anything unless they speak out is faulty from ideological, factual and logistic standpoints. You and a few others continue to forward the claim that the Tea Party protests are all about racism because a few signs that do not represent the majority view have been found, and therefore according to your ‘logic’ the only way to change the label and stereotype you have placed on an entire group of people is for some type of mass protest against the protesters. But your premise is wrong, and the Tea Party protests are not all about racism. Being a diverse movement that has attracted a range of different people and views, there is bound to be views that the majority do not hold. But that does not mean the entire group needs to go around denouncing ad nauseam every instance of an idea they do not agree with. Of course not. For example if I don’t agree with someone’s point of view, it doesn’t then become my ‘job’ to denounce them. I can if I choose, but if I decide to instead focus on my own ideas, that does not mean I am “implicitly condoning” anything. Do you hold yourself to the standard you are demanding? In all the posts on Frihost, it is legitimate to say that you hold dear every claim that you have not explicitly ‘denounced’? If you are not willing to hold yourself to the same standard you demand of others, well, that can only be seen a hypocritical. As I have shown, protestors have spoken out against racism and the portrayal that all Tea Party protests are racist events. But you have turned a blind eye to that evidence, and instead choose to keep making your claim. But you can’t have it both ways and continue making that claim in the face of all the evidence I have shown and not then also keep claiming that somehow, it is still all about racism. If you are objecting the “the rest” not joining in on reaffirming the Tea Party protests are not all about racism, what in your mind is the acceptable number of people showing that the they aren’t? Will you only come to your senses once each and every person has signed some document or something? That’s just a stupid idea that from a logistical standpoint wouldn’t be possible. Simply put, in the end those from the left have decided to avoid talking about the real issues the Tea Party protesters have raised, and instead have raised the cry of racism in an attempt to do so.

If I voluntarily belong to a group then yes, it is incumbent on me to speak when that group say things I find objectionable. If a gathering of any group I have chosen to belong to displayed those banners then yes I certainly would speak up and I would probably leave the group. I don't understand why you find that problematical.
BTW - I have never asserted that all Tea Party gatherings are racist.

I have touched on this above, but I’m assuming that you “voluntary” moderate and post on this forum, so I’m sure you will live up to the ‘standard’ you have outlined for yourself.


deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I think my English is pretty good, even as an immigrant.
Your English is excellent? Your insights sound as though they are from someone born and bred in the United States, it is a great surprise to learn you are an immigrant.

Thanks. I think it’s pretty good too and most people I speak to don’t recognize an accent, but it still irks me to hear bigoted statements like the one made by Bikerman. I still make a few typos here and there, but that’s more out of laziness at times and/or I’m just typing too quickly. My family moved to the US from Italy when I was five years old, so I had some problems when I started school, but learned pretty quickly. But my family and I had to endure bigoted statements initially, and to be honest most of the bigoted statements and prejudices came from those who would be considered the most ‘liberal.’ And some still do at times as my mom still speaks with a thick Italian accent. We stayed in the States (in Louisiana) for two years, then moved back to Italy for two. Then to Germany (actually West Germany at the time) for two years, and then back to the states. We’ve lived all up and down the East Coast and I’ve traveled to many states here, so I’ve been fortunate enough to see the diversity and incredible uniqueness and strength of the US. I’ve also been able to travel internationally pretty extensively both for pleasure and during my time in the Marines, and out of all the countries in the world I’ve been to, the US is by far the best (sorry if that offends anyone). That’s why I hate seeing how some are running this country into the ground, especially with arguments that X is how Y% of the world does something. The US is better because of the fact that it is different, not despite the fact that it is different.
Bikerman
Err, I am no bigot and you are still either having problems with basic English or trying to misrepresent.
Quote:
Conclusion - you are either trying to misrepresent me, or you don't understand the fairly plain English used.

Notice the 'either or' ?
I am happy to accept it was the former and never suggested that it could only be the latter. There is nothing derogatory about it in any case - I regularly deal with people who have difficulty with English - you would not be the first.

You also don't seem to understand what the word bigot means. Pointing out that someone may not understand a particular passage of English is not bigotry. It is, at worst, rude, and in this case, since it was accurately used as an alternative, then it is not even rude. To be bigoted would mean that I think that English speakers are in some way superior. (Or at the very least that I had some sort of unreasonable prejudice against those who don't use English to a reasonable level). Clearly I don't, and I haven't. How could I possibly criticise someone for whom English was a second language, since the only other language I speak is very bad French. My objection was to YOUR twisting my words, and trying to conflate that into bigotry is a very cheap ploy. Your touching little story doesn't make it any less cheap. Its very similar to dropping words like 'homophobic and xenophobic' into your postings - not quite suggesting I am, but attributing it generally to the left, which is pretty close. The cheap tactic of the ethically bankrupt. Exactly the sort of thing you are accusing 'the left' of.

And the whining about offensive comments is beginning to get on my nerves. I find your arrogance pretty offensive too, but I figure you can't help it, so I overlook it.
Quote:
Really? You didn’t imply the Tea Party protesters are racists? As I pointed out, I could have sworn you said:
Quote:
If you attend a meeting where racism is openly displayed, then you are implicitly condoning it unless you speak out. The videos of the blacks speaking out merely show that THEY are not racist. What about the rest, who apparently say nothing?
Once again the apparent problem with basic English.
There is no implication about 'tea party protesters' en masse, merely an observation that those who observe and don't speak out are condoning. Perhaps all the attendees who saw the banners spoke out? Given that you have already accepted that some of them are racist then I really don't see your problem. I certainly did not say they were all racist - in fact I explicitly said otherwise. I'm saying that this sort of banner would not be displayed in ANY group I belong to - including bikers, many of which are extremely diverse in terms of membership. The ONLY place I would see those sorts of poster would be at a fringe Fascist (eg BNP) meeting. And I repeat - if you belong to ANY group and you see that sort of poster, then unless you speak out then I consider you are condoning it. That is my opinion and I'm happy to defend it.

As for the main issue - of course I do not think that all tea-party gatherings consist of racists yelling bile. I am surprised by the posters above but I would make no generalisation based on a few pictures. I even tried to imagine if the election of an unpopular black Prime Minister would trigger anything similar here. I doubt it, but it is possible I suppose.
A dozen (or a few dozen) photos are not sufficient data to make a generalised charge of racism - which is one reason I never have.

And yes, any racism that I see in this or other forums will most certainly be acted upon by me, because not to do so would be condoning it. I would not act on opinion, since that is not my role. I might sometimes challenge opinions as a poster, as here, but not a moderator. However, there are some 'opinions' which are both against the TOS and grossly offensive, such as racism, and in all such cases I would act promptly.
In short no, I am not setting double standards.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I am happy to accept it was the former and never suggested that it could only be the latter. There is nothing derogatory about it in any case - I regularly deal with people who have difficulty with English - you would not be the first.
I don't agree with the last part of this sentence, to the contrary, jmi's English is above average and excellent. If there is a problem that I have picked up on in this thread as well as other threads is that English expressions and meanings of words may vary subtly between England and the US as much as their cultures are quite different. Refer your statement earlier in this thread to underline cultural differences:
Bikerman wrote:
There is a common perception of Americans here in the UK which goes something like - no sense of irony, little sense of the absurd, 'sincerity' bordering on lunacy, coupled to a naivety that is positively dangerous and an attitude that there is nothing they can't sort out if they set their mind to it.
I've always spoke against such crass generalisations, because I've worked with quite a few Americans I came to admire. But this plays right into the stereotype, big time.
If someone from either of the two countries should be inflexible to make allowances for the possibility of differences in meanings of words of someone of the other country, then obviously the one who is inflexible may come to the conclusion that the other has "difficulty" with English.
Bikerman
There is no 'cultural' misunderstanding about an accusation of bigotry so I don't accept your 'defence'.

Consider a point I made when i first entered the thread:
Quote:
You can't just 'be' a marxist, it takes time, study, and effort. Anyone can be a 'right winger'. Shout slogans, say the most selfish things you can think of, and call anyone who disagrees a commie. Easy peasy.

This is immediately picked-up as an attack on right-wingers. Here's the rub - it ISN'T.
If, instead of jerking out some poorly considered response about 'left wingers, a bit of THOUGHT had been used, then it quickly becomes apparent that this is a defence of working at your politics rather than playing at it, regardless of which side you are on.

How can I say that? Easily. Switch 'left' for 'right' and switch 'maxist' for 'Heideggerist' (or any other right-wing philosopher), and switch 'commie' for 'fascist'. The argument works exactly the same.
For the right winger the selfish shouts would probably be about taxes. For the left winger they would probably be about 'rich people'.

The fact that I chose to use the 'right wing' side was because of the context - neo-maxists were being portrayed wrongly. Had it been reversed then I probably would have used exactly the same argument.

Now, I tend to think that this is all pretty accessible to anyone who is prepared to believe that I put a bit of time and effort into my postings, and who is, in return, willing to put a bit of time and effort into reading them. Maybe it isn't accessible - because they have a problem with my English perhaps? Now I don't use big words without reason and I think I'm fairly easy to understand. So I tend to think that anyone who can get my meaning so far wrong maybe isn't the best at English comprehension, or alternatively has CHOSEN to misunderstand it - that is what I said.
Maybe they can't be bothered trying to seek the meaning - OK, I don't really mind too much.

What I will NOT put up with is someone misunderstanding the meanings and crying 'Bigot' because of THEIR misunderstanding.
If it happens again then I will close the thread and issue warning.
yagnyavalkya
Race is a difficult issue and arriving at a something close to what people agree is very difficult again
Bikerman
But the issue is not race and never has been. The issue is whether someone pointing out that a poster has possibly misunderstood the meaning of their posting can and should be described as bigoted. I'm afraid that to me it is a complete no-brainer - the answer is no.
It has sometimes been put to me (particularly in the philosophy forum) that my postings are not always easy to understand - OK, I accept that sometimes I like to explore beneath the obvious meanings. I don't apologise for that - I believe that challenging postings should be encouraged and I certainly don't believe that we should strive for some sort of lowest common denominator where all postings have to be comprehensible to all posters. If someone, for whatever reason, finds it difficult to extract the meaning then I am happy to explain it if required.
What I absolutely object to is allegations of bigotry being flung around where there is clearly no such thing. It is offensive - very few people like to be called a bigot, and those that do probably are!
I would hope that my postings give the lie to any such accusation but as a moderator I would not stand by and see such accusations being made about other members (without some good evidence) so I will not see them made about me either. That is just consistency.
If allegations ARE/HAVE been made and I have not seen them, then the correct thing to do is report them and I, or other moderators, will look into them.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
But the issue is not race and never has been. The issue is whether someone pointing out that a poster has possibly misunderstood the meaning of their posting can and should be described as bigoted. I'm afraid that to me it is a complete no-brainer - the answer is no.
It has sometimes been put to me (particularly in the philosophy forum) that my postings are not always easy to understand - OK, I accept that sometimes I like to explore beneath the obvious meanings. I don't apologise for that - I believe that challenging postings should be encouraged and I certainly don't believe that we should strive for some sort of lowest common denominator where all postings have to be comprehensible to all posters. If someone, for whatever reason, finds it difficult to extract the meaning then I am happy to explain it if required.
What I absolutely object to is allegations of bigotry being flung around where there is clearly no such thing. It is offensive - very few people like to be called a bigot, and those that do probably are!
I would hope that my postings give the lie to any such accusation but as a moderator I would not stand by and see such accusations being made about other members (without some good evidence) so I will not see them made about me either. That is just consistency.
If allegations ARE/HAVE been made and I have not seen them, then the correct thing to do is report them and I, or other moderators, will look into them.

What's funny in this case is the poster throwing around this bigot card is the same one that complains that the so-called left wing resorts to using the term "racist" when losing an argument. This poster has pretty much done the exact same thing he complains about, just substituting "bigot" for "racist". It supports my general premise that the very vocal and aggressive right wing in the USA is often projecting their own traits, tendencies and personal issues onto their opponents. It's like the preachers always yelling about sex or gays that end up getting caught with prostitutes or coming out of the closet.
Bikerman
Well, I think that both sides (if, indeed, the word 'side' has any meaning here?) are guilty of that. That's why my original point was that what we could do with is more people reading up and considering their politics. To be a marxist, to run with the previous case, one has to understand maxist philosophy. That means that you have to do some reading and although ultimately you have taken a particular stance as a marxist, you have some knowledge of the situation rather than a blind support for a party or policy or group with which you share only a few political generalisms - such as 'lower tax'. Ultimately any group such as the tea-party group will founder on the differences between the members. There will be, of course, many sub-groups within the whole - as there is for any broad alliance - but I think that within groups that are essentially single-issue then those sub-groups render the overall grouping unstable. The whole point, to me, about the racism in the photographs earlier, was not the implication that the tea-party movement is inherently racist - I don't think it is useful to think in those terms for the simple reason that, as I already said, any large grouping will most likely contain racists (and others who hold what we might call bigoted views). The interest to me is primarily the following:
Given that I think those pictures would only occur at fairly 'extreme' rallies over here (and I'm sure that is accurate, but I have no data to back it up), then what does it say, if anything, about the differences in culture that we see people apparently comfortable to be seen with the signs in question. The obvious observation would be that there are still states in the US which contain a large number of racists. I don't think it is particularly controversial to suggest that if I walked into a bar in Alabama or Mississippi then I am quite likely to hear overtly racist conversation. I've seen enough second-hand examples to think that is accurate. (I understand some of the history and I'm not looking at this judgementally. I'm just interested to see what we can learn about the differences).
Perhaps there is more tolerance for overt racism in some states and perhaps the sort of pictures we see above come from rallies in those states? It seems to me to be a hypothesis worth exploring and anyone with a bit of time might try tracking the sources back to the state.....

That doesn't, of course, say anything about the tea-party movement itself, more about demographics and history generally....
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Err, I am no bigot and you are still either having problems with basic English or trying to misrepresent.
Quote:
Conclusion - you are either trying to misrepresent me, or you don't understand the fairly plain English used.

Notice the 'either or' ?
I am happy to accept it was the former and never suggested that it could only be the latter. There is nothing derogatory about it in any case - I regularly deal with people who have difficulty with English - you would not be the first.

You also don't seem to understand what the word bigot means. Pointing out that someone may not understand a particular passage of English is not bigotry. It is, at worst, rude, and in this case, since it was accurately used as an alternative, then it is not even rude. To be bigoted would mean that I think that English speakers are in some way superior. (Or at the very least that I had some sort of unreasonable prejudice against those who don't use English to a reasonable level). Clearly I don't, and I haven't. How could I possibly criticise someone for whom English was a second language, since the only other language I speak is very bad French. My objection was to YOUR twisting my words, and trying to conflate that into bigotry is a very cheap ploy. Your touching little story doesn't make it any less cheap. Its very similar to dropping words like 'homophobic and xenophobic' into your postings - not quite suggesting I am, but attributing it generally to the left, which is pretty close. The cheap tactic of the ethically bankrupt. Exactly the sort of thing you are accusing 'the left' of.

I understand what the word “bigot” means. And you weren’t merely “Pointing out that someone may not understand a particular passage of English,” but were instead attempting to make a derogatory insult based on language. If you want to argue that it’s not bigotry, you have the right to defend yourself. But at the same time trying to hide behind your mod status with threats of closing the thread if anyone else dares mention it as you continue to discuss it seems hypocritical to me. But if it’s really that important to you, you can have the last word on the subject and I’ll not bring it up again after this post. But like I said before, I don’t think you’re some raging bigot. If I did truly misunderstand your comments I would apologize, as you must be aware that I make it a habit of apologizing when I have been in the wrong. But even as I re-read the comments you made, I still hold the same opinion.

Bikerman wrote:
And the whining about offensive comments is beginning to get on my nerves. I find your arrogance pretty offensive too, but I figure you can't help it, so I overlook it.

I wasn’t whining, but pointing out the hypocritical stance that is often taken by the left. They claim to be champions and voices for minorities and marginalized peoples, but are quick to throw out (and implicitly condone, according your own theory) homophobic and xenophobic insults. If you want to act like a poster, you should accept that you will be treated like a poster. If I (or anyone else for that matter) break the TOS, then I would apologize. I agree that I should be called out on it and the mod hat should come on. But last time I checked, getting on your “nerves” or your opinion that you find my “arrogance pretty offensive” isn’t against the TOS. If it is, I missed it. You may be offended, but I think it was George Carlin who said something along the lines of “Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean it’s offensive.”


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Really? You didn’t imply the Tea Party protesters are racists? As I pointed out, I could have sworn you said:
Quote:
If you attend a meeting where racism is openly displayed, then you are implicitly condoning it unless you speak out. The videos of the blacks speaking out merely show that THEY are not racist. What about the rest, who apparently say nothing?
Once again the apparent problem with basic English.
There is no implication about 'tea party protesters' en masse, merely an observation that those who observe and don't speak out are condoning. Perhaps all the attendees who saw the banners spoke out? Given that you have already accepted that some of them are racist then I really don't see your problem. I certainly did not say they were all racist - in fact I explicitly said otherwise. I'm saying that this sort of banner would not be displayed in ANY group I belong to - including bikers, many of which are extremely diverse in terms of membership. The ONLY place I would see those sorts of poster would be at a fringe Fascist (eg BNP) meeting. And I repeat - if you belong to ANY group and you see that sort of poster, then unless you speak out then I consider you are condoning it. That is my opinion and I'm happy to defend it.

I think this is actually an example of the divergent world views between the left and right. The left seems to believe that we are all responsible and accountable for everyone else, and therefore have to admonish and restrict others’ freedoms, as well as have the responsibility and are accountable to provide everything for everyone else (usually in the form of government-run ________ *you can fill in the blank). It seems to be at the core of their beliefs that your ‘charity’ but be forced, regardless of whether you want it to be or not. I on the other hand believe we are accountable and responsible for our own actions, as well as the outcomes of our own actions. And while I am charitable with my own money and time, I don’t feel that it is possible to be ‘charitable’ at the business end of a weapon and therefore believe confiscating someone’s earning in the name of ‘charity’ is dishonest. I also believe that I am accountable for my own words only. If I say I agree with someone, that means I agree with them. If I say I disagree with someone, that means I disagree with them. If I am silent, it means neither. The protestors are a case in point. If some individuals make comments that are racist, that reflects poorly on those individuals. If it is a stated purpose for the group to foster racism, such as the KKK, yes then I agree that members who join that group with that knowledge and accept that stated purpose can be called racists, even if they are overtly silent. Yet the Tea Party Protests have no such stated purpose, and many others who attended the same protests have come out to clarify that the racist comments do not reflect their own beliefs or necessarily the beliefs of the group. But the left simply can’t comprehend the point. Or at least can’t resist making the charge over and over. The surprising (ok, not that surprising) point is that the left can’t hold itself to the same standards it attempts to hold others to. When instances of racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. by the left are uncovered and light is shed on them, the left quickly tries to defend, explain, rationalize or ignore the instances instead of accepting that individuals are flawed.
So while I appreciate your acknowledgement that there is no implication of the protesters en masse, I don’t agree that your notion that 100% of the people around have to somehow chant or whatever in unison to denounce them in order to not be branded as having the same opinion. And I have shown many, many examples of protesters affirming that racism is not a stated purpose or value.

Here’s another protestor confronting a shill:






And here’s a refreshing reaffirmation that the protests are not about racism:






Bikerman wrote:
As for the main issue - of course I do not think that all tea-party gatherings consist of racists yelling bile. I am surprised by the posters above but I would make no generalisation based on a few pictures. I even tried to imagine if the election of an unpopular black Prime Minister would trigger anything similar here. I doubt it, but it is possible I suppose.
A dozen (or a few dozen) photos are not sufficient data to make a generalised charge of racism - which is one reason I never have.

And yes, any racism that I see in this or other forums will most certainly be acted upon by me, because not to do so would be condoning it. I would not act on opinion, since that is not my role. I might sometimes challenge opinions as a poster, as here, but not a moderator. However, there are some 'opinions' which are both against the TOS and grossly offensive, such as racism, and in all such cases I would act promptly.
In short no, I am not setting double standards.


I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that you are not creating a double standard. Either you agree that you are somehow implicitly responsible and accountable for each and every comment (whether it be racist, sexist, homophobic, a part of a conspiracy theory, etc, or even that the moon is made of cheese) made by others unless you explicitly denounce them as you seem to be saying about the protesters, or you agree that you are not. To be clear I’m saying I am not responsible, nor accountable, for any comments other than my own, and I am quite comfortable with that stance. But unless you are willing to hold yourself to the same standard you seem to be setting for others, you are indeed setting a double standard.
Bikerman
I've said all I need to say about the first part - it stands. Any repeat will be dealt with, and I'm not interested in your opinions on the matter, since that was a ruling, not a debating point.

As to the substantive debate:
Quote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that you are not creating a double standard. Either you agree that you are somehow implicitly responsible and accountable for each and every comment (whether it be racist, sexist, homophobic, a part of a conspiracy theory, etc, or even that the moon is made of cheese) made by others unless you explicitly denounce them as you seem to be saying about the protesters, or you agree that you are not. To be clear I’m saying I am not responsible, nor accountable, for any comments other than my own, and I am quite comfortable with that stance. But unless you are willing to hold yourself to the same standard you seem to be setting for others, you are indeed setting a double standard.
No, this is a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy) based on either not reading or not properly reading my post. Let me make it absolutely clear for you - IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry, or allows members to do so unchallenged THEN you are condoning it implicitly. I belong to no such group and would resign from any group that did espouse such bigotry, or allowed members to do so unchallenged. It is that simple. No double standards whatsoever. ANY of the groups I belong to - bikers, trades union, dog agility training - whatever - any of them would condemn such behaviour, and discipline any member guilty of it. They have done so in the case of the first two examples, and it hasn't been an issue in the third. If they didn't then I would not be a member.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
As to the substantive debate:
Quote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that you are not creating a double standard. Either you agree that you are somehow implicitly responsible and accountable for each and every comment (whether it be racist, sexist, homophobic, a part of a conspiracy theory, etc, or even that the moon is made of cheese) made by others unless you explicitly denounce them as you seem to be saying about the protesters, or you agree that you are not. To be clear I’m saying I am not responsible, nor accountable, for any comments other than my own, and I am quite comfortable with that stance. But unless you are willing to hold yourself to the same standard you seem to be setting for others, you are indeed setting a double standard.

No, this is a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy) based on either not reading or not properly reading my post. Let me make it absolutely clear for you - IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry, or allows members to do so unchallenged THEN you are condoning it implicitly. I belong to no such group and would resign from any group that did espouse such bigotry, or allowed a significant number of members to do so unchallenged. It is that simple. No double standards whatsoever. ANY of the groups I belong to - bikers, trades union, dog agility training - whatever - any of them would condemn such behaviour, and discipline any member guilty of it. They have done so in the case of the first two examples, and it hasn't been an issue in the third. If they didn't then I would not be a member.


I read your posts and understand them. I was just saying that you should be willing to accept the same standard you want to set for others. But let’s take your comment piece by piece:

Bikerman wrote:
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry,

The protests have no ‘official’ head, even though some have been organized by individual groups. For there to be any evidence of a group ‘espousing bigotry,’ there must be some type of manifesto, document, creed, etc. that its members must agree with. The KKK, Black Panthers, etc., do have such types of manifestos, etc., so it is a valid point for such organizations. I have not seen any for the protests at large, but if there are any you have found, please feel free to share. But absent such evidence, it’s not a valid charge, so we can check this off as a negative.



Bikerman wrote:
…or allows members to do so unchallenged

I have shown protestors challenging the small minority as not representing them, so it appears we’re in agreement here too. Another negative.


Bikerman wrote:
THEN you are condoning it implicitly.

So it clearly appears conditions one and two are not satisfied, so the argument is not valid. I made a similar point when I said:


jmi256 wrote:
The protestors are a case in point. If some individuals make comments that are racist, that reflects poorly on those individuals. If it is a stated purpose for the group to foster racism, such as the KKK, yes then I agree that members who join that group with that knowledge and accept that stated purpose can be called racists, even if they are overtly silent. Yet the Tea Party Protests have no such stated purpose, and many others who attended the same protests have come out to clarify that the racist comments do not reflect their own beliefs or necessarily the beliefs of the group.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
I read your posts and understand them. I was just saying that you should be willing to accept the same standard you want to set for others.
I do.
Quote:
The protests have no ‘official’ head, even though some have been organized by individual groups.
And have those groups condemned the bigotry? If so then fine, but the biggest one I can find (below) doesn't seem to mention it...
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default.aspx
Now I haven't been through the whole site, so I could be wrong of course...
Quote:
For there to be any evidence of a group ‘espousing bigotry,’ there must be some type of manifesto, document, creed, etc. that its members must agree with.
Err what? Firstly I didn't say the 'group' espoused bigotry - in fact I'm pretty sure I have said the opposite at least twice now. Secondly you don't need a formal manifesto/constitution to condemn bigotry. I belong to a couple of groups with no formal manifesto/creed - a dog agility training club and DoD motorcyclists. Neither have any formal documents of membership and neither have any formal constitutions. Both would expel bigots and one has done so (DoD).
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The protests have no ‘official’ head, even though some have been organized by individual groups.

And have those groups condemned the bigotry? If so then fine, but the biggest one I can find (below) doesn't seem to mention it...
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default.aspx
Now I haven't been through the whole site, so I could be wrong of course...


I haven’t looked through their site, but so now no evidence to the contrary is considered evidence to the affirmative? They didn’t make any racist comments, but if you find some from this organization, let me know. And as I have shown, actual protesters at the events did challenge the comments and portrayals. But ok, let’s run with your new standard for a little exercise: I don’t see anywhere on Obama’s site stating that, yes he is US born. Hillary supporters started the claim that he wasn’t born here to combat his rising popularity during the primaries, and using your logic, since there is no evidence or statement on his site to the contrary, the affirmative must be true, right? Of course this is a silly argument, but I pose it to show exactly how silly the logic is.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php?splash=false



Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
For there to be any evidence of a group ‘espousing bigotry,’ there must be some type of manifesto, document, creed, etc. that its members must agree with.

Err what? Firstly I didn't say the 'group' espoused bigotry - in fact I'm pretty sure I have said the opposite at least twice now. Secondly you don't need a formal manifesto/constitution to condemn bigotry. I belong to a couple of groups with no formal manifesto/creed - a dog agility training club and DoD motorcyclists. Neither have any formal documents of membership and neither have any formal constitutions. Both would expel bigots and one has done so (DoD).


You did say:
Bikerman wrote:
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry,

I’ll agree that this is a conditional argument, but by your comment “I didn't say the 'group' espoused bigotry” I will assume you agree that this condition is not met. That, along with the flawed logic of the top of this post, along with the evidence that protesters did challenge the comments and portrayals, means that the conclusion is that your argument below is not true:

Bikerman wrote:
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry, or allows members to do so unchallenged THEN you are condoning it implicitly.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The protests have no ‘official’ head, even though some have been organized by individual groups.

And have those groups condemned the bigotry? If so then fine, but the biggest one I can find (below) doesn't seem to mention it...
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default.aspx
Now I haven't been through the whole site, so I could be wrong of course...


I haven’t looked through their site, but so now no evidence to the contrary is considered evidence to the affirmative?
You said that since there were no leaders then one could not expect condemnation. I simply say that there ARE leaders and I see no condemnation from them. There is no inconsistency or flaw in the logic.
Quote:
You did say:
Bikerman wrote:
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry,

I’ll agree that this is a conditional argument, but by your comment “I didn't say the 'group' espoused bigotry” I will assume you agree that this condition is not met. That, along with the flawed logic of the top of this post, along with the evidence that protesters did challenge the comments and portrayals, means that the conclusion is that your argument below is not true:

So why did you leave the OR out of that and choose to interpret the sentence as though it ended there? Selective quoting again....putting the full quote at the end doesn't justify it. If you had quoted what I actually said then it is clear that I was consistent and your assumption is invalid.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The protests have no ‘official’ head, even though some have been organized by individual groups.

And have those groups condemned the bigotry? If so then fine, but the biggest one I can find (below) doesn't seem to mention it...
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default.aspx
Now I haven't been through the whole site, so I could be wrong of course...


I haven’t looked through their site, but so now no evidence to the contrary is considered evidence to the affirmative?

You said that since there were no leaders then one could not expect condemnation. I simply say that there ARE leaders and I see no condemnation from them. There is no inconsistency or flaw in the logic.

So now your are defining who is or isn’t a leader? Even the link you provided (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Default.aspx) shows that one organization isn’t organizing all the protests, but it merely provides links to hundreds of grassroots movements. So to somehow expect them to act as spokesperson for people they have no oversight or authority over is silly. My point is that the charges are not even made toward even the people you claim to be “leaders” so why would they respond to non-existent charges? Plenty of people have spoken out against racism and how it has no place at the protests (you might want to check out all the videos I posted). So sorry, your argument holds no water on this one.

Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
You did say:
Bikerman wrote:
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry,

I’ll agree that this is a conditional argument, but by your comment “I didn't say the 'group' espoused bigotry” I will assume you agree that this condition is not met. That, along with the flawed logic of the top of this post, along with the evidence that protesters did challenge the comments and portrayals, means that the conclusion is that your argument below is not true:

So why did you leave the OR out of that and choose to interpret the sentence as though it ended there? Selective quoting again....putting the full quote at the end doesn't justify it. If you had quoted what I actually said then it is clear that I was consistent and your assumption is invalid.

I added the entire quote at the end, but used that part to illustrate that neither part of your conditional argument is valid. Either way, your own argument blows up. I think you’re smart enough to see the entire quote there, but go ahead and add the “OR” if that’s your sticking point, but the end result is the same. Your argument is still invalid.

Again, following your own litmus test:
Bikerman wrote:
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY BELONG TO A GROUP that espouses bigotry,

You yourself said they do not, so this is not valid. (i.e. “Firstly I didn't say the 'group' espoused bigotry - in fact I'm pretty sure I have said the opposite at least twice now.”)
Bikerman wrote:
…or allows members to do so unchallenged

Evidence shows they have been challenged, so once again this condition is not met either.
Bikerman wrote:
THEN you are condoning it implicitly.

If neither condition is met, the logical conclusion is that statement is not true/valid, ftw.
Bikerman
All waffle.
The evidence is not that any organiser has challenged them at all - you provide no evidence of that. The only organisers I can find have NOT challenged them.
Saying that individual members have challenged them is just a red-herring fallacy.
Individual members object to all sorts of things in all sorts of organisations. If I join an ultra-left wing group and then say that the group do not represent my views, does that make it suddenly not an ultra-left wing group? Of course it doesn't. If the organisers of that group then throw the ultra-left out then I might be inclined to believe it.

Likewise the argument that because a group has no leaders then it cannot be called xyz as long as some members say it is not xyz is utter nonsense. If some members of the tea-party movement say that they think Obama is doing a great job, does that mean the tea-party movement are an Obama support group?
If you can't see the fallacy involved then you need to look harder.

The simple fact is that the tea-party umbrella has attracted all sorts of loony right-wing bigots. That doesn't make every member a bigot and it doesn't necessarily make the majority bigots, it just means they have a lot of bigots.

Now, if one chooses to belong to a group with a lot of bigots in it then that is one's own business between one and one's conscience, but I would regard it as condoning bigotry and would not have anything to do with it.

So no, you haven't 'blown my argument out of the water'. You haven't even scratched the paint.

PS
Quote:
the logical conclusion is that statement is not true
No it isn't. Basic logic.
If p implies A then you cannot say that NOT p implies NOT A.
To make the implication symmetrical requires the IFF operator (IF AND ONLY IF) which is clearly not what I said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
All waffle.

You created the litmus test, and now that it has been shown to be invalid, you want to whine about waffling? Hmmmmm………Okay….

Bikerman wrote:
The evidence is not that any organiser has challenged them at all - you provide no evidence of that. The only organisers I can find have NOT challenged them.

I have a feeling, no matter how much more evidence I show, you will keep trying to twist the argument to fit your narrow view. So be it. I’ll leave you to your own opinion, no matter our obviously twisted it is.

Bikerman wrote:
Saying that individual members have challenged them is just a red-herring fallacy.
Individual members object to all sorts of things in all sorts of organisations. If I join an ultra-left wing group and then say that the group do not represent my views, does that make it suddenly not an ultra-left wing group? Of course it doesn't. If the organisers of that group then throw the ultra-left out then I might be inclined to believe it.

Likewise the argument that because a group has no leaders then it cannot be called xyz as long as some members say it is not xyz is utter nonsense. If some members of the tea-party movement say that they think Obama is doing a great job, does that mean the tea-party movement are an Obama support group?
If you can't see the fallacy involved then you need to look harder.

LOL. You complain about a red herring, and then attempt to introduce one. You’re funny, Bikerman.

Bikerman wrote:
The simple fact is that the tea-party umbrella has attracted all sorts of loony right-wing bigots. That doesn't make every member a bigot and it doesn't necessarily make the majority bigots, it just means they have a lot of bigots.

A lot of bigots, huh? Please provide proof to your newest claim if you want it to be taken seriously.
Bikerman
I don't really expect you to take it seriously - if you think basic logic is 'twisted' then you are hardly likely to understand the application of it are you?
How many constitutes a lot?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I don't really expect you to take it seriously - if you think basic logic is 'twisted' then you are hardly likely to understand the application of it are you?


Basic logic is fine. I was referring to your own unique brand of "logic."

Bikerman wrote:
How many constitutes a lot?

You tell me. Here are some of those oh, so enlightened examples from the left. I love the "exterminate white people" guy.














Bikerman
What has any of those got to do with anything?
1 Is some silly democrat making a slightly racist comment which he probably regrets (or should do)
2 Is a black chap playing the race card against a silly woman trying her best not to be racist and digging a whole for herself
3 Is an apparently drunk black guy ranting
4 Is an extremist black guy advocating the extermination of whites
What is your point? That there are a lot of silly racists out there? Duh!
Are they supposed to represent me or some left wing group?
Do you want me to condemn them? No problem.
I just really don't understand what point you are trying to make...
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
What has any of those got to do with anything?
1 Is some silly democrat making a slightly racist comment which he probably regrets (or should do)
2 Is a black chap playing the race card against a silly woman trying her best not to be racist and digging a whole for herself
3 Is an apparently drunk black guy ranting
4 Is an extremist black guy advocating the extermination of whites
What is your point? That there are a lot of silly racists out there? Duh!
Are they supposed to represent me or some left wing group?
Do you want me to condemn them? No problem.
I just really don't understand what point you are trying to make...


The point is simple. The Left is using charges of racism in an attempt to silence opposing voices, despite evidence to the contrary (and while glossing over evidence of racism and bigotry on their own part). Simply making the charge is enough for them, as civil rights activist Mary Frances Berry points out. It seems to be an effective strategy for the Left in the short-term, but I have a feeling that calling all Americans who have a different point of view is going to get old and backfire soon enough.

Quote:
Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

Source = http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html
Bikerman
Who has glossed over it and what the hell have those videos got to do with it? Are you suggesting that they are linked and that there is some failure by democrats to condemn this new organisation of racists? What I seem to see is several indiduals with political beliefs I don't know but am prepared to believe are left (in US terms). There doesn't seem to be a common link so I can only presume that you think the 'left' should publically condemn anyone in their party who says racist things? Fair enough - as I said I'm happy to call racism whoever uses it, but I do think t might get a bit tedious condemning several thousand people everyday, monitoring the media for the next transgression and making my public condemnations.
And I still don't see how that analogises to an organisation like the Tea Partyers - all i wanted to see was people standing next to racists, or aware of them from over the road, to either shut them down, make their opposition known to them, or leave. I think that is perfectly reasonable. They don't have to wade-in fists flying - just express in public that these people are out of order. I know many did later-on but it is easy to say you don't like racists when there are non in sight.
Anyway this issue is now old, and I'm to old and tired to keep coming back to it so have the last word if you like but I'm done here.
handfleisch
Actually, recently the NAACP called out the Tea Party on its racist elements, and the Tea Party admitted this was true and then kicked out one faction called the Tea Party Express. So for jmi256 to have been claiming that the Tea Party wasn't racist all along was nonsense -- the Tea Party has admitted its racist elements.

The problem with all this is that the "Tea Party Federation" that kicked out the racist faction might not be as powerful as the racist faction. The racist Tea Party Express is still closely aligned with Sarah Palin and has raised millions of dollars for the tea baggers, so despite getting kicked out of the federation, they are still major Tea Partyers, and so the Tea Party is still tainted with their racism.

But one thing is clear -- the question of whether the Tea Party is racist has been answered in the affirmative, officially by the Tea Partyers themselves, and will continue to be that way until the Tea Party Express and other racist groups like it are shut down, and Sarah Palin publicly disowns them.

Also, shouldn't Sarah Palin return the money she received from the racist Tea Party Express?
Quote:
Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams kicked out over 'Colored People' letter

Mark Williams, the flamethrower leading the battle against the Ground Zero mosque, was kicked out of the National Tea Party Federation Saturday for a racist blog post.

He shrugged off the diss, calling it "grandstanding" from a "minor player on the fringe."

A California radio host and leader of the Tea Party Express, Williams had labeled the Manhattan boro president a "Jewish Uncle Tom" and President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug."

...
The federation says it represents more than a million activists in 85 groups.

Williams' Tea Party Express is one of the most influential in the conservative movement. It has reportedly raised $2.3 million this year, helped elect Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts and organized a rally in Nevada that featured a rare Sarah Palin speech.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/18/2010-07-18_tea_party_express_leader_mark_williams_expelled_over_colored_people_letter.html#ixzz0vSxIUm3E
Bikerman
Ahh, I see I was behind on this one.
I therefore retract the point made erroneously about them not acting, but this does rather challenge the notion that they couldn't act because there is no leadership, don't you agree?

Anyway, this concludes it nicely I think. You are correct in that they have acted against racism and I am very happy to acknowledge it.
Related topics
Tea Party Protests
Teabaggers/townhall rightwingers: insane or just stupid?
Tea Party more popular than Republican Party
Anti-HCR protesters mock Parkinson's victim
Tea Party originator was lobbyist for Iranian terrorists
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents
Tea Party Demographics
Is the Tea Party a Political Party?
USA Republican Tea Party Candidate Dresses as Nazi
From Egypt to Wisconsin? Anti-Tea Party Protest in WISCONSIN
Left-wing “Occupiers” Unleash Their Bigotry
Another “Occupier” makes terroristic threats
Tea Party = Occupy??
Video: Tea Party hero Santelli freaks out
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.