The Tea Party is Not Racist

How long before "N-word" becomes the new N-word?

N-word, n-word, n-word!

Hmmnn... its a lot like "onward"
'N-word Christian soldiers!
 
In the AmericanThinker.Com blog that BeAChooser quoted, one man talks about his
"efforts to restore our freedoms, liberty and culture." I followed the link but the are no more details related to the quote. Does anyone familiar with the Tea Party know what culture the organization is trying to restore?
 
Mumbles said:
But they're not the racists. It's the democrats that see everything through race, and they've tricked black people into thinking that they're the good guys. Why, the GOP is the party of Lincoln! The democrats supported slavery!
Click to expand...

Lincoln would read the Riot Act to today's GOP. He would wash his hands of it and apologize to the world for having helped give it birth.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Again: Black tea party member = tea party not racist?

Where is your logic there?

There's a few brown guys who are members of the English Defence League. It doesn't make it less racist.
Click to expand...

LOL! You are making a VERY basic mistake in logic.

IF there aren't very many black people in the Tea Party as you apparently believe, that is because a very, very high percentage (95%) of blacks chose to support Obama in the last election. You can't squeeze water out of a dry sponge, UW. And I would assume you believe those blacks are supporting Obama for reasons other than his race (which he put down on the Census form as black). Because if they aren't, that would make them racist. Right?

Another thing. The blacks who have joined the Tea Party say they've been called Oreos and Uncle Toms (and worse) by other blacks just for participating in the movement (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380 , http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/ ). They've been asked questions like "How can you not support the brother?" and told they are "traitors" to their race. Those sorts of labels, comments and questions sure sound like evidence of racist attitudes, don't you think? And those attitudes have had a chilling effect on the black community. They are enough to scare blacks who would like to join the Tea Party away from it, out of fear of the backlash they would receive from family and friends.

And you are making another mistake … that of assuming there are only a few, *token* blacks in the Tea Party. A poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html ) by CBS (if that organization can be trusted) found that 1 percent of the party was black. That is not a *token* number, especially when less than 13 percent of the US population as a whole are black. In fact, 1 percent would represent more blacks than those who did not vote for Obama. Hardly a token number.

And other polls/studies have put the percentage of black membership in the Tea Party even higher.

Gallup, for instance, found (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx ) that "demographically, [Tea Party members] are generally representative of the public at large". They found that 6% of the membership is black. Now I'll grant that Gallup polls, like CBS polls, are not always very accurate, but I think that's still valid evidence that black participation is a lot higher than you make it out to be.

A CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf ) found that 2% of people who described themselves as "Tea Party Activists" were black. (And 10% were latino.) This doesn't sound at all unreasonable. Again, those numbers are not token numbers but would represent a sizeable fraction of any blacks who did not (and even require some who did) vote for Obama. It's a sizable fraction of the entire black population as a whole.

In short, you are simply being illogical, UW. :D
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Lincoln would read the Riot Act to today's GOP.
Click to expand...

Really?

Abraham Lincoln in the Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.
Click to expand...
 
There is only one thing funnier than the racists in the Tea Party saying they are not racists. That's the loons here defending them.
 
Neally said:
Contradicting yourself in the same post is sure a funny way to argue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be. If I actually did it. But I didn't.

Neally said:
First you imply that the party started as result of Obama's election, thereby proving they are racist...
Click to expand...

I didn't make that particular argument.

Neally said:
...then you deny that the organization is racist.
Click to expand...

Nor did I make that one.

Let make it as clear as possible since you seem fond of putting words in my mouth:

Given the Tea Party's formation perfectly coinciding with Obama taking office and the fact that they are overwhelmingly conservative, anyone who thinks the Tea Party isn't an anti-Obama organization is fooling themselves.

Does this necessarily make them racist? Of course not. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

But they certainly do attract racists and seem to have adopted a strategy of deny and ignore to deal with it. Mark Williams being a prime example.

Neally said:
The early protests were about Obamas stimulus bill, a local tax on soda, the mortgage subsidy programs.
Click to expand...

And Bush's TARP bill. You seem to keep forgetting that. Which is interesting since you originally claimed the Tea Party protests were about "[Obama's] increased pace of deficit spending", even though the first protests were before Obama had really even done any spending.

Neally said:
The tea party popularity has increased along with Obamas decline in the polls. That must mean that the previous supporters of Obama are now racists since now they are against him. :D
Click to expand...

Ah yes, more misdirection. The Tea Party is and always will be a conservative movement. Whatever "popularity" you wish to attribute to them will not extend beyond that.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Quote:
that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office

A position he changed later in life.
Click to expand...

Did he?

In 1861, General Fremont, commander of the Union Army in Missouri declared that all slaves in Missouri were free. Lincoln stepped in and changed the order to only those slaves owned by Missourians that were actively helping the South. When Fremont refused that order, Lincoln replaced him.

In 1862, General Hunter announced that all slaves owned by Confederates in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina were free. Again, Lincoln stepped in and ordered Hunter to retract his proclamation.

What you don't seem understand is that the ONLY goal of Lincoln was to preserve the union. He said in 1862 that:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.
Click to expand...

And one month after that statement, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He viewed the survival of the country above all else, including the ending of slavery. The ending of slavery to him was not a moral issue, it was a matter of practicality if the nation were to be saved.

And by the way, with respect to the portion of my earlier quote by Lincoln that you quoted above, in Lincoln's last public address in 1865, he supported only limited sufferage. Here is what he said (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm )

It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what you would have folks believe, he did not wholeheartedly endorse equal treatment of blacks and whites.

Strike two, UW.
 
BeAChooser said:
Did he?

In 1861, General Fremont, commander of the Union Army in Missouri declared that all slaves in Missouri were free. Lincoln stepped in and changed the order to only those slaves owned by Missourians that were actively helping the South. When Fremont refused that order, Lincoln replaced him.

In 1862, General Hunter announced that all slaves owned by Confederates in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina were free. Again, Lincoln stepped in and ordered Hunter to retract his proclamation.

What you don't seem understand is that the ONLY goal of Lincoln was to preserve the union. He said in 1862 that:



And one month after that statement, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He viewed the survival of the country above all else, including the ending of slavery. The ending of slavery to him was not a moral issue, it was a matter of practicality if the nation were to be saved.

Contrary to what you would have folks believe, he did not wholeheartedly endorse equal treatment of blacks and whites.

Strike two, UW.
Click to expand...
That's true from my understanding. The issue of slavery clearly pervaded the political and social climate and emancipation was likely a very unpopular position to have in those days. But the Republican party certainly was the Liberal/progressive party of its day regardless of Lincolns personal biases or intentions. It could be said that "Lincolns Republican party would read the the riot act to todays GOP".
 
Foolmewunz said:
In my humble opinion, the Tea Party Racists (I'm considering them a sub-set of Tea Party, not tarring all TPs as racists), are doing a wonderful job.

The more they shoot of their collective deranged mouths, the more we see hitherto supposedly moderate and/or purportedly sensible conservatives (no BAC, not you) rushing to defend them.

Is this just knee-jerk "take one for the team", and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" behaviour? Honestly, is there anyone who can read that man's statements and not see a steaming pile of racist fecal matter?
Click to expand...


TO be fair, some conservatives are criticising the Tea Party. The Weekly Standard has been very tough on a lot of the Tea Party leaders.
 
Neally said:
The history and the focus of the beginning protests of the tea party are a matter of historical fact. They weren't about Obama or his race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement If you have evidence that they were and are in fact based primarily on racist reasons, do post.
Click to expand...

I'll cede that the Tea Party isn't based primarily on racism.

I'd say it's primarily generalized anger that other political points of view exist, and only as a close second a reaction against Obama's ascent (with the Tea Party gaining steam the further along Obama got).
 
johnny karate said:
Given the Tea Party's formation perfectly coinciding with Obama taking office and the fact that they are overwhelmingly conservative, anyone who thinks the Tea Party isn't an anti-Obama organization is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...
I'd agree they generally don't like Obama because of his policies, and as someone else pointed out, they'd probably not like Hillary if she won and pushed the same policies.
 
Neally said:
I'd agree they generally don't like Obama because of his policies, and as someone else pointed out, they'd probably not like Hillary if she won and pushed the same policies.
Click to expand...
It's still odd that they didn't manage to show up during Bushes embarissingly reckless and destructive run in office but the moment Obama enters office they arrive in droves apparently because they find his policies....destructive. Odd indeed.
shifty1.gif


No doubt they would've hated Hillary but I honestly don't see the Tea Party movment being what it is if Hillary was in office.
 
When it comes to politics, satire even if inappropriate amounts to making somebody racist. I don't think Williams' little satire was very intelligent considering how easily partisans construe it however they want. I'm not surprised. Put his rant in context with the NAACP's blind eye to the black panther's case and one might see one of the reasons he might have done the satire. Too bad Williams can't get it through his head that bludgeoning a hugely sensitive topic isn't a particularly intelligent way to put himself on the moral high ground though.


Apology said:
Really, go ahead and try to explain this one away. When you're done with that, explain how Glenn Beck didn't really mean it when he said that the Jews killed Jesus. I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Beck is an entertainer and can make all the dumb comments and inappropriate satires he wants and still be famous. Williams on the other hand sucks at any meaningful satire. One doesn't have to be racist to make a sick attempt at humor in any flavor.
 
Last edited:
Juniversal said:
It's still odd that they didn't manage to show up during Bushes embarissingly reckless and destructive run in office but the moment Obama enters office they arrive in droves apparently because they find his policies....destructive. Odd indeed. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/julphotobucket1/shifty1.gif

No doubt they would've hated Hillary but I honestly don't see the Tea Party movment being what it is if Hillary was in office.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's simply that the Tea Party come into being once both the executive branch and both houses of the legislative branch belonged to the same party, and that people of a fiscally conservative bent felt that was not necessarily a good thing.

After all, the word "Tea" in Tea Party is an acronym:

Taxed
Enough
Already

Just my opinion - I make no claim as to there being any factual basis to my thoughts on this, except for the acronym part - that's absolutely a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom