because people that have attended such rallies and Tea Party events espoused racist views, then is the Occupy movement a terrorist organization, since some people that attended such rallies and events attempted terrorist actions?
Take that, everybody who said the Tea Party was racist based on the actions of three people!
I don’t know, do the Occupiers invite known terrorists to give the keynote talks at their events? Do the crowds applaud terrorist rhetoric? Was the very purpose for which they were formed a terrorist agenda?
First of all, you can find racist comments from pretty much any large group of people. Whether the TPers had an unusually large number of such racists is hard to gauge. But some of the actual TP leaders were implicated in some racist comments.
The OWS movement is much less organized (to put it mildly) than the TPers, it’s going to be much harder to pin “terrorism” on any leaders.
At any rate, I think most of us don’t find much use for broad brush labels in either case.
To answer the question in a more general and serious way: the Tea Party is a pretty decentralized group, Occupy is even more so. In both cases that raises the question of who is “really” a member. Is everybody who went to an Occupy or Tea Party event a member? That’s a stretch, I think. There were certainly some racist sentiments expressed at Tea Party events, and as I recall, in some cases that even came from people in positions of authority within Tea Party subgroups. The question is much that can be said to represent the broader group, and there was also the separate question of how much, if any, of the diehard opposition to Obama had anything to do with race. I think those are both very hard to answer, and I think that the default position should be that when a position can be taken by racists and non-racists, the position has to be taken as non-racist until there is evidence to the contrary. But I’ll admit to a lingering suspicion about some Tea Party people who talk to excess about “taking their country back” even though they didn’t coin that phrase.
Is this another case of the FBI keeping us safe from a plot they concocted themselves and talked a few idiots into participating in?
I know I’ll sleep safer tonight.
Then the next question is does the occupy movement denounce him as a leader. If he remains in a leadership position after his actions are brought to light you have a good parallel to the accusations of racism the Tea Party faced.
The Tea Party wasn’t branded racists simply because racists joined their cause. They were branded racists because when racist elements joined their cause they welcomed them and did nothing to dissuade them from joining then they want as far as to allowed them to continue in leadership positions.
Remember when denouncing somebody meant something?
So by your own admission your first post wasn’t very serious? I guess that’s a nice way of putting it.
Is that because upon reflection clearly more than three Occupiers have gotten a little carried away over the short period of time the movement has existed?
No. It is because, as has already been pointed out, The Tea Party was actually organized in several locations by people expressing racist attacks on President Obama, and the Tea Party (in its several disparate locations), did nothing to disavow the racist rhetoric for months after it was clear that quite a few of its leaders were employing that rhetoric. In contrast, the anarchist membership of the OWS includes one person who was a functionary who spoke to reporters, not an organizer, who was condemned by the actual leadership, (who went so far as to cancel scheduled activities in the area, despite having nothing to do with the plot), on the very morning that his violent efforts were exposed.
Now, I have argued that it is wrong to label the Tea Party as racist in its entirety based on the words of a few of its leaders, but this attempt to create a false equivalence is just silly.
No.
The problem with painting a people with a negative broad brush is eventually, you get painted with it
Oh yes-The “Uh uh, you are!” Gambit.
This may be the best post that you’ve ever made (that I’ve read).
I refer the readers of this thread to the groundbreaking decision in Rubber v. Glue.
Like a bullet in the back of the head from the KGB or NKVD? Or was that only when Stalin did the denouncing?
I meant more in the sense of severing your friendship forever and vowing to spend the rest of your life trashing them in print.
Seems like you missed the point … again…
Why does something have to be “equivalent” in order to be compared to something else.
Clearly there are more racists among one group and more anarchists among the other…and obviously racism (especially as defined by some) is so much worse than violence and anarchy 
We could add other characteristics of the Occupiers to the mix… then maybe things would become more equivalent. But lets not…lets just quit calling the Tea Party a racist organization and the Ocuppy Movement an anarchist organization. Deal?