Documenting Teabagger Racism - Signs at tea bagger rallies. Nope, no racism here.
How much did Obama have to do to silence birthers. They were wrong and nothing stopped them from unfounded beliefs. Some still fight the truth because it proves yet another thing they are wrong about.
No, it was not. :rolleyes:
Take that a step further, though. If the conservative position is to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, it follows that people are poor because they haven’t, or can’t, do that. If minorities are more likely to be poor, do conservatives conclude that there are racially-based reasons that they lack the attributes (intelligence, motivation, whatever) for success?
I saw a teabagger rally in the Cities here once, and those kinds of signs were ubiquitous (I saw that stupid Obama/Joker sign too. What the hell is that supposed to mean?). Teabaggers and their defenders will always say that those are just fringe loonies and don’t represent them, but you see anyone at these rallies ever complaining about the racist signs or having any problem with them or saying anything to the people holding them. I think the ones holding the overtly racist signs just have more guts.
Being from the deep south, I know the answer to this one, though I also know they give one answer in polite company and another among friends.
So what we have so far is evidence that some Tea Party members are racists and that some policies like voter-id laws and actually wanting to enforce federal immigration laws that some consider racist because they peripherally affect minorities.
I’m not seeing racism there. A person can support a policy for any number of reasons. The fact that they may in their implementation affect more darker people than lighter people doesn’t make the policy bad, nor does it impute a motive on the person in favor of the policy that the sole or primary reason for supporting the policy is one of racism.
That takes the definition of racism WAY beyond common understanding.
Missed the edit window: For example, if I favor increased penalties for armed robbery, does that make me a racist because blacks, as a percentage, commit more armed robberies than do whites?
Or could I possibly have an innocent motivation and just want to stamp out armed robberies, no matter if they are committed by blacks or whites?
Teabaggers, at the very least, have no objection to racism and those policies are INTENTIONALLY racist. That is their point.
Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day. And Sotomayor turns out to be a moderate, not a liberal. I’m hoping Kagan is a liberal. So in three years you’ve got two decisions that are acceptable and to the left of Bush.
And again, we don’t know the past history of the OP other than what is lately presented. He doesn’t pepper his initial post with “hated unpaid spending under Reagan and Bushes”, he starts with a swipe on “coming to his senses”. If he studied spending and deficits, he would realize that the Republicans do not give the slightest shit about balanced budgets except as a partisan propaganda point.
Secondly, the Republican Party has used the “Southern Strategy” for five decades now and it is an overtly racist strategy and they know it. That’s putting partisan gain over what is good for the country, and in fact it is very divisive to the country.
Had Bush not left this country on the precipice of a Greater Depression, stimulus spending would be out of the question for Obama on general principle. As it is, he has not recommended enough in order to try to get along with first a minority in Congress, and now a majority of Republicans who would not have any objection to even greater spending if it was their guy doing it.
I don’t think in my posts that I’ve come to a firm conclusion that the OP is a racist, even though his party’s policies (Southern Strategy) clearly are. But I do see that there is enough correlation that I’m not going to blame others for drawing that conclusion as they are entitled to their own opinions.
Economically I am with Krugman and Reich that there needs to be a lot more stimulus spending now to pull us out of this very bad recession. (I don’t have any economic expertise.) Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate has stated that his party’s first legislative priority is to ensure the defeat of Obama in 2012. I find that appalling. His party’s legislative priority should be the well being of the country right now and in the future, and that means working with the person who is the executive right now.
We used to have Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.
Now we have Obama, no Hope and no Cash.
Yes, but when people’s stated reason for backing a policy isn’t supported by facts, it’s natural to suspect that there are other motivations at play. People can say that voter ID laws are a response to voter fraud, but since there is no widespread voter fraud, and the proposed ID laws have a disproportionate impact on certain people, there may be something more going on.
It’s rarely possible to prove racism is the factor. Even you acknowledge that some Tea Party members are indisputably racist. Are you claiming that every Tea Party who isn’t indisputably proven to be a racist is not a racist? That there’s an organization where 99% of the members are not racists and the other 1% is holding up racist signs with nobody objecting? Doesn’t that strike you as unlikely?
The more reasonable assumption is that for every Tea Party member who’s holding up a racist sign, there’s several other Tea Party members who don’t have a sign themselves but saw the sign and agreed with it.
No, but if you favor harsher penalties for crack cocaine than for powdered, I think it’s fair for people to ask why.
Again, my supermarket doesn’t object to racists shopping there. And since the TP is only concerned with the federal budget and takes no position on race, then sure, you can come here and support us.
That would be similar to a group like MADD. You are devoted to tougher drunk driving laws? Come on in. We don’t care if you are a racist, just don’t speak for us about race because that’s not what we do.
Your second point is troubling because that’s exactly what the OP is complaining about. Why can’t I believe that people should have to show ID in order to vote to prevent fraud or support existing immigration law without a racism charge being levied against me. Sure, that ONE single possibility that I am for those laws, but there are other reasons that people support them. Why automatically impute the worst?
I never denied that, or the results. I assert the conclusions are not evidence of “racism” as you presented it, even the study itself uses the term “racial resentment.” I would argue very strongly that racial resentment was chosen precisely because the study authors weren’t comfortable using the more demonized term of “racist.”
Feeling like poor black could work harder and they would then be as well off as whites is not an inherently racist position. Further, to assume so is baseless since the study didn’t seem to ask other relevant questions.
It’d be interest for me to see the results if the study asked:
“Do you believe it is true that blacks would be as well off as whites if they worked harder?”
And also:
“Do you believe that poor whites would be better off if they worked harder?”
If someone believed that blacks only need to work harder to lift themselves out of poverty but poor whites would not benefit from harder work that would show some degree of prejudice. It would show that you feel blacks are poor because they are lazy and poor whites are poor for reasons out of their control. The study didn’t ask both of those questions though, it only asked one of them.
Since the study doesn’t have any real data for us on that, I can say that anecdotally that most people I know who look down on the poor genuinely feel that all of them are lazy, regardless of race, so I’d be very surprised if a large portion of the Tea Partiers would reply agree with the first question but then disagree with the second one.
Finally, the whole vein is off topic. It doesn’t matter if 99.999% of the Tea Party was racist it is intellectually dishonest to argue in any way that opposition to Obama must be linked to racism. President Obama has had greater than 50% disapproval ratings for some time now, and an approval rating bordering on 40%, he has even had significant disapproval ratings within his own party. So unless you are positing that all Republicans, all independents, and a growing portion of Democrats are racist in this country I think we can safely conclude it is intellectual laziness to argue that any individual opponent of Obama is racist, unless you have evidence that specific person is racist.
Unfortunately for you GD is about stuff you can back up to some degree, especially when you are making an affirmative claim. If you really feel that just saying “this group is racist and if you can’t see that then you don’t know what racism is” then you obviously have nothing to contribute meaningfully to this discussion and I’d say it is thus only appropriate we regard your comments in this thread with complete indifference.
Well, I see the evening has generated more than a few responses. I will try to address a few, although I don’t think it will be possible to address them all.
Interesting. First off you start by saying you will assume I am not a racist, but then go on to say that really isn’t possible because I am a Republican. Once again, before you start accusing me of being a racist please show me one, ONE, post in which I make a racist comment.
You appear to be a Democrat. I guess you must be a Communist right? I mean, you haven’t said a single thing that supports my assumtion, however by default if you support the Democratic party you MUST be a Communist. Becasue (if I may quote)* “At the very least, you support the party holding a far higher proportion of commuinist whose votes you rely on to remain viable as a party”* Souinds somewhat unreasonable when I put it that way, doesn’t it? (and before my Communist comment causes somones head to explode, note that I was using it as an example. I don’t really think that this poster is a Communist, because he has posted nothing to lead me to believe that. So even though I know his party has members who certainly support Communist views, I as a tolerant member of the Republican party won’t assume that unless I can prove it.)
Cite? Any proof? Of course not, but as long as it demonizes the party you oppose you will quote it as fact. And of course you ignored one of my other posts in this thread about the Republican party putting African Americans in high positions. I mentioned three as examples. If we are the racist you claim, then why did we do that? Perhaps we aren’t? Perhaps when the facts fail you, your party has to resort to character assasination.
Of course you aren’t. Like most Democrats you want everything handed to you. Prerferable by a worker for a government program. I am tempted to appease you and post the thread, however it is much more entertaining to watch this.
And I am the racist? You have got to be kidding me. Within the span of two threads I have already seen Democrats use the words “nigger” and “Uncle Tom”. But I am the racist? So I guess you don’t support racism UNLESS the African American in question has a Republican affiliation. I am happy you are in this thread. You confirm so much about the Democratic party. Keep it up!
It was three, three. Facts just aren’t your strong suit are they?
So were where you when your side made personal attacks against Bush? I can’t count the times when the attacks were not on policy, but personal attacks. I guess as long as your a Democrat it is okay to be a hypocrite.
QUOTE=Zakalwe;14241699]The thread in question is here - Have Americans finished paying for Reagan’s spending yet?
I was the one who made the comment and got (rightfully) warned for it..[/QUOTE
Well, here in Arizona the reason why one imputes the worst is that the ones proposing the law and the ones enforcing it had connections with well known racists. It is by looking at the proponents and executors of the laws that remind us of the old “Don’t tell us it is raining when they are really pissing on us”
The signs about being a Christian nation aren’t racist, but -
Racist and/or anti-Semitic Democrats that aren’t rejected by Democrats
[ul]
[li]Al Sharpton - Crown Heights, etc…I shouldn’t even have to explain this one…not to mention his attack on Mormons.[/li][li]Jesse Jackson (Hymietown, anyone? I remember my dad writing a letter to the editor about this fuckhead when I was a kid)[/li][li]Senator Byrd - Former KKK member[/li][li]Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Derh.[/li][li]Condi Rice - comparing Palestinian checkpoints to 1960s South, saying antisemitism isn’t prevalent in Muslim countries, etc.[/li][li]Cynthia McKinney**[/li][/ul]
** She was eventually distanced from the Democratic Party
It’s also no secret that anti-Semitism is on the rise on the Left and Democrats are pretty mum about it and perfectly OK to take those support dollars and votes.
Are you up in arms about this, or just the Tea Partiers? And who is calling on the Obamas to repudiate the New Black Panthers for intimidating voters? Certainly not the Democrats on the board.
It’s no more fair to judge the OP for the Tea Party than it is to judge Obama for Farrakhan.
Actually those are all examples of things that are absolutely not racist.
Just to the OP, look at this quoted passage and look at my bullet list upthread, you will begin to see how this place works.