Foes of tea party movement to infiltrate rallies

[tuoder]

It separated the quotes like that and I don't know why. It's been a long time since I've used a vBulletin site. Please bear with me.

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm just waiting for the Democrats to repudiate the racist statements made by their members, their leadership, and their Congressmen and women.

Not to mention the violence they've been inciting. Can you repudiate something you are inciting?

 

[SavageEagle]

There is no "leadership". Not in the real Tea Party.

Thats the beauty of it. It's completely grass roots. About 60% republican, 25% independent and 15% democrat.

Our event in Valpo is "leader free". Sure Faith Jones is an excellent organizer and we owe her a debt of gratitude but she doesn't try and claim shes the "leader".

Anyone claiming to be anything other than a member or local organizer of a Tea Party is LIAR AND A FRAUD.

THAT is what the simple minded dem's and rep's don't get. The Tea Party is NOT a person or a 'party'.

Come out to Valpo tomorrow (3-6) and find out. You'll see a thousand "leaders".

There will also be a boat load of us open carrying.

I've never carried a birth certificate sign, but if he was a legitimate Natural Born Citizen, why has he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to prevent the release of his long form birth certificate? Hmmm?

Beat me to it. Prometheus got it right. There is no leaders. The closest thing to a "leader" is the people that organize the events. Even then, they are not the "leaders" of that particular organization. They are just the ones that set up the event.

Take Richard Behney for example. He organized, setup, and handled the first Tax Day Tea Party here in Indy. But he was not the "leader" and never claimed to be.

 

[JetGirl]

"Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."

Um...what the eff does any of that ^ have to do with Tea Party movement intentions or objectives??

 

[tuoder]

I'm just waiting for the Democrats to repudiate the racist statements made by their members, their leadership, and their Congressmen and women.

Not to mention the violence they've been inciting. Can you repudiate something you are inciting?

I'm not sure I follow. What have democrats said that was racist?

 

[dburkhead]

I agree. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t suffer fools.

Attempting to "repudiate" the Right's looney tunes is like attempting to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

The left is either not going to report the repudiation, is going to bury it somewhere in the fine print in the back, or is going to report it, then ignore it and go on as if it was never made in the first place.

The left and the "mainstream media" is already to the point of lying about the Tea Parties and other protests against the current government and administration. This is the same media that used the carrying of an AR15 type rifle, discretely slung muzzle down, outside an Arizona "town hall" type meeting as an example of "white rage" while very carefully editing the video so that one didn't see that the man carrying the AR15 was a black man. This is the same media that claimed racist epithets when a couple of "Black Caucus" (and how is that not racist right there?) folk were passing a crowd yet, strangely enough none of the video cameras that were at the scene (people carry a lot of video cameras--in phones and what not as just one example--these days) managed to catch those epithets (well, maybe by the "N-word" they meant "No" since that does seem to be a dirty word to the Left--at least when it comes to their programs).

Maybe it would be a "good idea" in some theoretical objective sense to take the time and effort to expressly disavow the actions of the extremists, but, really, what would be the point?

 

[dburkhead]

I'm not sure I follow. What have democrats said that was racist?

Painting any disagreement with the current President as "racism" is, itself, a racist action.

Voting for a President because of his race is as racist as voting against him because of his race.

Claiming that the other side has made racist arguments (Obama's "not like the other pictures on the money" crack--when none of his opponents had made any such argument--during the campaign) is racist.

All of those things, and more, that are "business as usual" for the Democratic Party are racist. That is, unless one believes that racism only goes one way. But that, too, is racist.

 

[T-rav]

Not to mention Harry Reid's comments.

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

I'm not sure I follow. What have democrats said that was racist?

Although I'm much to young to have witnessed any statements that may have been uttered at the time of his membership, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd (D) is a former Klansmen, yet he's continually elected, and probably by the union members of the mining communities.

Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson; extremely racist.

Harry Reid (as pointed out by T-Rav)

Barbara Boxer (Exposed during questioning with a black republican committee member. Basically, she told him how he should feel because he was black! Go figure)

New Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor

etc., etc., etc....

Edit: After reading this post https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...d_savagely_beaten_for_wearing_palin_pins.html

it reminded me of New Orleans Mayor Ray Negan (D) and his wish for a "chocolate city".

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm not sure I follow. What have democrats said that was racist?

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden


Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton

Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax

"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."
-- Harry Belafonte

(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." -- Spike Lee

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."
-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
US Senator Robert Byrd,

"I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n***** or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n***** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."
-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." -- Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights


The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years." -- Louis Farrakhan who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002, City College audience in New York

"There are white n******. I've seen a lot of white n****** in my time." -- Former Klansman and Current US Senator Robert Byrd

"There's no great, white bigot; there's just about 200 million little white bigots out there." -- USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux

"The white race is the cancer of human history." -- Susan Sontag

Can't expect much from the party that spawned the KKK, I reckon.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The Tea Party is not an organization with leaders, it is a movement with organizers. It is headless; like a hydra. That's one of the great things about it. And one of the worst.

Most Americans don't know their history. They don't know what the Boston Tea Party was. It follows that it is easy for the MSM to bill it as an alternative to the Republican Party, which it is not.

It would have to come from the leaderhip of the movement. They would need to repudiate things that members had said.



It happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. Even if it didn't, the fact that your enemies will not fight honorably does not mean that you should be dishonorable as well.

 

[tuoder]

Attempting to "repudiate" the Right's looney tunes is like attempting to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

The left is either not going to report the repudiation, is going to bury it somewhere in the fine print in the back, or is going to report it, then ignore it and go on as if it was never made in the first place.

The left and the "mainstream media" is already to the point of lying about the Tea Parties and other protests against the current government and administration. This is the same media that used the carrying of an AR15 type rifle, discretely slung muzzle down, outside an Arizona "town hall" type meeting as an example of "white rage" while very carefully editing the video so that one didn't see that the man carrying the AR15 was a black man. This is the same media that claimed racist epithets when a couple of "Black Caucus" (and how is that not racist right there?) folk were passing a crowd yet, strangely enough none of the video cameras that were at the scene (people carry a lot of video cameras--in phones and what not as just one example--these days) managed to catch those epithets (well, maybe by the "N-word" they meant "No" since that does seem to be a dirty word to the Left--at least when it comes to their programs).

Maybe it would be a "good idea" in some theoretical objective sense to take the time and effort to expressly disavow the actions of the extremists, but, really, what would be the point?

I remember the guy in New Hampshire. i saw him on the MSM, they interviewed him. Thy also misidentified the AR and a "machine gun", or some such nonsense.

I think the point of repudiating these things is to resist the extremism label.

Painting any disagreement with the current President as "racism" is, itself, a racist action.

Voting for a President because of his race is as racist as voting against him because of his race.

Claiming that the other side has made racist arguments (Obama's "not like the other pictures on the money" crack--when none of his opponents had made any such argument--during the campaign) is racist.

All of those things, and more, that are "business as usual" for the Democratic Party are racist. That is, unless one believes that racism only goes one way. But that, too, is racist.

There are people who regard every statement made against the president as being racist, but there are also racists. There are racists on both sides of the aisle. I disagree with them all.

Although I'm much to young to have witnessed any statements that may have been uttered at the time of his membership, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd (D) is a former Klansmen, yet he's continually elected, and probably by the union members of the mining communities.

Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson; extremely racist.

Harry Reid (as pointed out by T-Rav)

Barbara Boxer (Exposed during questioning with a black republican committee member. Basically, she told him how he should feel because he was black! Go figure)

New Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor

etc., etc., etc....

Edit: After reading this post https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...d_savagely_beaten_for_wearing_palin_pins.html

it reminded me of New Orleans Mayor Ray Negan (D) and his wish for a "chocolate city".

I think that by and large, most democrats aren't racist. the old Liberal racism is the of the condescending rich white man, here to save black people from their situation. I find it sickening as well.

Can't expect much from the party that spawned the KKK, I reckon.

There used to be a lot of overlap between southerners and racism and democrats after the civil war. Things changed around a bit after FDR. FDR realigned Americna politics. The Democrats became the liberal party, and the republicans conservative. It was not always this way.

The Tea Party is not an organization with leaders, it is a movement with organizers. It is headless; like a hydra. That's one of the great things about it. And one of the worst.

Most Americans don't know their history. They don't know what the Boston Tea Party was. It follows that it is easy for the MSM to bill it as an alternative to the Republican Party, which it is not.

Most Americans are aware of the reference to the historical event in the title of the Tea Party. I don't think it's seen as an alternative, I think it is seen as a schism.

 

[dburkhead]

I remember the guy in New Hampshire. i saw him on the MSM, they interviewed him. Thy also misidentified the AR and a "machine gun", or some such nonsense.

I'm not talking about New Hampshire. I'm talking about Arizona. The story was one of the carrying being an example of "white rage" while deliberately (there's no way this was an accident) cutting the footage so that one could not see that the person carrying the AR was a black man. Racism at its "finest," using deliberate deceit to further their vilification of opponents.

I think the point of repudiating these things is to resist the extremism label.[/quote]

Since the label is going to be applied by the current administration, his party, and the MSM regardless, what's the point? You are casting yourself in the roll of King Canute's advisors, telling him he can command the tide.

There are people who regard every statement made against the president as being racist, but there are also racists. There are racists on both sides of the aisle. I disagree with them all.

What you seem to be missing is that calling all disagreement racist is itself racist. Olberman's lying about the making of the tea party groups in order to paint them as racist is racist.

On the right, the racism is "extremist" ("fringe" is a better term since implies the same views carried to, well, extremes); on the left, it's mainstream and accepted.

I think that by and large, most democrats aren't racist. the old Liberal racism is the of the condescending rich white man, here to save black people from their situation. I find it sickening as well.

The automatic assumption that white people are racist is itself racist. The The inherent assumption that it only goes one way (whites committing racism against others) is racist. The scapegoating of other (usually "white males") as the cause of ones problems is racist.

There used to be a lot of overlap between southerners and racism and democrats after the civil war. Things changed around a bit after FDR. FDR realigned Americna politics. The Democrats became the liberal party, and the republicans conservative. It was not always this way.

Um, no. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, as were many if not most of those who marched with him. Also, the correlation between "conservative" and "racist" is nothing more than a slander levied by the Left against the Right. "Racism" is not a conservative point.

Consider: Unions, hardly a bastion of political conservatism, have a long history of working to keep "those people" out of high paying union jobs.

Consider: you don't get much more "left" than outright communism. Have you known people who grew up in the former Soviet Union, the "mecca" of Communist ideas for most of the 20th century? I have. The tales of racism from there would blanch your hair.

And so on. Saying "Republicans are more conservative" has no bearing on whether or not they are racist. None.

Most Americans are aware of the reference to the historical event in the title of the Tea Party. I don't think it's seen as an alternative, I think it is seen as a schism.

If you mean a schism between the tax and spend, or borrow and spend, people in government and people who are going to have to pay; between the people whose egos are writing checks and the people whose bodies have to cash them then you have a point.

If you mean a schism within the Republican party or something like that, then you completely miss the point. The various Tea Parties cross party lines; they cross religious lines; they cross racial lines; and they cross border lines. Don't get your information from liars like Keith Olberman or other liars like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Instead, go directly to the source if you want to find out what the Tea Parties are about.

 

[tuoder]

I'm not talking about New Hampshire. I'm talking about Arizona. The story was one of the carrying being an example of "white rage" while deliberately (there's no way this was an accident) cutting the footage so that one could not see that the person carrying the AR was a black man. Racism at its "finest," using deliberate deceit to further their vilification of opponents.

I think the point of repudiating these things is to resist the extremism label.

Since the label is going to be applied by the current administration, his party, and the MSM regardless, what's the point? You are casting yourself in the roll of King Canute's advisors, telling him he can command the tide.




What you seem to be missing is that calling all disagreement racist is itself racist. Olberman's lying about the making of the tea party groups in order to paint them as racist is racist.

On the right, the racism is "extremist" ("fringe" is a better term since implies the same views carried to, well, extremes); on the left, it's mainstream and accepted.



The automatic assumption that white people are racist is itself racist. The The inherent assumption that it only goes one way (whites committing racism against others) is racist. The scapegoating of other (usually "white males") as the cause of ones problems is racist.



Um, no. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, as were many if not most of those who marched with him. Also, the correlation between "conservative" and "racist" is nothing more than a slander levied by the Left against the Right. "Racism" is not a conservative point.

Consider: Unions, hardly a bastion of political conservatism, have a long history of working to keep "those people" out of high paying union jobs.

Consider: you don't get much more "left" than outright communism. Have you known people who grew up in the former Soviet Union, the "mecca" of Communist ideas for most of the 20th century? I have. The tales of racism from there would blanch your hair.

And so on. Saying "Republicans are more conservative" has no bearing on whether or not they are racist. None.



If you mean a schism between the tax and spend, or borrow and spend, people in government and people who are going to have to pay; between the people whose egos are writing checks and the people whose bodies have to cash them then you have a point.

If you mean a schism within the Republican party or something like that, then you completely miss the point. The various Tea Parties cross party lines; they cross religious lines; they cross racial lines; and they cross border lines. Don't get your information from liars like Keith Olberman or other liars like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Instead, go directly to the source if you want to find out what the Tea Parties are about.

I think we agree more than we realize. I'm not interested in Olberman bloviating on everything. He should get a job doing movie trailers.

The schism I'm talking about is between measured conservatism, that hold that America is great and the appropriate reforms are small, and the reactionary stuff of opposing every law passed after FDR was sworn in.

I agree with you on racial victimhood.

MLK was a populist, and was frequently accused of being a communist due to his radically liberal agenda and ties to socialists. One thing he was not is Republican.

Soviet Communism and American Liberalism are very different. I see the political spectrum this way: starting on the left, you have people who wish t radically transform society based on some specific criteria (communists, anarchists, agrarianists, whatever). Next you have those who would compromise in the service of one of these ideals (socialists, social democrats). Next you have those who believe change is a constant (progressives). Next you have people who wish to change things, but not radically or basically, and not necessarily all of the time (liberals and some conservatives). Then comes the center. Then come those who see things as good how they are (conservatives). Then come those who believe things used to be better (reactionaries). Lastly come those who subscribe to a specific defunct system (monarchists, nazis, fascists).

I think the schism is between Republicans who are anywhere from liberal to centrist to conservative, and people who are somewhere between reactionary to fascist. I think the tea party needs to jettison the fascists and some of the reactionaries and keep everyone else.

I don't think I gave your post the reply it deserves, but I'm tired.

 

[UncleMike]

OK
Maybe I've just got my tin hat on a little too tight tonight.
Or maybe I'm just an old suspicious Cop.
BUT.
Has anyone else noticed that the OP has been a member for almost seven months, and this is his first post?
A potentially inflammatory post that comes just one day before the planned Tea Party Rallies around The Country?
Unless he can prove otherwise I'm calling a Troll Alert.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Mike

 

[Joe Williams]

OK
Maybe I've just got my tin hat on a little too tight tonight.
Or maybe I'm just an old suspicious Cop.
BUT.
Has anyone else noticed that the OP has been a member for almost seven months, and this is his first post?
A potentially inflammatory post that comes just one day before the planned Tea Party Rallies around The Country?
Unless he can prove otherwise I'm calling a Troll Alert.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Mike

There are several screen names that have suddenly become rather active. I suspect that all those names actually trace back to one or two people.

 

[dburkhead]

I think we agree more than we realize. I'm not interested in Olberman bloviating on everything. He should get a job doing movie trailers.

You asked for examples of racism on the left, specifically Democrats. By this point you've been given plenty of same.

The schism I'm talking about is between measured conservatism, that hold that America is great and the appropriate reforms are small, and the reactionary stuff of opposing every law passed after FDR was sworn in.

And what "schism" would that be? The only way this statement is relevant to the Tea Party movements is if you actually believe the lies about the Tea Party folk told by people such as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and, yes, Keith Olberman.

I agree with you on racial victimhood.

MLK was a populist, and was frequently accused of being a communist due to his radically liberal agenda and ties to socialists. One thing he was not is Republican.

Um. No. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican. I know that flies in the face of what you think about Republicans and about MLK, but there it is.

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican - HUMAN EVENTS

Martin Luther King Was A Republican. | Gather

Was Martin Luther King a Republican? - Yahoo! Answers

I know, I know, this flies in the face of "Republicans are icky racists" as portrayed by the Media, but there you are.

Soviet Communism and American Liberalism are very different. I see the political spectrum this way: starting on the left, you have people who wish t radically transform society based on some specific criteria (communists, anarchists, agrarianists, whatever). Next you have those who would compromise in the service of one of these ideals (socialists, social democrats). Next you have those who believe change is a constant (progressives). Next you have people who wish to change things, but not radically or basically, and not necessarily all of the time (liberals and some conservatives). Then comes the center. Then come those who see things as good how they are (conservatives). Then come those who believe things used to be better (reactionaries). Lastly come those who subscribe to a specific defunct system (monarchists, nazis, fascists).

As long as you're tied to a single axis system you are doomed to fail (and even given your spectrum the difference is a matter of degree not direction).

Case in point: National Socialists and Communists of the Marxist/Leninist stripe have as much, if not more, in common than they do separating them. How, then, can they be at completely opposite ends of the political spectrum?

A much better approach is the two dimensional mapping proposed by Dr. Jerry Pournelle some years ago. One axis in Pournelle's original mapping (other mappings are possible) is whether the State is a "Good" or an "Evil" to society. As drawn in the original chart, you get the left end has the State as the ultimate evil, while the right has the effective worship of the State. The vertical axis is based on whether one believes in "rational" answers to problems of society or not. The result is something like this:

Note that neither of these axes matches the "traditional" left/right which is, after all, a rather silly division deriving as it does from where people sat in the French Assembly about the time of the French Revolution (where supporters of the King sat on the Right and supporters of what would become The Terror sat on the Left).

In any case the idea that racism or lack thereof has a connection to left/right or republican/democrat or anything other than some specific individuals is nothing more than a creation of the "Left" and their lackeys in the media in an effort to vilify the "Right"

I think the schism is between Republicans who are anywhere from liberal to centrist to conservative, and people who are somewhere between reactionary to fascist. I think the tea party needs to jettison the fascists and some of the reactionaries and keep everyone else.

I think you haven't got a clue about what the Tea Parties are about unless possibly you are one of the folk that this thread is about.

I don't think I gave your post the reply it deserves, but I'm tired.

 

[dburkhead]

OK
Maybe I've just got my tin hat on a little too tight tonight.
Or maybe I'm just an old suspicious Cop.
BUT.
Has anyone else noticed that the OP has been a member for almost seven months, and this is his first post?
A potentially inflammatory post that comes just one day before the planned Tea Party Rallies around The Country?
Unless he can prove otherwise I'm calling a Troll Alert.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Mike

I pretty much agree with you. Still, trolls can have their purposes. If one can remain calm and use reasoned argument with someone who uses fallacious reasoning, mindless repetition, and other trollish behaviors one can sharpen his skills for more honest debate.

And there's always the entertainment factor. Just as trolls find it amusing to "stir the pot" some folk find a modicum of entertainment in baiting trolls. The question is which Billy Goat Gruff you're going to be.

 

[Designer99]

And don't think the trolls that have been showing up on here are any accident either.

Put your tinfoil away. This is a gun forum.

 

[SavageEagle]

Put your tinfoil away. This is a gun forum.

You don't think those people wouldn't show up here? Is it just coincidence that the influx of organized trolls showed up in the last couple months?