Moral equivalence and \"islamophobia\"

[Tunnelcat]

One comment on all those who don't think a Theocratic Corpratocracy is coming:



I couple of you guys just proved my point with your links, especially the \"liberal media's attack on Christianity\" bull poop! Which liberal media? The ONLY liberal TV media (what most older people watch for news still) that is actually spouting a liberal line right now is MSNBC. Every other network is fawning over the Tea Baggers and Sarah Palin and how great they would be for our country. They're practically drooling (or getting off) at the prospect! Think sexy female talking puppets! If you're talking about the net, you can find practically anything you want to bolster your opinions of things. If you're talking about radio, there's still a majority rightie slant on the talkie airwaves. One of our local stations canned Air America and put on country music instead, UCK! In my little town, a large real estate developer is rebuilding many shopping centers and kicking out the freebie 'liberal' Eugene Weekly tabloid boxes. He has the right, it's his property, but he's inadvertently alienating some customers. His loss.

And for each and every liberal-bashing-promote-Christian-morals book, there will be a counter to it. Try out this one instead Heretic:

Crazy For God

CUDA, as I recall, the founding fathers didn't particularly like the 'Christian' Church of England being THE church of state in England. So which version of Christiandom were they talking about for their new country? Were they generalizing? There's quite a few flavors of Christianity, some more restrictive or lax in their interpretation of the Bible and how it should be applied to the law of the land, than others. And what about Judaism? I don't see that being mentioned at all. Oh that's right, I think they expected them to convert to Jesus and then they would be all right in the eyes of God! My high opinion of the founding fathers as reasonable people kind of dropped down a notch.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContr ... ?id=180323

And here we have the Values Voter Summit 2010, a collection of right wing radical Evangelical Christian groups and like-minded people, like Focus in the Family, the American Family Association, The Family Research Council, The Heritage Foundation, Liberty University (Jerry Falwell Jr.) and people like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Gary Bauer, Dick Armey, Bill Bennet and Newt Gingrich (these last 2 are hypocrites) to name a few. Just read what they want to discuss in their breakout sessions. Molding a Christian Great Society. All these people and organizations are either corporate or Christian based. And you say I'm paranoid! If they get in office and power for any length of time, my fears will come to pass.

OK Lothar, please tell all those OTHER vocal females here to please speak up and say why I'm wrong? And they have to be older than about 55 to even have an inkling of what it was like in \"the olden days\".

Bettina asked my question of Will. Just WHO should we vote for when all we have is a cadre of right-wing moron religious corporate dumb-as-a-post nut jobs as our ONLY choice to vote out the incumbents? Not a good selection for some of us. As for the Tea Party rising after Obama, it's not about government spending or control. We got all that under Bush and yet they said NOTHING. Even when all the hidden off-the-books war spending and spying on Americans got going and came to light, NADA. But I will concede that the spying is still going on, so nothing's changed. What it's really all about is that a BLACK man is now president! Ooooooh, the black boogey man is coming to destroy your lily white country! Deny it if you want, but that IS the underlying reason. I've listened to enough white tea baggers blithering around town and they practically drip with racial hatred in so many couched words.

[Heretic]

WOW and I thought I was a little unhinged, bananas, batty, berserk, bonkers, confused, crazed, crazy, deranged, disturbed, insane, loopy, lunatic, mad, maniac, manic, mental, out of one's mind, out to lunch, touched, and unbalanced. At least I never lost sight of absoluteness, actuality, authenticity, being, bottom line, brass tacks, certainty, concreteness, corporeality, deed, entity, existence, genuineness, how things are, like it is, materiality, matter, name of the game, nuts and bolts, object, palpability, perceptibility, phenomenon, presence, real world, realism, realness, sensibility, solidity, substance, substantiality, substantive, tangibility, truth, validity, verisimilitude, verity, way of it, and what's what

[Will Robinson]

...All these people and organizations are either corporate or Christian based. And you say I'm paranoid! If they get in office and power for any length of time, my fears will come to pass.

Like I said if means a possibility they might somehow get enough members in power to change things. Liberals are already in power and they are changing things right now so cry me a river. Liberals are all corporate or loony-left based...what the hell is the difference?

Bettina asked my question of Will. Just WHO should we vote for when all we have is a cadre of right-wing moron religious corporate dumb-as-a-post nut jobs as our ONLY choice to vote out the incumbents?

First, I have described in great detail what options there are. You have decided to continue to misrepresent the choices available.

I think I know why. You don't look to your vote as a way to help solve a problem you look to your vote as a weapon to be wielded against an enemy politician. You have been rendered into a party tool by accepting that premise.

Look at O'Donnel. Voting for her will cause the repubs to most likely lose Delaware. Yet the people who vote for her, the Tea Party etc. have done the major work to solve a problem with their vote. Their problem wasn't a party choice it was an ideology choice. The too liberal candidate that occupied their candidate seat has been removed and every limp wristed republican in the country is taking serious notice of that removal!
The Tea Party has a success already. Consider it a bombing run, the enemy was weakened severely...if the enemy actualy surrenders (ie; O'Donnel wins) then they get a bonus but even if they don't the next person to run in the republican seat will be taking Tea Party concerns into their platform. And across the board Repub moderates are taking notes on how to avoid that fate. They will adjust their platform to accommodate Tea Party concerns ie; Tea Party wins again....

You won't use your vote to remove a problem you think it's all about D versus R at any cost. Since so many people have allowed that thinking to prevail the R's and the D's as a whole (the status quo) win every election. You are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and I'm telling you to help us turn the damn ship around before we hit the ice fields.

As for the Tea Party rising after Obama, it's not about government spending or control. We got all that under Bush and yet they said NOTHING.

Bullcrap! The Tea Party contains lots of angry-at-Bush voters. Lots of people who were mad he went with the Bail Out plan and just generally spent too much. The reason Obama won so big is in part because these same voters stayed home on election day because McCain was just another weak conservative.
Obama swelled their ranks by driving lots of other previously lurking silent conservatives into the same place and the Tea Party was born.

...What it's really all about is that a BLACK man is now president! Ooooooh, the black boogey man is coming to destroy your lily white country! Deny it if you want, but that IS the underlying reason. I've listened to enough white tea baggers blithering around town and they practically drip with racial hatred in so many couched words.

Yea! Pull out the race card... that will save your weak fantasy argument lol

[null0010]

to those in this thread:

1. talking past each other will get nothing accomplished

2. discussions of race are even less productive

[Stroodles]

to those in this thread:

1. talking past each other will get nothing accomplished

2. discussions of race are even less productive

3. Stating the above two points several times in a row will not change the effect of them.

[CUDA]

CUDA, as I recall, the founding fathers didn't particularly like the 'Christian' Church of England being THE church of state in England. So which version of Christiandom were they talking about for their new country? Were they generalizing? There's quite a few flavors of Christianity, some more restrictive or lax in their interpretation of the Bible and how it should be applied to the law of the land, than others. And what about Judaism? I don't see that being mentioned at all. Oh that's right, I think they expected them to convert to Jesus and then they would be all right in the eyes of God! My high opinion of the founding fathers as reasonable people kind of dropped down a notch.

OK since you directed this at me and apparently have zero knowledge of the founding of our country I'll try to make this easy for you.

the founding fathers didn't particularly like the 'Christian' Church of England being THE church of state in England.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

incase you've never read the 1st Amendment. it was drafted specifically to counter what the Church of England had become. a Church run by the Government. the Founding Fathers wanted freedom OF religion, the choice to believe in what ever God you chose. Yawhee, Christ, Mohammed, Buddah. thats the beauty of this country

And what about Judaism? I don't see that being mentioned at all.

nope you don't! and if you look REALLY REALLY hard you'll see it doesnt mention \"christianity\" either. but I guess having some kind of knowledge about what your ranting about would be counter productive to your paranoia.

In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.
Buddha

2nd part of your rant

THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING, THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING!!!!

SO!!! what your saying is you want to forbid any person in this country that has a faith from running for office. so your saying your a Bigot?

A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own

dont Forget the \"prohibit the free exercise there-of part of the first Amenedment. I have a Faith. you dont.what makes your form of governance better or more fair than mine?

please tell all those OTHER vocal females here to please speak up and say why I'm wrong? And they have to be older than about 55 to even have an inkling of what it was like in \"the olden days\".

UHM Bee I think TC just told you your opnion doesn't matter because your not old enough.

cadre of right-wing moron religious corporate dumb-as-a-post nut jobs

I'll refer back to my Bigot post

What it's really all about is that a BLACK man is now president!

and of course you have evidence to back this up? because your opinion doesnt matter. and I'm quite sure tha many blacks in the Teaparty Movement will take offense to your calling them racist.

Among these movement conservatives are a small but increasing number of black conservatives and libertarians who - attracted to the tea party movement's call for smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending - are getting involved in the protest movement.

Kevin Jackson, a former ACORN and union organizer who currently works as an advocate for the homeless in Charleston, S.C., began attending tea party events \"because I saw the Left under Obama seeking to destroy the freedoms that we as Americans have fought so hard to have, and the Left's determination to take socialize, to over the state\", he said.

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.

keep babling TC you dig your self further and further in that hole with every post and the Irony is your shoulder Parrot is following you.

[Cuda68]

The black man has more to worry about with the Mexican gangs. They are shooting Africans on sight in LA.

[CUDA]

WOW and I thought I was a little unhinged, bananas, batty, berserk, bonkers, confused, crazed, crazy, deranged, disturbed, insane, loopy, lunatic, mad, maniac, manic, mental, out of one's mind, out to lunch, touched, and unbalanced.

you are

[null0010]

to those in this thread:

1. talking past each other will get nothing accomplished

2. discussions of race are even less productive

3. Stating the above two points several times in a row will not change the effect of them.

I can dream, can't I?

[Bet51987]

.

[[RIP]Machete_Bug]

...What it's really all about is that a BLACK man is now president! Ooooooh, the black boogey man is coming to destroy your lily white country! Deny it if you want, but that IS the underlying reason. I've listened to enough white tea baggers blithering around town and they practically drip with racial hatred in so many couched words.

Yea! Pull out the race card... that will save your weak fantasy argument lol

I'm just surprised it took until page 3 of this thread to get played. I mean, we all knew it was coming, right?

Oh, and I checked my Privileged White Male Code Book, and I'm afraid to tell you that "incompetent, European-style Keynsian social democrat" is not on the list of new coded "N-words". Hopefully that will keep me safe from being labled a bigot just because I think Obama's wrong-headed about most everything. Probably not...

[Lothar]

when are you going to answer the question I asked you in the street camera thread?

I'm not sure what question you think you asked that I didn't answer.

[Bet51987]

.

[Lothar]

when are you going to answer the question I asked you in the street camera thread?

I'm not sure what question you think you asked that I didn't answer.

This one. Maybe you thought it wasn't a question.

viewtopic.php?t=17244&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

That's not the thread you said it was in.

[Tunnelcat]

Like I said if means a possibility they might somehow get enough members in power to change things. Liberals are already in power and they are changing things right now so cry me a river. Liberals are all corporate or loony-left based...what the hell is the difference?

I agree that you think "liberals" are in power and that they're acting like a bunch of corporatists as well, but those bozos sure haven't done very much to push any kind of "liberal" agenda. When I think of a liberal agenda, I think of FDR and Johnson. If the guys in office were pushing that kind of agenda NOW, you'd be screaming bloody murder a hundred fold! What Obama's pushed through is TAME compared to what those 2 presidents did. Personally, I think Obama hasn't gone far enough to the left!

Bullcrap! The Tea Party contains lots of angry-at-Bush voters. Lots of people who were mad he went with the Bail Out plan and just generally spent too much. The reason Obama won so big is in part because these same voters stayed home on election day because McCain was just another weak conservative.
Obama swelled their ranks by driving lots of other previously lurking silent conservatives into the same place and the Tea Party was born.

OK. So why are these Tea Party people carrying signs with racist depictions of Obama, but absolutely nothing depicting Bush in some unflattering light? I don't see very many signs that Tea Party people even care that Bush got us into this mess IN THE FIRST PLACE. The Republicans are trying to absorb the monster they created to their side too. If Tea Baggers were truly pissed off at both parties, they show it in their rallies! But all they want to do is blame Obama, blame Obama, blame Obama..... That's why I pulled out the race card. Their rallies STINK of racism! The signs these guys are carrying are bigoted, not just hateful. Before you scream at me, I also acknowledge that liberal crazies carried violent Bush protest signs a few years back too, so I'm not giving liberals a pass.

And there is no way I'll ever vote for a Tea Party nutcase. Give me a moderate, intelligent alternative that doesn't wear religion or xenophobia on their sleeve and I'll gladly vote for them. And I have the same question as Bee does, Will Robinson. Who would you like to see as our President? What qualifications do you want him or her to have?

incase you've never read the 1st Amendment. it was drafted specifically to counter what the Church of England had become. a Church run by the Government. the Founding Fathers wanted freedom OF religion, the choice to believe in what ever God you chose. Yawhee, Christ, Mohammed, Buddah. thats the beauty of this country

I agree with that point.....

nope you don't! and if you look REALLY REALLY hard you'll see it doesnt mention "christianity" either. but I guess having some kind of knowledge about what your ranting about would be counter productive to your paranoia.

You're right, they didn't 'specifically' mention it in the 1st Amendment. But they referenced Christianity and Jesus outside that document quite a bit in their writings and quotes. So they definitely had a preconceived idea of which 'religion' should be followed in this country. It's comes down to how much influence and control Christians should have in our government.

http://christianity.about.com/od/indepe ... athers.htm

It gets back to this part of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now how does that jibe with the "Values Voters" and Tea Baggers that want to establish a nation run by "Christian Laws"? That IS the undertone in all their rallies. All I hear is cries to restore 'honor and morality' to our country, but no one says which 'honor and morality' they want! Can you tell me what they mean by that statement? Either of you, Will or CUDA?

SO!!! what your saying is you want to forbid any person in this country that has a faith from running for office. so your saying your a Bigot?

Uh oh, the Christian 'victim' card. I didn't say Christians or even Conservatives couldn't run and win office. We need people of all faiths, creeds and ideologies in our government. What I OBJECT to is the coordinated, MASS attempt to take over our government by Evangelical Christians in the form of "Values Voters" and other right-wing groups. It would be no different if Muslims, Military Militias or even a bunch of stoned-out-hippie-commies were trying to do the same thing.

[CUDA]

incase you've never read the 1st Amendment. it was drafted specifically to counter what the Church of England had become. a Church run by the Government. the Founding Fathers wanted freedom OF religion, the choice to believe in what ever God you chose. Yawhee, Christ, Mohammed, Buddah. thats the beauty of this country

I agree with that point.....

Good

nope you don't! and if you look REALLY REALLY hard you'll see it doesnt mention "christianity" either. but I guess having some kind of knowledge about what your ranting about would be counter productive to your paranoia.

You're right, they didn't 'specifically' mention it in the 1st Amendment. But they referenced Christianity and Jesus outside that document quite a bit in their writings and quotes. So they definitely had a preconceived idea of which 'religion' should be followed in this country. It's comes down to how much influence and control Christians should have in our government.

http://christianity.about.com/od/indepe ... athers.htm

yes but they were wise enough to seperate their personal beliefs from their political beliefs. something which you dont seem to be able to do.

It gets back to this part of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now how does that jibe with the "Values Voters" and Tea Baggers that want to establish a nation run by "Christian Laws"? That IS the undertone in all their rallies. All I hear is cries to restore 'honor and morality' to our country, but no one says which 'honor and morality' they want! Can you tell me what they mean by that statement? Either of you, Will or CUDA?

since many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christain values anyways I would say your already screwed and putting new people into office does not change that fact.

SO!!! what your saying is you want to forbid any person in this country that has a faith from running for office. so your saying your a Bigot?

Uh oh, the Christian 'victim' card. I didn't say Christians or even Conservatives couldn't run and win office. We need people of all faiths, creeds and ideologies in our government. What I OBJECT to is the coordinated, MASS attempt to take over our government by Evangelical Christians in the form of "Values Voters" and other right-wing groups. It would be no different if Muslims, Military Militias or even a bunch of stoned-out-hippie-commies were trying to do the same thing.

you cannot serperate a persons faith from the person. if people of faith want to run in mass for office in this country too bad. you have the power givien to you by the Constitution of not voting for them. just because a group of people of faith get voted into office DOES NOT MEAN they are trying to establish a theocracy.

currently in Congress we have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and probably some Agnostics too. thats the way our system works. people vote who they want to represent them and the rest of us have to live with it. if you don't want a Christian in office. THEN DONT VOTE FOR ONE.

Uh oh, the Christian 'victim' card

Nice try. epic fail.
you've made your positon MORE than clear on how you feel out people of faith on multiple occasions.
My experiences in life have shown me that its usually the person that screams racists the loudest thats is the racist. should I refer to your posts just a few back about our President??

[AlphaDoG]

You Still Continue to call reformists aka Tea-PARTY people "tea baggers." Your hate speach does nothing for me except to preclude me from even replying to your insipid diatribes.

Lefty lousy, rightly tightly!

I can go after any lefty you want. Let's try Gov. Moonbeam for example.

SAN FRANCISCO On Tuesday, when California's once and would-be-future leader declared he was running to win back his old job, he brought with him more than questions about his age (71) and his record of political service (40 years and counting).

[Will Robinson]

... And I have the same question as Bee does, Will Robinson. Who would you like to see as our President? What qualifications do you want him or her to have?..

I want to see someone who isn't supported by either of the big two parties.
I voted for Badnarik and then Nader in the last two. I don't think my vote was wasted one bit. I've made my reasons clear to the republican party why I did it and when they told me I would be helping the democrats win I told them no, I'm helping the republican lose because he sucks and they might want to rethink their position if they don't want more of the same.

I did vote for Obama in the primary but it was first and foremost an anti-Hillary vote. And because he had captured my hopes for a change in the status quo but it became obvious before the general that he was not who he first seemed to be. My mother, a life long conservative wanted to vote for Obama because she too was impressed with him. We watched his speech to the Democrat party a few years before he ran for President and he was fantastic. He sounded like a true outsider with a fresh approach etc. etc. He took both parties and all classes of citizen to task.

By the time he was deep in the general election my mother had passed away and I couldn't bring myself to vote for him even though just before she died she asked me if I would and I had said yes. I'm confident she too would have jumped off the Obama bandwagon if she had been around to see what he's like when he isn't reading a speech written in advance.

I don't vote to make a choice between the offerings of the two parties. I vote to move the country in the direction I believe it needs to go.
Sometimes you don't get a non-stop flight to your destination, sometimes you have to walk a little, ride a bus a little, catch a slow boat, whatever it takes. I won't jump on a plane to the wrong destination just because "everyone else" is flying.

You don't have to vote for a Tea Party member to avoid continuing the same cycle, that is a lame excuse you are trying to make. You can vote for some other person and make your reason for abandoning the big two known to them. when enough people do that they will have to listen and make real changes to their operation.

[[RIP]Machete_Bug]

You Still Continue to call reformists aka Tea-PARTY people "tea baggers." Your hate speach does nothing for me except to preclude me from even replying to your insipid diatribes.

Face it, AlphaDoG, the TEA Party is racist. The gal profiling white peope as bigots, slinging sexual insults, and slandering Christians with broad stereotypes says so. It must be true.

Given where Obama went to church for 20 years, I'm a bit curious how some folks who voted for him can complain about crazy religious bigots and the politicians who seek their favors with a straight face. Just sayin'...

Anyway, getting somewhat back on topic...

It seems to me when people start playing the moral equivalence game, it's to blunt outrage over bad behavior by saying bad behavior by someone else makes it irrelevant. As dumb as that is, it passes as clever and deep among psuedo-intellectuals.

Just because Christianity has Bob Jones, Fred Phelps, and some stupid witch trials a few centuries ago to answer for doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about gays being stoned to death today, artists threatened, infidels beheaded, and heads of genuine Islamic theocratic states promising genocide. There's enough outrage in my soul for them all, but if you ask me who I'm more afraid of, Pope Benedict XVI or Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, it's a REAL easy choice.

[Blaze]

A classic example of how the left tries to throw up
the moral equivalence of islam vs other religions and
the "innate" victimhood of muslims in america and
the west.

It is almost a pathological need to suicide the western
secular society many leftists grew up in just to
assuage an imagined "injustice" done to, what is in
reality, a virulently violent and supremacist ideology.
An ideology which is alien and hostile to western
secular and democratic values.

I don't think people in the United States government care about religion like the common people do.

[Tunnelcat]

OK CUDA, you call me racist because I've pointed out the obvious with the Tea Party. Well, you need to remove your denial blinders. Go out and actually talk to and LISTEN to a few of the especially older white Tea Party people and you'll get an earful of bigotry. I have a few nice older neighbors that I talk to in passing on the street and they will sometimes slip up in their opinions of our President. I sit there and nod politely while inwardly cringing and keeping my revulsion of what they're saying to myself. And I did say that anyone of any faith or any ideals could run for and win political office, including Christians, so quit calling me a Christian hater. I would even vote for a Christian if I thought what they wanted to do politically in office was right for society. I don't hate Christians, I have many nice Christian friends. I only dislike what a mass political segment of them are trying to put forth as change that may adversely affect my life as I know it. I guess I have a different opinion of what's right for all of society than you do.

Will, you made a straight forward and impassioned statement. The problem STILL comes down to WHO to vote for that would guarantee the best result in order for us to KICK the bastards out. The Tea Party is NOT my choice. If an independent or other candidate comes up that is a direct challenge to a corrupt incumbent and they're not a crazy right-winger in disguise as a Tea Bagger, then I will enthusiastically vote for the new guy. But if I'm stuck with only a Tea Party, Republican or Democratic set of choices, I will hold my nose and vote Democratic. Unfortunately, I think that a major shift is going to have to occur in this country in order to purge the body politic that's ingrained in Washington. It's going to take a large segment of society getting really pissed off in order for change to happen, not just a paltry 20%. It may not be a pretty transition either. When that happens, I'll gladly join in because I'm sick of the corporate control of our country.

Lothar, you don't think that there is a new threat to a woman's rights in this day and age? Well, Justice Scalia doesn't think that the Constitution's equal protection clause applies to gender and that it only references the abolition of slavery. So I guess his 'interpretation' is a little 'rigid'. What about all the other societal subclasses that have used this clause to put forward and obtain their equal rights? Is he saying we should be living the way we did in the 1700's, as the Founding Fathers imagined we should, because the Constitution can't or shouldn't be reinterpreted for MODERN society? I thought that's what the purpose of the Supreme Court was, to interpret the intent of the Constitution and apply it to our laws as things change over time!

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-new ... ck_check=1

[AlphaDoG]

You Still Continue to call reformists aka Tea-PARTY people "tea baggers." Your hate speach does nothing for me except to preclude me from even replying to your insipid diatribes.

Face it, AlphaDoG, the TEA Party is racist. The gal profiling white peope as bigots, slinging sexual insults, and slandering Christians with broad stereotypes says so. It must be true.

It must still be true as there she goes again using pejorative terms to refer to people that attend tea party rallies.

I don't get it. TC are you Janeane Garofalo?

I would think you could come up with your own pejoratives, instead you hack away using some one else's "intellectual" property. (notice I put intellectual in quotes)

[CUDA]

OK CUDA, you call me racist because I've pointed out the obvious with the Tea Party.

no you have pointed out what is obvious with a couple of members that you claim have affiliation with the Tea party

Well, you need to remove your denial blinders. Go out and actually talk to and LISTEN to a few of the especially older white Tea Party people and you'll get an earful of bigotry.

as you will with older black people, does that make them members if the Black panthers?

I have a few nice older neighbors that I talk to in passing on the street and they will sometimes slip up in their opinions of our President. I sit there and nod politely while inwardly cringing and keeping my revulsion of what they're saying to myself.

and of course they are Tea party members and they've told you so?? casting all Tea-party members as racist is Profiling. I thought Liberals HATE profiling. thats what they are claiming in AZ and in MANY civil right cases, that this "COULD" result in profiling.

And I did say that anyone of any faith or any ideals could run for and win political office, including Christians, so quit calling me a Christian hater. I would even vote for a Christian if I thought what they wanted to do politically in office was right for society. I don't hate Christians, I have many nice Christian friends. I only dislike what a mass political segment of them are trying to put forth as change that may adversely affect my life as I know it.

TC sometimes its not WHAT you say it's how you say it

I guess I have a different opinion of what's right for all of society than you do.

and you know what. thats OK.

[woodchip]

TC quote:
\"OK. So why are these Tea Party people carrying signs with racist depictions of Obama, but absolutely nothing depicting Bush in some unflattering light?\"

Care to show some evidence of these racist signs?

[Will Robinson]

...
Will, you made a straight forward and impassioned statement. The problem STILL comes down to WHO to vote for that would guarantee the best result in order for us to KICK the bastards out.

If your husband was beating you daily with a stick would you ask who do I get to replace him if I kick him out? No, you would remove the problem and consider yourself well on the way to a better place without having a replacement that you want to live with....
Why have a victim mentality?

The Tea Party is NOT my choice. If an independent or other candidate comes up that is a direct challenge to a corrupt incumbent and they're not a crazy right-winger in disguise as a Tea Bagger, then I will enthusiastically vote for the new guy.

Google your states ballot for 2008 and 2004 and show me there were no other names on it besides the R and the D and I'll believe you aren't just making excuses....

Unfortunately, I think that a major shift is going to have to occur in this country in order to purge the body politic that's ingrained in Washington. It's going to take a large segment of society getting really pissed off in order for change to happen, not just a paltry 20%. It may not be a pretty transition either. When that happens, I'll gladly join in because I'm sick of the corporate control of our country.

20% can make or break a party, the black vote is somewhere around 20%. Without it the D's lose bigtime. A large segment is pissed off watch the Tea Party make a difference with their 20%.
Why is it you are always asking others what choice you should make and now you are saying you would do something but only as soon as everyone does the heavy lifting...you have no right to be whining about anything you have surrendered.

[Tunnelcat]

TC quote:
"OK. So why are these Tea Party people carrying signs with racist depictions of Obama, but absolutely nothing depicting Bush in some unflattering light?"

Care to show some evidence of these racist signs?

NICE SELECTION

Didn't Glenn Beck just tell his flock to quit dressing up?

Will, I know that there were OTHER choices than D and R in my state and many times I VOTED for them too! But unless we get a larger and better selection of third party people that aren't either complete morons, corporate shills or have some wacko agenda (left or right and that depends on your perspective), we aren't going to get enough new people in office to bring about real change. If you get a small number of newbies elected, they're just as likely to be infected with the greed, power lust and corruption that permeate Washington and state governments. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature a lot of people succumb to. By the way CUDA, being a Christian isn't going to fix THAT aspect of human nature either. In fact, Christian leaders, on a whole, tend to be the biggest hypocrites of their own morality.

[Will Robinson]

...

Will, I know that there were OTHER choices than D and R in my state and many times I VOTED for them too! But unless we get a larger and better selection of third party people that aren't either complete morons, corporate shills or have some wacko agenda (left or right and that depends on your perspective), we aren't going to get enough new people in office to bring about real change. If you get a small number of newbies elected, they're just as likely to be infected with the greed, power lust and corruption that permeate Washington and state governments...

TC Wright said: "If I knew for sure I wouldn't crash I'd invent the airplane"
TC Flemming said: "If I knew for sure I wouldn't waste my time I'd invent penicillin"
TC Columbus said: "If I knew for sure I wouldn't fall off the edge of the earth I'd discover a new world"
TC Jobs said: "If I knew for sure people wanted a home computer I'd invent the Apple Computer"

TC from the DBB said she's afraid so she gets exactly the government she deserves.

[null0010]

What? That makes no sense, Will.

[Will Robinson]

It's funny how when the Tea Party had their big rally no national news organization could find examples like the ones in that guys youtube video and for a couple months after the Tea Party first became a legitimate faction the national media tried to portray the Tea Party movement like that but couldn't come up with anything near the examples that guys youtube video has...
That youtube guy must be one hell of a reporter!!

And then I remember the leftwingers who planned to infiltrate the Tea Party to make them out to appear violent and racist and it makes me wonder who made that youtube video and how....
I think if the Tea Party rallys were as full of racist hatemongers that you and the youtube video guy say then we would have seen a lot of that stuff on primetime news outlets like CNN, MSNBC,ABC,CBS,NBC etc etc etc. but we haven't.
Hmmmm... I wonder why?!? /sarcasm

http://www.mediaite.com/online/crash-th ... in-oregon/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-prepar ... lence.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-prove ... n-dem.html

[Will Robinson]

What? That makes no sense, Will.

TC claims she would vote the bastards out if she knew it was a big movement that would be totally successful. I think that is a real lame excuse. People who get things done don't use lame excuses. People who want others to maintain the status quo sound like TC.

[CUDA]

By the way CUDA, being a Christian isn't going to fix THAT aspect of human nature either.

WELL seeing as you brought up two diametrically opposed stances I will aggree with you. Christ, and Human nature are not compatable.

In fact, Christian leaders, on a whole, tend to be the biggest hypocrites of their own morality

agreed. some of them are. but maybe thats because they stand for something. and because they stand for something you choose to hold them to a higher standard. as you should. its easy to not judge or criticize a person when they don't take a stance on an issue.

Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will - his personal responsibility in the realm of faith and morals.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer

[[RIP]Machete_Bug]

In fact, Christian leaders, on a whole, tend to be the biggest hypocrites of their own morality

agreed. some of them are. but maybe thats because they stand for something. and because they stand for something you choose to hold them to a higher standard. as you should. its easy to not judge or criticize a person when they don't take a stance on an issue.

Interesting point. I also think it worth noting that just becaue the messenger may be flawed does not mean the message itself is.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was certainly a hypocrit to his religion for his affairs with other women, but it hardly invalidates the truths he preached. Thomas Jefferson didn't beleive that all men are created equal, but it doesn't shake my belief in the ideal he stated.

Sinning preachers? Hardly a problem for a religion that preaches that all humans are flawed and prone to sin. Even the preachers.

Something for TC to consider about protesters:

Personally, I aint into mass protest demonstrations like TEA Party rallies. One need look no further than the war protests held while Bush was in office to explain why.

I was pretty taken about by some rank Jew-bashing that seemed to happen at Iraq War protests.

Peace love and anti-semitism?

Heck, most of these in the video are pretty tame to what I've seen. After all, I can appreciate that there's a difference between opposing Isreal policy and hating Jews. But as someone in the vid says, one just has to wonder what the hell Isreal has to do with the Iraq War, and why they'd choose to bring up Isreal while protesting a war Isreal isn't fighting.

\"Code\" perhaps? I mean, the far leftists in this country seems to have adopted the Palestinian cause and their side of the conflict outright. Why not some of the rank Palestinian Jew-hating propoganda too?

But then I've also personally seen some signs at war protests that didn't bother with any code. Signs like \"Jews are the cause of all wars!\" Who knew Mel Gibson had so much in common with the anti-war movement? Or a personal favorite of mine, \"Promote world peace: have your Jew spayed or neutered.\"

Now, if I really felt like adopting the standard that now seems to be developing among the left about the TEA Party, then I guess I must also be forced to conclude that the American anti-war effort is rife with hatred of Jews.

Or... I could conclude what I think is the truth of the matter.

Protests of any kind bring out the kooks. The flavor of the kooks depends on what the protest is. The number of kooks depends on who's in power.

For the most part, the TEA Party is a conservative movement. Once conservatives are in power, it'll probably lose its influence. Just like the liberally driven war protests have ceased once liberals took power. Even though Obama's adopted many Bush war and security policies that the left protested.

So some TEA parties get some racist kooks who show up. Sure. So do liberal war protests. Conservative rallies bring \"The Birthers\" out of the woodwork. Liberal rallies bring out La Raza. Someone believing FEMA is building concentration camps for Christians will show up at a conservative rally. The \"9/11 Truthers\" all go to the liberal rally.

And when some dumbass finally goes the extra mile and Photoshops an American president into a Hitler parody, it's always the gravest of inuslts according to their supporters. Well, until the other guy's in office anyway.

But that doesn't mean that everyone, or even a majority, at such rallies are kooks. Many are reasonable and good people with genuine concerns. I hardly beleive the majority of people at anti-war rallies hate Jews. And I don't think the majority of folks at TEA Parties hate black people.

I find it a little insulting to my fellow Americans, some of the most tolerant and generous people on Earth, that someone would accuse so many of such bigotry.

But as they say, one rotten apple can spoil the bunch. Which is why I hold these kind of protests in low regard on a whole. Because it can too easily become some crackpot's opportunity to show up and show off. And provide fodder for partisans to malign a bunch of otherwise decent people.

Just my $0.02.

[CUDA]

well stated

[woodchip]

TC quote:
"OK. So why are these Tea Party people carrying signs with racist depictions of Obama, but absolutely nothing depicting Bush in some unflattering light?"

Care to show some evidence of these racist signs?

NICE SELECTION

I looked and I saw references to every thing but race. Certainly not to the extent you libs did when calling Colin Powell a uncle tom or the racist cartoons of Conoleeza Rice:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2 ... ezza-rice/

In short, the tea party members fall far short of the blatant racism of the liberal left and you TC should be ashamed to think otherwise.

[Will Robinson]

One big problem a lot of people make for themselves is they think they know who the Tea Party is when in fact they don't.
The TeaParty isn't any one type of person other than angry with the way government is conducting it's business. Something like 40% identify themselves as either democrat or independent.

They, as a group, give weight to the conservative side of an upcoming election only in the sense that they pose the most imminent threat to the democrats because the dem's are in the white house and hold the majority in congress. Beyond that the TP is just as bad for the Repub's as it is for the Dem's. The TP is primarily lashing out at the status quo and it is a truly grassroots phenomenon. There are different groups that want to co-opt it, the repub party gingerly tries to steer it and claim selective bits of the TP's rage...the Dem's try to define it as nothing but kooks (as Rip Machete bug points out the kook content is inevitable) and they fall victim to their own hype because they are ignoring the wide scope of the TP's appeal to real voters.

Dem's will go down big in the next election largely due to the country's reaction to Obama and the Dems in congress who shoved far too much bad policy down our throats. Funny, they got in power on an anti Bush wave and some of the outrage that will ultimately lead to their removal was started by a reaction to Bush being too much like them.

The Tea Party isn't any kind of typical ideological group it is more a visceral gut reaction to the politicians who have taken far too much advantage of the power they were given. If they remembered that the power they wield came from the people instead of their Party they wouldn't have created the problem they face but don't yet understand.

There is no stopping their momentum so the best way for a citizen to deal with the TP is to rise up at the same time and dilute any particular motif of the TP message by making the rebellion about the removal of the status quo and the particulars less defined.

In the end it will be the talking heads who define the aftermath and it could be reported one of two ways, that the 'conservatives rose up and took over'...that the 'nasty Tea Party' (whatever that bogey man is to you) is now in control! Or, that 'so many citizens of all camps rose up and said we've had enough and now we will get to see who rises to the top'.

[Heretic]

Ok I went though the you tube video and pulled out he one's about race.





http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2010 ... y-soldier/



Does it look like some of the shadows are off?

Yet I go to a Leftest quasi news site and pour through their pictures just looking for their worst pictures. I find one that is truly not right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/1 ... 87554.html



I think it would be a boon for a place like the Huffington Post to actually break the story of the TeaParty being racist. I'm sure they are trying. Just as hard as the Lame Stream Media trying to get proof. Yet Poof nothing.

[Tunnelcat]

You forgot the Obamacare Poster mixed in the lot showing him photoshopped as a Kenyan tribal witch doctor.

But I like this author's editorial observation about the Tea Party and the Republicans. Sure he's ranting as a leftie, but I agree with him! The Tea Party is no alternative choice for anyone who is RATIONAL, doesn't like the extremist Republican platform being pumped out right now and wants to elect some even HALFWAY competent people to office.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 012.column

[CUDA]

using Jimmy Carter as a reference ROFLOL.

[Tunnelcat]

You can't totally fault someone that hated Ted Kennedy as much as Carter did.

[CUDA]

true but even a stopped clock is right twice a day