"Colour Blinded" - Scaramouche and Graham On the Foolish Accusation Leveled Against the Tea Party
Monique Chartier
A Canadian blogger named Scaramouche supplies the perfect answer to the baseless charge that Tea Partiers are racist (the latest to do so, regretfully, being the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts).
We chit-chatted for a bit about Jews, American and Canadian, and their tendency to vote liberal (and Liberal) no matter what, until we arrived at the point of the conversation I always dread reaching with someone on the other side of the political fence: ObamaTime.
"Those Tea Partyers and rednecks--they hate Obama because he's black! They're so....racissst," she hissed.
M'kay.
What I wanted to say was, "Lady, I bet you've never had a conversation with a 'redneck' or a Tea Partyer in all your born days. I bet for all your self-regard, the legacy of having worked for 'civil rights' back in the 60s, you never once considered that voting for someone largely on the basis of his (black) skin colour is actually another form of 'racism'. It's obvious to me you haven't even the first clue about the people that you hate, yes, hate--what motivates them, what moves them, and why they might abhor what Obama is doing to your country and to the world, stuff that has squat to do with the discernable presence of melanin." I very much wanted to say all of the above, but, under the circumstances, it would not have been appropriate. Instead, I smiled sweetly, extended my hand, and said, "It was very nice meeting you."
Indeed: "stuff that has squat to do with the discernable presence of melanin".
My own theory is that the charge of racism against Tea Partiers and their "ilk" (place me in both of these categories) is a cross between a tantrum and a blankie for people who really, really want to believe in the government-expanding, Constitution-challenging, patently unaffordable policies of the current Congress and Presidential administration but are frustrated that they are consistently at a loss to defend such policies against factual, substantive criticisms. That they can also produce not one whit of evidence of their charge makes the whole conversation in a strange way entirely consistent on their part: no facts to defend bad policies, no facts to back the only charge that desperation compelled them to scrounge up against the critics of these policies.
As to the charge made a little closer to home, Michael Graham explains to the good Governor
Gov. Patrick, when you are voted out of office this November for raising our taxes, breaking your pledge to cut property taxes, raising our tolls, trying to create cushy government jobs for your friends, supporting openly-corrupt incumbent hacks, etc. etc. I make you this pledge:
Nobody will be voting against you because of your race. They’ll dump you because of your ineffective leadership and lousy public policies.
And we know this to be true, of course, because if Governor Patrick is voted out of office, he will be standing in the ranks of other public officials - many if not most of them lacking "discernable melanin" - voted out not because of their race but solely because of their "ineffective leadership" and the "lousy public policies" they pursued.
Tea partiers are something like 90% republican or independent....independent often being what folks who used to be republican, but cannot stand being lumped in with Bush/Cheney call themselves these days. They are 70% identified as conservative. They are strongly southern - much higher numbers in the same states that think Obama is not a US Citizen, and that Texas should leave the union.
No doubt there is a large racist, redneck, nationalist, right wing slant to it - not just a fringe of them! But that doesn't mean they all are...and obviously RI and New England tea partiers are less likely to be these rabid racists than elsewhere.
Politically, the tea party has a real problem. First of all, these 70% conservatives are the ones who voted for Bush and his friends in Congress. That is a bit of a history problem - as they brought us many of the conditions which we now suffer from.
Secondly, if even 10% of the tea party nationally is far right fringe, that is more than enough to complete taint the movement if they are not thrown out. Problem is, we have seen from the signage and everything else that racists and bigots are not only welcomed, but cherished.
If we were to apply basic logic to this - we'd have to wonder how people who supported the worse regime in recent history...can NOW call for "revolution" bringing in MORE OF THOSE SAME PEOPLE.
But sense is hard to find these days.
Unfortunately, the answer is that most of these people are too ill informed to really know what happened already, what is happening now, and what will happen when more conservatives get into government. To those, you can add all the corporate millions which founded, built and supported the tea party - and the entire Republican Party which is glad to "use" anyone anytime to gain their destructive ends.
The people of this country seem to never learn, preferring to bend over and take it from their masters. Sad...really!
Not being a Tea Partier,I still wonder what percentage of collectivist internationalist scum it takes to completely pollute the Democrats?Seems to me they have reached that threshold at the national,if not yet the local level.
I'm tired of hearing about the race card from people like Stuart who live in Portsmouth.They always insulate themselves from the people they claim to care so much about.
Joe, I have lived in many places including big cities right in the middle of slums. My wife went to a high school which was 99 percent black, and I lived 5 blocks away but got to go to a better school. Admittedly, my world is not very diverse - as they say, some of the shortest books ever written include "black men I've met while yachting" (note, that was an old joke, not true any longer).
Anyway, if you want to read what the real and admitted racists (stormfront - these guys praise hitler) say about the tea party, follow this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y9rmwry
Funny, they think the tea partiers are stupid also, although they have infiltrated them......
"the people that attend the Tea Parties are our base. We need to win this fight for the soul of the pissed off white people."
"Not only that, but it is one of the more implicitly white movements on the national stage that we've seen in a long time."
"They are in fact some of our best recruiting grounds."
"Many good points.. I have been to many tea parties myself.. These people are 'sleeping' White Nationalists.. Let's wake them up..
"My dad is interested in joining the Tea Party, I'd like to re-recruit him to the American Third Position.... he is a former Klansman."
"One thing the tea party has going for it: Diversity is the last thing they represent. The footage from the Washington mass demonstration, the Ron Paul Rally's the Tax Day protests. Less diverse than a hockey game."
Yep. Monique, the tea party has been the target of, from day one, all the real racist out there who look at you as brothers in white skin...although just a little dumber than they are.
I can't even count how many times I've been accused of being a racist by progressives because I advocate for treating everyone equally by abolishing affirmative action.
Welcome to the progressive future.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Colorblindness is racism.
I thought you were leaving?
I'm sure even you know that conservatives started all the current wars, and salivate over the prospects of never ending conflicts around the world.
After all, that is how they take all the money and freedoms from the populace.
I'm certain the cretins at Stormfront would love to recruit from Tea Party participants,but they are unlikely to have much success.The left spreads this poison because the Tea Party scare them-Stormfront doesn't.It's the same people who used to join the American Nazi Party and the Klan that are on Stormfront-they have limited appeal.
I refuse to back down to leftist liars who accuse anti-Obama people of being racist.I despised Jimmy Carter,what does that make me?A racist?Ridiculous.
The New Black Panther Party infiltrated the Obama campaign-they are admittedly racist.Thoser are the guys with the bats at the polling place in Philly.
Eric Holder decided they didn't violate anyone's civil rights,and that kind of reaction by the AG causes more bad feelings between races than Stormfront could ever hope to.
Stuart,
Show up at the Tax Day Tea Party at the State House on April 15th, shut up, and listen. Then come and tell me to my face that there is any veracity to the statement that tea partiers are racist. Are you going to walk the walk, or just talk the talk?
Bet anyone here he won't do it. Because Stuey can't handle the truth. And he's afraid of us.
PS Stu, I'm easy to find. Look for the tall redhead running the show.
3,000 killed in New York, in Washington D.C., in Pennsylvania on September 11, but Stuart doesn't see that as war, because he doesn't see organized violence as war, so long as it is being promulgated to advance a totalitarian ideology.
Hey, Mad.
As a proud American I already paid my taxes - despite the fact that I disagree with 70% of what Bush/Cheney and friends did that added to my bill.
But I paid them because citizenship is like fatherhood and motherhood - something we just don't give up on because we are selfish or unable to deal with what we are dealt. That is responsibility.
You won't find me protesting over taxes. However, if any new neo-con like your friends Bush and Cheney etc. ever send our sons and daughters to new wars built on lies, I will certainly show up!
And, as you will see both above and elsewhere, I will agree with you that many RI tea partiers are not similar to their ilk elsewhere. However, that does not mean you don't fit the description offered by one of those Storm Troopers...
"It's a system supported channel that poses no threat to anyone. All these tea partiers are doing is reacting to things and being led by pied pipers trained to keep the cattle in their corrals. Herds don't think and are not conscious actors"
"the Tea Party is a movement of sheeple, good only for misdirecting the anger of the People into something harmless. As long as they pledge support to the people who are the cause of their troubles, they have no hope of improving the situation."
These are comments which I can somewhat agree with.
Perhaps madmom can explain to me why these tax day parties and the tea party in general is/was funded by Dick Armey, neo-con GOP Congressman from Texas who now is a corporate front?
After that let me know why the GOP is now crowing that the Tea Party and them are all bosom buddies?
It sounds like you want MORE of what you got under the Bush/Cheney regime. Be my guest.
Oh, BTW, I have attended many an anti-war demonstration including a couple with over 100,000 participants. I'm no stranger to protest, but will not get near something unless I am very clear what the end game is.
In other words, consider the possibility that you are being used and your anger is misdirected.
>>>3,000 killed in New York, in Washington D.C., in Pennsylvania on September 11, he doesn't see organized violence as war, so long as it is being promulgated to advance a totalitarian ideology.
Sure, I'm all for attacking and taking over Saudi Arabia!
Let me assume by your diatribe, though, that you support the vast increases in our war spending which caused the massive buildup of our yearly deficit and debt. That seems 100% against the "small government" claims of the tea party.
Again, no consistency in these stands. If you want to protest for MORE war, do it. If you want less taxes, do that. But you can't have both.
1. It's not a diatribe to discuss continuing incoherence.
2. Putting aside the fact that you apparently believe in collective punishment, where attacking nations is the appropriate response to acts committed by individual citizens, now you're saying that "conservatives" who started "all the current wars" wouldn't have been responsible for starting one if they had retaliated against Saudi Arabia, but are responsible for starting one because they retaliated against Afghanistan.
3. Though you may believe that a quick American surrender in response to September 11 may have been good fiscal policy, the numbers don't bear that out -- domestic spending has grown much more than military spending in the past decade. And that doesn't take into account the ramifications of abandoning deterrence as a defensive strategy. Because if you don't respond when attacked, you don't have the benefit of a deterrent shield anymore.
Look....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Total spending when all programs are included - approx 1.1 trillion (a bit more or less).....
Spending in 2002 - approx. 1/2 of that.
(inflation adjusted).
That's a lot of cash and a lot of growth. But obviously, the doubling of health care costs under Bush and the sucking away of about 1/2 of our wealth by Wall Street have to be figured into the total picture.
In other words, we now have much less but spend much more.
But, hey, those b-52's made a lot of craters in the desert of Afghanistan. And millions are displaced and hundreds of thousands dead or wounded. So, maybe you are happy with what your money bought.
I'm not.
For the tea party to complain about taxes - and I repeat - while not mentioning 10K per taxpayer per year - is the ultimate in irony.
So, which taxes don't you like?
I just think it's funny that a conservative named his blog after a reference from a Queen song.
But can he do the fandango?
Stuey sez "...if any new neo-con like your friends Bush and Cheney etc. ever...."
Stuey thinks George Bush is a neo-con. ha ha ha ha ha Such a silly boy.
Not only is Geroge Bush not a neo-con (neo-con is a label the left devised for conservative Jews in the Bush adm, i.e, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz et al) but George Bush is not a conservative in any way and never has been.
I'm shocked such a "worldly" man like Stuey would throw around such silly labels without knowing what they mean.
How liberal of you Stu. lol
Stuart,
Presumably you preferred the "cheap" policies of non or minimal retaliation the followed the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, or the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or the bombing of the U.S.S Cole in 2000 -- according to your reasoning, they made good fiscal sense.
Unless of course you were in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or on Flight 93, on September 11, 2001.
So explain to us how a series of violent attacks, originating from a foreign entity against American targets didn't count as war, and that it was only at the moment that the United States responds that war began -- because from your statement above, you seem to be defining that it is only American conservatives start wars. And explain to us how the decision to abandon any serious notion of deterrence in the 1990s impacts your hypothetical balance sheet, which you seem to value above all else. And explain why you think collective punishment of Saudi Arabia would have been acceptable according to that balance sheet, but the plan to strike directly at Al-Qaida's leadership wasn't.
" originating from a foreign entity against American targets didn't count as war"
In fact, this is exactly the kind of warfare that political scientists had predicted, as long ago as twenty five years, would be the next phase: not attacks by a country but by a group. And, in a way, this type is much harder to defend against.
>>>And explain why you think collective punishment of Saudi Arabia would have been acceptable according to that balance sheet, but the plan to strike directly at Al-Qaida's leadership wasn't.
Hah, Andrew - I'm amazed you had the balls to even ask them after I-R-A-Q
Well, let's start.
The perps were from Saudi Arabia.
The perps were NOT from Iraq.
The perps are financed by Saudi Arabia
The perps were NOT financed by Saudi Arabia.
The schools and infrastructure for radical fundamentists ideals are financed by Saudi Arabia.
These schools were NOT financed by Iraq.
Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia
Bin Laden was NOT from Iraq.
Maybe you can get the idea....once you look at it with open eyes. If not, I would chalk it up to poor powers of reasoning.
Yep, Tim, it's those Jews again. Now go back to Stormfront and crawl in a hole.
"Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries"
Hmm, I have heard Bush, Cheney, Rummy and others like them are neo-con in outlook!
"the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson."
"Many neoconservatives found important positions in the Department of Defense under George W. Bush"
Yeah, just a couple Jews here and there - and the tea party and Andrew!
Speaking of the Tea Party, why is Scott Brown now running away from the very people who elected him?
"Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who snatched the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat with an improbable special election victory in January, has turned down an invitation to attend a Sarah Palin-headlined tea party rally this week, the Boston Herald reports.
Some suspect that Brown may be seeking to distance himself from the enthusiastic -- and at times unrestrained -- Tea Party members who helped secure his Senate win."
You were used - you fools!
But, don't worry - you'll come back for more. After all, he's white...at least!
Sorry Stuart, blind acceptance of progressive ideology is not “open eyes”, and your insulting tone won’t make it seem any more so. But I do think it’s telling that you are the one that wants to bring Stormfront into the discussion -- mainly because it’s the only place where you can find beliefs that are as crazy as the ones you want to defend, like the Soviet Union having the right to Eastern Europe as the “spoils of war”, or funds collected from payroll taxes not being part of the Federal budget.
Your first and fourth points are rationales for collective punishment, no matter what country the attackers originated from. Your second point exhibits your usual ignorance of history. And the third points place you on the same side as many conservative hawks -- and even some neoconservatives. Congratulations.
While there is some fluidity in the meaning of neoconservative, Tim is essentially correct. In fact, the second of your three quotes is an attempt to distinguish neoconservatives from no-prefix conservatives, but since your ability to discuss these matters basically ends at calling names, the point went completely over your head!
But really, given the comment that started this all off…
[C]onservatives started all the current wars,
…tell us how series of violent attacks, originating from a foreign entity, against American targets, didn't count as war, but that it was only at the moment that the United States responded that war began, and also if it was a good idea not to respond to any of the escalating attacks against the US throughout the 1990s, because it was good fiscal policy.
Stuart,
You are the fool, only you're too busy imagining things about causes of which you know nothing to make a coherent statement. The RI Tea Party has had, nor will ever have, Sarah Palin as a guest speaker or mentioned as some sort of de facto leader of our group. It's easy to spew facts back that are spoon fed to you by the leftist media. It's a little more work to come out of your dungeon and actually analyze the situation on the ground right here in your own backyard.
So again, I challenge you to come to the Tax Day Tea Party and see for yourself. Does it hurt your fragile ego too much to be admit you're wrong? Real men can admit their mistakes. You know nothing about what we stand for and you will continue to remain clueless as long as you fear the truth.
Mad mom,
What mistaken impression do you think I am under? That I feel decent about paying my taxes?
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society"
Or that I am concerned because the Tea Party only came out in force since Obama was elected? They were strangely silent when conservatives were breaking the bank and destroying this country?
Or that I think people should be very clear about what they are "for" and what they are "against"?
I'm not being snide here. I would love to know, although I suspect each person has their own reasons....which makes it more of an anger fest than a movement if true.
Let me see if I can gleam some answers from your web site and other conversations.....
1. You are against the rights of workers to have time off when they get sick. That probably includes maternity leave and parental leave - and caring for aging parents, etc.
Instead you support the rights of employers to fire or otherwise deal with those workers who actually want to lead a decent lift.
2. You are for some vague concept of states rights, even though:
a. The constitution (article 6) is very clear about the massive powers of Congress.
b. States rights is exactly what allowed RI to dig a deep hole - and you want more of that?
3. You don't think we can afford to be a compassionate society and provide basic universal health care - even though every other civilized nation on the earth does so! You think since we are unique, that means we must be worse - and guarantee billions to the health care CEO's, while destroying the wealth of the people and the nation.
4. You also want us to prevent these things from happening elsewhere - by pushing folks to call representative who are out of state.
5. You push Scott Brown, who is running in ANOTHER state, as a great step forward for you and the conservative cause. Yet, you believe in states rights? Doesn't a state have a RIGHT not to have you interfere in their internal elections? (I guess not).
6. You actually base some of your agenda on Sean Hannity!
(can't even comment on this without laughing).
Madmom, I rest my case. Your group is a Faux News offshoot...and they are laughing at you (Rupert, Beck, Hannity) all the way to their substantial bank!
Sorry, but that is the way things are. Just because you choose to ignore reality does not mean it has disappeared.
If one wants to find more and more examples of the racism and low-life nature of many tea partiers, they only need to wait a couple hours!
Here is tea party darling - candidate for the Gov. of NY, caught sending racist emails, comments, etc....well, that is beside the porn and bestiality!
http://tinyurl.com/y3jeb5q
"An online news outlet in New York state has obtained dozens of emails, many of them racist and sexually graphic, which it reports were sent by Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York, to a long list of political and business associates. One email shows a video of an African tribal dance, entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," while another depicts hardcore bestiality."
So, Monique, are you still saying that skin color has absolutely nothing to do with the tea party?
"Thunderbolts and lightening!
Very, very frightening!
Oh Mama Mia! Mama Mia!"
It's not so much Brown trying to run from the Tea Party. There are clear signs that they're turning on him.
Look at the crap he caught when he was one of five Republicans who supported an Obama jobs bill.
There are also Tea Partiers who actually blame HIM for the passage of the health care bill because his election forced Obama to change his strategy. He ran as the 41st vote against the Senate bill...and lived up to his promise.
Face it, if Brown's serious about getting re-elected, he's going to run as a Bill Weld/Ed Brooke moderate. Then, like Christ (or John McCain), the same folks who threw palms at his feet will be trying to crucify him.
Anyway, it's nice to see Palin speak in Boston...I guess Massachusetts is a pro-America state after all.
Even mentioning the name Palin in a serious fashion is enough to disqualify one from any semblance of reasonable debate.
I suppose you would do the same if I used Alfred E Neuman as my indication of a real American and politician.
Now, let's get back to reality - you know, a reality where we all have the equiv. of at least an 8th grade education.
at the risk of getting back on topic, David Bernstein's latest propaganda in the Phoenix "Tea is for Terror" - which makes no distinction between general libertarian principles and domestic terrorists - finally convinced me that it's simply not worth caring what claims leftists will hurl in their attempts to delegitimize.
I wish the teabaggers success, for selfish reasons of course. It seems every thing they touch turns to crap. All the elections they will try to effect will only impact the republican side of the ticked, so split the already fractured republican party if you like. When the only news about the big Tax day rally is who will not be there, Brown and Laffy, it is sad to say the movement is coming to a end (even when I hope it doesn't.)
I will really miss seeing the parodies and jokes of them on SNL and Bill Maher though.
Giselle-they don't have to touch Sheldon whitehouse to turn him to crap-he already is.
Oh, I think the parodies will continue as long as Palin and friends Ho themselves out to the highest bidder......
But on a more serious note - yes, I agree the tea party thing is mostly over. They are fracturing because folks are just getting around to seeing some of the truth. Namely:
1. Some have seen the racist subset of these crowds and been turned off.
2. Some have realized that while they are all angry, they are not angry at the same thing.
3. Some have gotten or kept jobs and their IRA's have improved under Obama.
4. Some simply do not want to be associated with the far right.
5. Some have discovered that the effort was largely corporate financed - by big oil and big health care, as well as other criminals who call themselves businesses (Koch, Armey, etc.)
And, yes, some of these kooks ARE terrorists, and you don't have to use the word Domestic. Examples include McVeigh - who the far right are CELEBRATING with an armed march on DC on his bombing anniversary, the recent Christian Militia murderers from the midwest, and many many many others.
If the far right can try to call Obama a terrorists because he sat at a neighborhood improvement meeting with a guy who hated the government in the 1960's, then surely the tea party and the GOP can be 100x more blamed for their associations? Or, does it only work one way?
Again, inconvenient facts. If you are going to dole it out, you have to measure up yourselves to a higher, not a vastly lower, standard.
If anything, McVeign and friends are MORE terrorists than some foreign ones since he 100% claims that women and children and completely uninvolved parties are fair game for his murdering.
Stuart, are you equating judging the actions of an individual with judging the merits of a movement based on some indivuals in it? Really? If so than there really is no reason for further discussion.
The tea party has lost favor with me personally, but I would no more judge them by a few individuals than I would the anti-war/expansion movement for the anti-American kooks that inevitably are included in it.
Jp, no....I don't judge every individual who associates with the tea party to be the same.
However, when certain questionable events take place and the tea party leaders or wanna-be's don't make a clear effort to distance themselves from it, then it must be assumed that they find the head count more important than a moral or ethical stand.
When they take BIG money and endorsement from corporations, lobbyists and wings of the GOP - they can't claim they are grassroots and independent.
When they allow a ho like Palin and another one like Steele...and all their friends to claim that the tea party and them are joined at the hip - they lose points.
That's all I am saying. They are losing people one by one - just like you.
I am certainly against 1/2 or more of what the Federal Government spends money on. However, that is a different 50% than the tea party is against! As a result, I can't join either. So, heck, I just pay my taxes and look for reasonable people (not populist, etc.) to vote for.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Tea partiers are something like 90% republican or independent....independent often being what folks who used to be republican, but cannot stand being lumped in with Bush/Cheney call themselves these days. They are 70% identified as conservative. They are strongly southern - much higher numbers in the same states that think Obama is not a US Citizen, and that Texas should leave the union.
No doubt there is a large racist, redneck, nationalist, right wing slant to it - not just a fringe of them! But that doesn't mean they all are...and obviously RI and New England tea partiers are less likely to be these rabid racists than elsewhere.
Politically, the tea party has a real problem. First of all, these 70% conservatives are the ones who voted for Bush and his friends in Congress. That is a bit of a history problem - as they brought us many of the conditions which we now suffer from.
Secondly, if even 10% of the tea party nationally is far right fringe, that is more than enough to complete taint the movement if they are not thrown out. Problem is, we have seen from the signage and everything else that racists and bigots are not only welcomed, but cherished.
If we were to apply basic logic to this - we'd have to wonder how people who supported the worse regime in recent history...can NOW call for "revolution" bringing in MORE OF THOSE SAME PEOPLE.
But sense is hard to find these days.
Unfortunately, the answer is that most of these people are too ill informed to really know what happened already, what is happening now, and what will happen when more conservatives get into government. To those, you can add all the corporate millions which founded, built and supported the tea party - and the entire Republican Party which is glad to "use" anyone anytime to gain their destructive ends.
The people of this country seem to never learn, preferring to bend over and take it from their masters. Sad...really!
Posted by: Stuart at April 11, 2010 7:04 PMNot being a Tea Partier,I still wonder what percentage of collectivist internationalist scum it takes to completely pollute the Democrats?Seems to me they have reached that threshold at the national,if not yet the local level.
Posted by: joe bernstein at April 11, 2010 7:16 PMI'm tired of hearing about the race card from people like Stuart who live in Portsmouth.They always insulate themselves from the people they claim to care so much about.
Joe, I have lived in many places including big cities right in the middle of slums. My wife went to a high school which was 99 percent black, and I lived 5 blocks away but got to go to a better school. Admittedly, my world is not very diverse - as they say, some of the shortest books ever written include "black men I've met while yachting" (note, that was an old joke, not true any longer).
Anyway, if you want to read what the real and admitted racists (stormfront - these guys praise hitler) say about the tea party, follow this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y9rmwry
Funny, they think the tea partiers are stupid also, although they have infiltrated them......
"the people that attend the Tea Parties are our base. We need to win this fight for the soul of the pissed off white people."
"Not only that, but it is one of the more implicitly white movements on the national stage that we've seen in a long time."
"They are in fact some of our best recruiting grounds."
"Many good points.. I have been to many tea parties myself.. These people are 'sleeping' White Nationalists.. Let's wake them up..
"My dad is interested in joining the Tea Party, I'd like to re-recruit him to the American Third Position.... he is a former Klansman."
"One thing the tea party has going for it: Diversity is the last thing they represent. The footage from the Washington mass demonstration, the Ron Paul Rally's the Tax Day protests. Less diverse than a hockey game."
Posted by: Stuart at April 11, 2010 7:38 PMYep. Monique, the tea party has been the target of, from day one, all the real racist out there who look at you as brothers in white skin...although just a little dumber than they are.
I can't even count how many times I've been accused of being a racist by progressives because I advocate for treating everyone equally by abolishing affirmative action.
Welcome to the progressive future.
War is peace.
Posted by: Dan at April 11, 2010 7:51 PMFreedom is slavery.
Colorblindness is racism.
I thought you were leaving?
I'm sure even you know that conservatives started all the current wars, and salivate over the prospects of never ending conflicts around the world.
After all, that is how they take all the money and freedoms from the populace.
Posted by: Stuart at April 11, 2010 8:18 PMI'm certain the cretins at Stormfront would love to recruit from Tea Party participants,but they are unlikely to have much success.The left spreads this poison because the Tea Party scare them-Stormfront doesn't.It's the same people who used to join the American Nazi Party and the Klan that are on Stormfront-they have limited appeal.
Posted by: joe bernstein at April 11, 2010 9:12 PMI refuse to back down to leftist liars who accuse anti-Obama people of being racist.I despised Jimmy Carter,what does that make me?A racist?Ridiculous.
The New Black Panther Party infiltrated the Obama campaign-they are admittedly racist.Thoser are the guys with the bats at the polling place in Philly.
Eric Holder decided they didn't violate anyone's civil rights,and that kind of reaction by the AG causes more bad feelings between races than Stormfront could ever hope to.
Stuart,
Show up at the Tax Day Tea Party at the State House on April 15th, shut up, and listen. Then come and tell me to my face that there is any veracity to the statement that tea partiers are racist. Are you going to walk the walk, or just talk the talk?
Bet anyone here he won't do it. Because Stuey can't handle the truth. And he's afraid of us.
PS Stu, I'm easy to find. Look for the tall redhead running the show.
Posted by: MadMom at April 11, 2010 9:59 PM3,000 killed in New York, in Washington D.C., in Pennsylvania on September 11, but Stuart doesn't see that as war, because he doesn't see organized violence as war, so long as it is being promulgated to advance a totalitarian ideology.
Posted by: Andrew at April 11, 2010 10:16 PMHey, Mad.
As a proud American I already paid my taxes - despite the fact that I disagree with 70% of what Bush/Cheney and friends did that added to my bill.
But I paid them because citizenship is like fatherhood and motherhood - something we just don't give up on because we are selfish or unable to deal with what we are dealt. That is responsibility.
You won't find me protesting over taxes. However, if any new neo-con like your friends Bush and Cheney etc. ever send our sons and daughters to new wars built on lies, I will certainly show up!
And, as you will see both above and elsewhere, I will agree with you that many RI tea partiers are not similar to their ilk elsewhere. However, that does not mean you don't fit the description offered by one of those Storm Troopers...
"It's a system supported channel that poses no threat to anyone. All these tea partiers are doing is reacting to things and being led by pied pipers trained to keep the cattle in their corrals. Herds don't think and are not conscious actors"
"the Tea Party is a movement of sheeple, good only for misdirecting the anger of the People into something harmless. As long as they pledge support to the people who are the cause of their troubles, they have no hope of improving the situation."
These are comments which I can somewhat agree with.
Perhaps madmom can explain to me why these tax day parties and the tea party in general is/was funded by Dick Armey, neo-con GOP Congressman from Texas who now is a corporate front?
After that let me know why the GOP is now crowing that the Tea Party and them are all bosom buddies?
It sounds like you want MORE of what you got under the Bush/Cheney regime. Be my guest.
Oh, BTW, I have attended many an anti-war demonstration including a couple with over 100,000 participants. I'm no stranger to protest, but will not get near something unless I am very clear what the end game is.
In other words, consider the possibility that you are being used and your anger is misdirected.
Posted by: Stuart at April 11, 2010 10:22 PM>>>3,000 killed in New York, in Washington D.C., in Pennsylvania on September 11, he doesn't see organized violence as war, so long as it is being promulgated to advance a totalitarian ideology.
Sure, I'm all for attacking and taking over Saudi Arabia!
Let me assume by your diatribe, though, that you support the vast increases in our war spending which caused the massive buildup of our yearly deficit and debt. That seems 100% against the "small government" claims of the tea party.
Again, no consistency in these stands. If you want to protest for MORE war, do it. If you want less taxes, do that. But you can't have both.
Posted by: Stuart at April 11, 2010 10:30 PM1. It's not a diatribe to discuss continuing incoherence.
2. Putting aside the fact that you apparently believe in collective punishment, where attacking nations is the appropriate response to acts committed by individual citizens, now you're saying that "conservatives" who started "all the current wars" wouldn't have been responsible for starting one if they had retaliated against Saudi Arabia, but are responsible for starting one because they retaliated against Afghanistan.
3. Though you may believe that a quick American surrender in response to September 11 may have been good fiscal policy, the numbers don't bear that out -- domestic spending has grown much more than military spending in the past decade. And that doesn't take into account the ramifications of abandoning deterrence as a defensive strategy. Because if you don't respond when attacked, you don't have the benefit of a deterrent shield anymore.
Posted by: Andrew at April 11, 2010 10:50 PMLook....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Total spending when all programs are included - approx 1.1 trillion (a bit more or less).....
Spending in 2002 - approx. 1/2 of that.
(inflation adjusted).
That's a lot of cash and a lot of growth. But obviously, the doubling of health care costs under Bush and the sucking away of about 1/2 of our wealth by Wall Street have to be figured into the total picture.
In other words, we now have much less but spend much more.
But, hey, those b-52's made a lot of craters in the desert of Afghanistan. And millions are displaced and hundreds of thousands dead or wounded. So, maybe you are happy with what your money bought.
I'm not.
For the tea party to complain about taxes - and I repeat - while not mentioning 10K per taxpayer per year - is the ultimate in irony.
So, which taxes don't you like?
Posted by: Stuart at April 11, 2010 10:57 PMI just think it's funny that a conservative named his blog after a reference from a Queen song.
Posted by: rhody at April 12, 2010 12:37 AMBut can he do the fandango?
Stuey sez "...if any new neo-con like your friends Bush and Cheney etc. ever...."
Stuey thinks George Bush is a neo-con. ha ha ha ha ha Such a silly boy.
Posted by: Tim at April 12, 2010 6:10 AMNot only is Geroge Bush not a neo-con (neo-con is a label the left devised for conservative Jews in the Bush adm, i.e, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz et al) but George Bush is not a conservative in any way and never has been.
I'm shocked such a "worldly" man like Stuey would throw around such silly labels without knowing what they mean.
How liberal of you Stu. lol
Stuart,
Presumably you preferred the "cheap" policies of non or minimal retaliation the followed the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, or the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or the bombing of the U.S.S Cole in 2000 -- according to your reasoning, they made good fiscal sense.
Unless of course you were in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or on Flight 93, on September 11, 2001.
So explain to us how a series of violent attacks, originating from a foreign entity against American targets didn't count as war, and that it was only at the moment that the United States responds that war began -- because from your statement above, you seem to be defining that it is only American conservatives start wars. And explain to us how the decision to abandon any serious notion of deterrence in the 1990s impacts your hypothetical balance sheet, which you seem to value above all else. And explain why you think collective punishment of Saudi Arabia would have been acceptable according to that balance sheet, but the plan to strike directly at Al-Qaida's leadership wasn't.
Posted by: Andrew at April 12, 2010 6:51 AM" originating from a foreign entity against American targets didn't count as war"
In fact, this is exactly the kind of warfare that political scientists had predicted, as long ago as twenty five years, would be the next phase: not attacks by a country but by a group. And, in a way, this type is much harder to defend against.
Posted by: Monique at April 12, 2010 8:35 AM>>>And explain why you think collective punishment of Saudi Arabia would have been acceptable according to that balance sheet, but the plan to strike directly at Al-Qaida's leadership wasn't.
Hah, Andrew - I'm amazed you had the balls to even ask them after I-R-A-Q
Well, let's start.
The perps were from Saudi Arabia.
The perps were NOT from Iraq.
The perps are financed by Saudi Arabia
The perps were NOT financed by Saudi Arabia.
The schools and infrastructure for radical fundamentists ideals are financed by Saudi Arabia.
These schools were NOT financed by Iraq.
Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia
Bin Laden was NOT from Iraq.
Maybe you can get the idea....once you look at it with open eyes. If not, I would chalk it up to poor powers of reasoning.
Yep, Tim, it's those Jews again. Now go back to Stormfront and crawl in a hole.
"Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries"
Hmm, I have heard Bush, Cheney, Rummy and others like them are neo-con in outlook!
"the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson."
"Many neoconservatives found important positions in the Department of Defense under George W. Bush"
Yeah, just a couple Jews here and there - and the tea party and Andrew!
Posted by: Stuart at April 12, 2010 10:30 AMSpeaking of the Tea Party, why is Scott Brown now running away from the very people who elected him?
"Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who snatched the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat with an improbable special election victory in January, has turned down an invitation to attend a Sarah Palin-headlined tea party rally this week, the Boston Herald reports.
Some suspect that Brown may be seeking to distance himself from the enthusiastic -- and at times unrestrained -- Tea Party members who helped secure his Senate win."
You were used - you fools!
Posted by: Stuart at April 12, 2010 2:03 PMBut, don't worry - you'll come back for more. After all, he's white...at least!
Sorry Stuart, blind acceptance of progressive ideology is not “open eyes”, and your insulting tone won’t make it seem any more so. But I do think it’s telling that you are the one that wants to bring Stormfront into the discussion -- mainly because it’s the only place where you can find beliefs that are as crazy as the ones you want to defend, like the Soviet Union having the right to Eastern Europe as the “spoils of war”, or funds collected from payroll taxes not being part of the Federal budget.
Your first and fourth points are rationales for collective punishment, no matter what country the attackers originated from. Your second point exhibits your usual ignorance of history. And the third points place you on the same side as many conservative hawks -- and even some neoconservatives. Congratulations.
While there is some fluidity in the meaning of neoconservative, Tim is essentially correct. In fact, the second of your three quotes is an attempt to distinguish neoconservatives from no-prefix conservatives, but since your ability to discuss these matters basically ends at calling names, the point went completely over your head!
But really, given the comment that started this all off…
…tell us how series of violent attacks, originating from a foreign entity, against American targets, didn't count as war, but that it was only at the moment that the United States responded that war began, and also if it was a good idea not to respond to any of the escalating attacks against the US throughout the 1990s, because it was good fiscal policy.Posted by: Andrew at April 12, 2010 2:09 PM
Stuart,
You are the fool, only you're too busy imagining things about causes of which you know nothing to make a coherent statement. The RI Tea Party has had, nor will ever have, Sarah Palin as a guest speaker or mentioned as some sort of de facto leader of our group. It's easy to spew facts back that are spoon fed to you by the leftist media. It's a little more work to come out of your dungeon and actually analyze the situation on the ground right here in your own backyard.
So again, I challenge you to come to the Tax Day Tea Party and see for yourself. Does it hurt your fragile ego too much to be admit you're wrong? Real men can admit their mistakes. You know nothing about what we stand for and you will continue to remain clueless as long as you fear the truth.
Posted by: MadMom at April 12, 2010 2:14 PMMad mom,
What mistaken impression do you think I am under? That I feel decent about paying my taxes?
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society"
Or that I am concerned because the Tea Party only came out in force since Obama was elected? They were strangely silent when conservatives were breaking the bank and destroying this country?
Or that I think people should be very clear about what they are "for" and what they are "against"?
I'm not being snide here. I would love to know, although I suspect each person has their own reasons....which makes it more of an anger fest than a movement if true.
Let me see if I can gleam some answers from your web site and other conversations.....
1. You are against the rights of workers to have time off when they get sick. That probably includes maternity leave and parental leave - and caring for aging parents, etc.
Instead you support the rights of employers to fire or otherwise deal with those workers who actually want to lead a decent lift.
2. You are for some vague concept of states rights, even though:
a. The constitution (article 6) is very clear about the massive powers of Congress.
b. States rights is exactly what allowed RI to dig a deep hole - and you want more of that?
3. You don't think we can afford to be a compassionate society and provide basic universal health care - even though every other civilized nation on the earth does so! You think since we are unique, that means we must be worse - and guarantee billions to the health care CEO's, while destroying the wealth of the people and the nation.
4. You also want us to prevent these things from happening elsewhere - by pushing folks to call representative who are out of state.
5. You push Scott Brown, who is running in ANOTHER state, as a great step forward for you and the conservative cause. Yet, you believe in states rights? Doesn't a state have a RIGHT not to have you interfere in their internal elections? (I guess not).
6. You actually base some of your agenda on Sean Hannity!
(can't even comment on this without laughing).
Madmom, I rest my case. Your group is a Faux News offshoot...and they are laughing at you (Rupert, Beck, Hannity) all the way to their substantial bank!
Sorry, but that is the way things are. Just because you choose to ignore reality does not mean it has disappeared.
Posted by: Stuart at April 12, 2010 4:07 PMIf one wants to find more and more examples of the racism and low-life nature of many tea partiers, they only need to wait a couple hours!
Here is tea party darling - candidate for the Gov. of NY, caught sending racist emails, comments, etc....well, that is beside the porn and bestiality!
http://tinyurl.com/y3jeb5q
"An online news outlet in New York state has obtained dozens of emails, many of them racist and sexually graphic, which it reports were sent by Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York, to a long list of political and business associates. One email shows a video of an African tribal dance, entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," while another depicts hardcore bestiality."
So, Monique, are you still saying that skin color has absolutely nothing to do with the tea party?
Posted by: Stuart at April 12, 2010 8:57 PM"Thunderbolts and lightening!
Very, very frightening!
Oh Mama Mia! Mama Mia!"
Posted by: Monique at April 12, 2010 11:21 PMIt's not so much Brown trying to run from the Tea Party. There are clear signs that they're turning on him.
Posted by: rhody at April 13, 2010 12:54 AMLook at the crap he caught when he was one of five Republicans who supported an Obama jobs bill.
There are also Tea Partiers who actually blame HIM for the passage of the health care bill because his election forced Obama to change his strategy. He ran as the 41st vote against the Senate bill...and lived up to his promise.
Face it, if Brown's serious about getting re-elected, he's going to run as a Bill Weld/Ed Brooke moderate. Then, like Christ (or John McCain), the same folks who threw palms at his feet will be trying to crucify him.
Anyway, it's nice to see Palin speak in Boston...I guess Massachusetts is a pro-America state after all.
Even mentioning the name Palin in a serious fashion is enough to disqualify one from any semblance of reasonable debate.
I suppose you would do the same if I used Alfred E Neuman as my indication of a real American and politician.
Now, let's get back to reality - you know, a reality where we all have the equiv. of at least an 8th grade education.
Posted by: Stuart at April 13, 2010 10:23 AMat the risk of getting back on topic, David Bernstein's latest propaganda in the Phoenix "Tea is for Terror" - which makes no distinction between general libertarian principles and domestic terrorists - finally convinced me that it's simply not worth caring what claims leftists will hurl in their attempts to delegitimize.
Posted by: jp at April 13, 2010 10:33 AMI wish the teabaggers success, for selfish reasons of course. It seems every thing they touch turns to crap. All the elections they will try to effect will only impact the republican side of the ticked, so split the already fractured republican party if you like. When the only news about the big Tax day rally is who will not be there, Brown and Laffy, it is sad to say the movement is coming to a end (even when I hope it doesn't.)
Posted by: Giselle at April 13, 2010 11:40 AMI will really miss seeing the parodies and jokes of them on SNL and Bill Maher though.
Giselle-they don't have to touch Sheldon whitehouse to turn him to crap-he already is.
Posted by: joe bernstein at April 13, 2010 11:57 AMOh, I think the parodies will continue as long as Palin and friends Ho themselves out to the highest bidder......
But on a more serious note - yes, I agree the tea party thing is mostly over. They are fracturing because folks are just getting around to seeing some of the truth. Namely:
1. Some have seen the racist subset of these crowds and been turned off.
2. Some have realized that while they are all angry, they are not angry at the same thing.
3. Some have gotten or kept jobs and their IRA's have improved under Obama.
4. Some simply do not want to be associated with the far right.
5. Some have discovered that the effort was largely corporate financed - by big oil and big health care, as well as other criminals who call themselves businesses (Koch, Armey, etc.)
And, yes, some of these kooks ARE terrorists, and you don't have to use the word Domestic. Examples include McVeigh - who the far right are CELEBRATING with an armed march on DC on his bombing anniversary, the recent Christian Militia murderers from the midwest, and many many many others.
If the far right can try to call Obama a terrorists because he sat at a neighborhood improvement meeting with a guy who hated the government in the 1960's, then surely the tea party and the GOP can be 100x more blamed for their associations? Or, does it only work one way?
Again, inconvenient facts. If you are going to dole it out, you have to measure up yourselves to a higher, not a vastly lower, standard.
If anything, McVeign and friends are MORE terrorists than some foreign ones since he 100% claims that women and children and completely uninvolved parties are fair game for his murdering.
Posted by: Stuart at April 13, 2010 12:46 PMStuart, are you equating judging the actions of an individual with judging the merits of a movement based on some indivuals in it? Really? If so than there really is no reason for further discussion.
The tea party has lost favor with me personally, but I would no more judge them by a few individuals than I would the anti-war/expansion movement for the anti-American kooks that inevitably are included in it.
Posted by: jp at April 13, 2010 2:42 PMJp, no....I don't judge every individual who associates with the tea party to be the same.
However, when certain questionable events take place and the tea party leaders or wanna-be's don't make a clear effort to distance themselves from it, then it must be assumed that they find the head count more important than a moral or ethical stand.
When they take BIG money and endorsement from corporations, lobbyists and wings of the GOP - they can't claim they are grassroots and independent.
When they allow a ho like Palin and another one like Steele...and all their friends to claim that the tea party and them are joined at the hip - they lose points.
That's all I am saying. They are losing people one by one - just like you.
I am certainly against 1/2 or more of what the Federal Government spends money on. However, that is a different 50% than the tea party is against! As a result, I can't join either. So, heck, I just pay my taxes and look for reasonable people (not populist, etc.) to vote for.
Posted by: Stuart at April 13, 2010 5:46 PM