Poll: Conservatives only: Are you a member of the Tea Party? + discussion for all.

[Total_Blender]

Just trying to get a handle on how the conservatives here feel about it and whether they consider themselves aligned with it. This is a closed poll.

Not sure if I posted this in any of the other threads or not but:

It is unclear to me as to who is/isn't "in" the Tea Party. It seems to me like its a mantle one can put on or take off at one's convenience. When politicians and media figures like Palin, McCain, Hannity, etc are asked if they are members they usually avoid answering the question. However these same politicians and media figures promote and speak at Tea Party events. As far as I know Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) is the only one in Congress who has openly claimed to be in it as she is trying to start a "Tea Party Caucus" and no one else in the House is joining.

Which brings us to Mark Williams. He has been condemned by one tea party group, but that group is probably not representative of all Tea Party groups. It is highly plausible that Williams and his "Tea Party Express" group will continue to be active in the Tea Party unless they are denounced by the greater portion of those involved with it...

It just seems to me that Tea Party is a label used by corporate interests and the GOP to manipulate people into thinking they are part of a separate movement. I haven't seen that they stand for any cohesive set of principles that differ from the mainstream GOP other than they are a lot more hyperbolic in their rhetoric.

Anyway, discuss.

[BanginJimmy]

Not a member but I do agree with many of the things they say.

The biggest problem and at the same time the biggest asset of the Tea Party is that they arent a single organization with a single leadership structure. They are simply a loosely tied group that stand for a generalized ideology of increased freedoms, smaller govt, and reduced debt.



By the way, I am still waiting on you to post some pics of racist signs at tea parties.

[Total_Blender]

By the way, I am still waiting on you to post some pics of racist signs at tea parties.

Been there / done that. But just to humor you:

Dale Robertson (owner of the site teaparty.org also notice that he is in the area designated "coordinators only")
http://chattahbox.com/images/2010/01/teaparty_robertson_spelling_racist_problem.jpg

http://totalobscurity.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c8be853ef0133ec6a82b7970b-500pi

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qIdxc0EEs44/Seia3Hes-tI/AAAAAAAAAlU/tna1R4n5pd8/s400/teabag2.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/art.obama.protest.sign.cnn.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/3932795321_649f3a213f.jpg

http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/alternate_images/10193/mp_main_wide_StimulusSlave452.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Obama-Nazi_comparison_-_Tea_Party_protest.jpg/616px-Obama-Nazi_comparison_-_Tea_Party_protest.jpg

http://madnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/racist.jpg

While I can't prove this last one is affiliated with the Tea Party, it is a guy from Temple, GA. Theres an article about how he always puts racist messages on the signs in front of his store.
http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/10/obama_nrig_sign1.jpg

http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/10/10/racist-n-word-sign-attacks-obamas-health-reform/

[BanginJimmy]

The one from Atlanta is not news. I have been hearing about him for years.

The Facism one, why dont you explain how that is racist. Also point out the racism in stimulus slave one.

The others, you point out what I said about the weakness of the tea party having no centralized leadership.


This s the best one I could find right away, slow internet from a download.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/exposed-liberal-plots-to-make-tea-party-appear-racist-uneducated-democratic-underground-daily-ko/blog-346549/


Basicly there has been a lot of talk among hardcore liberals of planting themselves in the middle of the tea parties with racist signs and slogans, then reporting it. I'm not saying that all, or any, of the pics posted are that, but it does raise some doubt about the worst of them. The 2 tea party events I have been to have had 1 issue a piece with obviously racism and both times the racist was thrown out immediately.

[stephen]

The one from Atlanta is not news. I have been hearing about him for years.

The Facism one, why dont you explain how that is racist. Also point out the racism in stimulus slave one.

The others, you point out what I said about the weakness of the tea party having no centralized leadership.


This s the best one I could find right away, slow internet from a download.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/exposed-liberal-plots-to-make-tea-party-appear-racist-uneducated-democratic-underground-daily-ko/blog-346549/


Basicly there has been a lot of talk among hardcore liberals of planting themselves in the middle of the tea parties with racist signs and slogans, then reporting it. I'm not saying that all, or any, of the pics posted are that, but it does raise some doubt about the worst of them. The 2 tea party events I have been to have had 1 issue a piece with obviously racism and both times the racist was thrown out immediately.

jimmy...this is a lost debate for you my friend. the VERY FIRST PICTURE is of the group's "founder". knowing you...you'll probably debate the sign he's holding. before you go there, just ask yourself if 'TAXPAYERS = CRACKAR' would've been a little more appropriate.

tea party is a socio-political group....the nazi's followed the same structure.....

i'm just sayin...

[BanginJimmy]

jimmy...this is a lost debate for you my friend. the VERY FIRST PICTURE is of the group's "founder". knowing you...you'll probably debate the sign he's holding. before you go there, just ask yourself if 'TAXPAYERS = CRACKAR' would've been a little more appropriate.

If you read my first post you would notice that I said the loose relationships among the diffrent tea party organizations was one of their weaknesses and their strengths.

I think we can all agee that that guy is an absolute idiot though.

Now, if you hink an organization should start apologizing for fringe members, why havent we seen apologies from black groups?



tea party is a socio-political group....the nazi's followed the same structure.....

i'm just sayin...


And I'm saying that there are groups that are the same on the other side of the argument such as the black panthers, the nation of islam, and some sects of the naacp.

[preferredduck]

If you read my first post you would notice that I said the loose relationships among the diffrent tea party organizations was one of their weaknesses and their strengths.

I think we can all agee that that guy is an absolute idiot though.

Now, if you hink an organization should start apologizing for fringe members, why havent we seen apologies from black groups?





And I'm saying that there are groups that are the same on the other side of the argument such as the black panthers, the nation of islam, and some sects of the naacp.

:goodjob::goodjob: agreed!! i still think we should use him and biden to plug the oil leak.

[stephen]

If you read my first post you would notice that I said the loose relationships among the diffrent tea party organizations was one of their weaknesses and their strengths.

I think we can all agee that that guy is an absolute idiot though.

Now, if you hink an organization should start apologizing for fringe members, why havent we seen apologies from black groups?

correct, your first post did say that, but you still felt the need to point out that other people are using racist signs at tea-party rallies. my point is that's truly irrelevant when there's CLEARLY a massive picture on everyone one's screen (who's reading this thread) of THE GROUP'S FOUNDER....with a big ass sign, with the word NIGGARS written in big ass colorful letters, in front of a big ass table, with another big ass sign, with huge red letters that reads "COORDINATORS ONLY".

a group can only be as strong as its weakest link. OBVIOUSLY their weakest link is the proclaimed founder. if everyone understands the founder is an idiot...a racist one...then why should anyone expect the group to be any different????

i don't care if they apologize for anything....they do more harm to themselves than anything else.



And I'm saying that there are groups that are the same on the other side of the argument such as the black panthers, the nation of islam, and some sects of the naacp.

you know what's sad....as an american, you should be offended by the tea-party group. these people make a mockery of what the TRUE tea party actually stood for. they use something that's supposed to be valueable to our american culture (an event where both BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE FOUGHT SIDE BY SIDE), and have used it to spread their closet racist ways. that reason right there is exactly why the black panthers, nation of islam, naacp, etc. don't even deserve to be compared these clowns....atleast they were created & stand for a legitimate cause.

find me some boston tea party pics of black and white folks tossing boxes of tea with RACIAL remarks scribbled on top...

[Elbow]

I think personally any of those people with those signs should be sentenced to prison for life.

[BanginJimmy]

THE GROUP'S FOUNDER....

A group's founder, not THE group's founder. Again, it brings me back to my main problem with the tea Party and why I will never be a part of it. No leadership. That lack of leadership allows every nut to have their own group and simply say it is part of the tea party.





you know what's sad....as an american, you should be offended by the tea-party group. these people make a mockery of what the TRUE tea party actually stood for. they use something that's supposed to be valueable to our american culture (an event where both BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE FOUGHT SIDE BY SIDE), and have used it to spread their closet racist ways. that reason right there is exactly why the black panthers, nation of islam, naacp, etc. don't even deserve to be compared these clowns....atleast they were created & stand for a legitimate cause.


As an American, what offends me are the obvious lies spouted off by congress on their way of foring their nanny state polics on me. I'm offended by the morons of all races that say I'm a racist because I am smart enough to know Obama is an ideological idiot that is doing serious harm to this country and its future. I'm offended by a govt that believes it is my duty to work in order for them to give handouts to people that think having babies and picking up a welfare check is a viable occupation. What I am not offended by is a bunch of inbred morons that in no way, shape, or form speak for me.


You you believe that a single sect that has no bearing on any other sect of the tea party represents all of them? Then you go to say the NAACP, Black Panthers and National of islam serve a legitimate goal? You are even more delusional than Blender is.

What legitimate goal does this guy serve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE&feature=related

Something else that does offend me. You did say you believe he serves a legitimate goal.

[Total_Blender]

The "New Black Panthers" (not to be confused with the original Black Panthers) in the video you keep going on about were in a heavily democratic and overwhelmingly Black precinct in South Philly. If they "supported Obama", as you say why would the intimidate their own voters. Its not like they were in fuckin' Westchester. Also, there were no complaints filed by voters of being intimidated or turned away. Finally, this happened while your boy George W. Bush was still president, and the Bush DOJ investigated but did not prosecute. So its not like the Republicunts didn't have a chance with this one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html

[stephen]

As an American, what offends me are the obvious lies spouted off by congress on their way of foring their nanny state polics on me.

the irony...those lying congressmen also have members that're part of the "tea party movement", but i guess that doesn't offend you enough to not defend them...maybe they're part of the uber secret perfect sect that you continue to talk about.



I'm offended by the morons of all races that say I'm a racist because I am smart enough to know Obama is an ideological idiot that is doing serious harm to this country and its future.
I'm offended by a govt that believes it is my duty to work in order for them to give handouts to people that think having babies and picking up a welfare check is a viable occupation.

LOL! you really think the government is taking your money and is spending it on people who work less than you and them!?! so they're robin hood now...i get it.

i'm sorry to break it to you...but uh, there's people out there that STEAL your hard earned money and live a life only you can dream of...true story. i guess it's ok if they had to work hard to steal it. i hope you understand that the orginal tea party had more to do with weaning THE RICH off of welfare. but hey...if you prefer to be more upset about low income welfare families, by all means go for it.


What I am not offended by is a bunch of inbred morons that in no way, shape, or form speak for me.

so why are you speaking for them??? i guess they don't do any harm to this country, its future, and its past...just obama

You you believe that a single sect that has no bearing on any other sect of the tea party represents all of them? [/QUOTE]

dude...if you don't believe that, then why don't you join??? you already said you agree with what they stand for (obviously something that the greater portion of america doesn't agree with), you've been to a rally/meeting/whatever you wanna call it, and you're defending them tooth and nail. if there is no true leadership, then how can they not all represent each other????

if all groups don't share the same feelings, then how come the "better half" doesn't denounce the 'inbred idiots'??? hell, you didn't even denounce them. YOU ASKED blender to post the racist pics for you....wtf? he asked a question not even you could answer...lol, the best answer you had is 'yeah, there's no structure...but i believe what they believe! i'd join if they had some leadership!'



Then you go to say the NAACP, Black Panthers and National of islam serve a legitimate goal? You are even more delusional than Blender is.

What legitimate goal does this guy serve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIrKtoHYPsE&feature=related

Something else that does offend me. You did say you believe he serves a legitimate goal.

i never said HE serves any type of goal. that video is of some member of the "New Black Panther Party." much like the "tea party movement", i don't believe there's any need for a "new" black panther party and for him to wear that uniform, and represent a group that MEANS FAR MORE THAN HE EVER WILL UNDERSTAND, and use that type of racist speech is IGNORANT.

do you seriously believe that during the time that the naacp was started it didn't have a legitimate cause?
do you seriously believe that during the time the ORIGINAL black panther party was started it didn't have a legitimate cause?

if you believe that...then there's really nothing more i will discuss with you about ANY of those groups. playing ignorant for the sake of a debate is one thing, so i'm really trying to give you credit here and say that's all you're doing....PLAYING...IGNORANT.

[preferredduck]

i hate bush , he lies
i hate obama he also lies
i hate congress, they all lie
i hate the senate, they lie
they can all burn in hell and we the people can take back our gov't before it's too late. we have the right to boot all of their asses out. did anybody go to history class?

[preferredduck]

oh i forgot they are all corrupt and work for wall street and get great perks and we pay for it.

[Total_Blender]

Its so hilarious that y'all just can't accept the legitimacy of the gov't under Democratic majority. Republicans have no problems with government or its legitimacy when they are in charge. All these idiots running for office who are saying Gov't doesn't solve problems... why are they running for office then? If they think Gov't is so bad why do they want to be a part of it?

The only people we need to "take back our government" from are the lobbyists and corporations.

The "too big to fail" banks.
Big Oil
Big Agribusiness
Big Pharma
WalMart
etc.

[BanginJimmy]

do you seriously believe that during the time that the naacp was started it didn't have a legitimate cause?

When it was formed and under their original 'charter', I would probably have been a member. Today they look for special privileges, like affirmative action, based solely on race.



do you seriously believe that during the time the ORIGINAL black panther party was started it didn't have a legitimate cause?

Dont care what they were when they were formed because its irrelevant today. What matters today is that they are categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Nation of Islam is the same as the Black Panthers. What they were when they were originally formed is meaningless. What they are today is a hate group.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=GA

2 hate groups that you say are legitimate.

[stephen]

Dont care what they were when they were formed because its irrelevant today. What matters today is that they are categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Nation of Islam is the same as the Black Panthers. What they were when they were originally formed is meaningless. What they are today is a hate group.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map#s=GA

2 hate groups that you say are legitimate.

i'll give you those. my main point was how they started, but if you don't care then that's fine with me. everything does have a cause and effect though...something i'm sure the "slave master" ancestors never thought of.

I'M SO GLAD YOU POSTED THE SPLC STUFF. when you search "tea party" the first link is extremely interesting....
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/unsweet-tea

incase you don't want to read it all...i'll take a few clips for you:


It seems clear that the Patriot resurgence has been fueled, in part, by demographic changes in this country — specifically, the predicted 2050 loss of a white majority, a change that was brought home to many by the election of a black president. Now, there is new evidence that race is playing a part in the Tea Party movement as well, even as it begins to claim some real political power.


Just 1% of Tea Party supporters are black, the recent poll found, compared to more than 12% of the general population. Nine out of 10 disapproved of President Obama's job performance. Asked why they didn't like the president, 19% said they just don't like him, 11% suggested he is moving the country toward "socialism," and 9% said he is dishonest. Fifty-two percent thought too much has been made of black people's problems, about twice the proportion of all Americans.


A subsequent poll by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found that white supporters of the Tea Partiers were 25% more "racially resentful" than those who were not supporters. White backers of the Tea Parties were less likely to believe that African Americans are intelligent, hardworking or trustworthy, and their perceptions of Latinos were similar.

[BanginJimmy]

The "New Black Panthers" (not to be confused with the original Black Panthers) in the video you keep going on about were in a heavily democratic and overwhelmingly Black precinct in South Philly. If they "supported Obama", as you say why would the intimidate their own voters. Its not like they were in fuckin' Westchester. Also, there were no complaints filed by voters of being intimidated or turned away.

Are you telling me that you wouldnt have even the slightest problem with a few KKK members sitting in front of a polling place, just so long as it was a republican district that it happened? I guess we can throw out all of examples of racism that didnt occur in an area that supported it because it really didnt matter there.




Finally, this happened while your boy George W. Bush was still president, and the Bush DOJ investigated but did not prosecute. So its not like the Republicunts didn't have a chance with this one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html


As usual your facts are wrong. Bush DOJ prosecuted it and won a summary judgement because the Panthers didnt show. It was between the trial phase and the sentence phase that the case was dropped.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/charges-new-black-panthers-dropped-obama-justice-dept/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%25253A+foxnews%25252Fpolitics+%2 8Text+-+Politics%29

[BanginJimmy]

i'll give you those. my main point was how they started, but if you don't care then that's fine with me. everything does have a cause and effect though...something i'm sure the "slave master" ancestors never thought of.

I'M SO GLAD YOU POSTED THE SPLC STUFF. when you search "tea party" the first link is extremely interesting....
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/unsweet-tea

incase you don't want to read it all...i'll take a few clips for you:


That entire article is about the Patriots though, not the tea Party. He simply said, with no proof, that the Patriots and the Tea party is the same.

I did a quick search on the author and he turns out to be your typical hard left liberal. The SLPC is also a very hard left organization. Back to the author though. Mark Potok is a failed lawyer that uses his time attacking anyone on the right. He has been quoted many times saying saying most of the hatred towards Obama is based solely on race, but with no proof of that. He is an often used source by the Huffington Post and Media Maters on their articles attacking anything on the right.

Considering the source, can you actually believe anything he says?

[bafbrian]

With regards to that video about the men outside the polling place, does anyone have the whole video or is everyone focused upon the small excerpt which has been continuously played? It is easy to judge a situation with a same piece of the information.

Furthermore, the case against the men was filed within civil court, not criminal court. Hence, they reason why they are not being severely punished because it was prosecuted as a civil crime, hence the reason why it is not being treated as a federal crime in accordance with violations of the Voter's Right Act. Unless the letter of the law has changed, civil suits are handled by individuals and/or groups and the criminal suits are handled by the government. Furthermore, if an attorney is available to represent the individuals, power of attorney, that is legal and not necessarily grounds for a victory for one side or the other.

Irregardless, none of that debate about the New Black Panthers pertains to the Tea Party.

As for the Tea Party, it seems as though this loosely connected group is nothing more than people who feed up with the current system of group. What makes this group different from previous groups is that they are receiving massive amounts of national media attention, after the election of Pres. Obama. Where were these individuals prior to the election? They existed, but they were not as prominent as they are now. Does that mean that I am trying to imply that they only can about because of the election of Pres. Obama? No, it means that group has become more prominent as of recent. But why? To be honest, I don't think anyone knows because the only empirical data one can rely on is the national debt, the current military campaigns, and domestic problems.

Within every group resides some sort of agenda, whether political or not. This group certainly has an agenda. But, in now why is it similar to the original Tea Party prior to American Revolution, so don't even compare it to that. The only thing these two events have in common is the name. And, given the stance of the current movement, it is demeaning towards the original Tea Party.

BanginJimmy, I don't understand how you can accept what the NAACP was founded for and then denounce what the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers were founded for, seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Essentially, these three groups had the same original premise: the empowerment and advancement of African-Americans. The only real difference amongst these groups is how they did went about it. Now, that I would understand if that was your original intent with your statement.

[BanginJimmy]

BanginJimmy, I don't understand how you can accept what the NAACP was founded for and then denounce what the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers were founded for, seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Essentially, these three groups had the same original premise: the empowerment and advancement of African-Americans. The only real difference amongst these groups is how they did went about it. Now, that I would understand if that was your original intent with your statement.

I said I dont care about their original purpose because I think we can all agree that it is not the same purpose as it is now. Black Panthers and nation of Islam are hate groups, nothing more, nothing less than any other hate group. NAACP is now a democrat PAC with a bias towards blacks. They are no longer a civil rights group or anything approaching one. If they were, they would not be supporting laws like affirmative action which encourage racial preference in hiring.

[bafbrian]

I said I dont care about their original purpose because I think we can all agree that it is not the same purpose as it is now. Black Panthers and nation of Islam are hate groups, nothing more, nothing less than any other hate group. NAACP is now a democrat PAC with a bias towards blacks. They are no longer a civil rights group or anything approaching one. If they were, they would not be supporting laws like affirmative action which encourage racial preference in hiring.

I agree, they have all strayed from their original purpose. But to go as far as saying they are hate groups is a bit short-sighted. What are you basing this on? Actual, in-person experiences or the excerpts you have seen and heard about these groups? Furthermore, affirmative action goes more than one way, research Grutter v. Bollinger, then comes to terms and realize that these organizations are not as short-sighted as your opinion about them.

Concurrently, the same approach must be taken towards the Tea Party, one must realize that the narrow-minded beliefs of some within the movement do not reflect the entire movement. In addition to that, can we really expect people to police others opinions when such an action would a violation of an individual's 1st Amendment Rights?

[Total_Blender]

Concurrently, the same approach must be taken towards the Tea Party, one must realize that the narrow-minded beliefs of some within the movement do not reflect the entire movement. In addition to that, can we really expect people to police others opinions when such an action would a violation of an individual's 1st Amendment Rights?

While I agree with you that its not the responsibility of the individual members to police others opinions, by not calling out people with the racist signs, and not renouncing leaders like Williams who make racist statements they are letting those people speak for them and for the movement. While everyone has 1st amendment rights and the rights to freedom of assembly, the individuals and the movements they belong to are also accountable for the company they keep and the leaders they align themselves with.

Escorting someone out of an assembly does not violate their 1st amendment rights, as they are free to express their opinions elsewhere and to assemble with other groups.

[Total_Blender]

Are you telling me that you wouldnt have even the slightest problem with a few KKK members sitting in front of a polling place, just so long as it was a republican district that it happened? I guess we can throw out all of examples of racism that didnt occur in an area that supported it because it really didnt matter there. l]

I don't like the KKK, but I suppose it would be legal for them to assemble within 100 or 150 feet (I forget the exact distance) of a polling place as according to GA law. In fact, Fox News has yet to mention the involvement of the "Minutemen" in the same sort of shit. Listen to the racist people describe killing children at 3:30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be5IOXHXbig

Yeah, this package ran on a Fox local broadcast affiliate, but the cable network Fox News is completely separate from its local affiliates. The local affiliates are not as bound to the Murdock agenda as the cable network is.

:rolleyes:

[bafbrian]

While I agree with you that its not the responsibility of the individual members to police others opinions, by not calling out people with the racist signs, and not renouncing leaders like Williams who make racist statements they are letting those people speak for them and for the movement. While everyone has 1st amendment rights and the rights to freedom of assembly, the individuals and the movements they belong to are also accountable for the company they keep and the leaders they align themselves with.

Escorting someone out of an assembly does not violate their 1st amendment rights, as they are free to express their opinions elsewhere and to assemble with other groups.

I couldn't have said that any better. The aim of my post was to elicit an educated response. But, as you said, it is still their right regardless of whether or not is right or wrong to you, me, or anyone else. It is a right protected under the Constitution. Furthermore, how can a movement be accountable without any form of structured leadership? Currently, several individuals across the country speak as leaders within the Tea Party Movement, but how can anyone aptly declare a self declared leader a leader?

Thinking to the original architects of the Conservative ideology, it was the belief that we should be able to do and say whatever we wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. When applied to the Tea Party Movement, those individuals who hold those signs and make though remarks are only holding true to the original ideals of the Conservative ideology. With the base of the Tea Party Movement identifying themselves as Conservatives, if they held true to the original ideals of the ideology, then who are they to police others?

Now, by no means am I encouraging nor condoning racist remarks or any form of expression. Its all despicable and never accomplishes anything. Personally, it highlights the ignorance of an individual because that is the extent of their education. I can't tell someone else what to think, I can only decide to disregard that person.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't like the KKK, but I suppose it would be legal for them to assemble within 100 or 150 feet (I forget the exact distance) of a polling place as according to GA law.

We arent talking about assembling outside the protected area, we are talking about standing immediately in front of a polling place.


There are a couple states that do not allow a cop to walk into a polling place while armed unless it is as part of his duty.

[Total_Blender]

Since the NBP's were not arrested at the scene by local law enforcement, nor were they prosecuted by the Bush DOJ, I am inclined to believe that they were in compliance with local statutes concerning polling locations.

I'm not saying I support the NBP's at the polling place, their agenda, or whatever. But this is not the "smoking gun" the Right thinks it is, as there are RW groups that do the same sort of thing.

[bafbrian]

Since the NBP's were not arrested at the scene by local law enforcement, nor were they prosecuted by the Bush DOJ, I am inclined to believe that they were in compliance with local statutes concerning polling locations.

I'm not saying I support the NBP's at the polling place, their agenda, or whatever. But this is not the "smoking gun" the Right thinks it is, as there are RW groups that do the same sort of thing.

Considering the small excerpt of the video shown is just that, an excerpt, it wasn't enough for grounds of a criminal trial. It is unfortunate that this incident is being exaggerated to the point it has been. But, drama sells when it comes to the media.

[BanginJimmy]

Considering the small excerpt of the video shown is just that, an excerpt, it wasn't enough for grounds of a criminal trial. It is unfortunate that this incident is being exaggerated to the point it has been. But, drama sells when it comes to the media.


What exactly is being exaggerated? 3 people standing immediately outside of a polling place, one of which has a club. There is nothing else thats really all that important.

[bafbrian]

What exactly is being exaggerated? 3 people standing immediately outside of a polling place, one of which has a club. There is nothing else thats really all that important.

That's because that is only part of the video that is shown. That clip is an excerpt, hence, no one truly knows what took place prior to or after that excerpt. I say it's being blown out of proportion because we have only been given a small amount of information to base an opinion. Without all the video and concurrent facts, people are forced to develop opinions without having the whole story.

The best example of this is the young lady last year who claimed to assaulted by a black man, while at an ATM, who subsequently carved a backwards "B" in her cheek because he saw she had a McCain/Palin sticker on her car. It just so happened that it wasn't seen by the ATM video, there were no witnesses, and she refused any medical treatment. During the formal investigation, information was released, it was all over the news. Furthermore, the incident received so much attention that McCain called her and expressed his sympathy for her. But, it was later proved that no such assault took place and that she lied about the whole incident. She admitted that she lied.

Another example was the documents which surfaced about Pres. Bush's military service and how he was a substandard officer, that he wasn't fit to be an officer, and how is behavior was not fitting for an officer. This story instantly became an overnight headline. People began questioning whether or not he served; people began believing he was a liar, he was dishonorably discharged, and that his actions were just as despicable of those of Pres. Clinton lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It was later proved that the documents were falsified, leading the resignation of Dan Rather from CBS News.

This to me is no different. What happens if more video of this incident surfaces and come to find out these men were provoked? Would it be considered an act of self-defense? It is easy to form an opinion about a situation, even without the whole story. Both examples above highlight that fact.

We are judging a situation without all the facts. Just as with case of the lady at the ATM and Pres. Bush's military service, we are forming opinions without knowing the whole story. That leads to a colluded view of events, thus creating poor judgment and bad opinions. This mentality coincidences with the notion that we as Americans are quick to pass judgment and form opinions without facilitating the opportunity for all the facts to surface.

[Total_Blender]

To be fair, there are people from the TX national guard who were there during the time Bush served who said that the document Rather used in his reports was a reproduction of a real document that the "source" had destroyed. So the document probably did exist at one time.

[BanginJimmy]

That's because that is only part of the video that is shown. That clip is an excerpt, hence, no one truly knows what took place prior to or after that excerpt. I say it's being blown out of proportion because we have only been given a small amount of information to base an opinion. Without all the video and concurrent facts, people are forced to develop opinions without having the whole story.

What other facts do you need? There is absolutely zero justifiable excuse for them to be there with a weapon.


The best example of this is the young lady last year who claimed to assaulted by a black man, while at an ATM, who subsequently carved a backwards "B" in her cheek because he saw she had a McCain/Palin sticker on her car. It just so happened that it wasn't seen by the ATM video, there were no witnesses, and she refused any medical treatment. During the formal investigation, information was released, it was all over the news. Furthermore, the incident received so much attention that McCain called her and expressed his sympathy for her. But, it was later proved that no such assault took place and that she lied about the whole incident. She admitted that she lied.

So you are trying to claim that 1 idiot, with zero evidence, negates video proof? What if the ATM showed someone carving a B into her face in a 15 second clip? Would you still want to see more to make sure she didnt instigate something off camera?


Another example was the documents which surfaced about Pres. Bush's military service and how he was a substandard officer, that he wasn't fit to be an officer, and how is behavior was not fitting for an officer. This story instantly became an overnight headline. People began questioning whether or not he served; people began believing he was a liar, he was dishonorably discharged, and that his actions were just as despicable of those of Pres. Clinton lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It was later proved that the documents were falsified, leading the resignation of Dan Rather from CBS News.

Now you are saying that you believe that this video might be a fake or somehow tampered with? If not, then I dont see how this has anything to do with a video.


This to me is no different. What happens if more video of this incident surfaces and come to find out these men were provoked? Would it be considered an act of self-defense? It is easy to form an opinion about a situation, even without the whole story. Both examples above highlight that fact.

Again, name a single reasonable explanation for the group to be in front of a polling place while one of them had a club. When you admit there is none we can move on from there.

Your so called examples are no different than saying that an earthquake in Vermont is reason to start preparing for flooding in Arizona. Just because both are natural disasters doesnt make them in any way related to each other.


We are judging a situation without all the facts. Just as with case of the lady at the ATM and Pres. Bush's military service, we are forming opinions without knowing the whole story. That leads to a colluded view of events, thus creating poor judgment and bad opinions. This mentality coincidences with the notion that we as Americans are quick to pass judgment and form opinions without facilitating the opportunity for all the facts to surface.


And we are right back to what other facts you want to see. I'm sure you feel the clip of the Rodney King beating was plenty of evidence. What is the difference here, other than the race of the guilty party?

[bafbrian]

Like I said, the video shown was an excerpt. That point no one can dispute, no matter how hard one tries to. I could develop an opinion based on that single excerpt, but that is all it will be. My interpretation of the facts given limited information. That opinion has a 50/50 chance of being right and/or wrong.

Never said the tape was fake or tampered, but only an excerpt was shown. We all can agree on the fact that media is content with giving a small amount of information before all the facts come out. I am merely saying that we shouldn't be quick to judge. As the old adage goes, "Never judge a book by its cover" is the intent of my stance. Hence the reasoning behind the examples. Both are cases in which limited information is released, the media exploits that information, and then all the facts come out after an actual investigation, in the case of the examples, changing the entire context of the situation. I argued this same point to IA member, redgt, who posted the story of the woman at the ATM immediately and went on a rant about how that incident with the showcased the ignorance of Obama supporters. I argued that he shouldn't judge a situation in which the facts released were yet to be proven. When it was proved she lied, it took him quite some time to admit he made a mistake judging the situation and the intelligence of voter, regardless of whether they supported Obama or McCain.

If the ATM video would shown the incident as she claimed, then her argument is more believable. I will leave it at that, because it would follow a similar path. I would want all the facts so I can form an education opinion of what really happened.

I don't much of the Rodney King incident, i.e. specific details, so I won't comment on that.

Maybe it's me, but I feel compelled to learn all the facts and then form an educated opinion on the matter. I don't like to rush to conclusions because that only leads to vicious in which we don't think for ourselves, we begin to believe what others say and think of situations and begin to accept that as our own opinion.

If anyone wants to accept the information you have been shown about the situation as the truth, then so be it, I will not argue anyone about their opinion, because that is their belief and it very hard to persuade people to think otherwise. Furthermore, I will give the same equal opportunity to anyone individual or group before I pass judgment on them. Just as with the Tea Party Movement, I won't pass judgment on them as a whole because of the few deplorable actions of a few.