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")


















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/us/2009/10/10/...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-state...o/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-state...o/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.

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...

[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=nIrKt...eature=related

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

[Elbow]

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

[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

[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...+-+Politics%29

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.