Remember that Washington University poll about the Tea Party and anti-Tea Party that everyone was talking about? Here's the rest of the poll - the part some liberal journalists neglected to report. For example, Joan Walsh wrote a piece on Salon that stated 41% of Tea Partiers felt that blacks were trustworthy, compare to 49% for whites, resulting in an 8-point gap. What she neglected to share, however, is that the gap was much larger in the anti-Tea Party group, at 57% for blacks and 72% for whites. Maybe it's white liberals who are the real racists??
Looks like the Tea Party members don't trust any color very much! lol
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … 05309.html
What makes you think that only white liberals are anti-Tea Party?
Because only 8% of them are democrats. Liberals are clearly anti tea party and anti freedom. They have done everything they can to demonize and disparage the Tea Party. I'm not surprised to see them poll as more racist than conservatives. The liberals are all about themselves.
Lol at "anti freedom". Isn't this what the Bush administration told us was the motive behind 9/11? "They hate our freedom". Generalizations and strawman arguments are an insult to political discourse.
Generalizations exist for a reason:
I make generalizations all the time. Every time I see a tiger, I run from it. If I failed to be racist against tigers, and one were on my couch, then it would make sense for me to think it was harmless. This would clearly be foolish.
When a liberal (or anyone, for that matter - the discussion is about liberals, so that is what I'm using) discusses things like mandatory health care, outlawing fat and salt, and demanding that there be pay-caps for CEOs (amongst countless other issues), they are necessarily demanding that freedom be taken away. In these examples, they are taking away my freedom to save money by not buying health insurance, taking away my freedom to buy crappy food, and removing my choice to charge what I want for my CEO services (i'm not a CEO, mind you).
I could easily do this for any "-ism", except Anarchism and Libertarianism... but the point remains - generalizations exist for a reason.
Hi, UW! I was just repeating what the article said. I think it was said kinda tongue in cheek.
I have read a lot about conservative groups who do not agree with the Tea Party also. Like it or not, they are still a minority.
Most liberals do not judge by race, if they do then in my opinion they can't call themselves liberals. And I don't buy the ridiculous argument that liberals need racism and want to keep people of color down.
You guys push how you are all about the freedom but you don't want gays to marry, many of you want your religion to be forced on all school children, you don't want kids taught certain things, you don't want illegal immigrants to steal American air, you pass laws that people who you think might be illegal aliens to be stopped at any time and forced to show their papers (and I'd like to see how many white suspected illegals will be stopped), etc.
Please give me examples (of your own) of liberals being anti-freedom.
"Most liberals do not judge by race"
Good one! That was funny!
You're wrong in your characterizations of conservatives, at least as far as I am concerned.
I don't care if your gay, I don't care if you're gay and want a same sex marriage. There is an issue with government redefining marriage that could present some problems, incest for one, unless you liberals are in favor of that too.
I don't force religion on anyone nor do I want that. I don't however see a problem with allowing people that do believe in God to pray in school. You liberals are funny, because you'll fight so Muslims can have a special room in school to pray, but you don't want anyone else to pray in school. Why is that?
Illegal immigrants are welcome here, if they enter legally, but then they wouldn't be ILLEGAL immigrants. I do think the immigration laws need to be changed. It's too difficult and too expensive to enter the country legally, however that doesn't justify entering illegally. You liberal are all about fairness and a level playing field, well what about all those immigrants that are waiting in line to enter the country legally? Should they be pushed to the back of the line just because their country doesn't have a border with ours?
I don't know, I think that's a valid argument. If you are saying not allowing same sex marriage is discrimination, then how can you say incest and multiple spouse marriages isn't the same?
Equating same sex-couples with incestuous or polygamous relationships is absurd. You realize this, but because you have no logical reason to justify your discrimination against gays, you create a strawman argument.
"If you are saying not allowing same sex marriage is discrimination, then how can you say incest and multiple spouse marriages isn't the same?"
Liberals don't like logic when it doesn't suit their agenda.
"If you are saying not allowing same sex marriage is discrimination, then how can you say incest and multiple spouse marriages isn't the same?"
As long as all the participants are informed, consenting, competent adults, it is the same. If some guy can convince three informed, consenting, competent adult women that they should form a polygamous family with him, I want him to lead the marketing department of my company.
Likewise, if a brother and a sister want to get it on, and they're both informed, consenting, competent adults, well, I still think it's icky*, but it's not me that's getting it on with my sister.
The problem with polygamy and incest is that in practice, it's often a case on adults preying on minors, tricking them, intimidating them, or outright forcing them into the relationship.
I think both liberals and conservatives will agree that it's bad to prey on minors, or defraud people, or intimidate people, or take advantage of someone who is not competent.
But this is a canard, really. I don't think you'll find many conservatives lining up in support of anything other than heterosexual monogamous marriage. But it's fun to say to liberals, "Ha-ha, you don't really believe in liberty, because if you did, you'd want to legalize polygamy and incest! Gotcha there, hur-hur-hur."
*Actually, it's not just icky; close genetic relations have a significantly higher chance of having offspring with birth defects. Look at the high rates of hemophilia (and other things) in the royal houses of Europe, for example. I think maybe there's an interest beyond individual liberty when dealing with incest.
"Illegal immigrants are welcome here, if they enter legally, but then they wouldn't be ILLEGAL immigrants. I do think the immigration laws need to be changed. It's too difficult and too expensive to enter the country legally, however that doesn't justify entering illegally. You liberal are all about fairness and a level playing field, well what about all those immigrants that are waiting in line to enter the country legally? Should they be pushed to the back of the line just because their country doesn't have a border with ours?"
Exactly. One of the worst things about illegal immigration is how unfair it is to legal immigrants.
Poppa Blues I don't think the Tea Party is a racist organization by design. I feel a lot of the people attending these rallies have a deep sense that there needs to be responsible change and effort made to secure it.
I did not agree with the bail outs and most of how the healthcare bill is constructed. I also have a problem with the global warming legislation that is currently being formulated.
But why is this racist element tolerated with the signs and hateful banners seen displayed at the rallies? Is it the fault of the media that this is shown? Is there a better way for the tea partiers to rise above this slander and make some common ground with more moderate means?
The pointing of fingers and name calling is not helping them and they need to better define their methods to enact their proposals than through such confrontational and devisive tactics.
Imagine if the Tea Party was Black:
http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/20 … -wise.html
It's funny because many people argue that making assumptions based on racism is not okay...
...but then they do it anyway.
Who's making assumptions?
The article asks you to imagine what would happen if a black popular movement got started in which many of the members carried guns to protests and advocated revolution and violence against white elected officials.
In fact, you don't even have to imagine - you can simply take an honest look at the Black Panther party and the Tea Party and compare what their leaders said/are saying and what actions they took, and the government/media response.
The article is not so much about the tea partiers being racist, but about the privilege that allows them to get away with such outrageous crap.
That was an excellent essay! Right on the money.
Every white person should read it.
And even Newt Gingrich called them the political arm of the militia movement.
It's way beyond ridiculous.
Not only white priviledge, but macho crap as well.
Sorry, but what is that old canard? You need a big gun cause you have a small......
Well, in this case I'd say heart and mind, leave that other thing alone. haha
Grayson was on Mahler's show...he said it's just people who don't want to admit the country is changing...growing pains or something.
But for crying out loud, all people want is the same priveledges certain people have always enjoyed simply because they were white!! (or Christian, or Heterosexual....)
Bottom line, if you disagree with anything agenda Obama sets forth, you're a racist.
I have. But the only people saying it are people who disagree with Obama's agenda, in (I suspect) an attempt to cloud the issues with unrelated, emotion-laden baggage.
"You think that I disagree with Obama's agenda only because he's a black guy," say (some of) the opposition, and thus they deflect scrutiny from their reasons for opposing Obama's initiatives, and the discussion shifts from the merits of whatever initiative was being discussed to whether or not the Obama-supporter was calling the Obama-opposer a racist or not.
Obama has no initiatives, he has a play book and he's not the one that wrote it. The reason the majority of this nation disagrees with Obama's agenda is that its not what they want for the country and they don't appreciate it being shoved down their throats through the use of bribery and coersion. If Obama had campaigned on the very proposals he's set forth in the last year he wouldn't have gotten 20% of the vote.
You must have missed the campaign then. I voted for him because I wanted health care reform, tax cuts for the poor and middle class, and Wall Street reform. Two down, one to go.
Right! He is keeping his promises, and then some. Lot of things go on in quiet that are very good.
The clean up of one of the most polluted areas in the country for one...after years of gvt. siding with industry and not caring who got sick or died.
Hilda Solis for two.
Lily Leadbetter...I wonder if you men know how that feels?
Also his support for freedom of choice...can you imagine how that feels after years of demonizing women?
His saying that kids are turning to drugs and crime cause there are not enough opportunities, instead of implying that they are just bad kids.
Excellence in education... Race to the top.
More money for grants and financial aid so more kids can go to college...
Just the feeling that poorer people are human beings too, not low-down dirty dogs who deserve their situation.
I never want another Bush/Cheney. I think we deserve to enjoy this moment in time.
But it never lets up does it?
sigh sigh sigh...no matter what, they will never let up.
But...the majority of this nation voted the guy into office, didn't they?
Yup, with 52.9% of the popular vote.
And they did so based on the promises he made in the campaign, right?
If you want to see how well he's doing, take a look at the scorecard at Politifact.com.
So far, 110 promises kept.
"I have. But the only people saying it are people who disagree with Obama's agenda, in (I suspect) an attempt to cloud the issues with unrelated, emotion-laden baggage.
"You think that I disagree with Obama's agenda only because he's a black guy," say (some of) the opposition, and thus they deflect scrutiny from their reasons for opposing Obama's initiatives, and the discussion shifts from the merits of whatever initiative was being discussed to whether or not the Obama-supporter was calling the Obama-opposer a racist or not."
You cannot honestly have missed all the lefty pundits and empty-headed 'celebrities' declaring over and over again (and yes, many here as well) that opposition to obama's policies is born out of some resentment to having a black man in the executive office.
Are wingnuts a seperate race now? Is there a box for that on the census form?
Liberals are clearly anti tea party and anti freedom
Do you have any idea of the history of the last three hundred years? Liberals cleared out the old aristocracies of Europe and the nascent aristocracies of the American South. The more thoughtful ones would clear out the plutocrats, too given an opertunity.
When conservative leaders talk about 'freedom' they are not talking about the freedom of the individual they are talking about the freedom of business to do as it wishes. Ok, we are all interested in businesses flourishing but it is a very narrow part of what democracy is all about.
the word liberal has had its meaning altered. It used to mean libertarian, it now means pro-government, anti-war, hippy-guy.
the word conservative also had a different meaning. It used to mean cutting taxes AND reducing spending. Now it means Pro-war, pro-inflation, pro-spending, anti-tax military guy.
I don't mean to insult anyone, just pointing out that the language has altered.
Yes, and the only one that seems to matter to these baggers.
We are so much more than that...
We USED to be so much more than that!
The truth of the matter is that there are two tea-party movements.
The first movement was the movement that was the TRUE* tea-party. This movement got its legs after Ron Paul changed the landscape of politics in the united stateS by asserting the obvious during the Republican Primary debates. People began reading the Constitution in earnest and realizing that their government has gone way beyond its limits.
(*yes, i know people think that it's foolish to use the word TRUE before an term because it simply shows bias. But i think those familiar with the story of the tea-party can agree with me on the most part)
But unfortunately, as this group got mobilized and picked up steam, there was a strong push against it by the already established Neo-Cons.
The second movement under the Tea Party guise is the Neo-con movement. The reason that people like Palin, glenn beck, and Rove are associated with the tea-party is because they realized that they could influence the debate and score a few extra votes by encouraging it.
Now, unfortunately, it seems that the Neo-Cons successfully took over the movement. I consistently hear idiotic statements from the tea-partiers along the lines of "we have too much government, let's invade Iran"... which is complete nonsense, and has the epic stank of Neo-con all over it.
Anyway, as foolish as it sounds, the TRUE tea party is a liberty-minded movement, just as the Revolution was in 1776.
Unfortunately, it seems that it is more economical for the Neo-cons to simply hi-jack the words and language of the libertarian movement (people actually think that invading Iraq was a libertarian action... ugh...) than to actually put their beliefs up against the beliefs of liberty.
"Now, unfortunately, it seems that the Neo-Cons successfully took over the movement. I consistently hear idiotic statements from the tea-partiers along the lines of "we have too much government, let's invade Iran"... which is complete nonsense, and has the epic stank of Neo-con all over it."
So true. Good observations. I do remember the earliest tea-party reports talking about real issues and real facts (I didn't always agree with the conclusions, but the arguments were based in reality), but sadly, the movement was very quickly and thoroughly co-opted/hijacked by the neocons and wing-nuts, and it's no longer a libertarian movement.
Maybe "original" rather than "true" would be less bias-laden?
I disagree. The movement is a true grass roots movement and as such you'll have a wide range of opinions on various subjects. If you look at the mission statement of the Tea Party Patriots you will see a consistent small government message. Nowhere do they advocate war.
Evan, I actually agree with something you wrote!
Yes but even the original tea-party movement warranted a little skepticism....because where were they when the real freedom-killing,debt-building,big government, nation building, patriot act, 2 wars, jobs moving, working class wealth shrinking and tax cuts for the uber wealthy party was in charge?
...it was the "liberals" speaking up then. And all the people now in the tea crowd ever did was tell us to shut up and support whatever the president did!
Freedom to be just like them....that's all it is!!!
Cause if you're not, they are coming after you!
You crack me up. So because no one protested before then they didn't care, or they're not legitimate. People are tolerant to a point and they acted, voting Obama in on his message of change. Unfortunately they didn't realize the change he was selling was worse then what they had. At that point it was time to speak out for common sense. People can only take so much!
People are tolerant to a point and they acted, voting Obama in on his message of change. Unfortunately they didn't realize the change he was selling was going to take a long time to enact and that fixing the problems facing the US was going to take longer than a few months into the new administration, which is about when they started freaking out.
There, fixed it for you.
No they didn't think the change he was selling meant socialism. Surprise!
But somehow they were psychic, and knew from before he was even sworn in that he needed to be destroyed.
He did not even deserve a chance.
And voila---you see it.
No No No No no No No No No No No No no no No no no no no no no no no no
@ lovemychris - I agree with you here 100% here, which is rare But you are right. I voted libertarian in the last election instead of for McCain. Bush was the anti-Blade (move reference) of true conservatives, all of the weaknesses and none of the strengths.
I got yelled at by many of my friends for not voting for McCain just because he was "better for us" than Obama. Conservatives LOST that election because most politicians who have called themselves by that name for the past 10 years or so have been nothing more than war-mongering, free-spending, pro-illigal immigrating, socially constricted Democrats.
I think many of you are dismissing the Tea Party too easily. I read that 25% of voters now consider themselves members of or supporters of the group. A minority, yes, but a substantial, very vocal one.
I hope that percentage goes up. Splitting the Republicans in half would be good for America.
Right, keep hoping. The left wing fringe took over the democratic party and the right wing is doing the same to the consevatives. They will not make the mistakes that liberals have made with Nadar etc. who lost several elections for the dems.
All evidence to the contrary...
Your assertion presupposes uncharacteristically high political aptitude on the part of Republican leadership. Just look at how they're screwing up with their stance on financial reform - America wants it, Republicans don't.
Republicans are the Washington Generals of American Politics. Always a few steps behind, always getting their butts kicked.
Really? You think the party who got a fool like Bush elected twice is not at least as smart as the left? Really? At least Obama could complete a sentence.
People want some type of financial reform. Republicans are FINALLY growing a spine and saying, "yeah, we want reform too, just not this which is 70% good and 30% crap." Keep thinking that the tea partiers and the grass roots revolution against these policies is a joke... I just hope that all of the fake conservatives get kicked out as well.
He was elected Once - in the middle of a war he started. He was appointed by the Supremes after statistically tying a scandal-plagued Algore. Even Republicans can hit lobbed softballs occasionally.
Grass roots? Fertilized by FoxNews nonsense.
HA! I dislike Bush as much as anyone, he was basically a socially conservative gun loving big government democrat with a bible, but seriously.
Oh, and I am pretty sure all of your great democrats voed for that war. They had the same ointelligense he did, maybe they should try reading things before they vote on them
"Oh, and I am pretty sure all of your great democrats voed for that war."
Not all of them did. There were a very few who were brave enough to take a stand for rationality in the face of the climate of fear and anger that 9/11 had created and the administration was doing its best to exploit.
David Bonior (D, Michigan) was one. His district was gerrymandered out of existence by the following election. I don't know if there's a relationship there.
Some did vote no, most voted yes. Own it
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
"Unfortunately they didn't realize the change he was selling was worse then what they had. At that point it was time to speak out for common sense."
I for one wanted and LIKE the change...are you saying the tea-baggers are people who voted for Obama???
Socialism is your opinion. Because a lot of people say "Why, he's just like Bush"...but I NEVER heard ANYONE call Bush a socialist!
As far as I can tell, all he's doing is trying to reign in the destructive GREED of the last 30 years. You think Gvt. has power?
Where have you been?
Someone has to stop the avarice in business that is destroying what we stood for, and no one else is big enough.
You had your big money party, and now it's the other half of the country's turn to be at bat.
If you think this country wants Regan III, you are mistaken.
A large portion of the Tea Party are independents, and they were the ones that got Obama elected.
Yes it's my opinion he is a socialist as are his policies, but it's not like I don't have evidence to back up my argument.
He isn't reigning in anything, especially greed.
Yeah the money party is over, and Obama is going to level the playing field, he's going to make ALL of us POOR!
Say what you want about the Tea Party, but their idea of nominating the ghost of Jefferson Davis as their presidential candidate is just crazy
by lady_love158 9 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … s_sub.htmlBeck once called Obama a racist and I disagreed. Beck later apologized for his remarks but now I wonder was he right? If Obama isn't a racist he sure likes to use race to his political advantage!
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
Last week, Matt Continetti published a long essay in The Weekly Standard arguing that we should understand the Tea Party as a movement that’s torn between two competing political instincts — one reformist and one reactionary, one that “wants to repair deformities in the American political...
by Doug Hughes 9 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last...
by Ken R. Abell 10 years ago
Is the Tea Party movement good or bad for the Republicans in this election cycle?
by EPman 10 years ago
Would the same outrage still exist? Or did Obama's presidency ignite the flame?I tend to think that Obama being elected certainly was fuel on the fire -- that is to say, the Tea Party would not be as big or popular if John McCain was president. Much more people would be too complacent simply...
by weholdthesetruths 10 years ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 05400.htmlThey might be perfectly fine with someone who wants to be the other gender, but, heaven forbid, they find someone with a different view of government, it's just too much evil to stomach, apparently.
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|