The NAACP is in the process of drafting a resolution calling the Tea Party a racist group.
The Tea Party responds with a resolution of its own condemning the civil rights group for reducing itself to a "bigoted" and "partisan attack dog organization.
What do you think?
Many Tea Party people are racist. They believe subprime buyers for the credit crisis instead of the bankster cartel that planned and carried out the scam.
The Tea Party leader, Hennessey, is hanging out with CNBC's Kudlow who is the paid shill for the big banks.
I have a hub on it. You could learn something if you stop by to read it, Jim.
I wouldn't expect you to respond there are no misdemeanors involved.
I think Ron is correctly replecting a general lack of interest in the Tea party and their activites. They used to be kind of weirdly amusing. Now they are just a joke.
I think Ron was pointing out that nothing was being said on this thread.
I have seen him do it before on other subjects.
The Tea Party gets a lot of attention so somebody on the left is taking them serious.
The one thing the Republicans have going for them is fact that nobody likes the Democrats.
We will see what happens soon.
They get lots of media attention, but then so does Lindsay Lohan--that doesn't make her important.
p.s. I like the democrats just fine.
Lindsay Lohan doesn't have a hand in creating law but the most anonymous Republican in office does.
Have you ever heard of Jeff Flake? He is a US Republican congressman who I dare say alone is not very important at all.
But as part of a group, well you get the idea.
Maybe I shouldn't have said nobody because you clearly are a somebody.
Yes, we will. And at other times, in other countries and in our own, we have seen very bad decisions made by Ill informed and well manipulated voters.
At other times, we have seen people rise above their base instincts and move forward.
We will indeed see what happens soon.
I hate to see someone start a thread and get no response. Feeling sorry for the OPs, I give it a sympathy bump.
Which in effect means the Republicans have less than nothing. A poll out today states that 57% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Obama - that's pretty bad. 67% have an unfavorable view of Democrats - that's even worse. So far it sounds like a golden opportunity for Republicans. The problem is 73% have an unfavorable view of them.
They have the same problem they've had for years. They spend time saying what they're against, but can't articulate anything they are for...
Much like the conservatives who post here. Lot's of anger; nothing positive.
Grrrrrr I'm angry, I think the anger is coming from your side, constant name calling from the left on hubpages.
I don't know what poll you are talking about but I believe it must be out there.
Polls I have seen show the Republicans hold a double digit lead over the Democrats for the November elections.
Which one is correct?
I think most of us have seen the Tea Party for what it is. Some apparently like what they see.
In my neck of the woods, the TP crowd is not people I respect and admire, but I'm not among their favorites either.
It may be different where you are, of course.
Oh, you want to play semantics...
"Members" in this context means the people who are part of the group that promotes or self-identifies with the Tea Party.
Do you really need to quibble over everything?
"I think most of us have seen the Tea Party for what it is."
I'm not interested in semantics the Tea party is made up of members.
You wrote what is quoted above,I was just wanting you to explain it.
With absolutely no intent of sarcasm, exactly what is it that you do not understand?
You understand that I think TP members are sometimes, perhaps often, not people who I respect or admire?
You understand that my impression may be clouded by exposure to certain representative examples I live near?
You understand that I will allow the possibility that my sampling does not fairly represent the group?
"I think most of us have seen the Tea Party for what it is."
Are you able to tell me what you mean?
In the quote above you said "us" so what do "us" think the Tea party is?
Oh, more games..
"us" is you and me and everyone else, Jim. I've seen the TP. I've seen them on TV and I've seen them here in my own community. I'm sure you have also. We may have come to different conclusions about their value, but we certainly know what they are, don't we?
The NAACP seems to have a pretty definite idea, right? You haven't actually said whether you'd agree or disagree.
I'd have to say that when directly challenged with that accusation, every TP hanger on I know has disavowed the charge. I tend both to believe and disbelieve: I believe none of them THINK they are racist, but I think they are wrong.
Just my opinion. Oh, and the NAACP's, I guess, though I have not read what they actually have to say yet - I am taking your word for it.
The only games played are by you, it took 3 times for me to ask before you would say you think they are racist.
The fact that you think they are racist leads me to believe they are not.
Typical liberal charge if you disagree with a group then they are racist.
Hence the NAACP resolution. The NAACP ran its course a long time ago and is now nothing but an arm of the Democrat party.
When was the last time you saw the NAACP stand up for Alan Keyes?
Or any Black conservative?
You've never seen racist signage at Tea Party rallies?
I know: they don't represent the majority. Perhaps so, which is exactly why I said that things might seem to be different where you are. I think the specific TP people I know are unconscious racists, as I noted.
But I have plenty of reasons to not think well of the movement. Naïveté about taxes, government, terrorism, immigration - I can't think of a single place I have any sympathy or empathy.
I suspect you hold a different opinion.
I think my previous response should just continue to be read by you, it sums up my feelings in regards to your, uh thoughts.
Oh, my, a cute little insult!
That really is precious :-)
Unfortunately, it doesn't mean much, does it? You see, I actually do have thoughts. You seem to have anger.
If you are so assured of victory and so certain of the moral high ground, why all the bitter anger, Jim?
Could you define bigot for me please, and while you are at it, can you tell me what you believe the terms implied? Thanks.
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I have seen your posts on religion and I think the term is accurate.
That does not mean I think you are racist, the example is from the definition, not my words.
I think the terms mean you are against a Political and Religious coupling.
Polls have been wrong and, as the unfortunate Scott Brown election showed, can shift suddenly.
But what of it? None of us on the left deny that conservatives have been successful in whipping up misplaced anger. We fear what will come of it and hope that it self corrects before we get ourselves in too deep.
On the other hand, part of me hopes that y'all sweep the elections. Then you can show us how badly your ideology does yet again, and maybe this time people will learn from it and boot you out until all the people who learned are dead and gone. That might be better for us long term, though a decade of misery might be more than we can survive.
"None of us on the left deny that conservatives have been successful in whipping up misplaced anger"
Like having the NAACP draft a resolution to name the Tea Party racist?
Or choosing to ignore blatant racism?
You are pretty amusing yourself, Jim.
I guess you must have a special TV then. Or maybe there are special See No Evil conservative screen filters we can send away for? I'm sure they advertise on Beck.
Try YouTube. Or do the filters work there, too?
I obviously don't spend my time worrying about what the Tea Party does.
Someone said earlier they were just a joke but you and your cohorts can't get by a day without them.
Your obsession can't be healthy.
Oh, poor Jim. Did you forget that you yourself started this thread about the NAACP drafting a resolution regarding...let's see...who was it...oh yeah, the Tea Party!
So, us liberals responding to a thread specifically addressing Tea Party racism by discussing Tea Party racism is somehow an obsession.
You make so much sense, Jim.
I didn't link to the Tea Party stuff you did. Your obsession even requires you to watch video or what ever you linked to.
The obsession is yours.
Well, Jim, we wouldn't have had to do that if you didn't pretend ignorance of Tea Party racism.
I'm not pretending anything.
Your definition of racism is skewed at best.
I don't recall making a definition, Jim.
But it doesn't matter, right? Because you'll just keep shifting and denying, quibbling about nonsense and pretending everyone who disagrees with you is either wrong, lying or has completely misinterpreted what you actually said.
You start threads like this constantly. You have have no other purpose here, do you?
Or are you actually going to astonish us and write another hub?
Choosing to ignore blatant racism like the obama DOJ does?
Why was the Scott Brown election "unfortunate"?
"None of us on the left deny that conservatives have been successful in whipping up misplaced anger"
The fact that you have convinced yourself it is "misplaced" may be where one of your weaknesses lies.
Exactly. My views have nothing to do with racial intolerance however, it has much more to do with people using religious ideologies to justify what goes on in the political world.
It is pretty obvious that the TP are not here to uphold the Constitution but it seems more like they want to protect their religious establishments by infiltrating the political world by denying rights to certain groups or establishing more rights to others.
A democracy is what it is and if there was ever something wrong with the Constitution, it was in the decree which separates church and state, where as it reads that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.. the must have forgot that where religion and politics are present in the same room, according to their personal religion, which ever that happens to be... that each person is subject to their Creator.
When that "creator" happens to fall in line with a religion that regards politics as second rate, then there is a problem. One not likely to be solved without a new amendment that no one in office shall make it known what their personal religious views are in order to gain a vote.
I think they are what they are and they will run themselves into the ground. A little off subject, but my new favorite line from Palin. "When I said 'drill baby drill', I didn't actually mean 'drill'.
There are several different offshoots of the original TEA Party, and they sometimes disagree among themselves. Most of the members I know in this area are middle-class whites, but blacks and Hispanics are also members, along with democrats, independents, and republicans. The rhetoric I've heard from the locals is not anti-Obama, it's more anti-tax and anti-big government. BTW, I'm not a member.
The OP discusses the NAACP drafting a resolution against the TP (Tea Party not toilet paper) movement (political not bowel). We are so into demanding that terms be defined and explaind - I thoght I would get them right out there...
And the TP movement drafting something against the NAACP. OK.
What does that have to do with the title - the DNC gettng nervous. There's no connection. But maybe I expect too much from wingnuts.
If I define 'wingnuts' then I get another ban.
Who banned you?
I'd like to see the definition of wingnut especially if it came from you.
Should be funny.
That's would be the equivalent of two Purple Hearts or a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Typical response call names and then expect to be taken serious.
The DNC uses the NAACP to call the Tea Party racist.
Just an arm of the DNC.
There's the connection.
Somehow I get the feeling that you think there is something sinister about the NAACP generally favoring Democrats.
Comes across that way, doesn't it?
I'm assuming they will favor whichever party is most likely to support their causes, just like conservative Christians favor Republicans.
What exactly is the NAACP cause?
Isn't it to advance the causes of Black people?
How is calling an entire group racist advancing anything?
You do have to connect the dots for these people.
I think there is current anger and unhappiness against both parties. But I do think the House will have a Republican majority. Voters don't like to see weak leaders in charge and BO (Barack Obama not Body Odor) is definitely a weak vessel. The Republicans will have fresh faces but my concern will be that they, like Scott Brown, will hold no loyalty to the party. We have to get rid of the dreck and the RINOs in the Republican Party.
I would hope you would value loyalty to constituents over loyalty to party, but as is typical with the current crop of Republicans, loyalty to party trumps all.
Scott Brown, so far, is not a Republican sheep.
Like Barney Franks loyalty to his constituents?
That kind of loyalty?
I'm sure if Barney Frank's constituents believe he is not representing their best interests, they will vote him out.
And yet, so far, we have not. Given the number of raving homophobes I have seen down here in SE MA, that could be seen as odd. But, as is so often the case, tiny minorities can make a lot of ugly noise. It seems most of us appreciate the hard work Barney has given us for so many years.
As always the smarmy comment. Thank you for always proving to me that positive comment are few and far between when it comes to libs.
Yes, this thread has been a model of positive comments from good ol' Jim. Besides, it wasn't meant to be smarmy. You yourself said you are concerned about fresh faces being loyal to the Republican party.
I haven't been rude or negative.
But you do make the negative assumptions don't you?
Let me connect the dots for you so that you understand what I mean. The fresh faces will have no loyalty because the Republican Party has not done a good job of cultivating tomorrow's leaders, so I don't expect them to have any loyalty which means that it will be hard for the Republican Party members to be able to work together.
Sheesh, it's really exhausting talking to libs.
You said absolutely nothing new. You are concerned about fresh faces being loyal to the Republican party. I get it.
Zoom, it just went over your head
Eh, the effort was so pointless.
Yes indeed your thoughts are much too deep for anyone else to fathom...
You should run for Governor of Alaska.
Zoom! I'm not a resident of Alaska.
Ugh, again talking to libs is so pointless.
Yes, it's pretty damned pointless. You could try actually making a valid point though...
Was your mentor always a resident of Alaska?
Take your time.
Well, we are libtards, aren't we? How could we hope to understand?
It's really interesting how the DNC is chock full of not so intelligent religious fundamentalists., oh, wait, that's the other guys, isn't it?
My mistake, sorry.
Translation : She is worried that some of them might want to think for themselves. Thinking independently is disloyalty in conservative-speak.
And they might. Politicians and Supreme Court Justices have been funny like that.
Let me see if I have this right . The DNC - the democrats - commands the loyalty of the NAACP. The GOP on the other hand, commands the Tea Party - many of them racist - and (surprise, surprise), the NAACP objects to racism..
So in the end, the democrats has the loyalty of minorities because they support their interests, and the loyalty of thinking white people, and the GOP is the party of old white guys - and is dying out as fast as the old white guys do.
I appreciate you explaining that.
Commands the loyalty? They command the NAACP.
As far as I know the Tea Party is a thorn in the side of the Republicans. They are seeking to oust incumbent republicans and replacing them with new ones.
That's not exactly a match made in heaven.
I know plenty of young Republican ladies who would laugh at you for that statement.
Just cuz you sed it don make it so.
Some of you libs need to watch something besides Keith Olbermann! To get some real news, watch ALL the networks, read everything you can, and then believe about 10% of all of it. The TEA Party is often at odds with the republican party. Have you kept up with the primaries??
I watch some Fox News almost every day, and yes, the Tea Party is sometimes (I'm not sure I'd agree with "often") at odds with the Republican party. However, the vast majority of Tea Party members identify themselves as conservative Republicans.
Tea Party Supporters Overlap Republican Base
Yes, Jim, another link. I'm obsessed! Obsessed with factual evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinion.
The problem is that if a white person disagrees with or is in conflict with a Black, Hispanic, or any other person of color they are automatically labeled as being racist, however the same set of standard are not applied when the situation is reversed.
Actually, GOP incumbents have nearly as much to worry about as the DNC. They may be jumping a shark in cozeying up to the Tea Party.
by Credence24 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Ken R. Abell7 years ago
Is the Tea Party movement good or bad for the Republicans in this election cycle?
by Gary Anderson6 years ago
I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:1. Obama wanted a grand plan....
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
This week in Michigan enough Tea Party delegates showed up at a Republican meeting to elect delegates to the party's nominating convention for the election in November to defeat the current Republican party chairman's...
by lady_love1587 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these...
by Doug Hughes6 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...
Copyright © 2018 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.