Tea Party Leader Mocks NAACP "Coloreds" In Online Screed

[Terralthra]

I thought it was going to be subtly racest when I read "cotton on" in the first line.

And then it hit me over and over with a 2x10, nice solid whacks to the face. Holy shit, massa?! I also liked how they linked themselves to Lincoln. As if the tea party has anything to do with the abolition of slavery.

It was the first step towards the abolition os slavery:

"We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Tea Party movement started the American Revolution which authored this document called the Declaration of Independence, and that declaration was also the basis of the Abolitionist Movement which was organized to end slavery.

The abolitionist movement predates the American Revolution. For example, England abolished slavery in 1772.

[bobalot]

1) Can you provide some actual evidence for your claim that the NAACP tolerates racists?

Trying to paint the whole tea party movement as "racist" just because they can't account for every individual member's views on race is termed "broad brushing" or "stereotyping", in otherwords they are citing a few examples in an attempt to paint the whole movement as racist, and that is the very definition of prejudice.

That's a quite a distorted definition of racism you have there. How exactly is pointing out that there is a racist element in a group racist in itself?

2) The NAACP is not concerned about "taxes" and "big government", that is not their purpose, dumbass. That's like criticising the make-a-wish foundation for not tackling world hunger.

Oh, then why did it speak up about the tea party movement while maintaining its silence on the Black Panther's obstruction of voting areas and intimidation of white voters?

What does this have to do with "Big Government" and "Taxes"?

Your reply has nothing to do with my point that a group formed to campaign against discrimination doesn't have a stance on "taxes" and "big government" and to criticise them about that is stupid.

You can find racists in all walks of life, believe it or not, they do have other interests besides attacking every black person they meet. And calling someone a 'dumbass' because he disagrees with your point of view is uncalled for, I would say something more about it, but I do not wish to derail this topic with personal attacks, and I wish you would do the same out of respect for this site.

Is illiteracy common amongst Tea-Partiers? (I'm assuming you are a member of the Tea-Party or at least a sympathiser)

1. This particular point that you have responded to doesn't touch on the topic of racism. So your first sentence is a red herring.
2. I called you a dumbass because the argument you raised was stupid, NOT only because I disagree with you, dumbass. (I have explained why, see above in yellow)

BTW, personal attacks are quite okay on this forum as long as you back up your arguments (which you have failed to do). I suggest you actually read the Official Board Policies before posting again.

3) The NAACP went out their way to NOT paint the tea party with a broad brush, they were talking about a racist element within the tea party movement.

Oh really? Aren't there more racist organizations like the KKK, the Aryan Nations, and some radical Islamicists that actually threaten life and limb rather than a some people who gather to protest high taxes? If the NAACP was really concerned about racism, it would save its efforts for groups that are actually organized for racist purposes, rather than for groups that may have some members who are racist, but the NAACP is in the business of discrediting and smearing other organizations by making allegations without basis about the group organizer's motives based on a few allegations of racist incidents. The NAACP acts as soldiers by attacking Obama's political enemies with smear tactics which are very similar to those used in the McCarthy era, in otherwords they are conducting an anti-racist witchhunt, and trying to force people to prove they are not racist in an attempt to change the subject and get the tea party movement busy defending itself against these allegations, its no different that screaming that someone is a communist and trying to ruin that person's career if he can't prove otherwise. This goes against innocent until proven guilty.

Wow, that was an enormous amount of waffle.

1. You make it appear that the NAACP has spent some considerable resources on the tea-party. It hasn't. It simply made a statement.
2. The NAACP historically has spent most of its time dealing with the groups you mentioned.
3. You totally failed to address my point. The NAACP took care not to stereotype the entire tea-party movement.
4. Prove with some actual evidence (something other than your say so), that they are conducting an "anti-racist" witch hunt.
5. Prove that the NAACP is acting as Obama's soldiers.
6. Prove that the NAACP is engaging in a smear campaign. It is particularly difficult to take this seriously when a leader of a tea party group engages in such blatant racism and when there are countless photos of tea party members holding vitriolic and racist slogans. There are even youtube interviews with these people.

You have made a quite a few claims without a single shred of evidence to back it up. Please do so now.

[bobalot]

most participants, including racists, probably realizing that bringing up their pet issues would probably be disruptive to the cause, and those racists who deliberately fly swastikas for instance are probably deliberately trying to disrupt the tea party movement by changing the subject - now who does that serve? Does it serve those who would like to reintroduce segregation? No not really, but it does serve the liberal cause, just as someone burning an American flag in an anti-war protest would serve the conservative cause.

So there is a secret liberal conspiracy to have racist signs at tea party rallies to make them look bad? Do you have any actual evidence for this? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Why do you attempt to read between the lines instead of reading my words? You sound prejudiced when you do that, like you are trying to smear me, just like the NAACP is trying to smear the tea party movement.

I read "between the lines" because you implied that liberals were behind these signs they "serve the liberal cause". YOU said that even racists know that bringing such boards would undermine their "movement". (This misses the obvious explanation is that they are simply racist and proud of it.)

You:
1) Strongly implying something about liberals
2) When called out on your bullshit complain since you didn't directly spell it out you didn't actually mean it that way.

It's like going up to some guy and saying "Hey you! I strongly disagree with men who hit their wives!" and when the guy angrily denies hitting his wife, start bitterly complaining that "he read between the lines" and accuse him of engaging in "smears"

It's the hallmark of a bullshit artist (i.e you).

I see this thread hurtling towards the HoS very quickly.

who's being hostile, who's calling me names like "dumbass", that is a personal attack, so please stop it.

Read the Official Board Policies bitch and weep.

I never alleged it was a secret conspiracy, I just asked who does it serve, you can draw your own conclusions whether it is a secret conspiracy or not, because I have not done so.

So you all but imply it's a liberal conspiracy but since you know you don't have a shred of proof, you refrain from actually saying it. You are a pussy shit. Gotcha.

BTW, I find it hilarious that people complain about "high taxes" when 95% of them got a tax cut from Obama. Where were these assholes when George Bush was in power? Ah, I forgot he's republican and a white guy. He gets a free pass.

The money comes out of their pockets from the inability to find a job. Raising taxes on high income people simply means there is less money to hire lower income people with.

Ah, the trickle down theory. Prove this is actually the case. You made a concrete claim, now prove it.

[Alyeska]

I thought it was going to be subtly racest when I read "cotton on" in the first line.

And then it hit me over and over with a 2x10, nice solid whacks to the face. Holy shit, massa?! I also liked how they linked themselves to Lincoln. As if the tea party has anything to do with the abolition of slavery.

It was the first step towards the abolition os slavery:

"We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Tea Party movement started the American Revolution which authored this document called the Declaration of Independence, and that declaration was also the basis of the Abolitionist Movement which was organized to end slavery.

No, just no. The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with the American Revolution. The American Revolution had to do with political elites in a growing colony becoming dissatisfied with English dominion of the Colonies. An example of their irritation had to do with various taxes that were being enacted upon the colonies to which the colonials had no say in regards to them. The entire Boston Tea Party was relevant and it helped spawn the phrase "No Taxation Without Representation".

The Tea Party movement is lying to itself when it claims to have its roots in the American Revolution. The entire history of the Tea Party movement is anger with Obama, period. That is the unifying factor of the Tea Party movement. These are conservatives who are ButtHurt that the Republicans lost the election to a damned Colored. There is explicit and implicit racism. But its not just racism. Various members of the Conservative element have been deliberately stirring the pot. They have been posing Obama has not being a natural born citizen, that Obama plans to do various evil liberal ideologies. This has jack and shit to do with the American Revolution.

That you make the claim that the Tea Party has roots to 1776 simply tells me your a Tea Party apologist.

[Tom_Kalbfus]

1) Can you provide some actual evidence for your claim that the NAACP tolerates racists?

Trying to paint the whole tea party movement as "racist" just because they can't account for every individual member's views on race is termed "broad brushing" or "stereotyping", in otherwords they are citing a few examples in an attempt to paint the whole movement as racist, and that is the very definition of prejudice.

That's a quite a distorted definition of racism you have there. How exactly is pointing out that there is a racist element in a group racist in itself?

Racism is basically categorizing about the group and drawing certain conclusions about a group of people based on a few individual members they happen to find, which is what I saw the NAACP doing, and what you are doing here in your following statement.

2) The NAACP is not concerned about "taxes" and "big government", that is not their purpose, dumbass. That's like criticising the make-a-wish foundation for not tackling world hunger.

Oh, then why did it speak up about the tea party movement while maintaining its silence on the Black Panther's obstruction of voting areas and intimidation of white voters?

What does this have to do with "Big Government" and "Taxes"?

That question should properly be introduced to the chairman of the NAACP, I can't answer his question for him.

Your reply has nothing to do with my point that a group formed to campaign against discrimination doesn't have a stance on "taxes" and "big government" and to criticise them about that is stupid.

Well, somebody obviously hijacked that movement to use as a "political stick" against the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement.

You can find racists in all walks of life, believe it or not, they do have other interests besides attacking every black person they meet. And calling someone a 'dumbass' because he disagrees with your point of view is uncalled for, I would say something more about it, but I do not wish to derail this topic with personal attacks, and I wish you would do the same out of respect for this site.

Is illiteracy common amongst Tea-Partiers? (I'm assuming you are a member of the Tea-Party or at least a sympathiser)

Here you are categorizing a whole movement and making an ad hominim attack on me. You expect 2 second responses and they you criticise my typos and attribute it to illiteracy, sounds like a predjudicial smear to me, but of course convincing you of that is a lost cause as you prejudge me and read what you want to read and understand what you want to understand and read between the lines where you fail to find words to support your arguments.

1. This particular point that you have responded to doesn't touch on the topic of racism. So your first sentence is a red herring.
2. I called you a dumbass because the argument you raised was stupid, NOT only because I disagree with you, dumbass. (I have explained why, see above in yellow)

Attacking the person rather than his ideas is a form of intellectual laziness, as you can avoid criticising the arguments by derailing it with a personal attack.

BTW, personal attacks are quite okay on this forum as long as you back up your arguments (which you have failed to do). I suggest you actually read the Official Board Policies before posting again.

That does not change the fact that personal attacks don't support your arguments. I can point out an inconsistency and you can get away with calling me a "dumb ass", you've already established the fact that you are a predjudist person who is quick to draw conclusions and make personal attacks whenever your opponent's arguments become too difficult for you to refute.

[Tom_Kalbfus]

...
I read "between the lines" because you implied that liberals were behind these signs they "serve the liberal cause". YOU said that even racists know that bringing such boards would undermine their "movement". (This misses the obvious explanation is that they are simply racist and proud of it.)

Who are you to say I implied anything if I did not spell it out? It is up to you to draw your own conclusions from my rhetorical question and you obviously have.

It is also possible that a racist who doesn't know much could unintentionally serve the liberal cause without meaning to. I made an objective statement that such a racist would not help his cause, I did not address his motivation, and there are a number of possibilities, one is that he is trying to advance his cause and he is doing it stupidly, the other is that he is trying to make the tea party movement look bad by associating racism with it, which one it is I have not said, so do not confuse your own answers with mine. "reading between the lines" is a stupid way to make a point, it is like interpreting an inkblot test. Your mind connects the dots, that I have laid out, but there are multiple ways to connect them.

[kouchpotato]

Oh, then why did it speak up about the tea party movement while maintaining its silence on the Black Panther's obstruction of voting areas and intimidation of white voters?

Here's a little tip; turn off faux news and do some research. This incident happened in 2008. Obama had nothing to do with this, as he didn't take office until January 2009. A Civil Suit was filed in January, but before Obama was president. Despite what Glenn Beck is telling you, there is no big liberal conspiracy to let criminals go. This happened two years ago and most reasonable people moved on, but Republicunts have chosen to latch onto it to attack the President. No surprise there.

[Tom_Kalbfus]

I thought it was going to be subtly racest when I read "cotton on" in the first line.

And then it hit me over and over with a 2x10, nice solid whacks to the face. Holy shit, massa?! I also liked how they linked themselves to Lincoln. As if the tea party has anything to do with the abolition of slavery.

It was the first step towards the abolition os slavery:

"We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Tea Party movement started the American Revolution which authored this document called the Declaration of Independence, and that declaration was also the basis of the Abolitionist Movement which was organized to end slavery.

No, just no. The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with the American Revolution. The American Revolution had to do with political elites in a growing colony becoming dissatisfied with English dominion of the Colonies. An example of their irritation had to do with various taxes that were being enacted upon the colonies to which the colonials had no say in regards to them. The entire Boston Tea Party was relevant and it helped spawn the phrase "No Taxation Without Representation".

Why did the British close Boston Harbor? Did it have something to do with a bunch of colonists dressed as indians, taking over a merchant ship and dumping its supply of tea into the harbor because they refused to pay taxes on it?
I think it did. Closing Boston Harbor threatened a lot of people's livelihoods, and that pushed the greater mass of the colonies into rebellion due to Britian's heavy-handed response to the tea party.

The Tea Party movement is lying to itself when it claims to have its roots in the American Revolution. The entire history of the Tea Party movement is anger with Obama, period. That is the unifying factor of the Tea Party movement. These are conservatives who are ButtHurt that the Republicans lost the election to a damned Colored. There is explicit and implicit racism.

In other words, you are saying one can't say anything bad about Obama without being a racist, you seek to quell criticism of him by labling everyone who disagrees with or opposes Obama as a racist. That's kind of like the "You wouldn't hit a man with glasses would you," tactic.

But its not just racism. Various members of the Conservative element have been deliberately stirring the pot. They have been posing Obama has not being a natural born citizen, that Obama plans to do various evil liberal ideologies. This has jack and shit to do with the American Revolution.

I couldn't give a fig, what color his skin is, I don't live in the White House so I don't have to look at his face every day, but he is wrecking the economy with his high taxes I do care about that.

That you make the claim that the Tea Party has roots to 1776 simply tells me your a Tea Party apologist.

It sees parallels with what the Boston Tea Party was trying to accomplish and oppose and what they are trying to accomplish in opposition to Obama and his tax and spend policies.

[Tom_Kalbfus]

Oh, then why did it speak up about the tea party movement while maintaining its silence on the Black Panther's obstruction of voting areas and intimidation of white voters?

Here's a little tip; turn off faux news and do some research. This incident happened in 2008. Obama had nothing to do with this, as he didn't take office until January 2009. A Civil Suit was filed in January, but before Obama was president. Despite what Glenn Beck is telling you, there is no big liberal conspiracy to let criminals go. This happened two years ago and most reasonable people moved on, but Republicunts have chosen to latch onto it to attack the President. No surprise there.

Obama became involved when he ordered the Justice Department to drop the case. Heavy-handed political interference in the Justice Department is what I would call involvement.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, right, how silly of us. Clearly being against taxation without representation is exactly the same as being against taxes in general.

[Tom_Kalbfus]

Oh, right, how silly of us. Clearly being against taxation without representation is exactly the same as being against taxes in general.

How much in taxes do you wish to pay?
50%?
75%?
How much is enough? I believe that beyond a certain point, excessive taxation is stealing. I don't believe the majority of American voters have a right to spend most of my income!
Government is a community good, how much of your income does any government have legitimate right to? It has to perform certain basic functions, but beyond that, what right does it have to tax you more and more, and take away more of your hard earned income? You see taxation is a method for the majority to steal from the minority, if it takes too much, then why should anyone ever work hard to earn what they do if the government can just take it all away while providing nothing in return?

[Phantasee]

Oh, right, how silly of us. Clearly being against taxation without representation is exactly the same as being against taxes in general.

How much in taxes do you wish to pay?
50%?
75%?
How much is enough? I believe that beyond a certain point, excessive taxation is stealing. I don't believe the majority of American voters have a right to spend most of my income!
Government is a community good, how much of your income does any government have legitimate right to? It has to perform certain basic functions, but beyond that, what right does it have to tax you more and more, and take away more of your hard earned income? You see taxation is a method for the majority to steal from the minority, if it takes too much, then why should anyone ever work hard to earn what they do if the government can just take it all away while providing nothing in return?

People will work hard and make their millions while paying higher taxes without much of a burden on them. They still retain more income than the average person makes before taxes.

What is the "certain point" beyond which taxation is stealing? Curious.

[ShadowDragon8685]

People will work hard and make their millions while paying higher taxes without much of a burden on them. They still retain more income than the average person makes before taxes.

What is the "certain point" beyond which taxation is stealing? Curious.

He can't articulate it. All he knows is that he worked for his, he doesn't want to give it up to help a damn soul other than himself, and fuck the poor. Nobody who refers to taxes as 'stealing' is interested in participating in society so much as leeching off of it in the worst way.


Frankly, if taxes were 100% and the government miraculously managed to provide everyone with full healthcare, shelter, transportation, and luxury credits to be spent as one pleased, that would be vastly superior to what we have now. I'd frankly just settle for a single-payer universal healthcare system at this point.

[Phantasee]

That's just way too far the other way.

And I'm willing to give him a chance to articulate it, no need to jump to conclusions here.

[Samuel]

Racism is basically categorizing about the group and drawing certain conclusions about a group of people based on a few individual members they happen to find, which is what I saw the NAACP doing, and what you are doing here in your following statement.

Actually according to mirriam webster:

belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

How much in taxes do you wish to pay?
50%?
75%?
How much is enough? I believe that beyond a certain point, excessive taxation is stealing. I don't believe the majority of American voters have a right to spend most of my income!

I depends entirely on what the government is able to provide with that money. "Basic functions" could mean taxing 90% and using the money to heavily subsidize research and infrastructure to insure "America- fuck yeah!" never dies.

Why did the British close Boston Harbor? Did it have something to do with a bunch of colonists dressed as indians, taking over a merchant ship and dumping its supply of tea into the harbor because they refused to pay taxes on it?

Actually it was because the tea the british were importing was cheaper than what local merchants had access to, threatening to put them out of business.

In other words, you are saying one can't say anything bad about Obama without being a racist, you seek to quell criticism of him by labling everyone who disagrees with or opposes Obama as a racist. That's kind of like the "You wouldn't hit a man with glasses would you," tactic.

Actually many of the liberal members here don't like his... soft policy on torture. Oddly enough no one has accused them of being rascist because they hate Bush for the same thing. Consistency- a dangerous character trait.

I couldn't give a fig, what color his skin is, I don't live in the White House so I don't have to look at his face every day, but he is wrecking the economy with his high taxes I do care about that.

Tax rates in the US have been alot higher in the past. Other countries have managed to run much higher tax rates. In fact, I don't believe Obama has raised taxes making this complaint rather odd.

It sees parallels with what the Boston Tea Party was trying to accomplish and oppose and what they are trying to accomplish in opposition to Obama and his tax and spend policies.

Merchants using terrorism to people to buy overpriced homegrown products? (I know the actual situation was more complicated, but I couldn't pass up the barb).

[The Dark]

Oh, then why did it speak up about the tea party movement while maintaining its silence on the Black Panther's obstruction of voting areas and intimidation of white voters?

Here's a little tip; turn off faux news and do some research. This incident happened in 2008. Obama had nothing to do with this, as he didn't take office until January 2009. A Civil Suit was filed in January, but before Obama was president. Despite what Glenn Beck is telling you, there is no big liberal conspiracy to let criminals go. This happened two years ago and most reasonable people moved on, but Republicunts have chosen to latch onto it to attack the President. No surprise there.

Obama became involved when he ordered the Justice Department to drop the case. Heavy-handed political interference in the Justice Department is what I would call involvement.

Sorry, but the Justice Department decided to drop charges on January 7, 2009, 11 days before Obama was inaugurated. If a President ordered the Justice Department to drop the case, it was Bush.

Why did the British close Boston Harbor? Did it have something to do with a bunch of colonists dressed as indians, taking over a merchant ship and dumping its supply of tea into the harbor because they refused to pay taxes on it?

No, it had to do with the East India Tea Company being made exempt to import duties, which allowed them to undercut the prices of American smugglers. The smugglers were protesting a lack of taxation. The irony is quite delicious.

I couldn't give a fig, what color his skin is, I don't live in the White House so I don't have to look at his face every day, but he is wrecking the economy with his high taxes I do care about that.

Really? He's proposing to return the top tax bracket to its pre-Bush 38.6%, but it's still currently at 35%. Which conservative would you prefer:
Ronald Reagan (50%)
Richard Nixon (70%)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (91%)
If 38.6% is "high taxes," we've never had low taxes for more than five years since 1931. The entire post-WWII boom occurred when the top marginal tax rate was between 82% and 92%. The argument that high marginal tax rates on the rich discourage people from earning more is most certainly not borne out by the empirical economic evidence; on the contrary, the periods of most rapid growth have corresponded to the periods of highest taxation.

[D.Turtle]

Complaining about high tax rates in the US is disingenuous:

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.

Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.

This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.

Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

Why the tax bite has eased:

• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.

• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.

A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.

The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."

[Einzige]

Pull your head out of your ass, Tom.

Trying to paint the whole tea party movement as "racist" just because they can't account for every individual member's views on race is termed "broad brushing" or "stereotyping", in otherwords they are citing a few examples in an attempt to paint the whole movement as racist, and that is the very definition of prejudice.

You're absolutely right on this: racism is a form of collectivism. Hence its particular appeal to populistic Pat Buchanan types, authoritarians through-and-through. To then go on and defend this statement, therefore, is utterly asinine:

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Don't tell me you don't believe that the implication of the above quote - that "Colored People" as a whole draw welfare to spend only on wide-screen televisions and other baubles - is true. That'd make you a de facto defender of (racial) collectivism, and, hence, a hypocrite. And we'd not want to be a hypocrite now, would we?

[Einzige]

Racists have just as much right to complain about high taxes as non-racists, just because someone may be a racist doesn't mean that some of their other concerns aren't legitimate. Some of the people in the tea party are liberatians, and some are conservatives, yet they march together for a common cause of lower taxes and smaller government. The concervative and the libertatian might not always agree on everything, for example legalizing drugs, but they agree on enough to join together in a common cause. A racist may join in a demonstration, but the purpose of the gathering is to protest high taxes and big government, most participants, including racists, probably realizing that bringing up their pet issues would probably be disruptive to the cause, and those racists who deliberately fly swastikas for instance are probably deliberately trying to disrupt the tea party movement by changing the subject - now who does that serve? Does it serve those who would like to reintroduce segregation? No not really, but it does serve the liberal cause, just as someone burning an American flag in an anti-war protest would serve the conservative cause.

While there was a great deal of libertarian support for the Tea Party movement early - mostly in the first two-thirds of 2009 - most of them have gradually drifted over into Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty, which is a distinct entity from the Tea Partiers. Meanwhile, Stormfronters and their ilk have flooded into the Tea Party.

And the rest is conspiratorial nonsense. To be fair, you sound more like an Alex Joneser, imagining false flaggers where they don't exist. (It embarrasses me to have to parse the differences among those who are supposed to be my ideological allies.) The liberals are too busy having nightmarish visions of the future to bother with plants.

[Thanas]

Not that Ron Paul is any saner, mind you.

[SirNitram]

To post briefly on the OP, it turns out there's some frantic backpedalling on Mr. Williams part.

A day after he posted a screed to his personal website calling the NAACP "racist" for using the word "colored" in its name, the Tea Party Express' Mark Williams has taken the post down and called upon tea partiers and NAACP activists alike "to fight those who seek to divide us by race, no matter the color of the racist."

These are the words of a man who, yesterday, posted a faux letter from NAACP President Ben Jealous -- whom he called "Tom's Nephew" in the letter -- to Abraham Lincoln meant as a protest of the recent NAACP resolution calling on tea party leaders (like, for example, Williams) to disavow racist signs and rhetoric that have been at least a small part of some tea party gatherings. A sample of the fake letter, now removed from Williams' blog:

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Under pressure from critics, Williams says that he first altered the post before removing it all together today:

"[Y]es, there were several versions," he writes on his blog. "As reasonable people pointed out to me wording that I agreed was indeed objectionable was removed or changed."

So Williams may have realized that his post came off, well, pretty darn racist at points. But that's not why he took it down in the end. That, he writes, came because the NAACP leaders "realize their error and seek to mend fences." From the post:

I learned this morning that Ben Jealous, author of the NAACP anti-tea party resolution has offered something of an olive branch and will open discussions with tea partiers regarding dialing down the unproductive shots going back and forth ... Following what I believe to be a sincere move by Mr. Jealous I recognize that I have a responsibility to act in kind (just as I did in response to the NAACP's anti-tea party resolution and what was said about us) and that the continued controversy over this post can only dectract from the discussions.

Williams writes that he removed the post as "a reciprocal gesture" to Jealous. He also expresses some contrition over the rhetoric he admits "many very sober and thoughtful people" told him was "an obstacle to progress":


The day that I cannot learn something new will be the one following the coroner's signature on my death certificate and this is not that day. So, with that I reiterate what I and every tea partier have said repeatedly: We denounce racists and any who seek to divide the American People along any lines.

But in the end, it's not entirely clear that Williams learned a thing when it comes to what made his blog post -- which at one point had his "Tom's Nephew" Jealous character ask Lincoln to "repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong" -- offensive to so many. From today's post:

I would suggest to those offended by the term "Colored People" (the phrase that made my article so controversial) please contact the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and join me in calling for an end to their use of the racial slur.

Read Williams' updated blog post here.

This post from TPM, and the hastily scrubbed site is here

I'll.. Stay out of the larger thread, now.

[Einzige]

The way this works is that the Tea Partiers will actually believe, in the main, that Williams and the NAACP are trying to "mend fences", and will tone down accordingly, until nothing changes in their relationship. Even the Obama movement never produced a more gullible mass of morons.

[Knife]

I thought it was going to be subtly racest when I read "cotton on" in the first line.

And then it hit me over and over with a 2x10, nice solid whacks to the face. Holy shit, massa?! I also liked how they linked themselves to Lincoln. As if the tea party has anything to do with the abolition of slavery.

It was the first step towards the abolition os slavery:

"We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Tea Party movement started the American Revolution which authored this document called the Declaration of Independence, and that declaration was also the basis of the Abolitionist Movement which was organized to end slavery.

lol, did you just try to meld the rich white land owning tax dodgers in the 1700's with the free soil activists against slavery in new territories in the 1800's? They are fucking nothing alike and if you want to argue that they are, I demand more evidence from you.

[Serafina]

Standard LibertarianTea Party SOP: Completely ignore history when making your analogies.

Either way - you are morally responsible for the acts people commit in the name of your organization. If you want to be a "clean organization" in regards to such acts, you have to draw consequences - whether it is a racist statement, rape or other crime - if someone in your organization does something your organization does not want to be affiliated with, you kick him out.
Now, even if your are not an organization with membership - your leaders can still speak up against such people and condem them. The LibertarianTea Party leaders never did that against racism.
Mind you, they probably can't - either because they are racist themselves or because they know that most of their basis are racists and that they can't afford to alienate them.

[Tom_Kalbfus]

Pull your head out of your ass, Tom.

Trying to paint the whole tea party movement as "racist" just because they can't account for every individual member's views on race is termed "broad brushing" or "stereotyping", in otherwords they are citing a few examples in an attempt to paint the whole movement as racist, and that is the very definition of prejudice.

You're absolutely right on this: racism is a form of collectivism. Hence its particular appeal to populistic Pat Buchanan types, authoritarians through-and-through. To then go on and defend this statement, therefore, is utterly asinine:

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Don't tell me you don't believe that the implication of the above quote - that "Colored People" as a whole draw welfare to spend only on wide-screen televisions and other baubles - is true. That'd make you a de facto defender of (racial) collectivism, and, hence, a hypocrite. And we'd not want to be a hypocrite now, would we?

I didn't write that last statement, and the last was satire, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure most black people aren't on welfare, but I don't think the writer is arguing that they are, he is instead making up a characture of the sort of person who'd want the welfare benefits, but it is satire, much the same as Gulliver's Travels was satire.