Is The Tea Party All About Race?

[rjwould]

Bob Cesca makes a compelling case it is. Race is a tricky subject though because many people with racist views point to the fact that they have or have had at least friendly casual relationships with people outside their own race. They make the case that if they are going to be labeled as 'racist' without specifics applied, the label doesn't fit. One can see the logic to the argument put forward, but it also reveals the fallacy of it too. One can of course contain racist views toward only one race of people. White people with racist constructs who put forward the argument I've just mentioned are quick to point to 'reverse discrimination' under those exact parameters they deny.

Anyway, Cesca's piece in the Huffington Post (I know the Huffington Post is not like that bastion of credible news, Fox, but go with it for just a short read) offers some insights worth considering.

I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention."

The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all.

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about.

This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "******, ******, ******!"

But they can't.

Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore.
Full Story; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-tea-party-is-all-abou_b_484229.html
__________________

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I thought it was all about stupid.

Of course, racists are stupid, so I suppose they would be welcome in the party.

[rjwould]

I thought it was all about stupid.

Of course, racists are stupid, so I suppose they would be welcome in the party.My description would be racists are fearful and therefore easily manipulated.

[samm]

OK, well the piece is kind of silly. I am white male and I have been in my lifetime the receiving end of racism. I have personal experience where the majority (70 percent identified in this piece) was on the receiving end of racism in the form of an oppressed racial demographic.

But aside from my personal experience, a simple philosophic examination identifies it as demagoguery. Or is that your intention? To discuss it as such?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My description would be racists are fearful and therefore easily manipulated.

Hmmm....interesting. You have a point.

[rjwould]

OK, well the piece is kind of silly. I am white male and I have been in my lifetime the receiving end of racism. I have personal experience where the majority (70 percent identified in this piece) was on the receiving end of racism in the form of an oppressed racial demographic.

But aside from my personal experience, a simple philosophic examination identifies it as demagoguery. Or is that your intention? To discuss it as such?I've experienced racism as well, but what does that have to do with the article? Taking the position of victim status goes nowhere really.

Labeling the article as 'silly' is a non sequitur. Perhaps you'd like to argue the merits of the piece instead?

[samm]

Labeling the article as 'silly' is a non sequitur. Perhaps you'd like to argue the merits of the piece instead?
No, the article appears to be obvious demagoguery. As such I find it is silly. If your thread is to discuss demagoguery, then hmmm... well this article is a silly example of such because it is so obvious.

If your thread is in support of this particular allegation that the tea party is fundamentally racist. OK, well that is silly.

If your thread is to discuss whether or not the tea party is actually racist. Well then why would you cite an article so obviously over the top?

(Just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't vote-- by choice not because I am unable to-- and I find all political parties fundamentally flawed.)

[casebro]

No it's about Nazism. ;)

I just thought that a thread that plays the race card in the opening subject line, ought to have a second card played, just to up the ante.

[samm]

No it's about Nazism. ;)
You may be right, I just wonder what these nazis got against the tea party...

[KingMerv00]

The point of the article is that if you remove all of the things he thinks don't make sense, all you have left is racism. I disagree. I think if you boil all of that stuff away, you have NOTHING left. Where is he getting the idea that everyone in the tea party is united by racism? Sure he can point out some loons but you can do that in any political movement.

I think the broad brush is unfair and I'm no fan of the tea party.

[rjwould]

So choose an allegation in the article and lets discuss it. Attempting to make me out to be anything other than a person looking for a conversation gets us no place.

If you choose not to vote, why then do you choose to enter into political discussions at all?

[rjwould]

The point of the article is that if you remove all of the things he thinks don't make sense, all you have left is racism. I disagree. I think if you boil all of that stuff away, you have NOTHING left. Where is he getting the idea that everyone in the tea party is united by racism? Sure he can point out some loons but you can do that in any political movement.

I think the broad brush is unfair and I'm no fan of the tea party.I think thats a fair criticism.

Cesca is obviously using process of illimination, but I don't read him as saying all people in the tea party are racists, what I'm seeing is the movement itself is based on racism.

[KingMerv00]

If you choose not to vote, why then do you choose to enter into political discussions at all?

I vote but I find that kind of thinking unfair. Not voting because you are lazy is one thing, but not voting because you choose not to is fine by me.

Just because you don't vote doesn't mean you aren't interested in politics.

[rjwould]

I vote but I find that kind of thinking unfair. Not voting because you are lazy is one thing, but not voting because you choose not to is fine by me.

Just because you don't vote doesn't mean you aren't interested in politics.I should have quoted samm as that was a response to that members post.

[KingMerv00]

...but I don't read him as saying all people in the tea party are racists, what I'm seeing is the movement itself is based on racism.

How can you NOT read it that way?

The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

To him, the tea party is "all about race". You have to really twist his words to reach the conclusion you are suggesting.

[KingMerv00]

I should have quoted samm as that was a response to that members post.

I know. I was defending him.

[samm]

If you choose not to vote, why then do you choose to enter into political discussions at all?
Politics is a branch of philosophy. I'm just offering a possible path of reasoning.

By raising my hand and saying I have experienced what they claim is not possible, then you or someone else who may think like the article (that it is not possible) may then choose to examine it in another light.

Personally I'm in favor of discrimination. Being subjected to it throughout my life made me a stronger person. However when I was younger and in the thick of it as the subject, I was pissed. But that is tangential to your thread and should not be discussed here.

[Random]

The TP movement is a giant blank sheet of paper that you can (and are encouraged to) project whatever opinions and attitudes you want onto it. Low taxes, keeping “other people” from taking over, Christian dominionism, supporting a police state, opposing a police state, gun rights, fiscal responsibility, supporting big business, opposing big business, etc. They just say to the crowds, “We are Conservatives. We support the good things and oppose the bad things”, then leave it to individuals in the crowds to decide what is good and what is bad. It doesn’t really matter what your actual beliefs are, all that matters in the end to the TP movement is that when the time comes, you vote for the guy with the “R” after his name.

It’s basically the populist face of the Great Conservative Walkback. They had the White house, Senate, House, and Supreme Court. They had everything they needed to implement their ideology. It turned into a giant disaster. Rather then question if their ideology was flawed, they are using a “no true conservative” argument, tied up with a “liberals are the enemy” ribbon. Convince the rubes that the problem was implementation, not the ideology, then create an “enemy” that they have to be united against, and voila! A brand spanking new Conservative movement.

A fresh coat of paint for a termite infested house.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wouldn't say the Tea Party is "all about race", but I also think it's a legitimate criticism to note that there is racism in the party (and to a greater degree than in most other political organizations, certainly those with mainstream aspirations).

I think the Tea Party movement was primarily a reaction against the rise of Obama to prominence in the presidential race. Claims that it's primarily about government transparency or fiscal responsibility don't wash simply because a great many Tea Baggers are people who supported the Bush administration.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure he can point out some loons but you can do that in any political movement.

I think the broad brush is unfair and I'm no fan of the tea party.

At the very least, you have to admit that the Tea Party has more than its fair share of loons. I think it's got more than its fair share of racists, too. Though I would agree that racism isn't what unites the movement.

Nothing unites the movement.

That's why every time I point out the lunacy of an apparent Tea Party spokesman, defenders of the movement claim that person or organization isn't the real Tea Party.

[rjwould]

How can you NOT read it that way?



To him, the tea party is "all about race". You have to really twist his words to reach the conclusion you are suggesting.I would agree if he said "tea party membership is all about race." In my opinion hes referring to the organization. Choosing a couple of people as examples does mean hes implying all the members are racist, though they very well may be for all we know.

Lets take it from your angle though. What kind of people do you think this kind of behavior attracts, or put another way yet; what kind of person do you think it turns off?

http://dipshitconservatives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/teapartypic.jpg

[Ziggurat]

Bob Cesca makes a compelling case it is.

No he doesn't. In fact, he hardly makes a case at all. Let's take a look:

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race.

So he arrives at racism merely through a process of elimination. But what, exactly, did he eliminate on his way there? Strawmen, really. There's nothing nonsensical or contradictory about thinking that government has grown too large and is spending too much. You don't have to agree with that position, but it's at the heart of the tea party movement, and it's got nothing to do with race.

Anyway, Cesca's piece in the Huffington Post (I know the Huffington Post is not like that bastion of credible news, Fox, but go with it for just a short read) offers some insights worth considering.

Well, no. It offers no insights whatsoever. It's a tired and threadbare accusation which gets trotted out to avoid actual substantive discussion. Are there racists in the tea party movement? Sure. Nutbags get drawn to any powerful political movement that they think can further their own petty grievances. Just recall all the Marxists who showed up at anti-Bush rallies. As for Cesca's claim that the left has no equivalent racism, well, I'm afraid he's wrong there too. Plenty of anti-semites find a home among the hard left's "pacifists". Is it "all about race"? Not even close.

Let me leave you with this bit from the Texas tea party, who responded to Keith Olbermann's accusation of racism:
hMdPTpOyUk4

[JoeTheJuggler]

So he arrives at racism merely through a process of elimination.

And worse, his logic implies that racism is rational (if it's what's left after you strip away rage and nonsensical stuff and contradictions).

I haven't read the piece, but this alone makes me not at all interested in reading it.

[KingMerv00]

At the very least, you have to admit that the Tea Party has more than its fair share of loons. I think it's got more than its fair share of racists, too.

I'd probably agree to that. It seems like they have a few too many birthers, truthers, and Glenn Beck fear mongers in the mix.

[KingMerv00]

I would agree if he said "tea party membership is all about race." In my opinion hes referring to the organization. Choosing a couple of people as examples does mean hes implying all the members are racist, though they very well may be for all we know.

I think you are making a distinction without a difference. If an organization is "all about race" then membership in the organization is "all about race".

Lets take it from your angle though. What kind of people do you think this kind of behavior attracts, or put another way yet; what kind of person do you think it turns off?

All grassroots movements whether they come from the left or right wing tend to pick up an excessive number of angry people. The problem with anger is that it stops you from thinking clearly.

[GreNME]

Let me leave you with this bit from the Texas tea party, who responded to Keith Olbermann's accusation of racism:
hMdPTpOyUk4

That would be the Dallas Tea Party, and I find that funny since I live in Dallas and has seen some of the Tea Partier crowds. The folks in the video are nowhere near representative of a typical TP crowd here in Dallas when they gather, and it was obviously an attempt to redirect a typical Oblerman bluster attack back at him (and his "MSM Librul" network). Sadly, the TP crowd here in Dallas does consist of a huge number of racists, but they aren't the majority and that much is actually accurate in the video. The majority groups of the Dallas Tea Party are extreme fundamentalist (as in Creationism and teaching "the Bible" in schools) Christians, a lot of whom attend the dozens of megachurches here in the area where the TP-ers get to hand out leaflets and "raise awareness" to the thousands of folks ushering through them every Sunday-- anything but actually having the preacher actually start sermonizing during services, since the churches don't want to lose their tax exempt status.

Like KingMerv00, I think the article from the OP tries too hard to paint with a broad brush and in doing so produces an inaccurate picture of the group as a whole. The Tea Party groups aren't held together by racism, they're held together by populism and fear. As a result, racists and even a few smaller racist groups are naturally attracted to the Tea Parties since the core of racism is fear-based and prone to populist appeals. It's a plain reality that white power and militia groups are heavily represented in the Tea Party ranks, and attempts to avoid this reality are simply confirmation bias. However, that doesn't mean that the core or foundations of the Tea Party are based on these groups being represented, because as Random already pointed out (and well-put, by the way) the Tea Party is essentially a tabula rasa where people who sympathize with them project their own conservative anger onto the group and have it reflected back as the stance and principles of the Tea Party "movement."

[dudalb]

The problem the Tea Party movement has is it has not yet learned that welcoming racists and extremist in always hurts you in the long run.
I think the Tea Party movement will fragment; already a lot of libertarians are breaking with it over the rising power of the Christian Wing which seems to want to make it a
Christian Political Movement.
WHich would be ironic since openly confessional political movements have never done well in the US.

[Skeptic]

Seems like the usual "if you don't agree with me, you're a RACIST!" stuff from the "Puffing-ton Host", as it is called by its detractors.

[rjwould]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years? Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit? Didn't Bush and the republicans increase Medicare (entitlement) spending?

What about all the reference and symbolism to slavery?

To me it looks like its a message that the white man is now the slave of the black plantation owner (Obama). And the white man ain't takin' no marchin' orders from no black man. Perhaps thats whats behind the republican resistance to anything 'Obama."

Why all this activity after Obama took the oath?

[rjwould]

I think you are making a distinction without a difference. If an organization is "all about race" then membership in the organization is "all about race".



All grassroots movements whether they come from the left or right wing tend to pick up an excessive number of angry people. The problem with anger is that it stops you from thinking clearly.No comment on the photo? that was the founder of the tea party movement in that picture. The angry people you refer to are the founders and originators of this organization.

[rjwould]

No he doesn't. In fact, he hardly makes a case at all. Let's take a look:



So he arrives at racism merely through a process of elimination. But what, exactly, did he eliminate on his way there? Strawmen, really. There's nothing nonsensical or contradictory about thinking that government has grown too large and is spending too much. You don't have to agree with that position, but it's at the heart of the tea party movement, and it's got nothing to do with race.



Well, no. It offers no insights whatsoever. It's a tired and threadbare accusation which gets trotted out to avoid actual substantive discussion. Are there racists in the tea party movement? Sure. Nutbags get drawn to any powerful political movement that they think can further their own petty grievances. Just recall all the Marxists who showed up at anti-Bush rallies. As for Cesca's claim that the left has no equivalent racism, well, I'm afraid he's wrong there too. Plenty of anti-semites find a home among the hard left's "pacifists". Is it "all about race"? Not even close.

Let me leave you with this bit from the Texas tea party, who responded to Keith Olbermann's accusation of racism:
hMdPTpOyUk4You've based this entire post on one sentence, and you're claiming the author of the piece is narrow minded? And you also call what you done here (critiquing one sentence) "taking a look?"

[NoScotsman]

Seems like the usual "if you don't agree with me, you're a RACIST!" stuff from the "Puffing-ton Host", as it is called by its detractors.

Crying racism is a good way of stifling real debate ... of dismissing someone so you don't have to argue substantive points. Pointing out one racist in a sea of thousands is all takes.... It's like when Republicans dismissed the anti-war movement based on the 9-11 conspiracy crowd that populated the anti-war rallies ... they didn't want to discuss the actual merits of the debate.

In the case of the tea-party crowd ... I'm not sure what they are complaining about. Maybe it's because all I've read about them are knee-jerk opinion pieces like the article on HuffPost.

As usual, this job of actually uncovering the truth will be left to political pollsters --you know ... scientists ... those rare folks actually interested in discovering the truth.

[Brainster]

Cesca must have one of those secret decoder rings that tells him that everything is about race. I love this part, where he quotes the New York Times:

SANDPOINT, Idaho -- Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college.

But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated -- even manufactured -- by both parties to grab power.

Using his decoder ring, Cesca discovers that Mrs Stout is a racist. How?

Now you might be saying to yourself, I don't see the racism here. But if you eliminate all of the reasons for Stout's participation in the tea party movement as being contradictory or nonsensical, all that's left is race.

But of course what Cesca sees as nonsensical and contradictory may not be to the folks involved, who are not, after all, monolithic. For example:

She claims to be against the bank bailouts, but the tea party is against the president's bank fee designed to recover the TARP money.

But is Mrs Sand opposed to the president's bank fee? Is the "tea party" itself opposed to the bank fees? Cesca provides no evidence to back up this claim. I found a tweet from the Racine Tea Party saying:

Obama to announce bank fees on Thursday, which in turn will result in higher fees to customers. Thanks again Obama; for nothing!

It's certainly possible that the banks will just pass the fee on to their customers; of course it's also possible that they'll take it out of the dividends they pay to their shareholders.

[AvalonXQ]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years? Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit?

Yes, they did. Which made a lot of people very unhappy.
At the tea party I walked around up here, just about every sign that mentioned Obama actually condemned Bush and Obama, together, for their role in growing government and entitlement.
These people, by and large, aren't any happier with big-government Republicans than they are with Democrats.

[samm]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years?

For those with short memories or revisionist history sources:

These people have always been around.

The tea party is the spiritual decendent of many things. More recently though, in the early 1990s there was the Perot campaign without which Clinton would never have been elected into office. (This campaign siphoned off votes from both Bush Sr.--as well as the libertarian candidate.)

Perot's loss led to a diffusion of those supporters. Meanwhile, the libertarian party was having internal political troubles of its own (read not on the ball). The corruption of the Clinton administration led voters to swing to support Bush Jr. after 8 years. With the libertarians still in a mess and the bizarreness of the Bush administration, the disatisfied segment swung toward the "the Ron Paul Revolution". Once that avenue proved unsuccessful this segment settled into the Tea Party.

Immediately the republicans, displaying a rare cleverness, realized that they needed these guys, so as fast as they can they said, "I'm a tea party and so's my wife" Palin and others are running to the front of the crowd in order to steer them back to the republican side. Meanwhile the some hapless libertarians have been squeakily trying to say, "we're for freedom too... I mean first"...

The left sees the republicans may be successful in getting a hold of this segment as they did for the Bush jr. election and so you have them (Dems) doing everything they can to demonize them.

[Denver]

...More recently though, in the early 1990s there was the Perot campaign without which Clinton would never have been elected into office. (This campaign siphoned off votes from both Bush Sr.--as well as the libertarian candidate.)..

Perhaps a bit off topic, but my recollection was Perot's votes were siphoned equally from Bush and Clinton. There still seems to be contention about that either way but it doesn't seem certain that Clinton would have not won if Perot had not been involved.

[JoeTheJuggler]

For those with short memories or revisionist history sources:

These people have always been around.

Yeah, right.

The Tea Party movement as we know it is a reaction against Obama's ascendancy leading up to his election as president.

These people, largely from the right, were not criticizing the Bush administration over its massive spending and shoddy (or nonexistent) accounting particularly wrt the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were not clamoring for transparency in government during the Bush administration.

[samm]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but my recollection was Perot's votes were siphoned equally from Bush and Clinton. There still seems to be contention about that either way but it doesn't seem certain that Clinton would have not won if Perot had not been involved.
You can find any number of sources that will say anything. You can believe me or doubt me and it makes no difference. I will not try and prove it to you. But the only truth you need to take away from this is that there is always a dissatisfied segment (you can look back into the 60s and find one).
That segment is going to be larger as the two main parties wield more power and they will coalesce at certain times based on leaders or ideas that have popularity.

And racism has nothing to do with it.

[samm]

These people, largely from the right, were not criticizing the Bush administration over its massive spending and shoddy (or nonexistent) accounting particularly wrt the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were not clamoring for transparency in government during the Bush administration.
Look just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean they weren't screaming. I saw them everywhere but I don't rely on the same nightly news that nodded their heads when Bush said WMD in Iraq.

[KingMerv00]

Why all this activity after Obama took the oath?

Because Obama is a Democrat. It is that simple. If Obama had been white, the same thing would have happened...well minus the N-word sign.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's the history as reported in Wikipedia. What part do you disagree with?

This is the current usage of the term "Tea Party movement".

February 1st, 2009 "tea bag campaign"
On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a portfolio manager for an investment firm[41] posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate".[42] The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout." [43]

Forum moderator, Stephanie Jasky helped organize the group and "get it to go viral."[44] Jasky is also the founder and director of FedUpUSA - a fiscally conservative, non-partisan activist group that describes themselves as "a group of investors" who sprung out of the market-ticker.org forums.[45] The group had previously held DC protests in 2008.[46][47] On January 19, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation "to a commemorative tea party."[48] She suggested they all send tea bags on the same day (February 1, 2009) in a coordinated effort.[44]

The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO),[49] published his own write-up on the proposed protest, titled "Tea Party February 1st?," which was posted in direct response to President Obama's innauguration occurring on the same day, and railed against the bailouts, the US national debt and "the fraud and abuse in our banking and financial system" which included the predatory lending practices currently at the center of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis.[50] Karl Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA in the wake of the March 2008 Federal Reserve bail out of Bear Sterns, had been a guest on both Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports.[51][52] By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign.[53]
On February 11, talk radio host and Fox Business Network personality Dave Ramsey appeared on Fox and Friends, waving tea bags and saying "It's time for a Tea Party." [54][when?] He was on the show criticizing the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who that morning had outlined his plan to use the $300 billion or so dollars remaining in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. He intended to use $50 billion for foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks.[55]

This is the inception of the current Tea Party movement. The earlier actions and protests that made use of the term "Tea Party" have no continuity with the current movement, and were nothing like as widespread.

At most, I'd say you can trace its beginnings back to Ron Paul's stuff during the campaign.

ETA: Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#History).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because Obama is a Democrat. It is that simple. If Obama had been white, the same thing would have happened...well minus the N-word sign.

Probably so. Or if Hillary had won, we'd probably see a similar reactionary movement, though without the racist elements.

[KingMerv00]

No comment on the photo? that was the founder of the tea party movement in that picture. The angry people you refer to are the founders and originators of this organization.

No, the angry people to which I referred were the average run-of-the-mill anti-federalists who make up the bulk of the tea party. There is nothing inherently racist about anti-federalism.

Maybe the founders are racist but that doesn't mean the party is "all about race".

[rjwould]

Yes, they did. Which made a lot of people very unhappy.
At the tea party I walked around up here, just about every sign that mentioned Obama actually condemned Bush and Obama, together, for their role in growing government and entitlement.
These people, by and large, aren't any happier with big-government Republicans than they are with Democrats.That just looks like cover to me. Had they really been upset with Bush, they would have made the noise starting way back before now.

[KingMerv00]

That just looks like cover to me. Had they really been upset with Bush, they would have made the noise starting way back before now.

Rush, Beck, and his crew were bashing Bush back then for his spending.

Obama is going even farther than the previous president though. The Tea Party is reacting now because they think things have gotten to or will soon reach a breaking point.

Just to be clear, I'm am fairly liberal and there are plenty of legitimate ways to attack the tea party movement. I only object to attacking them for spurious reasons.

[JoeTheJuggler]

At the tea party I walked around up here, just about every sign that mentioned Obama actually condemned Bush and Obama, together, for their role in growing government and entitlement.

I'm not sure how to phrase this politely, but I doubt very much that Bush was criticized "just about" once for every criticism of Obama at any Tea Party event. That is not what I have seen at all.

It's certainly not what we heard at the National Tea Party convention, and it's not what we were hearing from Tea Baggers attending disrupting Town Hall meetings on healthcare reform.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Rush, Beck, and his crew were bashing Bush back then for his spending.

Really?

I heard nothing but cheering from Rush about Bush's spending in Iraq. I only heard him defend Bush from criticism over the cost of the war.

I never listen to Beck, but I'd need to see some examples of this Bush bashing by either of these two.

[rjwould]

No, the angry people to which I referred were the average run-of-the-mill anti-federalists who make up the bulk of the tea party. There is nothing inherently racist about anti-federalism.They weren't so loudly anti federalist until Obama took the oath of office. Still no comment on the photo. Why not? I really am curious!

In that photo Robertson misspells the 'n' word by placing an 'a' where the 'e' would have been. Thinking about that, I just have this sneaking suspicion that that 'a stands for 'Aryan' with the convenience of the 'r' following for 'race'.

There is currently a blog listing on the home page of the the tea party's website referencing the movie Blazing Saddles. It then refers to a couple of white actors in the movie, but again, I can imagine that as cover. If my memory serves me, wasn't Blazing Saddles the movie with the black sheriff? (The black sheriff symbolizing Obama.)

[Ziggurat]

You've based this entire post on one sentence

No. I'm only bothering to quote one sentence.

and you're claiming the author of the piece is narrow minded?

I have no idea if he's narrow minded. I don't claim to know anything about the man as an individual. But I do know that the argument he constructs is garbage. It's filled to the brim with strawmen where it isn't simply wrong. He uses the example of racist individuals to claim racism on the part of the entire movement - and yes, while he may try to make it sound like he's not saying that, that's exactly the message that is sent by saying it's "about race".

And you also call what you done here (critiquing one sentence) "taking a look?"

I didn't say "let's dissect this article line by line", or "let's do a thorough critique of this article" for a reason.

[Ziggurat]

Really?

I heard nothing but cheering from Rush about Bush's spending in Iraq.

That's a different objection. Defending spending on one item or issue does not mean you can't criticize spending levels on other programs, or even spending levels in general.

I never listen to Beck, but I'd need to see some examples of this Bush bashing by either of these two.

I don't have the time to look now, but Beck has been harping about Bush's spending for a LONG time, and he was very opposed to the whole TARP thing which Bush started. It really shouldn't be hard to find examples.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm happy to cede the point that there are Tea Baggers who are simply anti-federalists, or fiscal conservatives (i.e. people who hold rational, legitimate political views that I happen to disagree with). But the movement as it stands is largely a reaction to Obama's election, and there are a lot of nut-job extremists in the movement.

The problem is that the "Tea Party movement" is not a single thing. So it's fine to say that Dale Robertson doesn't speak for the Tea Party. But by the same logic, no one else does either.

That's why I say that nothing unites the movement because it's not a united movement. The Wiki article cites an AP reporter giving the following analysis of what unites the movement:

According to political correspondent Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press, the Tea Party movement "an ideological mix of libertarianism and conservativism with the common denominator being lower spending and smaller government."[87] Tea Partiers often claim "Government is too big. Spending is out of control. Individual freedom is at risk. And President Barack Obama's policies are making it all worse." But that's where the consensus ends among the diverse groups of frustrated Americans who count themselves part of this fledgling coalition.[87]

I'd say that's about right. I think the inclusion of Obama by name would have to be in any statement of what is a Tea Party consensus, though I'd say it's more accurate to say there is no consensus.

[rjwould]

Rush, Beck, and his crew were bashing Bush back then for his spending.

Obama is going even farther than the previous president though. The Tea Party is reacting now because they think things have gotten to or will soon reach a breaking point.

Just to be clear, I'm am fairly liberal and there are plenty of legitimate ways to attack the tea party movement. I only object to attacking them for spurious reasons.Obama is doing everything Bush or McCain would have done. In fact, hes taken a lot of criticism for not doing more.

The conservative media may have been yelling during Bush, but the tea party wasn't. The Fox asylum gets paid to yell, so thats what they do. The point is the tea party didn't begin this chorus of theirs until Obama.

I'm sorry but I just can't imagine they'd be doing this with McCain in office.

Obama has overseen the largest middle class tax cut to date. The so called government takeover of the health care system (what system?) is anything but a government takeover. The guy (Obama) is shoveling money out to the private sector to stimulate the economy, but the private sector is not hiring, at least not as of yet.

If the Tea Party does not object to Obama as a person (racially), then show me something legitimate they can hate him for politically.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a different objection. Defending spending on one item or issue does not mean you can't criticize spending levels on other programs, or even spending levels in general.

So the criticism of Obama is actually a criticism of social spending and not really an anti-federal position in favor of fiscal responsibility? (I'd go along with that. They're hiding other political positions behind the guise of fiscal conservatism.)

In other words, it's OK for billions of dollars to disappear with no accounting and to drop a trillion or so on an elective war (and it's OK to grant no bid contracts and so on), but when it comes to healthcare, we have to account for every cent.

(Yes, Bush vetoed the S-CHIP expansion calling it "fiscally irresponsible" not long after it was revealed that something like $10 billion in Iraq was spent with no accounting whatsoever. We don't know where it went, and we never will. A lot of it was dispersed as bundles of cash.)

I would be surprised if Rush addressed this except to deny it or otherwise defend Bush. (Again, I don't know about Beck.)

[AvalonXQ]

In that photo Robertson misspells the 'n' word by placing an 'a' where the 'e' would have been. Thinking about that, I just have this sneaking suspicion that that 'a stands for 'Aryan' with the convenience of the 'r' following for 'race'.

...
... are you seriously proposing this?

[Denver]

That's a different objection. Defending spending on one item or issue does not mean you can't criticize spending levels on other programs, or even spending levels in general.



I don't have the time to look now, but Beck has been harping about Bush's spending for a LONG time, and he was very opposed to the whole TARP thing which Bush started. It really shouldn't be hard to find examples.

If I recall, Beck (and the rest of talk radio) began giving Bush the cold shoulder only after the Dems took congress in 2006, and they saw the writing on the wall for 2008.

[rjwould]

...
... are you seriously proposing this?Offer me a reasonable explanation for the misspelling!

[rjwould]

If I recall, Beck (and the rest of talk radio) began giving Bush the cold shoulder only after the Dems took congress in 2006, and they saw the writing on the wall for 2008.Lame Duck treatment. Thats all that was. They elected the guy twice for god's sake.

[Ziggurat]

So the criticism of Obama is actually a criticism of social spending and not really an anti-federal position in favor of fiscal responsibility? (I'd go along with that. They're hiding other political positions behind the guise of fiscal conservatism.)

Both criticisms exist. Some people ascribe to only one of them (and not always the same one), some people to both.

[NoScotsman]

Just to be clear, I'm am fairly liberal and there are plenty of legitimate ways to attack the tea party movement. I only object to attacking them for spurious reasons.

We skeptics certainly do ruffle feathers ... often the feathers of folks we are in general agreement with.

I had this experience with the latest Iraq War... Despite being anti-war myself, I spent most of my time attacking the woo of fellow anti-war folks. On an intellectual level, they offended me EVEN MORE than the pro-war folks ... because, well, I didn't want to be associated with their illogic.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Offer me a reasonable explanation for the misspelling!

Dale Robertson is an idiot who doesn't spell very well?

Or maybe he thought it'd somehow be less offensive if he misspelled it?

Or it was a mistake (sometimes making poster-sized letters, it's easy to do something like draw the wrong letter, and when you notice, it's too late to change it)?

I can think of several that are more parsimonious than what you're suggesting.

[JoeTheJuggler]

We skeptics certainly do ruffle feathers ... often the feathers of folks we are in general agreement with.

I had this experience with the latest Iraq War... Despite being anti-war myself, I spent most of my time attacking the woo of fellow anti-war folks. On an intellectual level, they offended me EVEN MORE than the pro-war folks ... because, well, I didn't want to be associated with their illogic.

Ditto. In fact, I find myself far more hostile to the 9/11 CTers than I do to Tea Baggers or anyone on the right.

I think they harmed those of us with strong legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration.

However. . . in the context of this discussion, deflecting criticism of the Tea Party movement by noting that there are nutjobs and wackos in the left is simply a tu quoque argument. That there are 9/11 CTers on the left does not change the fact that there are racists in the Tea Party movement.

[rjwould]

Dale Robertson is an idiot who doesn't spell very well?

Or maybe he thought it'd somehow be less offensive if he misspelled it?

I can think of several that are more parsimonious than what you're suggesting.The first one is not reasonable. Even had he not known how to spell the word, he could have asked someone else, or I'm sure somebody pointed it out to him voluntarily.

The second is plausible, but that supports my argument.

My suggestion fits because it is a clever way to reverse the order of slavery. And slavery is what they keep talking about. The 'e' represents black slaves of the white-man and the 'a' represents white slaves of the black-man (Obama). Hence whites are the new n@#$$&r, and middle class white people of say 30 and over won't like that idea at all. Its a way to tap into fear and infuriate people.

Its what I'd do if I were him.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The first one is not reasonable. Even had he not known how to spell the word, he could have asked someone else, or I'm sure somebody pointed it out to him voluntarily.
And do you know this didn't happen? I'd bet money that when he held it at the protest that dozens if not hundreds of people pointed out that he spelled it wrong. I'll bet many people probably had other comments about it too.

In fact, I think my first suggestion was the most likely of all that have been offered, but far more likely than the one you suggest (which I think is trying to read significance that isn't there).

The second is plausible, but that supports my argument.
No it doesn't.

ETA: Let's be clear--your "argument" was that the "a" was meant to stand for "Aryan"--not the general notion that the misspelling may have been intentional.

It could be that he'd seen the word "niggardly" used and noted that no one considered it to be offensive or insulting. He may have thought that spelling it the way he did was to use the word that is not a racial slur. (Of course, if he thought that, he's wrong, but I see no problem with an explanation that depends on Robertson being wrong.)

[The Painter]

Is The Tea Party All About Race?

The answer is NO. Now all you socialists may want it to be, but it isn't. Oh well, you are wrong again.

[Random]

It could be that he'd seen the word "niggardly" used and noted that no one considered it to be offensive or insulting. He may have thought that spelling it the way he did was to use the word that is not a racial slur. (Of course, if he thought that, he's wrong, but I see no problem with an explanation that depends on Robertson being wrong.)

If that's the case it is still misspelled. It would be spelled "niggard". It also wouldn't make much sense in the context of the sign. "Congress = Slaveholder, Taxpayer = <Miser/Scrooge/Fusser of unimportant details>" doesn't make much sense. The two words have completely different backgrounds and meanings.

[quixotecoyote]

The answer is NO. Now all you socialists may want it to be, but it isn't. Oh well, you are wrong again.

:dl:

[fuelair]

Tea Partiers are just simple coprophagic microcephalic conservative Americans with a paucity of skill sets and abilities.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If that's the case it is still misspelled. It would be spelled "niggard". It also wouldn't make much sense in the context of the sign. "Congress = Slaveholder, Taxpayer = <Miser/Scrooge/Fusser of unimportant details>" doesn't make much sense. The two words have completely different backgrounds and meanings.

I know. As I said, an explanation that relies on Dale Robertson being wrong (or using the language wrong) isn't necessarily a bad one. I think any of the ones I suggested are more likely than the one rjwould is suggesting.

[Cain]

I didn't really read through this thread because there was too much blather about the Tea Party movement being based on racism. It isn't, as far as I can tell. It's a protest movement, and of course it's going to attract a significant number of crazy racists because the Right has reliably summoned their support for years (see also the "Minute Men" from a few years ago). The best part of the article was the beginning, in comparing such movements to the mainstream:

I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention."

The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all.

Left-wing groups never ever, ever have this much sway. The conservative media/establishment is obscenely good at framing issues and setting up boogymen. What they did with Acorn was nothing less than brilliant (or vile). Hardcore groups have a foothold in the party.

[MikeMangum]

Bob Cesca makes a compelling case it is.

No. He makes no case at all beyond: "I don't believe any of the things these people do and no bien pensant could, so their true motivation MUST be racism. There, I've proved it!"

If you are really interested in finding out whether or not the Tea Party movement is based primarily on racism or not, you could actually look at what they believe instead of taking the word of their ideological enemies who are trying to portray them as racist for political reasons...unless of course, that's what you are trying to do.

Here's one of the platforms described at Newsweek (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/02/06/blue-print-of-a-tea-party-platform.aspx):
It’s broken into two parts: fiscal reform and election reform—social programs aren’t included—and the idea is to get candidates to sign it as a pledge before they get tea-party support.

Now, I know that liberals can find racist code in simplest thing, like referring to someone as professor (http://www.allamericanblogger.com/9818/move-over-articulate-the-new-racist-code-word-is-professor/), but "fiscal reform" doesn't strike me as code for anything...it really seems like they might actually be primarily concerned about government spending. That seems to be corroborated by all the protest signs that focus on taxes, spending, budget deficits. Try a simple Google image search for "tea party protest signs" (here, I'll help (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=tea+party+protest+signs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=HKCVS9KnAZK2swPZ_IyDBw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQsAQwBA)) and look at what shows up. From the first picture, a sing about the fair tax and "don't make our kids fund your greed". Second picture "found in a dumpster behind the capital" (picture of the constitution). Third picture is a bunch of different anti-healthcare signs. 4th picture has a bunch of signs about taxes, spending, bailouts, socialism, etc. 5th picture, "stop stealing from workers to pay deadbeats". 6th, "give me liberty, don't give me debt". 7th is about healthcare. 8th, "I am only 11, why am I paying your mortgage"...they mostly seem to be taxes, spending, bailouts. But I guess those are all just code for the issue that really matter to them, which just must be racist, in spite of any actual evidence to that end.


Here's essentially a forum where people vote on what should be in a Tea Party platform:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0202/Contract-from-America-tea-party-crafts-its-election-manifesto
But protest only goes so far. All legitimate movements need a manifesto. So now at least one group of tea partyers is turning directly to “we the people” by using technology in an unprecedented way: build a party platform from the bottom up.

Taking cues from the “Contract with America” that led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, a group known as Tea Party Patriots used a website to gather ideas for what they're calling the Contract from America.

if you actually go to the contract from america site and look at the forums, you'll see the following ideas:

RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT
PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER
GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN
ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM
DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET
END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING
STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION at the BORDERS
PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM22
REJECT CAP & TRADE
PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE
STOP THE TAX HIKES
COMMIT TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
PASS MARKET-BASED HEALTHCARE & HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
LET US SAVE
PASS AN "ALL OF THE ABOVE" ENERGY POLICY
PROTECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
SUNSET REGULATIONS & ENACT FUNDAMENTAL REGULATORY REFORM
STOP THE PORK

I guess "REJECT CAP & TRADE" is really code for "go get get your white hood, Jethro" and "PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS" really means "WHITE POWER!".

Or...

this could all be an attempt to demonize ideological foes. Naw, couldn't be. The easiest explanation is that "PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS" really is code for "WHITE POWER!"

[Arcade22]

Disagree with Obama = racist who just wants the Negroes to go back onto the cotton fields where they can work themselves to death. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b95a5293b7f3.gif

[tyr_13]

Disagree with Obama = racist who just wants the Negroes to go back onto the cotton fields where they can work themselves to death. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b95a5293b7f3.gif

No. While I disagree that the Tea Parties are all about race, there is a disproportionate amount of racism displayed by their members, and very little condemnation from other baggers. Sure there has been some, but come on now.

[rjwould]

Figuring this thread may die out soon, I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who participated in it.

The discourse was fair, respectful and very, very intelligent in most cases. I learned a lot from you folks. I hope I was able to keep up a little.

I hadn't been around here in quite a while. You all make this a great forum.

Thanks again.

[MikeMangum]

No. While I disagree that the Tea Parties are all about race, there is a disproportionate amount of racism displayed by their members, and very little condemnation from other baggers. Sure there has been some, but come on now.

Could you provide examples of the "disproportionate amount of racism" displayed by tea party demonstrators?

[tyr_13]

Could you provide examples of the "disproportionate amount of racism" displayed by tea party demonstrators?

No. This has already been explained to you, with examples, in other threads. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la," doesn't get you a pass.

The movement having a lot of racists in it does not discredit what they stand for. Unfortunately as all they stand for are 'we hate Obama' (and don't you think you can get away with asking for evidence of this because you participated in many of the threads trying to figure out exactly what they really stand for), it's hard to not notice all the other little crazy parts (like rampent hypocrisy).

Again, this doesn't discredit any specific point any random 'Tea Party leader' might stand for. It is troubling however.

[Skeptic]

Crying racism is a good way of stifling real debate ... of dismissing someone so you don't have to argue substantive points. Pointing out one racist in a sea of thousands is all takes.... It's like when Republicans dismissed the anti-war movement based on the 9-11 conspiracy crowd that populated the anti-war rallies ... they didn't want to discuss the actual merits of the debate.

Alas, I agree on both points. Still, I would say that on the whole the anti-war demonstrations had a far higher proportion of the loonies in it than the tea party.

[Skeptic]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years? Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit? Didn't Bush and the republicans increase Medicare (entitlement) spending?

So where is all the anti-war movement now? Isn't Obama still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There is ONLY ONE EXPLANATION. The Democrats are RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.

(Well, it's either that, or that it's the usual Democratic - Republican partisanship... but, because it's Democratic partisanship, no pseudo-intellectuals claim the "real reason" is racism).

[tyr_13]

So where is all the anti-war movement now? Isn't Obama still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There is ONLY ONE EXPLANATION. The Democrats are RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.

(Well, it's either that, or that it's the usual Democratic - Republican partisanship... but, because it's Democratic partisanship, no pseudo-intellectuals claim the "real reason" is racism).

Or they were angry at the people who, you know, started the wars?

Oh, have you not heard about the combat troop withdraw from Iraq as well?


But I agree that it is reasonable to assume that the anti-tax people are really only for their tax money going to kill people, and not for medical care! :D (This is a joke by the way, I don't think the Tea Baggers really want to kill people more than they want to help people.)

[rjwould]

So where is all the anti-war movement now? Isn't Obama still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

There is ONLY ONE EXPLANATION. The Democrats are RACIST AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.

(Well, it's either that, or that it's the usual Democratic - Republican partisanship... but, because it's Democratic partisanship, no pseudo-intellectuals claim the "real reason" is racism).Off topic!

[Arcade22]

No. While I disagree that the Tea Parties are all about race, there is a disproportionate amount of racism displayed by their members, and very little condemnation from other baggers. Sure there has been some, but come on now.

Of course some of them are going to use the fact that Obama is black as a way to attack him, just like the way some liberals used the folksy demeanor Bush showed to attack him.

[Ziggurat]

No. This has already been explained to you, with examples, in other threads. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la," doesn't get you a pass.

Nor do examples. Examples are anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data. How can you distinguish between a "disproportionate" amount of racism (what's a proportionate amount, anyways?) and a disproportionate amount of press coverage of whatever racism is there? Well, you can't. Maybe there is, but the fact that it looks like there is doesn't constitute proof, and it doesn't even constitute much evidence. Racism at tea party conventions might just be the new summer of shark attacks.

[Suddenly]

Article is out to lunch.

The tea party is about frustrated populist stupidity. Race tends to factor into that a bit for some people, but that is the nature of the beast. You are never going to have an anti-government movement that is bigot free.

[KingMerv00]

They weren't so loudly anti federalist until Obama took the oath of office.

Three reasons:

1) Obama is a Democrat and thus farther away from their ideals overall.

2) Conservatism and hawkishness tend to correllate so Bush was not opposed for his war policies.

3) Conservative anti-federalists tend to recognize the federal government's right to wage war since it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. National healthcare and other social programs come largely from common law so the tea party tends to oppose them on constitutional grounds.

Still no comment on the photo. Why not? I really am curious!

Because it isn't worth much. One guy, even the founder, does not a movement make.

In that photo Robertson misspells the 'n' word by placing an 'a' where the 'e' would have been. Thinking about that, I just have this sneaking suspicion that that 'a stands for 'Aryan' with the convenience of the 'r' following for 'race'.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
------Robert Hanlon

[Donal]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years?

It was a small bunch of local groups in Suburbia that hadn't been highjacked by Beck and Limbaugh. Also, the economy hadn't totally collapsed yet.

Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit? Didn't Bush and the republicans increase Medicare (entitlement) spending?

Thats what the groups in my area that you would call Tea Parties claimed.

What about all the reference and symbolism to slavery?

What about all the references to Nazism when Bush was i nthe White House? Does that completely discredit his detractors as well? Or can we agree that both sides will have over dramatic whiners mugging for the camera?

To me it looks like its a message that the white man is now the slave of the black plantation owner (Obama). And the white man ain't takin' no marchin' orders from no black man. Perhaps thats whats behind the republican resistance to anything 'Obama."

Or it could be a group of people who felt disenfranchised by both parties and have now been highjacked by the opposition to the party in power.

Why all this activity after Obama took the oath?

It was around before. Its just gained more steam because there were more people upset with the federal government that last 2 and a half years and Beck and Limbaugh decided to jump on the bandwagon and bring their followers with them. The group got large, so it is attracting lots of nutjobs.

I'm not a TPier, but I don't think it helps the situation if you are just throwing out accusations that aren't based in reality.

[rjwould]

Three reasons:

1) Obama is a Democrat and thus farther away from their ideals overall.

2) Conservatism and hawkishness tend to correllate so Bush was not opposed for his war policies.

3) Conservative anti-federalists tend to recognize the federal government's right to wage war since it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. National healthcare and other social programs come largely from common law so the tea party tends to oppose them on constitutional grounds.
1) No he isn't! Why, because hes a democrat? Its was republicans that got Lieberman reelected to the senate.

2)They correlate in rhetoric only. Republicans practice the same politics as liberals, leaving only designated groups of favor as differences.

3) Most of this I dispute. But thats another subject.



Because it isn't worth much. One guy, even the founder, does not a movement make.Its a good thing religions, patriotic movements and civil rights organizations didn't know this.



"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
------Robert HanlonNever? Why not?

[KingMerv00]

1) No he isn't!

Are you saying "the parties are the same"? I never bought that argument. If they were the same, there wouldn't be deadlock in Congress.

Also, try mentioning abortion at a rally for each party. Compare reactions.

Why, because hes a democrat?

Because people will oppose people based solely on their political party. Us vs. them mentality.

2)They correlate in rhetoric only. Republicans practice the same politics as liberals, leaving only designated groups of favor as differences.

So they are the same except where they are different. I...agree?

3) Most of this I dispute. But thats another subject.

I think it is perfectly on topic but I'll leave that to you.

Its a good thing religions, patriotic movements and civil rights organizations didn't know this.

So one guy holding a racist sign makes the tea party all about race? How so?


Never? Why not?

Not my quote. My point was that you are assuming secret codes when it is simpler to assume stupidity.

[rjwould]

It was a small bunch of local groups in Suburbia that hadn't been highjacked by Beck and Limbaugh. Also, the economy hadn't totally collapsed yet.The economy still hasn't collapsed, and in fact is looking up in some sectors, especially conservative preferred area's such as the stock market. This is apparent due to tom Delay's latest diatribe that people are unemployed because they want to be.



what the groups in my area that you would call Tea Parties claimed. Only after the fact and Obama took office. I'm no big Obama fan myself, for the record.



What about all the references to Nazism when Bush was i nthe White House? Does that completely discredit his detractors as well? Or can we agree that both sides will have over dramatic whiners mugging for the camera?Highly positioned democrats weren't showing up at their conventions and pacs to give speeches, paid and otherwise.



Or it could be a group of people who felt disenfranchised by both parties and have now been highjacked by the opposition to the party in power.Its politics - feeling disenfranchised is a prerequisite of sorts. People have been felling that way since the inseption of politics, I'd imagine.



It was around before. Its just gained more steam because there were more people upset with the federal government that last 2 and a half years and Beck and Limbaugh decided to jump on the bandwagon and bring their followers with them. The group got large, so it is attracting lots of nutjobs.I'm not making the case anyone is a 'nutjob', my point is racism is alive and well and we're observing its latest incarnation.

I'm a complete believer in multi level group selection, and this group embodies an underlying evil idealism, IMO!

[rjwould]

Are you saying "the parties are the same"? I never bought that argument. If they were the same, there wouldn't be deadlock in Congress.Of course they are the same. They were brought up with identical nationalistic ideals (pledge of allegiance and all that), taught by the same educational system, wrestled with identical philosophical problems and were preached to or told the same stories.

I like to say democrats and republicans want to get to the same place and the only difference between the two is mode of transportation.

Also, try mentioning abortion at a rally for each party. Compare reactions.Ah! The species viability argument represented in religious terms. This argument is more about religion than anything else, IMO.



Because people will oppose people based solely on their political party. Us vs. them mentality.I agree. And that lends credence to the idea that most of these people are not in this for cognitive reasons, leaving emotionality as the main driving force!?


So one guy holding a racist sign makes the tea party all about race? How so?Its a question worth exploring. Its symbolic and suggestive of ideals which appeal to the more hostile parts of us.

Not my quote. My point was that you are assuming secret codes when it is simpler to assume stupidity.But we don't take the 'simpler' way, do we? We're thinking animals! (Or at least should be.)

[Ziggurat]

Of course they are the same. They were brought up with identical nationalistic ideals (pledge of allegiance and all that), taught by the same educational system, wrestled with identical philosophical problems and were preached to or told the same stories.

I like to say democrats and republicans want to get to the same place and the only difference between the two is mode of transportation.

And yet, you haven't said what that destination is, nor what alternative destinations might look like. So you are unable to actually explain how they are the same or what "different" might actually look. As for the idea that they're the same because they were raised in the same environment, you must not have any siblings or you'd know that hardly precludes major differences.

But we don't take the 'simpler' way, do we?

Actually, in general we do.

[rjwould]

And yet, you haven't said what that destination is, nor what alternative destinations might look like. So you are unable to actually explain how they are the same or what "different" might actually look. As for the idea that they're the same because they were raised in the same environment, you must not have any siblings or you'd know that hardly precludes major differences.Are you American? If so, where do you want to get to? Me, from our political system I expect what the constitution and bill of rights assures me. The opportunity and ability to exist safely, peaceably and free. I'm a socialist at heart!

Capitalism as we know it has failed. Democrats are willing to now try the approach some European nations have taken - not ditching capitalism all together, but tweaking it with a little more of a community minded approach.

Republicans are just saying 'no' to just about anything, hoping for failure.

I'm the youngest of seven, and have, along with my wife, raised five now adult people.

Actually, in general we do.Then why all the arguing and scare tactics?

[Skeptic]

Or they were angry at the people who, you know, started the wars?

Suppose McCain was elected, after promising to close Gitmo, and then reneged on the promise...

[tyr_13]

Suppose McCain was elected, after promising to close Gitmo, and then reneged on the promise...

Gitmo isn't the same thing as the war of course. Great red herring.

[Skeptic]

The whole healthcare debate seems to be a living proof of Beirce's definition of "Conservative": "A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others".

[Vorticity]

I believe this article (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/latest_sarah_palin_speech_opens) is of relevance here.

[Dancing David]

Look just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean they weren't screaming. I saw them everywhere but I don't rely on the same nightly news that nodded their heads when Bush said WMD in Iraq.

Sure, uh huh, whatever. No rally's against Bush, no rally in local parks against Bush by these people. Please cite something more than an anecdote.

[GreNME]

Suppose McCain was elected, after promising to close Gitmo, and then reneged on the promise...

Nice red herring, but also a false one since Guantanamo is still on its way to being closed. No reneged promise on that one, though obviously the task is more difficult than originally thought (as was predicted when he announced it).

[KingMerv00]

Of course they are the same. They were brought up with identical nationalistic ideals (pledge of allegiance and all that), taught by the same educational system, wrestled with identical philosophical problems and were preached to or told the same stories.

I like to say democrats and republicans want to get to the same place and the only difference between the two is mode of transportation.

So again, they are the same except where they are very different. I completely agree.

What were we talking about again?

Ah! The species viability argument represented in religious terms. This argument is more about religion than anything else, IMO.

And religiousity is more pronounced in one party than the other.

I agree. And that lends credence to the idea that most of these people are not in this for cognitive reasons, leaving emotionality as the main driving force!?

I already agreed with this. I said the tea party has more than its fair share of emotional loons. Emotional does not meet the party is "all about race".


Its a question worth exploring. Its symbolic and suggestive of ideals which appeal to the more hostile parts of us.

It is still just one guy and the movement has grown far beyond his control.

But we don't take the 'simpler' way, do we? We're thinking animals! (Or at least should be.)

Non-sequitur. You are assuming the existence of secret code when you have no logical reason to believe it. The best you have is "aryan" begins with "ar".

Type-os are fairly common so all things being equal, it was probably a type-o.

[AvalonXQ]

Capitalism as we know it has failed.

No, it hasn't. Capitalism has worked fine; government interference with capitalism has failed.

[KingMerv00]

No, it hasn't. Capitalism has worked fine; government interference with capitalism has failed.

I feel inclined to disagree with both of you.

Capitalism has done some good things but at the same time government intervention has improved working conditions and product safety.

[Ziggurat]

Are you American? If so, where do you want to get to?

This isn't about me. It's about your claim that the parties are the same. What I want has no bearing on that question.

Me, from our political system I expect what the constitution and bill of rights assures me. The opportunity and ability to exist safely, peaceably and free. I'm a socialist at heart!

Um... the constitution and the bill of rights don't resemble socialism. One can argue that socialism is compatible with them, but nothing in them demands anything socialistic at all. The constitution makes no mention of any entitlement programs of any sort, and the only positive rights it grants are the right to a trial by jury and the right to vote.

Capitalism as we know it has failed. Democrats are willing to now try the approach some European nations have taken - not ditching capitalism all together, but tweaking it with a little more of a community minded approach.

Republicans are just saying 'no' to just about anything, hoping for failure.

A moment ago you were claiming that the two parties were the same, now you refer to a rather significant difference between them, with an implicit clear preference for one over the other. You are incoherent.

[rjwould]

This isn't about me. It's about your claim that the parties are the same. What I want has no bearing on that question.



Um... the constitution and the bill of rights don't resemble socialism. One can argue that socialism is compatible with them, but nothing in them demands anything socialistic at all. The constitution makes no mention of any entitlement programs of any sort, and the only positive rights it grants are the right to a trial by jury and the right to vote.



A moment ago you were claiming that the two parties were the same, now you refer to a rather significant difference between them, with an implicit clear preference for one over the other. You are incoherent.Sorry you're having difficulty keeping up.

[KingMerv00]

Sorry you're having difficulty keeping up.

Where do you think he is having trouble specifically?

[Ziggurat]

Sorry you're having difficulty keeping up.

You contradicted yourself in two back-to-back posts. There's no "keeping up" to do.

[rjwould]

Where do you think he is having trouble specifically?That would be a question for him since his post has left you as unsure as me.

Rather than accuse others of incoherence, its better to say he doesn't understand or ask for clarification. One is blaming others and the second is accepting responsibility, not to mention general politeness. If you don't agree, then don't agree.

[rjwould]

You contradicted yourself in two back-to-back posts. There's no "keeping up" to do.No I haven't, but if you'd like to think so, be my guest.

[rjwould]

And religiousity is more pronounced in one party than the other.Since you made that a statement, I'll disagree, but if you intended it as a question, I'll say no. It just looks different in the two parties.

It is still just one guy and the movement has grown far beyond his control.You may be correct but we don't know that for sure. Perhaps I'd describe it as loosely run.

Non-sequitur. You are assuming the existence of secret code when you have no logical reason to believe it. The best you have is "aryan" begins with "ar".No, i'm taking a guess at what is a possibility. It would be interesting to know what his answer had been to those who asked about the misspelling though.

Type-os are fairly common so all things being equal, it was probably a type-o.Your take is no more credible than mine. You have it your way and I'll have it mine. Maybe in time, something will occur that gives us an answer.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Three reasons:

1) Obama is a Democrat and thus farther away from their ideals overall.

2) Conservatism and hawkishness tend to correllate so Bush was not opposed for his war policies.

3) Conservative anti-federalists tend to recognize the federal government's right to wage war since it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. National healthcare and other social programs come largely from common law so the tea party tends to oppose them on constitutional grounds.


1) I agree utterly. In fact, I think that's the main reason for the outrage and protests. But it contradicts the claim most of these Tea Party organizations are making (that it's a non-partisan movement).

2) The two political attitudes correlate, but again this belies what most of them are saying. (That it's primarily or even all about fiscal responsibility.)

3) It's possible to support the government's right to wage war yet to oppose the throwing away of vast sums of money in a foolish war that was started unnecessarily and largely through deceit. (Note that a common theme of Tea Party criticism of the Obama administration is about lies, lack of transparency and so on, which makes me wonder again why the movement didn't arise to call the Bush administration to task.)

ETA: Remember who it was that first cautioned us against the excesses of the "military industrial complex"? Hint: not a dove. The point I'm trying to make is that supporting the federal government's right to wage war doesn't mean that one must support the federal government's right to wage ANY war for ANY pretext and to spend money wastefully with little transparency, oversight or even accounting. In fact, that doesn't sound at all consistent with an anti-federalist position.

I'll say again that the Tea Party movement as we know it is primarily a reaction against Obama's election. (I agree there would have been a similar reaction if Hillary Clinton had won the election, so it's not "all about race".)

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, i'm taking a guess at what is a possibility. It would be interesting to know what his answer had been to those who asked about the misspelling though.


No. You're going far beyond that.

I tossed out several "guesses" as to the explanation for the misspelling. You said they are all impossible and yours (which really doesn't make sense--that he's somehow referring to Obama as a white man because the "a" stands for "aryan")--is not only a reasonable one, but the only possible one.

That's just silly.

[Ziggurat]

No I haven't, but if you'd like to think so, be my guest.

Let's review, shall we?

Are you saying "the parties are the same"?
Of course they are the same.
Democrats are willing to now try the approach some European nations have taken - not ditching capitalism all together, but tweaking it with a little more of a community minded approach.

Republicans are just saying 'no' to just about anything, hoping for failure.
Hear that? It's the sound of you contradicting yourself.

[AvalonXQ]

I feel inclined to disagree with both of you.

Capitalism has done some good things but at the same time government intervention has improved working conditions and product safety.

I agree with this.

[rjwould]

No. You're going far beyond that.

I tossed out several "guesses" as to the explanation for the misspelling. You said they are all impossible and yours (which really doesn't make sense--that he's somehow referring to Obama as a white man because the "a" stands for "aryan")--is not only a reasonable one, but the only possible one.

That's just silly.Perhaps you can show me where I said they were impossible? How can I be going far beyond taking a guess? I think you guys are arguing just to argue.

[rjwould]

Let's review, shall we?




Hear that? It's the sound of you contradicting yourself.Boy, is it really this difficult? The people in both parties are all Americans and think alike. However, one group has decided to try another approach and the other group is standing pat. Why is this so hard to understand? That fact does not make them different, it only means as a group they are doing different activities.

[Brainster]

No. You're going far beyond that.

I tossed out several "guesses" as to the explanation for the misspelling. You said they are all impossible and yours (which really doesn't make sense--that he's somehow referring to Obama as a white man because the "a" stands for "aryan")--is not only a reasonable one, but the only possible one.

That's just silly.

I agree. I did a little googling and found this post from Dale himself (http://houstontps.org/?p=318) (in the comments section, about ten comments in):

I have not threaten you. I sent you and email before and we were suppose to get together after the 15 April event. I see many slanderous comments here and you and your organizations can be held liable, if necessary. While you may spin these topics anyway you like, that is your choice.

A genius he's clearly not. Note as well the indication in that post that Robertson is effectively a cyber-squatter, buying up lots of domain names relating to the Tea Party.

[rjwould]

I agree with this.Its a reasonable statement. How can one disagree with it? But simply because capitalism has done some good things doesn't make it a success. Because it has led to some technologies does not make it a success. Success is when there is no discrimination in any way, shape or form, from a civil, equal rights and equality perspective.

Capitalism seeks to do this thru the free market, and its time to look at the results and say lets adapt another philosophical approach to fair equality which may give us a more just outcome instead of saying its not done yet. Give it up for god's sake before it give us up. We may not fare so luckily the next time it implodes - and it will.

It took only thirty years for this abuse of finance called Reaganomics to almost destroy the entire ball of wax.

[Undesired Walrus]

Suppose McCain was elected, after promising to close Gitmo, and then reneged on the promise...

One day, Skeptic, you must resist the obsession you have with the 'but liberals are hypocrites because..' candard.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perhaps you can show me where I said they were impossible?
Sure thing--here's your reply to the three plausible other explanations I offered (itself a response to your request for any other reasonable explanation for the misspelling:

The first one is not reasonable. Even had he not known how to spell the word, he could have asked someone else, or I'm sure somebody pointed it out to him voluntarily.

The second is plausible, but that supports my argument.
ETA: In other words, the only explanation you accept as plausible or reasonable is your own.



How can I be going far beyond taking a guess?

You've been arguing that your explanation is correct, and all others are unreasonable. If you're now backpedaling and claiming the "a" means "aryan" thing was "just a guess", that's fine, but it's contrary to your earlier position.

Are are you worried over my equating "impossible" with "unreasonable"? And if so, you're claiming we're arguing for the sake of arguing?

[Ziggurat]

Boy, is it really this difficult? The people in both parties are all Americans and think alike.

Americans are not clones of each other. Personal experience should have demonstrated this to you.

However, one group has decided to try another approach and the other group is standing pat.

If one group wants to try one approach and another group is refusing to, isn't that rather a demonstration that they don't think alike? If they truly thought alike, they would act alike too.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because you continue to contradict yourself. But hey, at least you've progressed to doing it within a single post.

That fact does not make them different

Yes it does.

it only means as a group they are doing different activities.

If they are doing different things, then that makes them different. That's so obvious, it's pretty much a tautology.

[rjwould]

Sure thing--here's your reply to the three plausible other explanations I offered (itself a response to your request for any other reasonable explanation for the misspelling:

ETA: In other words, the only explanation you accept as plausible or reasonable is your own.Where do you get impossible there? My only transgression was not including 'IMO' in some fashion. And yes, my opinion is the only one that counts to me, as yours is what counts to you.

Incidentally, what you may wish to consider in my statement "but that supports my argument" is: yes he misspelled it intensionally to be less offensive and therefore my argument is supported that he indeed wanted to use the actual word with the 'e', but that would leave him no way out of accusations of bigotry and racism.

You've been arguing that your explanation is correct, and all others are unreasonable. If you're now backpedaling and claiming the "a" means "aryan" thing was "just a guess", that's fine, but it's contrary to your earlier position.No! I've been arguing that nothing said has swayed my opinion as of yet. My explanation is as correct to me as yours is to you. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Are are you worried over my equating "impossible" with "unreasonable"? And if so, you're claiming we're arguing for the sake of arguing?I'm not worrying about anything here. And yes, to a certain degree some of the arguments have seemed to be people arguing just to argue. But keep juggling, Joe! If it stays in the air long enough, it'll appear to be a success.

[KingMerv00]

Success is when there is no discrimination in any way, shape or form, from a civil, equal rights and equality perspective.

Alright then...how exactly DO we wipe out the entire human race?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where do you get impossible there?
<snip>

I'm not worrying about anything here.
Apparently you are extremely worried about exactly what I asked you about--that is my using "impossible" rather than "unreasonable".

And yes, to a certain degree some of the arguments have seemed to be people arguing just to argue. But keep juggling, Joe! If it stays in the air long enough, it'll appear to be a success.
This is a rude attempt at evading the issues we're discussing and making this somehow about me as a juggler.

How is this not an ad hominem remark (which is the fallacy of irrelevance)?

[rjwould]

Alright then...how exactly DO we wipe out the entire human race?:) We may not need to. :)

Perfection may not be achievable, but we can do a lot better than we've done exercising this current form of capitalistic theory. Thats for sure.

The U.S. is closer to irrelevance than almost any time before, and its because we won't let go of this failed myth. Its served its purpose but its a dinosaur now. Its time to move on, not be pissey!

[rjwould]

Apparently you are extremely worried about exactly what I asked you about--that is my using "impossible" rather than "unreasonable".


This is a rude attempt at evading the issues we're discussing and making this somehow about me as a juggler.

How is this not an ad hominem remark (which is the fallacy of irrelevance)?Get a sense of humor, would ya!

[KingMerv00]

:) We may not need to. :)

Perfection may not be achievable, but we can do a lot better than we've done exercising this current form of capitalistic theory. Thats for sure.

How do you know?

History shows that communism definitely does not guarantee civil rights.

[samm]

How do you know?

History shows that communism definitely does not guarantee civil rights.

Communism guarantees civil rights as much as democracy or capitalism.

"Civil rights" is one of those silly concepts like "natural law". There is no definitive objective definition. That is, other than the simple definition.

By definition "civil rights" are the rights of a citizen. Every form of government has a loose definition of a citizen and his rights within its context and every government guarantees these.

But no government in the history of man has ever fulfilled its own promise of civil rights. This is the nature of government.

[Dancing David]

The answer is NO. Now all you socialists may want it to be, but it isn't. Oh well, you are wrong again.

Some of us socialists already said 'no' as well.

So now you are wrong just like me,

[JoeTheJuggler]

Get a sense of humor, would ya!

Oh sorry. Ha! Ha! It's funny that you're a person who thinks Dale Robertson spelled the word "Niggar" with an "a" was to represent "Aryan" and imply that Obama is a white man, but you'd rather make comments about me as a person rather than attempt to defend your indefensible position.

Hilarious!

[rjwould]

Oh sorry. Ha! Ha! It's funny that you're a person who thinks Dale Robertson spelled the word "Niggar" with an "a" was to represent "Aryan" and imply that Obama is a white man, but you'd rather make comments about me as a person rather than attempt to defend your indefensible position.

Hilarious!Obsessing over this won't change anything. Its probably time to let it go. You can take that as a FF if need be in order to move on!

Good Luck!

[NoScotsman]

Communism guarantees civil rights as much as democracy or capitalism.

"Civil rights" is one of those silly concepts like "natural law". There is no definitive objective definition. That is, other than the simple definition.

By definition "civil rights" are the rights of a citizen. Every form of government has a loose definition of a citizen and his rights within its context and every government guarantees these.

But no government in the history of man has ever fulfilled its own promise of civil rights. This is the nature of government.

The architects of communism promised that "the government would wither away," but instead, it was the PEOPLE who withered away. Mao killed 50 million of his countrymen, Stalin killed 25 million, Pol Pot killed 2 million, Castro incarcerated thousands ... and you're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS?

What irony. The very intellectuals who endorse communism are always the first to get killed/imprisoned under a communist regime. Only the useful idiots get to live and suffer....

Out of curiosity, which are you? An intellectual or a useful idiot?

[NoZed Avenger]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years? Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit? Didn't Bush and the republicans increase Medicare (entitlement) spending?

What about all the reference and symbolism to slavery?

To me it looks like its a message that the white man is now the slave of the black plantation owner (Obama). And the white man ain't takin' no marchin' orders from no black man. Perhaps thats whats behind the republican resistance to anything 'Obama."

Why all this activity after Obama took the oath?



C.f., Porkbusters. A fair amount of activity occurred well before the election. A dramnatic increase in spending afterwards probably helped.

Your argument - or insinuation - that around half the population is probably racist I'll leave alone.

[KingMerv00]

Communism guarantees civil rights as much as democracy or capitalism.

I agree. rj has said that capitalism failed because it did not provide equality and implied something more socialistic or communist would work better. I disagreed.

I won't address the rest of your post because it is off topic.

[Ziggurat]

Out of curiosity, which are you? An intellectual or a useful idiot?

In defense of samm, I think you're misreading his post, though I understand why you did. Try rereading the post under the assumption that samm thinks communism is worse than democracy and capitalism, and you'll find a very different meaning. In particular, the statement, "Communism guarantees civil rights as much as democracy or capitalism" becomes not an endorsement of communism or a criticism of democracy and capitalism, but a dismissal of the significance of claims to "guarantee civil rights". Why do I think this is the correct way to read his post? Because his statements on the nature of "civil rights" (essentially, they are whatever government wants them to be) seems to match this reading better than one endorsing communism.

[Ziggurat]

Perfection may not be achievable, but we can do a lot better than we've done exercising this current form of capitalistic theory. Thats for sure.

No, actually, it isn't for sure at all. In fact, history is filled with example after example demonstrating the complete failure to do better than democracy and capitalism, and those failures often arrive on rivers of blood.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obsessing over this won't change anything. Its probably time to let it go.

So "time to let it go" means you admit you were wrong when you claimed that the "a" in the misspelling means "Aryan" and that the more obvious explanation (that Dale Robertson is a racist moron with bad spelling skills) are unreasonable?

Or does it mean you recognize you were wrong now, but desperately don't want to admit it?

And remember, while I disagree that the Tea Party is "all about race" I do agree that it's legitimate to criticize them based on racist statements (and other foolish stuff like the Birther statements, and silly cries of "socialism" wrt to health insurance reform) made by its members.

As I've been arguing, the term refers to many organizations with no unity. When people say "Dale Robertson doesn't speak for the Tea Party movement" my response is that no one does. Does it follow then that we can't criticize the Tea Party movement for anything people say in the name of the Tea Party movement?

[samm]

Why do I think this is the correct way to read his post? Because his statements on the nature of "civil rights" (essentially, they are whatever government wants them to be) seems to match this reading better than one endorsing communism.
And well, that's what the dictionary says the definition is.

But where do you come off trying to actually understand what I wrote and not assuming I am an idiot???!!

[Chris Hegarty]

I sense racial undertones (like Tancredo's speech at the TP Convention), but I can't say as a whole that the TP movement is, in and of itself, racist. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who are racist within the movement, but this is often the case when people come together to indulge in stupidity.

[AlBell]

3) Conservative anti-federalists tend to recognize the federal government's right to wage war since it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. National healthcare and other social programs come largely from common law so the tea party tends to oppose them on constitutional grounds.



3) Most of this I dispute. But thats another subject.

I think it is perfectly on topic but I'll leave that to you.
Actually exactly on topic, but not obviously racist.

Or anti-capitalist enough either, for that matter.