Teabagger Terrorism Continues, Law Enforcement called in.

Starfall

Shawshank wrote:

And again....the Tea Party movement as a whole is not promoting or encouraging said behavior. As I've said over...and over...and over again but for some reason you are having a hard time comprehending; there are idiots in every group, Tea Partiers included. Should the whole movement be condemned for it? Should all Muslims be condemned because a few of them flew planes into the WTC? I know, another straw man, but I'm doing my best to use the dumbest arguments possible, in order to help you understand. I don't know if I can bring it down any more than that.

So nice of you to resort to underhanded insults, but not to worry. I'm understanding you perfectly.

You keep insisting that just because there are black faces in the crowd, there's no racism in the Teabagger movement, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that the racism is there.
And the comparisons to Muslims are another fallacy. Muslims, in the vast majority, did not, and are not, participating in terrorist attacks. Vast majority of them don't even subscribe to radical Wahabism. The first country to issue an official condemnation against the 9-11 attack? Iran. So did Saudi Arabia. Many more.

Teabagger leader to condemn the racism? I've yet to see an unequivocal renouncing... mostly just vacillating, tempered denial of responsibility. Something on the order of: "yeah the violence is bad, yeah the racism is bad, but they're just angry and they have the right to be violent and racist".

Well bull-freaking-crap. Either it's acceptable, or it's not. And until the group as a whole stops with this buffoonery and thuggery, they cannot escape responsibility for their actions.
I condemn the whole movement until they renounce the violence and the racism. So far, I haven't seen any of their acknowledged leaders expressly condemn it and tell their followers to stop. In fact, they seem to be content to just lay back and let the violence escalate.

I've been perfectly consistent, and if you had decent reading comprehension skills you'd see that I was asked if there were any policies I disagreed with. I said, "One of the policies I don't agree with, is how they have let some Republicans latch onto the movement. I personally wouldn't let any of them speak at a Rally."
I guess I should have been more specific, because I know it's hard for you to keep up. I was referring to Politicians. I don't agree with Republican politicians latching onto the movement in order to milk the support of Tea Party supporters.

LOL. You referred to "politicians" without stating so on your post. Can't blame me for reading comprehension skills when your writing clearly lacks clarity and elucidation. Try being less emotional and more substantive

Starfall

rebornFixer wrote:

Speaking as someone who is NOT a "teabagger" nor a supporter thereof ... You allege that the movement is all about racism coming from whites, and the rejoinder is that there are non-white Tea Party members ... Not really a straw man in this case.

First of all, I never said that this was "all about racism coming from whites". There's a lot of xenophobia too.
Second of all, I'm not really of a mind to defend whether or not it's a strict strawman construct, but let me reiterate: the presence of black people at a Teabagger rally does not absolve the Teabagger movement from the racism present, any more than the presence of women in the military absolves the military from sexism and more specifically, the sexually related assaults against women.
The imagery, the language, the thrust of the movement... sorry. Racism is there.

Shawshank wrote:

I'm glad someone understood, you must be a lawyer. I had actually been looking for images with racist protest signs, but I kept finding hundreds upon hundreds of images that were mostly non-white members attending the rallys. I just felt it was a good, very simple counter argument, but I don't think he understood. :roll:

Notice that rebornFixer quibbled with the form, and not the substance, of my argument. Not really a "good counter-argument" when you don't address my point.
That's what a strawman is, btw, might do you some good to go back to relearning logic. Talk to your local high school debate team, I'm sure they can help.

And strange that I was able to find a bunch of images of racism in the Teabagger movement within a few seconds after I used Google. You must use a censored version like they do in China.

g under p

I was just wondering...would there be a Tea Party Movement if Sarah Palin and John McCain had won in 2008 and does the Tea Party has nothing to do with race and white supremacy?

Peace

gabers

g under p wrote:

I was just wondering...would there be a Tea Party Movement if Sarah Palin and John McCain had won in 2008 and does the Tea Party has nothing to do with race and white supremacy?

Peace

I think race is a part of it. W destroyed the budget, along with every other Republican president in the modern era. It's only when Obama becomes president that concern for government spending becomes a big deal. Definitely an interesting coincidence.

rebornFixer

gabers wrote:

I think race is a part of it. W destroyed the budget, along with every other Republican president in the modern era. It's only when Obama becomes president that concern for government spending becomes a big deal. Definitely an interesting coincidence.

I think race is a part of it too. Some of it is probably genuine bigotry, and part of it might be a knee-jerk reaction against the notion that a black president is somehow the second coming ... I was pretty excited about Obama and still think he's a step in the right direction, but I quickly started to tire of people blowing him up into something he's not, based on his mixed-race parentage (not that anyone ever talks about his whiteness, mind).

gimmesometruth27

rebornFixer wrote:

gabers wrote:

I think race is a part of it. W destroyed the budget, along with every other Republican president in the modern era. It's only when Obama becomes president that concern for government spending becomes a big deal. Definitely an interesting coincidence.

I think race is a part of it too. Some of it is probably genuine bigotry, and part of it might be a knee-jerk reaction against the notion that a black president is somehow the second coming ... I was pretty excited about Obama and still think he's a step in the right direction, but I quickly started to tire of people blowing him up into something he's not, based on his mixed-race parentage (not that anyone ever talks about his whiteness, mind).

do you mean calling him the anti-christ?

rebornFixer

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

I think race is a part of it too. Some of it is probably genuine bigotry, and part of it might be a knee-jerk reaction against the notion that a black president is somehow the second coming ... I was pretty excited about Obama and still think he's a step in the right direction, but I quickly started to tire of people blowing him up into something he's not, based on his mixed-race parentage (not that anyone ever talks about his whiteness, mind).

do you mean calling him the anti-christ? [/quote]

You know what I mean ... The hype quickly overtook the reality in terms of what this guy was supposed to accomplish.

cajunkiwi

prfctlefts wrote:

It's a fallacy of composition
And still no proof that any of these acusations from the left ever even happened.
Were not a racist country and the tea party is not a racist movment. This country elected a black president and that says a lot about us,and people are getting very sick of the left playing the race card.
End of story.

Not a racist country? Governor Jindal was a substantially better candidate for Governor of Louisiana than Kathleen Blanco was pre-Katrina... she was a colossal failure. She referred to Houston as the capital of Texas, and tried criticizing Jindal for - seriously - liking chocolate chip cookies. Even before Katrina hit she was showing herself to be a disastrously bad leader. During all of the debates, he absolutely nailed her on every issue - he was an intelligent, competent, person, while she was a buffoon.

But, as my wife (a Louisiana native) put it, to the "good old boys" in North Louisiana, it was a "lesser of two evils" situation - so the white woman beat the black man, even though she wasn't qualified to hold a clipboard and take notes, let alone lead a state. But, having a woman governor was slightly less bad than having a black one, so she won.

I'm not saying Jindal is the be-all-and-end-all - I don't like him one bit either, hes destroying higher education in a state that was pretty bass ackwards to start off with - but he's a mile ahead of Blanco, yet lost the election to her the first time around because of the color of his skin. He only won the second time around because she dropped out of the running after the Katrina debacle, which meant the race was between him and a bunch of nobodies.

I'll also be glad to stop playing the race card when people on the right stop circulating photos of Obama as an African witch doctor, stop referring to African-American congressmen as n*****s, and when the death threats against Obama drop down to President Bush levels (they've been 4x higher than Bush's since he took office).

g under p

Byrnzie wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

It's a fallacy of composition
And still no proof that any of these acusations from the left ever even happened.
Were not a racist country and the tea party is not a racist movment. This country elected a black president and that says a lot about us,and people are getting very sick of the left playing the race card.
End of story.

And people are also getting sick of hearing people whingeing and bitching about health care reform, and claiming that it represents a Stalinist style takeover of the U.S.

Oh, and your post is a fallacy of composition - not that you know what that means. You really shouldn't keep lifting phrases and whole paragraphs from online articles and pretending they're your own.

youngster

So let me get this straight:

Spending money on getting our own citizens healthcare....BAD (because of the deficit)

Spending countless billions a year on funding an unwinnable war (which caused the deficit). FINE

I find it extremely ironic that the right supports a war in a country that we invaded so we could turn a muslim country into a Democracy. Yet helping some of our less fortunate American taxpayers who, for one reason or another, can't afford or lost their healthcare, is protested heavily. These teabaggers support a Muslim country trying to become a Democracy, yet accuse our president of being Muslim. They were all over Obama about being a member of Rev. Wright's church. Now in my opinion, Wright is a radical Christian. But he is a Christian just the same. It was convenient to call Obama a follower of a radical Christian, but now he is a Muslim who isn't a US citizen? How convenient.

If some of these right wing teabaggers were just more consistent with their ideas, they might actually be taken a little more seriously.

rebornFixer

"Teabagger Terrorism": Plopping a giant scrotum onto facade of the Empire State building?

satansbed

if it really was about directing America in a better way why don't the tea baggers stop trying to cause a "revolution" and run for office, oh yeah because they wont win, they do not have enough support, there just a fringe movement

lets not get tied down if they are racist or not, or if there anti- Semitic, im sure quite a lot are and quite a few aren't, but at the end of the day its just semantics, the Tea-Baggers are a fringe right wing organization that would get obliterated in elections and thats why they are afraid to run, and have to try and scare people

aerial

youngster wrote:

So let me get this straight:

Spending money on getting our own citizens healthcare....BAD (because of the deficit)

Spending countless billions a year on funding an unwinnable war (which caused the deficit). FINE

I find it extremely ironic that the right supports a war in a country that we invaded so we could turn a muslim country into a Democracy. Yet helping some of our less fortunate American taxpayers who, for one reason or another, can't afford or lost their healthcare, is protested heavily. These teabaggers support a Muslim country trying to become a Democracy, yet accuse our president of being Muslim. They were all over Obama about being a member of Rev. Wright's church. Now in my opinion, Wright is a radical Christian. But he is a Christian just the same. It was convenient to call Obama a follower of a radical Christian, but now he is a Muslim who isn't a US citizen? How convenient.

If some of these right wing teabaggers were just more consistent with their ideas, they might actually be taken a little more seriously.

I don’t know anyone that supports the war left or right....
I don’t know anyone that wants to keep healthcare from anyone...is it necessary to mandate health care for EVERYONE?....to help those that have none....NO it is not...

Obama canceled the National Day of prayer but did not cancel the Muslim prayer day...hmmmm
sounds as if, at the least he favors, Muslims over Christians...especially when he said we are not a Christian Nation.....You should know this because in no way does he try to hide his favoritism....this Nation was created based on Christian values....which is the reason we have a choice to follow the religion of our choice....

And if you far left sheep could at least back up your claims.......you may actually be taken more seriously.

aerial

satansbed wrote:

if it really was about directing America in a better way why don't the tea baggers stop trying to cause a "revolution" and run for office, oh yeah because they wont win, they do not have enough support, there just a fringe movement

lets not get tied down if they are racist or not, or if there anti- Semitic, im sure quite a lot are and quite a few aren't, but at the end of the day its just semantics, the Tea-Baggers are a fringe right wing organization that would get obliterated in elections and thats why they are afraid to run, and have to try and scare people

Just wait till November....

aerial

Starfall wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

And again....the Tea Party movement as a whole is not promoting or encouraging said behavior. As I've said over...and over...and over again but for some reason you are having a hard time comprehending; there are idiots in every group, Tea Partiers included. Should the whole movement be condemned for it? Should all Muslims be condemned because a few of them flew planes into the WTC? I know, another straw man, but I'm doing my best to use the dumbest arguments possible, in order to help you understand. I don't know if I can bring it down any more than that.

So nice of you to resort to underhanded insults, but not to worry. I'm understanding you perfectly.

You keep insisting that just because there are black faces in the crowd, there's no racism in the Teabagger movement, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that the racism is there.
And the comparisons to Muslims are another fallacy. Muslims, in the vast majority, did not, and are not, participating in terrorist attacks. Vast majority of them don't even subscribe to radical Wahabism. The first country to issue an official condemnation against the 9-11 attack? Iran. So did Saudi Arabia. Many more.

Teabagger leader to condemn the racism? I've yet to see an unequivocal renouncing... mostly just vacillating, tempered denial of responsibility. Something on the order of: "yeah the violence is bad, yeah the racism is bad, but they're just angry and they have the right to be violent and racist".

Well bull-freaking-crap. Either it's acceptable, or it's not. And until the group as a whole stops with this buffoonery and thuggery, they cannot escape responsibility for their actions.
I condemn the whole movement until they renounce the violence and the racism. So far, I haven't seen any of their acknowledged leaders expressly condemn it and tell their followers to stop. In fact, they seem to be content to just lay back and let the violence escalate.
violence by the Tea Party....

I've been perfectly consistent, and if you had decent reading comprehension skills you'd see that I was asked if there were any policies I disagreed with. I said, "One of the policies I don't agree with, is how they have let some Republicans latch onto the movement. I personally wouldn't let any of them speak at a Rally."
I guess I should have been more specific, because I know it's hard for you to keep up. I was referring to Politicians. I don't agree with Republican politicians latching onto the movement in order to milk the support of Tea Party supporters.

LOL. You referred to "politicians" without stating so on your post. Can't blame me for reading comprehension skills when your writing clearly lacks clarity and elucidation. Try being less emotional and more substantive

1.There are no leaders in the Tea Party
2. "yeah the violence is bad, yeah the racism is bad, but they're just angry and they have the right to be violent and racist".
Were did you hear this....for one there is NO racism in the Tea Party....and there has been NO violence by the Tea Party....
The Tea Party does not condone violence at all! And never has...
So why would they renounce something that never happened?

keeponrockin

aerial wrote:

....this Nation was created based on Christian values....which is the reason we have a choice to follow the religion of our choice....

Except the writer of the Constitution was a Deist... Hence why he's no longer taught in Texas.

aerial

keeponrockin wrote:

aerial wrote:

....this Nation was created based on Christian values....which is the reason we have a choice to follow the religion of our choice....

Except the writer of the Constitution was a Deist... Hence why he's no longer taught in Texas.

The Constitution was not written by one man.....
I have to say I don't know much about Texas

keeponrockin

aerial wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

aerial wrote:

....this Nation was created based on Christian values....which is the reason we have a choice to follow the religion of our choice....

Except the writer of the Constitution was a Deist... Hence why he's no longer taught in Texas.

The Constitution was not written by one man.....
I have to say I don't know much about Texas

I was referring to Jefferson. And essentially, High Schools in Texas have removed him from their textbooks because he goes against the thought that America is a Christian nation.

Starfall

]

aerial wrote:

....this Nation was created based on Christian values....which is the reason we have a choice to follow the religion of our choice....

Obviously you didn't read the Treaty of Tripoli, did you?

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Muslims},—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any [Islamic} nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty being ratified the the Senate and signed by then President John Adams, that infamous godless Communist himself.

Pepe Silvia

aerial wrote:

Obama canceled the National Day of prayer but did not cancel the Muslim prayer day...hmmmm
sounds as if, at the least he favors, Muslims over Christians...especially when he said we are not a Christian Nation.....You should know this because in no way does he try to hide his favoritism....this Nation was created based on Christian values....which is the reason we have a choice to follow the religion of our choice....

And if you far left sheep could at least back up your claims.......you may actually be taken more seriously.

you are wrong, aerial.

according to Article 11 of The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

also, the bible says "For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23 so, technically what they did was a sin?

the founding fathers had some interesting takes on christianity

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingf ... #Jefferson
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingf ... html#Adams
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingf ... html#paine
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingf ... ml#madison

edit:
jinx, starfall!