Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The Tea Party Movement is Clearly Not Racist

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 1:44:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This was a plausible explanation at first, but it should now be looked at as an absurd theory...

There is not evidence that the bulk of the Tea Party is motivated by racism. Showing a few isolated Tea Party signs that are not even racist, but are a bit "racey", does not prove that a large movement is mainly motivated by racism.

The final nail in the coffin of the "Tea Party is Racist" idea should have been the fact that the Tea Party is now largely supporting a Black Man for President... That is, Herman Cain.

However, we still see Morgan Freeman making a fool of himself trying to explain how the Tea Party only opposes Obama because he is half black... Despite the fact that Conservative opposition to, well, Liberalism has existed since the beginning of Political Divisions... (Ditto for Samuel Jackson)

I can see where people could originally see the Tea Party as being secretly motivated by racism. But, this idea has been disproven time and time again. It simply isn't true.

Now, I am not a Tea Partier... But, I think we can all agree that the "Tea Party is Mainly Motivated by Racism" Theory has simply been discredited by reality...
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 2:05:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 1:44:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
This was a plausible explanation at first, but it should now be looked at as an absurd theory...

No it was never a plausible explanation. It was an assumption, and an attack.

Not once did they mention racial superiority. They mentioned policy. Hell they even had African Americans at the protests in 2009.

TEA party stands for, Taxes Enough Already, but they was really concerned about spending. (SEA party is not as catchy.)
Deficits is a tax on the next generation.

I went to 2 of the protests in the summer of 09, and not once did I hear anything about race. I heard them talking about the over spending, as well as the deficit and I heard them denouncing socialism, and Keynesian economics. I talked to several people there, one was a teacher, another was a war Veteran, and the 3rd one was a small business owner.

At the time the bulk of the TEA party was Libertarians, and the rest was Libertarian leaning. The TEA party was started by Ron Paul supporters.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 2:49:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 2:05:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/6/2011 1:44:26 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
This was a plausible explanation at first, but it should now be looked at as an absurd theory...

No it was never a plausible explanation. It was an assumption, and an attack.

Not once did they mention racial superiority. They mentioned policy. Hell they even had African Americans at the protests in 2009.

TEA party stands for, Taxes Enough Already, but they was really concerned about spending. (SEA party is not as catchy.)
Deficits is a tax on the next generation.

I went to 2 of the protests in the summer of 09, and not once did I hear anything about race. I heard them talking about the over spending, as well as the deficit and I heard them denouncing socialism, and Keynesian economics. I talked to several people there, one was a teacher, another was a war Veteran, and the 3rd one was a small business owner.

At the time the bulk of the TEA party was Libertarians, and the rest was Libertarian leaning. The TEA party was started by Ron Paul supporters.

I know. But, not everyone knew this for a while...

Its okay to question the motives of a movement as a gut reaction, it is not okay to continue to cling to a discredited theory after it has been disproven...
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 4:42:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

If the Tea Party were racist, they should be unable to support a blakc guy.

2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.

Not true... the 9-9-9 plan is just the type of thing tea partiers support.
President of DDO
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:05:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Racism arguments like that one are so retarded.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:30:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

So you lack evidence that the tea party is racist, claim that the reasoning is fallacious above because it is possible that the tea party could still be racist, and still hold an agnostic view on it? The BOP is on the claimer to show that tea party is indeed racist.

Anyways, unless a group is united based on racism, groups can't be racist only individuals can be racist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 2:23:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.

If this were the standard, Liberals would be the equivalent of the KKK...

Plus, the Tea Party is largely choosing this man to be PRESIDENT!!!

That is not the same as some token black on a TV show...
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 2:47:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 4:42:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

If the Tea Party were racist, they should be unable to support a blakc guy.

Many of them don't, as I just showed.


2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.

Not true... the 9-9-9 plan is just the type of thing tea partiers support.

The 9-9-9 plan raises the taxes that most people have to pay. So that makes the Tea Partiers hypocritics.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 3:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 2:47:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 4:42:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

If the Tea Party were racist, they should be unable to support a blakc guy.

Many of them don't, as I just showed.

2 things:

1.) Of course not all of them do... But, he is the leading Tea Party Candidate now... Do you really think that the entire Tea Party Was going to support one candidate unanymously?

2.) Even if he were just a Tea Party Contender, it would disprove the "Tea Party is Racist" idea. If a group is united by anti-Black Racism, as most of the people who accuse the Tea Party of racism claim, then they should not be able to support a black guy at all...


2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.

Not true... the 9-9-9 plan is just the type of thing tea partiers support.

The 9-9-9 plan raises the taxes that most people have to pay. So that makes the Tea Partiers hypocritics.

No. First, the biggest criticism of this plan is that it will bring in less revenue. Hence, this is a tax cut...

Second, It simplifies and lowers rates dramatically... Tea Partiers are for good economic policies.... THis is good economic policy...
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 3:23:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:18:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 2:47:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 4:42:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

If the Tea Party were racist, they should be unable to support a blakc guy.

Many of them don't, as I just showed.

2 things:

1.) Of course not all of them do... But, he is the leading Tea Party Candidate now... Do you really think that the entire Tea Party Was going to support one candidate unanymously?

Do you really think that anyone is claiming that everyone in the Tea Party is racist?


2.) Even if he were just a Tea Party Contender, it would disprove the "Tea Party is Racist" idea. If a group is united by anti-Black Racism, as most of the people who accuse the Tea Party of racism claim, then they should not be able to support a black guy at all...

If a group has 20% racist membership, it is a fair accessment to say that it is a racist group, or at the very least, one that attracts (and likely welcomes) racist individuals. It does not need to be 51%, only heavily more racist than the general population.



2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.

Not true... the 9-9-9 plan is just the type of thing tea partiers support.

The 9-9-9 plan raises the taxes that most people have to pay. So that makes the Tea Partiers hypocritics.

No. First, the biggest criticism of this plan is that it will bring in less revenue. Hence, this is a tax cut...

That is not a criticism that I'm making, so it is a straw man. And you comment does nothing to show that it does not raise the taxes owed on most americans.


Second, It simplifies and lowers rates dramatically... Tea Partiers are for good economic policies.... THis is good economic policy...

Non Sequitur. Tea Partier are for economic policies that are good for "them," just like progressive are for economic policies that are good for "them."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:43:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:23:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:18:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 2:47:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 4:42:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

If the Tea Party were racist, they should be unable to support a blakc guy.

Many of them don't, as I just showed.

2 things:

1.) Of course not all of them do... But, he is the leading Tea Party Candidate now... Do you really think that the entire Tea Party Was going to support one candidate unanymously?

Do you really think that anyone is claiming that everyone in the Tea Party is racist?

Many people claimed that Racism was the main motivation for the Tea Party...


2.) Even if he were just a Tea Party Contender, it would disprove the "Tea Party is Racist" idea. If a group is united by anti-Black Racism, as most of the people who accuse the Tea Party of racism claim, then they should not be able to support a black guy at all...

If a group has 20% racist membership, it is a fair accessment to say that it is a racist group, or at the very least, one that attracts (and likely welcomes) racist individuals. It does not need to be 51%, only heavily more racist than the general population.

Well, first, the Tea Party is not even racist by that standard as they are not more racist than the general public and they certainly do not welcome racist individuals... And, second, how is racism defined?

Third, I can guarnatee these ridiculous "Occupy Wall Street" Protests are far more racist than the Tea Party...



2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.

Not true... the 9-9-9 plan is just the type of thing tea partiers support.

The 9-9-9 plan raises the taxes that most people have to pay. So that makes the Tea Partiers hypocritics.

No. First, the biggest criticism of this plan is that it will bring in less revenue. Hence, this is a tax cut...

That is not a criticism that I'm making, so it is a straw man. And you comment does nothing to show that it does not raise the taxes owed on most americans.

If it reduces revenue in the short term, it is a tax cut... That is pretty simple...


Second, It simplifies and lowers rates dramatically... Tea Partiers are for good economic policies.... THis is good economic policy...

Non Sequitur. Tea Partier are for economic policies that are good for "them," just like progressive are for economic policies that are good for "them."

No, lower tax rates are good for the entire economy... This has been shown time and tiem again
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 6:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:23:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:18:17 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 2:47:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 4:42:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:12:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/6/2011 3:01:59 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/6/2011 2:57:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Life is not black and white (no pun intended). Sometimes there is no need for explicit and obvious series of proofs to validate or invalidate a claim. I'm not saying I think the tea party is racist, I have no actual opinion on the issue, I am, rather, attacking your rationale against the claim that the Tea Party is racist. If my math teacher treats me fairly and grades me fairly, but exerts certain reactions and airs that make it appear as though she hates me, is my conclusion that she does not like me somehow invalid? Again, I have no particular opinion on this matter, but you cannot disqualify the notion that the tea party might have some nativist sentiment merely on the basis of lack of concrete evidence.

The Tea Party is now Supporting a Black Man for President (Herman Cain)... You don't see hate Groups led by an individual from the groups they hate...

That is pretty solid evidence...

And, nativism doesn = racism

1) What evidence is there that the Tea party is unified in supporting Cain? Since before, Perry was the tea party guy (and before that it was Bachman, and before that it was Palin). Over the past few weeks, Perry's numbers have dropped 13.8 points (from 31.8 down to 18.0), while Cain's have increased 9.4 points (from 5.6 up to 15.0). That indicates that at least 30% of the people that left the Perry camp did not go to Cain (of course, there is more dynamics than just those two).

If the Tea Party were racist, they should be unable to support a blakc guy.

Many of them don't, as I just showed.

2 things:

1.) Of course not all of them do... But, he is the leading Tea Party Candidate now... Do you really think that the entire Tea Party Was going to support one candidate unanymously?

Do you really think that anyone is claiming that everyone in the Tea Party is racist?

Many people claimed that Racism was the main motivation for the Tea Party...

No many people claimed that racism was a key motivation for much of the Tea Party. A few loan bloggers claimed that it was the main motivation.



2.) Even if he were just a Tea Party Contender, it would disprove the "Tea Party is Racist" idea. If a group is united by anti-Black Racism, as most of the people who accuse the Tea Party of racism claim, then they should not be able to support a black guy at all...

If a group has 20% racist membership, it is a fair accessment to say that it is a racist group, or at the very least, one that attracts (and likely welcomes) racist individuals. It does not need to be 51%, only heavily more racist than the general population.

Well, first, the Tea Party is not even racist by that standard as they are not more racist than the general public and they certainly do not welcome racist individuals... And, second, how is racism defined?

I would disagree. While it is impossible to poll such data, as most racists are not proud open racists, but closet racists. Logically, Tea Party rallies are perfect outs for their racial frustrations, and as such, they would logically be magnets for the racists in America.

Racism is a belief that one race (of humans) is objectively superior to another race (of humans).


Third, I can guarnatee these ridiculous "Occupy Wall Street" Protests are far more racist than the Tea Party...

Go ahead and show that then.




2) Cain only shows that the Tea Party is not about what they claim (taxes), since he plans on raising the amount of taxes most americans have to pay.

Not true... the 9-9-9 plan is just the type of thing tea partiers support.

The 9-9-9 plan raises the taxes that most people have to pay. So that makes the Tea Partiers hypocritics.

No. First, the biggest criticism of this plan is that it will bring in less revenue. Hence, this is a tax cut...

That is not a criticism that I'm making, so it is a straw man. And you comment does nothing to show that it does not raise the taxes owed on most americans.

If it reduces revenue in the short term, it is a tax cut... That is pretty simple...

You're continuing with the strawman. It raises the tax liability on most americans. Nothing you've said contridicts that. Just because it offsets those increased taxes by lowering taxes on the rich and upper middle class, does not make it a tax cut.

I'd bet you anything that if Obama came out with a plan that cut the bottom 98%'s taxes to zip, and raise the top 2%'s taxes to FDR levels (which would ultimately yield less revenue), none of the Tea Partiers would be calling it a tax cut.



Second, It simplifies and lowers rates dramatically... Tea Partiers are for good economic policies.... THis is good economic policy...

Non Sequitur. Tea Partier are for economic policies that are good for "them," just like progressive are for economic policies that are good for "them."

No, lower tax rates are good for the entire economy... This has been shown time and tiem again

from 1800 - 1899, we had 47 years of recessions (that's 47% of the time), from 1950 - 1999, we had 7 years of recession (that's 14% of the time). Guess which time frame had lower taxes. In the 90's we had 10 years between two recessions, the last time we had a 10 year gap between recessions was... never.

Lower taxes =/= good for economy. There is an ideal level of taxes, both for guiding the economy, and generating revenue. One of the key problems with taxes too low, is that it creates the biggest incentive (you keep all your money rather than none of it) without altering risks. This means investors will be more prone to risky behavior and so you see more intense and more frequent boom bust cycles, as we've observed historically.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 7:09:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:23:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do you really think that anyone is claiming that everyone in the Tea Party is racist?

Well the irrational Left certainly is;
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 7:14:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 7:09:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:23:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Do you really think that anyone is claiming that everyone in the Tea Party is racist?

Well the irrational Left certainly is;


To a fresher note; check out this video.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.

Your analogy is stupid, it doesn't even fit. Racists supporting a black man for president, is more like a racist holywood director making the main actor a black man. You say they just threw in a few blacks into the movie with minor stereotypical roles, but if the president is the biggest job you can get, you should compare it to a director making the biggest part in the movie played by a black man. Even more you don't even use a racist person in your analogy. You say that a director might throw in some black actors because he's AFRAID of being called racist. But you're saying you are "against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist." You didn't say afraid of looking racist.

Can you see a racist movie director using a black man as the main actor? I'm sure you cannot which is why, I think you chose to use a false analogy. So again, your analogy isn't even comparable because one, you chose to compare minor roles in movies with the biggest role in politics you can get, instead of comparing the biggest role in a movie with the biggest role in politics. And two, you chose to compare a group of people who may be racist with a movie director whose afraid of looking racist, instead of comparing two racists.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 11:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:40:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.

Your analogy is stupid,
Ad-hom fallacy

it doesn't even fit. Racists supporting a black man for president, is more like a racist holywood director making the main actor a black man. You say they just threw in a few blacks into the movie with minor stereotypical roles, but if the president is the biggest job you can get, you should compare it to a director making the biggest part in the movie played by a black man. Even more you don't even use a racist person in your analogy. You say that a director might throw in some black actors because he's AFRAID of being called racist. But you're saying you are "against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist." You didn't say afraid of looking racist.

Can you see a racist movie director using a black man as the main actor? I'm sure you cannot which is why, I think you chose to use a false analogy. So again, your analogy isn't even comparable because one, you chose to compare minor roles in movies with the biggest role in politics you can get, instead of comparing the biggest role in a movie with the biggest role in politics. And two, you chose to compare a group of people who may be racist with a movie director whose afraid of looking racist, instead of comparing two racists.

It was intended to convey the mentality of racist people, not serve as a direct analogy.

I don't intend to say that the tea party is racist. I don't know enough about them to make that determination. I am against the assertion that supporting a black man makes someone not racist by itself. Whether or not they are racist depends not on who they support but on how they think.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 11:50:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 11:08:16 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:40:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.

Your analogy is stupid,
Ad-hom fallacy

it doesn't even fit. Racists supporting a black man for president, is more like a racist holywood director making the main actor a black man. You say they just threw in a few blacks into the movie with minor stereotypical roles, but if the president is the biggest job you can get, you should compare it to a director making the biggest part in the movie played by a black man. Even more you don't even use a racist person in your analogy. You say that a director might throw in some black actors because he's AFRAID of being called racist. But you're saying you are "against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist." You didn't say afraid of looking racist.

Can you see a racist movie director using a black man as the main actor? I'm sure you cannot which is why, I think you chose to use a false analogy. So again, your analogy isn't even comparable because one, you chose to compare minor roles in movies with the biggest role in politics you can get, instead of comparing the biggest role in a movie with the biggest role in politics. And two, you chose to compare a group of people who may be racist with a movie director whose afraid of looking racist, instead of comparing two racists.

It was intended to convey the mentality of racist people, not serve as a direct analogy.

Your post, and thus your analogy was intended to show that supporting a black man as president does not mean they aren't racist. If you had used a direct analogy you would have seen that your argument is weak.

I don't intend to say that the tea party is racist. I don't know enough about them to make that determination. I am against the assertion that supporting a black man makes someone not racist by itself. Whether or not they are racist depends not on who they support but on how they think.

I know you aren't saying they are racist. But it's like saying racists would support Obama. It is true that racists might possibly show support for blacks in minor political position to attempt to make people think they aren't racist. But racists would never support a black person for president. It's like (as your analogy should have stated) a racist movie director making the main character black.

You've also ignored allot of what I said.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 12:53:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 11:50:48 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/7/2011 11:08:16 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:40:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.

Your analogy is stupid,
Ad-hom fallacy

it doesn't even fit. Racists supporting a black man for president, is more like a racist holywood director making the main actor a black man. You say they just threw in a few blacks into the movie with minor stereotypical roles, but if the president is the biggest job you can get, you should compare it to a director making the biggest part in the movie played by a black man. Even more you don't even use a racist person in your analogy. You say that a director might throw in some black actors because he's AFRAID of being called racist. But you're saying you are "against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist." You didn't say afraid of looking racist.

Can you see a racist movie director using a black man as the main actor? I'm sure you cannot which is why, I think you chose to use a false analogy. So again, your analogy isn't even comparable because one, you chose to compare minor roles in movies with the biggest role in politics you can get, instead of comparing the biggest role in a movie with the biggest role in politics. And two, you chose to compare a group of people who may be racist with a movie director whose afraid of looking racist, instead of comparing two racists.

It was intended to convey the mentality of racist people, not serve as a direct analogy.

Your post, and thus your analogy was intended to show that supporting a black man as president does not mean they aren't racist. If you had used a direct analogy you would have seen that your argument is weak.



I don't intend to say that the tea party is racist. I don't know enough about them to make that determination. I am against the assertion that supporting a black man makes someone not racist by itself. Whether or not they are racist depends not on who they support but on how they think.

I know you aren't saying they are racist. But it's like saying racists would support Obama. It is true that racists might possibly show support for blacks in minor political position to attempt to make people think they aren't racist. But racists would never support a black person for president. It's like (as your analogy should have stated) a racist movie director making the main character black.

You've also ignored allot of what I said.

So are you saying that the mere fact that they support a black man for president conclusively proves that they aren't racist? The analogy of a movie director choosing a black (or any other race) person as the lead does not prove that they are not racist. The only way that they aren't racist is if they change their way of thinking and choose a lead regardless of race.

In a similar way, you can't assert that the Tea Party are not racist just based on the fact that they chose a black man for president. It proves nothing. Whether or not they are actually racist, I don't know. But choosing a black man for president does not in any conclusive way prove whether or not the Tea Party (or anyone else for that matter) is a racist.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 12:00:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 12:53:24 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 11:50:48 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/7/2011 11:08:16 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:40:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:57:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know whether or not the tea party is racist but I am against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist.

It is the same kind of mentality that hollywood directors have. They want an all-white cast but are afraid of being called racist. So they throw in a few people of other ethnicities (usually black) in minor stereotypical roles and think that that excuses them from charges of racism. When people complain they say "we put a few blacks in there, why are you still calling us racist?"

They fail to understand that in order to not be a racist, you must not care about the race of people you choose to act in your movie. Pick the best actors and direct the movie. Don't care about their race. Picking an all-white cast and throwing a couple of black guys in there isn't going to stop you from being accused of racism, neither does that mean that you are no longer a racist.

Your analogy is stupid,
Ad-hom fallacy

it doesn't even fit. Racists supporting a black man for president, is more like a racist holywood director making the main actor a black man. You say they just threw in a few blacks into the movie with minor stereotypical roles, but if the president is the biggest job you can get, you should compare it to a director making the biggest part in the movie played by a black man. Even more you don't even use a racist person in your analogy. You say that a director might throw in some black actors because he's AFRAID of being called racist. But you're saying you are "against the assertion that supporting a black man proves that they are not racist." You didn't say afraid of looking racist.

Can you see a racist movie director using a black man as the main actor? I'm sure you cannot which is why, I think you chose to use a false analogy. So again, your analogy isn't even comparable because one, you chose to compare minor roles in movies with the biggest role in politics you can get, instead of comparing the biggest role in a movie with the biggest role in politics. And two, you chose to compare a group of people who may be racist with a movie director whose afraid of looking racist, instead of comparing two racists.

It was intended to convey the mentality of racist people, not serve as a direct analogy.

Your post, and thus your analogy was intended to show that supporting a black man as president does not mean they aren't racist. If you had used a direct analogy you would have seen that your argument is weak.



I don't intend to say that the tea party is racist. I don't know enough about them to make that determination. I am against the assertion that supporting a black man makes someone not racist by itself. Whether or not they are racist depends not on who they support but on how they think.

I know you aren't saying they are racist. But it's like saying racists would support Obama. It is true that racists might possibly show support for blacks in minor political position to attempt to make people think they aren't racist. But racists would never support a black person for president. It's like (as your analogy should have stated) a racist movie director making the main character black.

You've also ignored allot of what I said.

So are you saying that the mere fact that they support a black man for president conclusively proves that they aren't racist? The analogy of a movie director choosing a black (or any other race) person as the lead does not prove that they are not racist. The only way that they aren't racist is if they change their way of thinking and choose a lead regardless of race.

I'm not sure why you say "change their way of thinking" as if we're talking about someone who was racist but changes his views. Then you say "choose a lead regardless of race". That is what they are doing. They don't care that he's black. If they did they wouldn't support him. They might care about his race, but only in anti racist ways.

In a similar way, you can't assert that the Tea Party are not racist just based on the fact that they chose a black man for president. It proves nothing. Whether or not they are actually racist, I don't know. But choosing a black man for president does not in any conclusive way prove whether or not the Tea Party (or anyone else for that matter) isn't a racist.

Fixed, and I don't really care that much if it proves it or not my main issue was your analogy because I thought it was a bad one.

My main point has been proven but I still disagree that a racist person would want a black man to be the most powerful man in the country or the world even. If they wanted to pretend not to be racist they would support blacks for minor government positions not president!
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 12:37:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think you understand the purpose of my example. It wasn't meant as a side-by-side comparison of the Tea Party and Hollywood. It was meant to illustrate the fact that racist people sometimes support people of other ethnicities to pretend that they are not racist.

Your only interest seems to be to show that my example isn't a proper analogy. It was not even meant to be an analogous situation. I think we are arguing about two completely different things, so I think it is better we stop.