Such hypocrisy on the right. Somewhere along the line, CEOS, Wall Street folks, bankers and the wealthy became Holy. And teachers are the ones being vilified...there are days when I am truly ashamed to be an American.
There is no defending the dufus-in-chief so M has moved to something else. I mean, largest monthly deficit EVER after mouthing the words "we need to live within our means" multiple times?! Crap foreign policy, crap energy policy, crap domestic policy, joke of a justice dept, and pretty much voting 'present' on everything. Yeah, I think I would not be talking about him either.
The right is full of crap and employs a double standard on virtually everything. GO TEACHERS! When Wall Street sacrifices, then so can you, and not one second before!
And which are the days you are proud to be an American? How can you be proud of a slave owning (working poor) corporatocracy? Until all the poor people (peacefully) protest and burn down the rich fat-cat's mansions, the working poor will continue to be slaves to the Wall St Fatcats.
Another example of Union-busting by the Fat-Cats. The work is so dangerous that most employees end up DISABLED just from working there. Of course, the FatCats want to get rid of the union, and all workplace safety rules too I'll bet!
Anon1, I'd be careful about cheering on O'Keefe if I were you. The dildo thing was just plain weird.
And it won't be long before liberals start to do the same thing. What will you think when sting operations are carried out on the Family Research Council or CPAC? Things can only degenerate from here.
who cares whan anon will think. npr got busted big time. rush said today that more tapes will be coming out, thats why the lady resigned cause she knows they're getting outed.
Yeah, but outed on what? You guys fucking slay me with your hatred of NPR. They report things you don't like so they are "liberal." I guess unless they are distributing propaganda they are enemies of America, right? They's a comin!
Just remember this time and see how well you do when the stings start on right supporting organizations. I don't think you're going to like it much and then where will we be?
I wouldn't care if NPR had a liberal slant if it wasn't receiving taxpayer dollars. That's what irks me, especially as it pretends to be unbiased. It can stand or fall on its own merits, but it doesn't need and shouldn't be receiving any more taxpayer money.
That's a good point. He DID get fired for simply repeating the narrative that the tea party are racist, white, midwestern, gun toting xenophobes. Guess that opinion must not be as mainstream as some of you think it is.
And if you can't accept the fact that NPR IS run by liberals and has an obvious liberal slant, well, you probably think MSNBC isn't either.
No, MSNBC is liberally biased but it still succumbs to the same overall divisiveness that Fox does which isn't political at all. That's what the MSM is all about these days. You see Glenn Beck just as much on MSNBC as you do on Fox. Now, a truly liberal media outlet on par with Fox is Democracy Now or TPM.
But NPR? Nope. The problem is that they aren't a cheer festival for the right. They criticize conservatives and they don't coddle your paranoid fantasies. Throw in their stories and multiculturalism and they must be a bunch of fucking commies!
repeating the narrative that the tea party are racist, white, midwestern, gun toting xenophobes.
which I guess means that none of them are, right? This is another classic example of the competing victimization/counter attack tactic. In many ways, it's pure genius and I must tip my cap. Because now they can all be racist and xenophobic and get away with it. Now, it's the NPR folks that are bad and not the obvious racism of the right. I'll admit that the Tea Party has an advantage here. Being the rugged individualists that they are, they don't have to live by the rules that the left does. NPR guys get fired. Beck, Limbaugh, Huckabee, Gingrich....they all get cheered. As long as they are allowed to not admit fault and win the argument, all is well and good with the world.
What all of you have failed to realize is the can of worms this opens up. Recall that moveon.org was started because of the attacks on Bill Clinton (who the right love now, I guess-barf!). Expect more left wing organizations to pop up to counter all of this and then where will we be? Very much worse off.
I know you didn't, last, but that's what will end up happening. Instead of addressing the very serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the Tea Party, now the story is about how bad NPR is and how they are the ones that are racist. Don't you get it?
>the very serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the Tea Party,
Note, of course, that Mark provides not a shred of evidence for this contention. I can certainly see how you really really really want it to be true though - it's far easier to dismiss people that don't agree with you as racist than to actually engage with their arguments. .. Hey, wait a second, deja vu, I feel like I've seen this MO from Mark before...
Well, let's see, Hap. How about "Barack the Magic Negro?" Or the "anti colonial Kenyan?" Or that Obama "grew up in Kenya?" and had a "different view of the Mau Mau revolution?" They might as well put a bone through his nose. Oh wait, they did.
Now, we can go a few different ways from here. You can admit your side has a problem. Or I can present some more evidence. We could also talk about subliminal messages and appeal to fear. Or (more likely) you can get pissed, stomp your feet, and say that NPR are racists.
Just to keep your original claim in your head Mark, it was this:
"very serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the Tea Party"
In support of which, you gave:
>How about "Barack the Magic Negro?" Or the "anti colonial Kenyan?" Or that Obama "grew up in Kenya?" and had a "different view of the Mau Mau revolution?"
So - I would agree that some of those things are arguably racist. What do any of them have to do with the Tea Party in particular?
Did you even look at this slideshow? I found two pictures that could even plausibly called racist. Most of them I would describe as not even plausibly racially related. Obama = Hitler, Obama = communist stuff. As you are no doubt aware, that is quite tame as Bushitler and Walker-hitler well know.
>Now, we can go a few different ways from here. You can admit your side has a problem.
If you want me to admit that there are conservative racists, and even Tea Party racists, then I readily admit that. But you went quite a bit beyond that, didn't you Mark. You claimed:
"substantial portion of the Tea Party"
The word "substantial" means easily greater than 50%:
"being largely but not wholly that which is specified"
So, we can go a few different ways from here. You can admit that you are simply cherry picking the occasional conservative racist and trying to smear every conservative as racist by their existence, because it allows you to dismiss conservative views without having to engage them. Or you can clarify your use of the word "substantial", because, though you keep trying to avoid it, words mean things. Or, you can give a *lot* more evidence, because getting yourself to >50% of the Tea Party movement is going to take a lot of work on your part. Or, most likely, you will simply try to play one the cards that you think is your get out of jail free - one of "wordsmithing", "winning the argument", "can't admit error", or somesuch, all of which generally translate to "Mark ran at the mouth but his ego is too big to admit it." Which will it be?
Please come to the next TEA party event held close to you and witness with your very own eyes the "racists". I think you will be totally amazed at what you see.
Most of them I would describe as not even plausibly racially related.
If the only two you think are racist are the confederate flags, then your perception is a little off. The Kenya posters were ridiculous. Remember, as well, that the slide show is three full rows with the last slide being "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" which isn't racist but equally as disturbing.
The Tea Party's core roots are colored with racial bias. What percentage of them think that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Wasn't born here? Think too much has been made of the problems facing black people? In the case of the last question, 52 percent.
Only 45 percent think that blacks are intelligent. 73 percent think that blacks would be better off if they tried harder. 56 percent think that immigrants take jobs from Americans. By your definition, that's substantial.
Last, no one wins with a problem like this. We all lose until we can move forward.
And.. Are they racist? Pretty stupid, yes, I agree, but racist?
>"Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" which isn't racist but equally as disturbing.
Please. After the endless Bush assassination fantasies and the more recent spate of death threats aimed at Walker and R's in WI, none of that stuff is remotely beyond the pale. (Unfortunately.)
>What percentage of them think that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Wasn't born here? Think too much has been made of the problems facing black people?
How do those questions indicate racism? (Muslim, lest you forget, is not the identifier of a race.) What you're doing is simply saying "I don't like the answers to these questions. Ergo, racism."
>Only 45 percent think that blacks are intelligent.
Gonna need a location for that one. I don't see where that is in your linked poll.
>73 percent think that blacks would be better off if they tried harder. 56 percent think that immigrants take jobs from Americans. By your definition, that's substantial.
And once again, I keep having to ask this, but how are these racist? Those are answers you don't like, as in, there are a substantial number of questions that Mark doesn't like the answers to. I understand why you want to leap straight to "racism!", but it only works for someone who holds your priors as to what constitutes racism.
Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph. I forgot to mention that only 35 percent think blacks are hard working.
but how are these racist?
Alright, Brietbart, you aren't seriously asking me these questions are you? Good Lord...
And you're playing the game again. Deflect, redirect, counter attack, competing victimizations...and poof! The Tea Party and other conservatives are barely racist...it's magic!
>Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph.
So, I'm going to assume you looked more into the study than just reading the "this goes right along with my preferred narrative!" summary numbers, right? Direct your attention to the source for those claims, which appears to be this:
You'll note that there are multiple columns, each representing a 'class' of white people out of 1006 respondents total from 7 states (near as i can tell) - 'true skeptics of the tea party', which, i guess means people who don't think much of the tea party, 'middle of the road', 'true believers' (of the tea party), and 'never heard of'. That 45% number presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) comes from the 'true believers' column, which represents the total % of people who answered affirmatively to one of the "blacks are intelligent" questions. Now, leaving aside the question of how you would accurately separate out "skeptics" vs "middle of the road" vs "true believers" vs "never heard of" (which would be a handy way to bias the results in a desired direction, btw) note that while 45% of true believers think blacks are intelligent, only.. 48% of middle of the road people do. And 59% of true skeptics. (That would presumably be people like you.) So I'm pretty confused as to your point Mark - this study seems to say that at least 40% of all white people, whether liberal, middle of the road, or tea party, don't think black people are intelligent. If you were to assume that a negative answer to the question represents racism, then all you've shown is that Tea Party people are a bit more likely to be racist than.. everyone. Including you and your team. Myself, I'd be mighty curious as to what exact question was asked that lead to those results. If someone were to ask me "Are black people intelligent?" I would respond that the question is nonsense, because I know black people that are extremely intelligent and I also know black people that are extremely not intelligent. Like.. each person is an individual or something. (I know! How weird is that??) Anyway, Mark, could you set me straight on my questions about the study? I figure you know all about it since you linked to it.
>Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph.
So, I'm going to assume you looked more into the study than just reading the "this goes right along with my preferred narrative!" summary numbers, right? Direct your attention to the source for those claims, which appears to be this:
You'll note that there are multiple columns, each representing a 'class' of white people out of 1006 respondents total from 7 states (near as i can tell) - 'true skeptics of the tea party', which, i guess means people who don't think much of the tea party, 'middle of the road', 'true believers' (of the tea party), and 'never heard of'. That 45% number presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) comes from the 'true believers' column, which represents the total % of people who answered affirmatively to one of the "blacks are intelligent" questions. Now, leaving aside the question of how you would accurately separate out "skeptics" vs "middle of the road" vs "true believers" vs "never heard of" (which would be a handy way to bias the results in a desired direction, btw) note that while 45% of true believers think blacks are intelligent, only.. 48% of middle of the road people do. And 59% of true skeptics. (That would presumably be people like you.)
So I'm pretty confused as to your point Mark - this study seems to say that at least 40% of all white people, whether liberal, middle of the road, or tea party, don't think black people are intelligent. If you were to assume that a negative answer to the question represents racism, then all you've shown is that Tea Party people are a bit more likely to be racist than.. everyone. Including you and your team. Myself, I'd be mighty curious as to what exact question was asked that lead to those results. If someone were to ask me "Are black people intelligent?" I would respond that the question is nonsense, because I know black people that are extremely intelligent and I also know black people that are extremely not intelligent. Like.. each person is an individual or something. (I know! How weird is that??) Anyway, Mark, could you set me straight on my questions about the study? I figure you know all about it since you linked to it.
>Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph.
So, I'm going to assume you looked more into the study than just reading the "this goes right along with my preferred narrative!" summary numbers, right? Direct your attention to the source for those claims, which appears to be this:
You'll note that there are multiple columns, each representing a 'class' of white people out of 1006 respondents total from 7 states (near as i can tell) - 'true skeptics of the tea party', which, i guess means people who don't think much of the tea party, 'middle of the road', 'true believers' (of the tea party), and 'never heard of'. That 45% number presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) comes from the 'true believers' column, which represents the total % of people who answered affirmatively to one of the "blacks are intelligent" questions.
Now, leaving aside the question of how you would accurately separate out "skeptics" vs "middle of the road" vs "true believers" vs "never heard of" (which would be a handy way to bias the results in a desired direction, btw) note that while 45% of true believers think blacks are intelligent, only.. 48% of middle of the road people do. And 59% of true skeptics. (That would presumably be people like you.)
>Alright, Brietbart, you aren't seriously asking me these questions are you? Good Lord...
Yeah, not surprised you'd pass on that. Shorter Mark: "it is because I say it is. How can that not be enough for you?" Newsflash: I don't share your priors about how the world works. Nor do I have any trust in your judgement.
Don't feel bad Mark, partisans on both sides love to nutpick. After all - didn't you know that substantial numbers of liberals support killing political opponents? This video totally proves it:
How could you say that is an unfair conclusion? Am I not following your logic for proving such things, that being, find some anecdotes and poof! Contention proven!
If you look at how the study was conducted, they separated out people who strongly support the tea party and people who strongly oppose the tea party-both white. The graph shows the disparity between the two.
So, of the 45 percent who strongly support the movement or who somewhat do, 35 percent think that blacks are hard working, 45 percent think that blacks are intelligent, 41 percent think that blacks are trustworthy. The numbers are around the same for Latinos.
I'll grant you that there are liberals out there who are racist. Several are my in laws (rural Iowa and all). But they are far less a portion than on the conservative side or, in this case, the Tea Party. And I will also grant you that it comes down to the wording of the question. But these numbers speak volumes.
Regarding the negative, people are more likely these days to hide their racism because they know it's frowned upon and, in most places, illegal. That's why I think there is no need for affirmative action anymore. It's just not acceptable to treat people that way anymore. So, those remaining people (likely conservative/tea party where they find all the anger, hate and fear that they need to feel comfortable) do a little dance and think they are being clever but their bigotry is so obvious that it would be funny...if it weren't tragic.
>But they are far less a portion than on the conservative side
Mark. By your own study (depending on the question, and ignoring all the questions about questions asked, how they were split apart, etc), 41 out of every 100 liberals is racist, while 55 out of every 100 tea-partiers/conservatives is racist. I mean, yeah, 41 is less than 55, but do you really think that represents "far less?" I might be impressed if it was an order of magnitude, like 55 to 5. (And 52% of middle of the roaders are racist - so tea party people are very similar to middle of the roaders?)
Given that your *own team* is broadly implicated (by 41%!) by your own study, don't you think it's pretty likely that this isn't quite telling you what you want it to be telling you? In particular - the assumption that not answering affirmative to any of the "blacks are x" question might not automatically mean someone is a racist?
Hap, I'll agree that people hide their bias. I'll even go so far as to say that I have bias towards black people. It's inherent in all humans to be distrustful. What happens next is where the difference lies and that's called reflection.
For me, I sit back and think about why I have this bias. I work towards new thinking and try to set aside prejudice. Someone who is racist does none of these things and blames the victim. Essentially, they lack reflection.
Did you ever stop to think that the 41 out of 100 liberals said that because they were simply being honest and felt guilty? Do you think the same could be said for the Tea Partiers? By their very nature, liberals are more reflective than conservatives. Indeed by their very definition!
conservative: (n) a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; (adj) disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change;
liberal: (adj): free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant; favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs; favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties; (n): a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
And you also have to remember that the liberal brain is wired differently than the conservative brain. It's not just in the definition of the word but the way we think from a physiological point of view.
Now, you asked me to prove that more than 50 percent of Tea Partiers have racists attitudes. By your standards, I did that. Will you admit it?
I have no problem continuing on the discussion regarding liberals and racism. Certainly, the Democrats have a far longer history with being racists than the Republicans. That is historical fact. I would like, however, your initial question considered closed before we move on to discuss the complexities of liberals and racism.
Democrats do have a longer history of racism...that is, until, Nixon's southern strategy in which they became Republicans. So, they only have about 4 decades of obvious racism compared to the 180 years or so of Democratic racism. Out of these Republicans, came the Tea Party. You can see some of the early members in this documentary here.
52 comments:
So what has Obama been up to lately? You have stopped talking about him, all you do is talk about republicans.
I think he has his hands full with Libya right now.
There is no defending the dufus-in-chief so M has moved to something else. I mean, largest monthly deficit EVER after mouthing the words "we need to live within our means" multiple times?! Crap foreign policy, crap energy policy, crap domestic policy, joke of a justice dept, and pretty much voting 'present' on everything. Yeah, I think I would not be talking about him either.
The right is full of crap and employs a double standard on virtually everything. GO TEACHERS! When Wall Street sacrifices, then so can you, and not one second before!
Speaking of double standards, mild hijack, but a topic you should entertain. James O'Keefe is at it again.
http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/03/08/npr-round-up-cantor-calls-for-defunding-senior-vp-canned-juan-williams-responds/
I love that young man.
And which are the days you are proud to be an American? How can you be proud of a slave owning (working poor) corporatocracy? Until all the poor people (peacefully) protest and burn down the rich fat-cat's mansions, the working poor will continue to be slaves to the Wall St Fatcats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/nyregion/21lirr.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Another example of Union-busting by the Fat-Cats. The work is so dangerous that most employees end up DISABLED just from working there. Of course, the FatCats want to get rid of the union, and all workplace safety rules too I'll bet!
Anon1, I'd be careful about cheering on O'Keefe if I were you. The dildo thing was just plain weird.
And it won't be long before liberals start to do the same thing. What will you think when sting operations are carried out on the Family Research Council or CPAC? Things can only degenerate from here.
who cares whan anon will think. npr got busted big time. rush said today that more tapes will be coming out, thats why the lady resigned cause she knows they're getting outed.
Yeah, but outed on what? You guys fucking slay me with your hatred of NPR. They report things you don't like so they are "liberal." I guess unless they are distributing propaganda they are enemies of America, right? They's a comin!
Just remember this time and see how well you do when the stings start on right supporting organizations. I don't think you're going to like it much and then where will we be?
Perhaps we'll have transparency, something Obama promised us.
And if you can't accept the fact that NPR IS run by liberals and has an obvious liberal slant, well, you probably think MSNBC isn't either.
The left hates Fox with a passion. Imagine the outcry if Fox was supported with tax money.
I wouldn't care if NPR had a liberal slant if it wasn't receiving taxpayer dollars. That's what irks me, especially as it pretends to be unbiased. It can stand or fall on its own merits, but it doesn't need and shouldn't be receiving any more taxpayer money.
The guy they got on tape sure was liberal. He got canned for saying all the same stuff you all say on here all the time.
Yeah! Just like Mark said! Soon, someone will show that YOUR side is a piece of shit! Then you'll be cryin!
That's a good point. He DID get fired for simply repeating the narrative that the tea party are racist, white, midwestern, gun toting xenophobes. Guess that opinion must not be as mainstream as some of you think it is.
And if you can't accept the fact that NPR IS run by liberals and has an obvious liberal slant, well, you probably think MSNBC isn't either.
No, MSNBC is liberally biased but it still succumbs to the same overall divisiveness that Fox does which isn't political at all. That's what the MSM is all about these days. You see Glenn Beck just as much on MSNBC as you do on Fox. Now, a truly liberal media outlet on par with Fox is Democracy Now or TPM.
But NPR? Nope. The problem is that they aren't a cheer festival for the right. They criticize conservatives and they don't coddle your paranoid fantasies. Throw in their stories and multiculturalism and they must be a bunch of fucking commies!
repeating the narrative that the tea party are racist, white, midwestern, gun toting xenophobes.
which I guess means that none of them are, right? This is another classic example of the competing victimization/counter attack tactic. In many ways, it's pure genius and I must tip my cap. Because now they can all be racist and xenophobic and get away with it. Now, it's the NPR folks that are bad and not the obvious racism of the right. I'll admit that the Tea Party has an advantage here. Being the rugged individualists that they are, they don't have to live by the rules that the left does. NPR guys get fired. Beck, Limbaugh, Huckabee, Gingrich....they all get cheered. As long as they are allowed to not admit fault and win the argument, all is well and good with the world.
What all of you have failed to realize is the can of worms this opens up. Recall that moveon.org was started because of the attacks on Bill Clinton (who the right love now, I guess-barf!). Expect more left wing organizations to pop up to counter all of this and then where will we be? Very much worse off.
"which I guess means that none of them are, right?"
Are you saying that because SOME of them probably are, then it is perfectly acceptable to stereotype all of them?
I think the same way about dirty niggers, money grubbing Jews, and illegal wetbacks. Glad to have a friend in you Mark.
"which I guess means that none of them are, right?"
Who the hell said that? I sure didn't.
I know you didn't, last, but that's what will end up happening. Instead of addressing the very serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the Tea Party, now the story is about how bad NPR is and how they are the ones that are racist. Don't you get it?
>the very serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the Tea Party,
Note, of course, that Mark provides not a shred of evidence for this contention. I can certainly see how you really really really want it to be true though - it's far easier to dismiss people that don't agree with you as racist than to actually engage with their arguments. .. Hey, wait a second, deja vu, I feel like I've seen this MO from Mark before...
Addressing the serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the tea party does not feed hungry children.
Mark, in case you didn't notice, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al, don't receive federal funding.
Certainly you're correct about NPR not succumbing to divisiveness. They're definitely a solid, unified front there. A reliable organ of the Party.
You're full of crap about rampant racism on the right. There's some, sure, but there's some on the left, too.
Well, let's see, Hap. How about "Barack the Magic Negro?" Or the "anti colonial Kenyan?" Or that Obama "grew up in Kenya?" and had a "different view of the Mau Mau revolution?" They might as well put a bone through his nose. Oh wait, they did.
http://www.google.com/images?q=obama+as+witch+doctor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PZp5Te-YE8jgrAHE48TCBQ&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=905
In addition, here is a slide show.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/
Now, we can go a few different ways from here. You can admit your side has a problem. Or I can present some more evidence. We could also talk about subliminal messages and appeal to fear. Or (more likely) you can get pissed, stomp your feet, and say that NPR are racists.
I know you didn't, last, but that's what will end up happening.
Y'see last, M didn't need to hear that from you - he already had at least one voice in his head telling him.
Just to keep your original claim in your head Mark, it was this:
"very serious racial overtones of a substantial portion of the Tea Party"
In support of which, you gave:
>How about "Barack the Magic Negro?" Or the "anti colonial Kenyan?" Or that Obama "grew up in Kenya?" and had a "different view of the Mau Mau revolution?"
So - I would agree that some of those things are arguably racist. What do any of them have to do with the Tea Party in particular?
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/
Did you even look at this slideshow? I found two pictures that could even plausibly called racist. Most of them I would describe as not even plausibly racially related. Obama = Hitler, Obama = communist stuff. As you are no doubt aware, that is quite tame as Bushitler and Walker-hitler well know.
>Now, we can go a few different ways from here. You can admit your side has a problem.
If you want me to admit that there are conservative racists, and even Tea Party racists, then I readily admit that. But you went quite a bit beyond that, didn't you Mark. You claimed:
"substantial portion of the Tea Party"
The word "substantial" means easily greater than 50%:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial
"being largely but not wholly that which is specified"
So, we can go a few different ways from here. You can admit that you are simply cherry picking the occasional conservative racist and trying to smear every conservative as racist by their existence, because it allows you to dismiss conservative views without having to engage them. Or you can clarify your use of the word "substantial", because, though you keep trying to avoid it, words mean things. Or, you can give a *lot* more evidence, because getting yourself to >50% of the Tea Party movement is going to take a lot of work on your part. Or, most likely, you will simply try to play one the cards that you think is your get out of jail free - one of "wordsmithing", "winning the argument", "can't admit error", or somesuch, all of which generally translate to "Mark ran at the mouth but his ego is too big to admit it." Which will it be?
Please come to the next TEA party event held close to you and witness with your very own eyes the "racists". I think you will be totally amazed at what you see.
"You can admit your side has a problem."
...which will allow him to WIN THE ARGUMENT!
Did you even look at this slideshow
Ah, that classic.
Most of them I would describe as not even plausibly racially related.
If the only two you think are racist are the confederate flags, then your perception is a little off. The Kenya posters were ridiculous. Remember, as well, that the slide show is three full rows with the last slide being "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" which isn't racist but equally as disturbing.
The Tea Party's core roots are colored with racial bias. What percentage of them think that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Wasn't born here? Think too much has been made of the problems facing black people? In the case of the last question, 52 percent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html
Here is another poll with results that are quite disturbing
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html
Only 45 percent think that blacks are intelligent. 73 percent think that blacks would be better off if they tried harder. 56 percent think that immigrants take jobs from Americans. By your definition, that's substantial.
Last, no one wins with a problem like this. We all lose until we can move forward.
>The Kenya posters were ridiculous.
And.. Are they racist? Pretty stupid, yes, I agree, but racist?
>"Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" which isn't racist but equally as disturbing.
Please. After the endless Bush assassination fantasies and the more recent spate of death threats aimed at Walker and R's in WI, none of that stuff is remotely beyond the pale. (Unfortunately.)
>What percentage of them think that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Wasn't born here? Think too much has been made of the problems facing black people?
How do those questions indicate racism? (Muslim, lest you forget, is not the identifier of a race.) What you're doing is simply saying "I don't like the answers to these questions. Ergo, racism."
>Only 45 percent think that blacks are intelligent.
Gonna need a location for that one. I don't see where that is in your linked poll.
>73 percent think that blacks would be better off if they tried harder. 56 percent think that immigrants take jobs from Americans. By your definition, that's substantial.
And once again, I keep having to ask this, but how are these racist? Those are answers you don't like, as in, there are a substantial number of questions that Mark doesn't like the answers to. I understand why you want to leap straight to "racism!", but it only works for someone who holds your priors as to what constitutes racism.
All you racist teabaggers are just using facts to try and win the argument.
Your facts are stupid!
You tell 'em Mark!
56 percent think that immigrants take jobs from Americans
So Mark, would you think the following statements are racist?
...have been undermining the earning power of low-income Americans by hiring illegal immigrants
...unions...have...disappeared. ...the influx of immigrant labor destroyed them.
Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph. I forgot to mention that only 35 percent think blacks are hard working.
but how are these racist?
Alright, Brietbart, you aren't seriously asking me these questions are you? Good Lord...
And you're playing the game again. Deflect, redirect, counter attack, competing victimizations...and poof! The Tea Party and other conservatives are barely racist...it's magic!
It's almost as easy as you folks going "Poof! You're a racist!"
>Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph.
So, I'm going to assume you looked more into the study than just reading the "this goes right along with my preferred narrative!" summary numbers, right? Direct your attention to the source for those claims, which appears to be this:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/Stereotypes%20about%20Asians%20and%20whites%20by%20White%20tea%20Party%20Approval.pdf
You'll note that there are multiple columns, each representing a 'class' of white people out of 1006 respondents total from 7 states (near as i can tell) - 'true skeptics of the tea party', which, i guess means people who don't think much of the tea party, 'middle of the road', 'true believers' (of the tea party), and 'never heard of'. That 45% number presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) comes from the 'true believers' column, which represents the total % of people who answered affirmatively to one of the "blacks are intelligent" questions. Now, leaving aside the question of how you would accurately separate out "skeptics" vs "middle of the road" vs "true believers" vs "never heard of" (which would be a handy way to bias the results in a desired direction, btw) note that while 45% of true believers think blacks are intelligent, only.. 48% of middle of the road people do. And 59% of true skeptics. (That would presumably be people like you.) So I'm pretty confused as to your point Mark - this study seems to say that at least 40% of all white people, whether liberal, middle of the road, or tea party, don't think black people are intelligent. If you were to assume that a negative answer to the question represents racism, then all you've shown is that Tea Party people are a bit more likely to be racist than.. everyone. Including you and your team. Myself, I'd be mighty curious as to what exact question was asked that lead to those results. If someone were to ask me "Are black people intelligent?" I would respond that the question is nonsense, because I know black people that are extremely intelligent and I also know black people that are extremely not intelligent. Like.. each person is an individual or something. (I know! How weird is that??) Anyway, Mark, could you set me straight on my questions about the study? I figure you know all about it since you linked to it.
(Splitting up so it posts.)
>Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph.
So, I'm going to assume you looked more into the study than just reading the "this goes right along with my preferred narrative!" summary numbers, right? Direct your attention to the source for those claims, which appears to be this:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/Stereotypes%20about%20Asians%20and%20whites%20by%20White%20tea%20Party%20Approval.pdf
You'll note that there are multiple columns, each representing a 'class' of white people out of 1006 respondents total from 7 states (near as i can tell) - 'true skeptics of the tea party', which, i guess means people who don't think much of the tea party, 'middle of the road', 'true believers' (of the tea party), and 'never heard of'. That 45% number presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) comes from the 'true believers' column, which represents the total % of people who answered affirmatively to one of the "blacks are intelligent" questions. Now, leaving aside the question of how you would accurately separate out "skeptics" vs "middle of the road" vs "true believers" vs "never heard of" (which would be a handy way to bias the results in a desired direction, btw) note that while 45% of true believers think blacks are intelligent, only.. 48% of middle of the road people do. And 59% of true skeptics. (That would presumably be people like you.)
(cont)
So I'm pretty confused as to your point Mark - this study seems to say that at least 40% of all white people, whether liberal, middle of the road, or tea party, don't think black people are intelligent. If you were to assume that a negative answer to the question represents racism, then all you've shown is that Tea Party people are a bit more likely to be racist than.. everyone. Including you and your team. Myself, I'd be mighty curious as to what exact question was asked that lead to those results. If someone were to ask me "Are black people intelligent?" I would respond that the question is nonsense, because I know black people that are extremely intelligent and I also know black people that are extremely not intelligent. Like.. each person is an individual or something. (I know! How weird is that??) Anyway, Mark, could you set me straight on my questions about the study? I figure you know all about it since you linked to it.
Dah! This was supposed to be first:
>Hap, the numbers are in the Washington poll. Look in the paragraph above the graph.
So, I'm going to assume you looked more into the study than just reading the "this goes right along with my preferred narrative!" summary numbers, right? Direct your attention to the source for those claims, which appears to be this:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/Stereotypes%20about%20Asians%20and%20whites%20by%20White%20tea%20Party%20Approval.pdf
You'll note that there are multiple columns, each representing a 'class' of white people out of 1006 respondents total from 7 states (near as i can tell) - 'true skeptics of the tea party', which, i guess means people who don't think much of the tea party, 'middle of the road', 'true believers' (of the tea party), and 'never heard of'. That 45% number presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) comes from the 'true believers' column, which represents the total % of people who answered affirmatively to one of the "blacks are intelligent" questions.
second:
Now, leaving aside the question of how you would accurately separate out "skeptics" vs "middle of the road" vs "true believers" vs "never heard of" (which would be a handy way to bias the results in a desired direction, btw) note that while 45% of true believers think blacks are intelligent, only.. 48% of middle of the road people do. And 59% of true skeptics. (That would presumably be people like you.)
3rd is the (cont) part from above.
And finally:
>Alright, Brietbart, you aren't seriously asking me these questions are you? Good Lord...
Yeah, not surprised you'd pass on that. Shorter Mark: "it is because I say it is. How can that not be enough for you?" Newsflash: I don't share your priors about how the world works. Nor do I have any trust in your judgement.
Don't feel bad Mark, partisans on both sides love to nutpick. After all - didn't you know that substantial numbers of liberals support killing political opponents? This video totally proves it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0DuqAi6gFQ&feature=player_embedded
How could you say that is an unfair conclusion? Am I not following your logic for proving such things, that being, find some anecdotes and poof! Contention proven!
If you look at how the study was conducted, they separated out people who strongly support the tea party and people who strongly oppose the tea party-both white. The graph shows the disparity between the two.
So, of the 45 percent who strongly support the movement or who somewhat do, 35 percent think that blacks are hard working, 45 percent think that blacks are intelligent, 41 percent think that blacks are trustworthy. The numbers are around the same for Latinos.
I'll grant you that there are liberals out there who are racist. Several are my in laws (rural Iowa and all). But they are far less a portion than on the conservative side or, in this case, the Tea Party. And I will also grant you that it comes down to the wording of the question. But these numbers speak volumes.
Regarding the negative, people are more likely these days to hide their racism because they know it's frowned upon and, in most places, illegal. That's why I think there is no need for affirmative action anymore. It's just not acceptable to treat people that way anymore. So, those remaining people (likely conservative/tea party where they find all the anger, hate and fear that they need to feel comfortable) do a little dance and think they are being clever but their bigotry is so obvious that it would be funny...if it weren't tragic.
>But they are far less a portion than on the conservative side
Mark. By your own study (depending on the question, and ignoring all the questions about questions asked, how they were split apart, etc), 41 out of every 100 liberals is racist, while 55 out of every 100 tea-partiers/conservatives is racist. I mean, yeah, 41 is less than 55, but do you really think that represents "far less?" I might be impressed if it was an order of magnitude, like 55 to 5. (And 52% of middle of the roaders are racist - so tea party people are very similar to middle of the roaders?)
Given that your *own team* is broadly implicated (by 41%!) by your own study, don't you think it's pretty likely that this isn't quite telling you what you want it to be telling you? In particular - the assumption that not answering affirmative to any of the "blacks are x" question might not automatically mean someone is a racist?
Leave Mark alone! He already said he hates dirty niggers, what else do you guys want from him?
Hap, I'll agree that people hide their bias. I'll even go so far as to say that I have bias towards black people. It's inherent in all humans to be distrustful. What happens next is where the difference lies and that's called reflection.
For me, I sit back and think about why I have this bias. I work towards new thinking and try to set aside prejudice. Someone who is racist does none of these things and blames the victim. Essentially, they lack reflection.
Did you ever stop to think that the 41 out of 100 liberals said that because they were simply being honest and felt guilty? Do you think the same could be said for the Tea Partiers? By their very nature, liberals are more reflective than conservatives. Indeed by their very definition!
conservative: (n) a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; (adj) disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change;
liberal: (adj): free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant; favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs; favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties; (n): a person who has liberal ideas or opinions
And you also have to remember that the liberal brain is wired differently than the conservative brain. It's not just in the definition of the word but the way we think from a physiological point of view.
Now, you asked me to prove that more than 50 percent of Tea Partiers have racists attitudes. By your standards, I did that. Will you admit it?
I have no problem continuing on the discussion regarding liberals and racism. Certainly, the Democrats have a far longer history with being racists than the Republicans. That is historical fact. I would like, however, your initial question considered closed before we move on to discuss the complexities of liberals and racism.
Democrat = Liberal
Democrats = "have a far longer history with being racists than the Republicans"
Liberals = racists
You are a liar Mark! Liberals aren't racists! Conservatives are! It has to be true! It has to be!
Democrats do have a longer history of racism...that is, until, Nixon's southern strategy in which they became Republicans. So, they only have about 4 decades of obvious racism compared to the 180 years or so of Democratic racism. Out of these Republicans, came the Tea Party. You can see some of the early members in this documentary here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7294526473944146040#
More examples of substantial racism.
One more thing, this video shows "the voices in my head." (anger, hate, fear)
http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6103.shtml
Even the DOJ admits niggers are stupid. Me and you Mark! White Power!
Post a Comment