This speaks volumes

[The Dad Fisherman]

Why doesn't somebody in the Tea Party go up to these people with the signs and say "Dude, We have an important message to get out here, and that sign isn't helping anything"

There was mention of a sign that said "congress works for us not the other way around"....thats the kind of signs they need to be carrying. Might help swing people in there direction a lot easier than the other ones they are carrying.

Just my opinion...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why doesn't somebody in the Tea Party go up to these people with the signs and say "Dude, We have an important message to get out here, and that sign isn't helping anything"

There was mention of a sign that said "congress works for us not the other way around"....thats the kind of signs they need to be carrying. Might help swing people in there direction a lot easier than the other ones they are carrying.

Just my opinion...

Because sensationalistic actions/signs get you in the news, not sensibility.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why doesn't somebody in the Tea Party go up to these people with the signs and say "Dude, We have an important message to get out here, and that sign isn't helping anything"

There was mention of a sign that said "congress works for us not the other way around"....thats the kind of signs they need to be carrying. Might help swing people in there direction a lot easier than the other ones they are carrying.

Just my opinion...

Dad, 99% of the signs say exactly that. But you wouldn't know that unless you attended rallies, because the media fixatres on the 1 or 2 inflammatory signs. In fact, there have been documented cases of liberal "plants" going to tea party rallies with racist signs, in hopes of discrediting us. And those are the signs that the media reports on, so that people like you have no way of knowing that 99.9 of the signs are totaly appropriate. How does the Tea Party combat that? What's the defense against that?

Dad, I've been to a few rallies. I have heard the speakers ask those in the crowd to not carry inflammatory signs, and stick to signs that carry the message. But the media won't report on that, because they are trying to demonize the tea party as racist, extremist kooks. And from your post, it looks like the media is succeeding (not that you called us extremists, but to repeat, you don't seem to know that your suggestion is actually the reality). I saw a guy carrying a sign that said "no matter what I put here, you'll say it's racist". That's what we are facing, which is fine with me, because it shows you how desperate the liberals are. And they are NOT desperate to debate the merits of our agenda...they are desperate to have us dismissed as racists, because the last thing they want is to debate our agenda, because they know their agenda doesn't pass the common sense test.

Look at Glenn Back's rally at the National Mall what, a few months ago? Maybe a couple of hundred thousand people (I was there). There was no trouble, when it was over, there wasn't a scrap of litter anywhere. Furhermore, if the tea party is racist, I'm sure that comes as a suprise to Martin Luther King's niece, who spoke at the rally...

A week or 2 later, the liberals had an anti tea party rally. Nowhere near as many people, and the mall was completely trashed.

Who are the unruly folks?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Dad, 99% of the signs say exactly that. But you wouldn't know that unless you attended rallies...

Me thinks you haven't been to too many rallies if you truly think "99% of the signs say exactly that." I've been to a couple that have taken place in Boston and, while the ridiculous signs are the minority, it was split about 75% rational to 25% ridiculous. That is including the nonsense t-shirts people wore.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Me thinks you haven't been to too many rallies if you truly think "99% of the signs say exactly that." I've been to a couple that have taken place in Boston and, while the ridiculous signs are the minority, it was split about 75% rational to 25% ridiculous. That is including the nonsense t-shirts people wore.

Is the 75% rational to 25% ridiculous worse than the rational to ridiculous ratio to be found in the general electorate? Granted that Jim in CT, as he admits, often speaks with hyperbole.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Me thinks you haven't been to too many rallies if you truly think "99% of the signs say exactly that." I've been to a couple that have taken place in Boston and, while the ridiculous signs are the minority, it was split about 75% rational to 25% ridiculous. That is including the nonsense t-shirts people wore.

Johnny, first I said I've been to a few rallies, not many. Second, my degrees are in statistics, but no, I didn't do an actual quantification of what the ratio is. I can't prove it's 99% rational, 1% extreme.

What I can say with 100% confidence are 2 things.

(1) Whatever the actual ratio of normal/kook is at most tea party rallies, the kook factor is tremendously overblown by the media. If you disagree, then me thinks you need to re-think what you thinks.

(2) The vast majority of the media coverage of the tea party completely ignores teh message we're tryingh to get across, and instead focuses on the lunatic fringe in the crowd.

How about this? Instead of spending all our time focusing on the extreme fringe within the Tea Party (which I concede exists), let's talk about whether or not the ideas of the tea party make sense. The media doesn't do that, because they are interested in promoting the liberal agenda, despite the fact that every place that lives by that agenda (CT, CA, IL, any business dominated by unions) is a train-wreck.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) Whatever the actual ratio of normal/kook is at most tea party rallies, the kook factor is tremendously overblown by the media. If you disagree, then me thinks you need to re-think what you thinks.

Actually, JohnnyD does seem to agree with you with his 75/25 rational/ridiculous ratio. He just wants to nitpick at your exageration.

(2) The vast majority of the media coverage of the tea party completely ignores teh message we're tryingh to get across, and instead focuses on the lunatic fringe in the crowd.

Again, I think you're essentially correct, but be careful with exagerations such as "completely ignores"--this just gives those who want to ignore the/your message an excuse to obfuscate and dodge your discussion.

How about this? Instead of spending all our time focusing on the extreme fringe within the Tea Party (which I concede exists), let's talk about whether or not the ideas of the tea party make sense.

That would be a good discussion--doubt that it will happen. It's easier to nitpick your hyperbole, then move on.

The media doesn't do that, because they are interested in promoting the liberal agenda, despite the fact that every place that lives by that agenda (CT, CA, IL, any business dominated by unions) is a train-wreck.

Again, be careful with stuff like "every place," though I agree that your essential argument is correct.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

...there is zero evidence that the Tea Party supports racism.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, first you say that "people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party"


It's EXACTLY teh liberal agenda that got blacks stuck in the poverty cycle, by making them addicted to welfare, and providing financial incentives to drop out of school, have kids outside of marriage, and to not work.

I did not contradict myself. I said they do not represent...necessarily the party. You said there was zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist. The party platform certainly would not be overtly racist. I think there are people in the tea party who are not racist. I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group.

As far as the second part... you mean "people" in general or only "blacks"? I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I did not contradict myself. I said they do not represent...necessarily the party. You said there was zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist. The party platform certainly would not be overtly racist. I think there are people in the tea party who are not racist. I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group.

As far as the second part... you mean "people" in general or only "blacks"? I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?

Zimmy -

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Bullsh*t. If that evidence exists, show us.

"I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group."

That's your opinion. You keep stating it, but you don't support it with anything other than your anectdotal observations, which prove nothing.

"I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?"

Because these liberal programs I was referring to, target those who are poor. Blacks are disportionately poor (I guess you didn't know that?), so these programs disportionately impact blacks. And all those programs do is provide financial incentives to continue the exact behaviors that are guaranteed to perpetuate the poverty cycle. The Tea Party agenda offers an exact remedy to fix this. Ironic, isn't it?

Finally, if it's not liberal policies which encourage blacks to have so many kids out of wedlock, what do YOU think it is? Are conservative white people causing 66% of black kids to be born without a Dad in the home? If so, how are we doing that?

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You said there was zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist. The party platform certainly would not be overtly racist. I think there are people in the tea party who are not racist. I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group.

Again, Jim in CT admits that he exagerates, but he can't seem to avoid using it--so I try to sift through the hyperbole to what is important. Now, it seems, that you like the use of a more slippery form of exageration--"plenty of evidence," not 100% of the evidence? . . . "substantial portion . . . are racist"--like, more than 25%, or more than the general population, or more than in the black, or latino, or asian communities, or in the white sector of the Democrat party? You "think" . . . "there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other 'major' political group." Really? So is this a feeling, a thought, an intimation, a message in a dream or nightmare? How do you come by this?

As far as the second part... you mean "people" in general or only "blacks"? I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?

Blacks started in a big economic/psychological hole at the start of this country. Early on, they, fared better as citizens in the northern States, some did quite well. Even some in the South, who were not slaves did well. One of the biggest slave owners was black. The Civil War and its immediate aftermath saw a great and quick improvement of black society. Then, of course, the racist white backlash of Sourthern White Democrats (oops--Dixiecrats) put a stranglehold on that progress, though, economically, blacks in the north, though discriminated against, had gains. The aftermath of the great Society and its war on poverty helped, against its goals, to stagnate and reverse black gains.

Whites, on the other hand, as a race (not necessarily as individuals) started on top, and also gained with the economic growth that was provided with the originalist form of limited government based on regional and individual power. But the Great Society also affected the underclass of white society and expanded the numbers of that class. The growing unemployment, and poverty levels, and abortion levels, and welfare levels and broken family levels of white society is also expanding. But, starting from the top, the fall is not yet as great.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist.

girlfriend's sister's uncle ...or ridiculous chain email?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist.


Jim, you brought up the racism thing several times. I commented that the people I know personally who associate with the tea party are racist. I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said. I didn't bring up the racism issue. I didn't say the tea party as a party has a racist agenda. If anyone says you are racist because you are a tea party supporter, that is bs. That said, I believe the agenda of the tea party is appealing to a racist portion of the population for obvious reasons.

I didn't play the card, you did. QUOTE=zimmy

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy -

" I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said."

Really??? Here is what ytou said..

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Zimmy, you may know some racists. That means NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and it says nothing about the tea party. I asked you multiple times for the so-called "evidence", and all you can do is say you have racist friends who go to Tea Party meetings. If you think that says something about the entire Tea Party, you don't know much about critical thinking...

"Your math ignored a significant part of revenue."

No, my math did not. You, and many other liberals, seem to think that taxing "business" is somehow different from taxing people. Zimmy, this may come as a shock to you, but a business can't pay its own taxes. A business is building and equipment...the building itself cannot write a check to the IRS.

I don't know why liberals don't grasp this...when you tax a business, you are taking money away from people linked to that business...the customers, the employees, and the owners/shareholders. Every single penny of business tax is a penny less that some person, somewhere, gets to keep for themselves.

That's not even economics 101, it's simpler than that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

.


In his mind, calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists is NOT playing the race card....

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.


In his mind, calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists is NOT playing the race card....

Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? Did you read my post? I am done wasting my time with you. You have some weird issue with the tea party and race.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? Did you read my post? I am done wasting my time with you. You have some weird issue with the tea party and race.

Zimmy -

"Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists?"

Are you feeling OK? Here is what you posted the other day...

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist"

"You have some weird issue with the tea party and race"

My issue is that some folks, including you, find it more convenient to label us as racists, rather than debate the points we are making. It's easy to hurl a baseless accusation of racism. It's a lot harder to try to articulate why fiscal responsibility isn't sound political policy...

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;853779]Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."