This speaks volumes

[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."

[zimmy]

substantial is not all. You asked what evidence there was related to tea party and racism. You said there is no evidence. I gave you examples of racism associated with the tea party based on my own experiences and images from rallies. That is all. I have many thoughts on the policy ideas of the tea party. I would have never brought the race issue up as it is pretty much irrelevant to me. I am not sure why you care so much about it.I would have never replied about except you said there is ZERO EVIDENCE. That is the only reason I chimed in. Zero evidence is a bit disingenuous. Suppose I had said "there is zero evidence that liberals want to take away our guns." You could have replied to show that zero evidence isn't really true with anecdotes about liberals you know who think no one should own guns. You could have shown signs from rallies that talk about kids killed by guns. That would not necessarily mean that you think that every democrat or the democratic party wants to take every bodies guns. It is the same for me and race with the tea party. I am not even sure why I am bothering responding, but maybe it is your mis-characterization that is irritating.

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, one last time...the fact that you have racist friends who go to Tea Party meetings means absolutely nothing. For you to assume that your little observation can be used to say something about anational organization, is amazing. There is no logic at all in what you are doing.

That would be like me saying "a black woman cut me off on the highway today, therefire I can conclud ethat black women are lousy drivers".

That's not how you do a sample Zimmy. You need a lot more observations, and they need to be random, not limited to your pals.

The fact that you admit to being friends with racists says a lot more about YOU than it does about the Tea Party.

To top it all off, you keep saying on one hand that there's evidence that the Tea Party is racist, then on the other hand, you are denying that you are playing the race card. That's great. So you suggest we are racists, and then when we object to the implication, you tell me I'm being paranoid about race, because you made no such claim?

Clearly, you have no idea what it means to play the race card, because I couldn't invent a better hypothetical example of it than what you are doing. Eith that, of you have been painting inside with the windows shut. You need to open the windows a crack...

Zimmy, you know a few racists who belong to the Tea Party, so you conclude the Tea Party is racist. Fine. Zimmy, what inference do you make about the fact that 95% of blacks voted for Obama? If your 2 racist friends are enough evidence for you to conclude that Tea Partiers are racist, then how can you fail to conclude blacks are also racist? 95% of them refused to vote for McCain, right?

Jeez!

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=zimmy;853892

Suppose I had said "there is zero evidence that liberals want to take away our guns." .[/QUOTE]

You might as well say that, because it's just as bizarre as what you are saying. The liberal agenda is more serious about gun control than the conservative agenda, that's a fact. It's also a fact that there is nothing in the Tea Party agenda that discriminates based on race.

The really ironic thing is that the Tea Party agenda is PRECISELY what blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty. But they won't consider it, because they have been convinced by the media, by Obama, and by the likes of you, that the Tea Party is racist.

Finally Zimmy...where am I wrong when I say that taxing business is the same as taxing people? You keep saying we can increase revenue without consequences by taxing business, and I made a good case that taking money from a "business" is still taking money from people. I see you didn't respond to that...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The really ironic thing is that the Tea Party agenda is PRECISELY what blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty.

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist.

Again, you play the race card...accusing me of racism, with nothing to back it up.

Blacks are disproportionately poor. The tea party feels that poor people (regardless of ethnicity) are better off with paychecks than with welfare checks. Not only is that better for poor people, it's better for everyone...

You tell me why that's racist, please...that could only be deemed racist by liberal idiots who would always choose to play the race card rather then debate the merits of an argument...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist.

That statement he made is not racist...the statement might address race but it isn't racist....there is a difference.

I think a lot of that is getting lost in the PC Policed world

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Finally Zimmy...where am I wrong when I say that taxing business is the same as taxing people? You keep saying we can increase revenue without consequences by taxing business, and I made a good case that taking money from a "business" is still taking money from people. I see you didn't respond to that...

I was talking about how your math ignored revenue from business in your tax analogy. You really distort what I have said. "Taking money from business is taking money from people." Well, some might say that a business tax code without loopholes would reduce the tax burden on a wider proportion of people. You are trying to make simple statements when the economics is complicated.