What if the Tea Party was Black?

Sad that you missed my point. The TP is about money and power, not ethnicity. Look at who they are supporting, many of whom are as non-racist as Washington can find (which isn't many), but whom are well backed financially - even stronger than the GOP - financially. The TP, Conservs, Libs, Dems, Reps, rightists, leftists, centralists, uppists and downists are so fed up with the total lack of performance and leadership of the 535 plus one elected officials - the officials who are "holding America hostage". It's not about ethnicity - it's about power, money and lack of performance. So, unless money and power have suddenly turned black, that ain't what the TP is about.

That beeing said fstwarrior is right...

Unless you are implying that the Tea Party is that group of folks who will "do anything to keep the ethnicity in the forefront in lieu of the performance/lack thereof, fstwarrior is anything but right. Considering that the Tea Party movement is centered around ethnicity whether that fact is acknowledged or not.

How are you going to tell another person they don't understand their own opinion? You're no more right than anybody else when it comes to a point of view.

And what's worse is that you are willing to be partisan about your condemnation of racism or let's just say plain hate. You do so at your own expense as you'll find the same mentality, demonstrations of hate, and racism amongst people that call themselves liberals, or Democrats, or Progressives.

And to top it off, fstwarrior and Darryl are probably in agreement over the concept that racism, and the judging of people by skin color, or sexual orientation is perpetuated by the continuing desire to use this excuse for the division in society, to use it to explain our differences in opinions not only in our politics but in our social choices. Does anybody else remember the hate and racial slurs conjured by the gay community in California when their proposition on the 2008 ballot was struck down ~ which was largely attributed to a large black voter turnout (a demographic that isn't pro-gay rights). I do. Divisive politics and creating sensational wedges such as this is what helps feed the media ratings. That's not to say there aren't racists out there... there are, but they exist in all walks of life, and in all political groups - and fstwarriors point is clear, you all do more harm than good by constantly making "race" the issue.

Of course, they keep one token black guy around, who just happens to have the same name as the first murderer in the Bible.

Analogies to be drawn there, but I'm not in the mood.

The tea party movement is NOT centered around race - While it is obvious the majority of the members are white you do know there are african american members also right?

Token black guy? So are you saying that that token black man is too dumb to realize he is nothing more than a token ?

While it is obvious the majority of the members are white you do know there are african american members also right?

There are also white members of the NAACP. What does that prove?

Are you implying that the NAACP is racist also ?

you all do more harm than good by constantly making "race" the issue.

There is no further harm done when pointing out that race IS the issue.

It proves that the NAACP has a token white guy? Or wait wait, what we have here is some self-loathing folks. Or at least that's what I'd expect a comedian to say.

It doesn't show anything blaqberrymolasses other than that these people find some meaning in participation with these groups. It's rather unimportant if people would stop trying to group people by their skin color and instead look at their beliefs, opinions, etc.

Race "IS" the issue because you all look for it. Instead of taking it as a person's opinion or belief... you want to stereotype them based and it just happens that skin color is an easy target to make an excuse for having what is just a difference of opinion. The internet is a great place in many respects... you often interact with people you know nothing about but what they tell you... but it's funny how opinions are immediately associated with walks of life, skin color, income, etc., and what's funnier, is when people discover that their stereotyping was wrong.

Are you implying that the NAACP is racist also ?

No. i am implying that the NAACP is centered on race.

It doesn't show anything blaqberrymolasses other than that these people find some meaning in participation with these groups.

I'm not arguing that fact. Of course they find some meaning in participation. It is the meaning that we seem to disagree on.

It's rather unimportant if people would stop trying to group people by their skin color and instead look at their beliefs, opinions, etc.

What do you think people are doing? It is the beliefs and opinions that are being scrutinized. And however uncomfortable it may be for some people to acknowledge it, there is sometimes a link between the skin color and the beliefs and opinions.

Oh and i guess MLK's niece was a token also ? She did attend and speak at Glenn Beck's rally right? And Herman Cain is another token? Why would so many racists back and listen to a black man speak and support him if they are as racist as you claim?

Frequent Tea Party speaker Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, announced his presidential bid in his hometown of Atlanta today. Over 15,000 gathered for his announcement rally at Centennial Olympic Park. Click on the screen capture to watch his announcement on C-SPAN.

Whatever association we make between a person's opinions or beliefs with their skin color is from conditioning. The opinions and beliefs that people stereotype to one group or another are no exclusive as you will find that nearly anybody can be conditioned to have a similar structure within the differing environments. Essentially, the difference in people is not a matter of race but it is a difference in experiences.

Why would so many racists back and listen to a black man speak and support him if they are as racist as you claim?

Why wouldn't they, when that black man is speaking on their behalf, and in defense of their racism?

Yeh thats it - He hates blacks right? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? To say that a black man hates all black? Or that he is speaking in defense of their racism - Nice try

Yeh thats it - He hates blacks right?

I didn't say that he hates blacks, although it's not impossible for a black person to hate blacks...not at all. My statement stands- they listen to him and support him because he's defending their position. Not only that, but I didn't define racism as "hating all blacks"- you did. It's possible to be a virulent racist, and be quite fond of some people of another race- as long as they stay in their defined "place".

I still say...why wouldn't they, when that black man is speaking on their behalf, and in defense of their racism?

Well, that's a loaded question to begin with Plantsmantx. You're asking us to presume or to take on your opinion that the gathering or opinions of the people at the rallies are racists. That's not fair nor is it accurate and everybody here knows that, saying otherwise is stereotyping... and mind you, stereotyping is a key step and behavior in racism.

Wouldn't it be better to start off with a question that isn't based on an assumption. I suppose if it was a KKK rally and Cain was speaking at it that your question or opinion would be easier to accept or agree with, but it's not.

In their defined"place" would be President - Because if the Tea Part were to back him that is where he would or could be right?

Their position is simple enough - TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY - They are fighting the Government spending - Nothing more and nothing less - All these cries of racism are unfounded

I wouldn't expect you to accept or agree with it even if I had stopped at "speaking on their behalf". I included "and in defense of their racism" because the group's reason for being is primarily racist. That's the main thrust of the group (and when I say "the group", I'm talking about the Tea Party...not "white people"), and pointing that out isn't stereotyping. Yes, Cain and people like him do speak in defense of the Tea Party's racism. They "confirm" their racist rationalizations about black people as a rule, while portraying themselves as exceptions to the rule.

There reason for being is not primarily racist - It is to stop government spending

And what of MLK'S niece? She is a woman who has gone thru the real bad times of racism in this country - She has seen it firsthand more than most and she stood with them on Glenn Beck's rally - Do you really think she would have been there is she thought the TP was racist?

WASHINGTON — Black members of the tea party movement on Wednesday rejected charges that the group's activists are racist, saying they oppose President Barack Obama because of his policies not his skin color

The members gathered at a Washington news conference in the wake of allegations about its rank and file, heightened by the recent split with a Tea Party Express leader who had posted a letter on his blog written from "Colored People" to Abraham Lincoln. The post suggested that black people would choose slavery over having to do real work.

The black members said the racism that has been attributed to the tea party movement came from outsiders who infiltrated the groups to discredit their work and it should be rejected.

"These people do not oppose Barack Obama because of his skin color. They oppose him because of his policies," said Lloyd Marcus, a spokesman for the group.

"Democrats have re-enslaved America," said Kevin Jackson, president of the Black Conservative Coalition. He said tea party activists, if successful, would reduce the size of government and set in motion another Emancipation Proclamation, the document that President Abraham Lincoln signed that effectively ended slavery.

There reason for being is not primarily racist - It is to stop government spending

Yeah, hence "Government hands off my Medicare!!":). Please, lol.

Do you really think she would have been there is she thought the TP was racist?

Well, yes. Many black rightists are more than willing to accommodate racism.

He said tea party activists, if successful, would reduce the size of government and set in motion another Emancipation Proclamation, the document that President Abraham Lincoln signed that effectively ended slavery.

LOL the tea party would be more likely to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation so they can return to slavery. Thus returning America to its Founding Father's roots/s

To say that a black man hates all black? Or that he is speaking in defense of their racism

Do you honestly believe that there are no black people who hate other black people?

And what of MLK'S niece? She is a woman who has gone thru the real bad times of racism in this country - She has seen it firsthand more than most and she stood with them on Glenn Beck's rally - Do you really think she would have been there is she thought the TP was racist?

What of her? What about her makes her unable to side with a cause that is opposed to the interests of many who happen to share similar skin tone?

What of MLK'S niece? Exactly as i stated - She has seen true racism - You think she does not know racism when it is evident? How many of you have actually attended and or spoken with TP members? I have named a few black members who have attended obviously - and they did not find it did they? Or evidently if you are black and are on the side of the TP you are misinformed or a token right?

Do any of you have any real life experience with TP members ? Or are you all just believing what SOME are saying?

Do i thiunk there ar black people who hate other black people - Of course there are but i would think they hate them for a reason - Not for being black

What of MLK'S niece? Exactly as i stated - She has seen true racism

Plenty of black people see true racism...today. But, that's not the point I want to make. What I said about many black rightists being willing to accommodate racism isn't just true in the present tense- it was also true in the past tense, including what you would call the era of "true racism".

What of MLK'S niece? Exactly as i stated - She has seen true racism - You think she does not know racism when it is evident?

That does not preclude her from siding with a cause that is opposed to the interests of many in her ethnic group. Stating that the Tea Party couldn't possibly be racist because there are black members of the party is as ludicrous as some country's attempts to stamp out racism by declaring that it doesn't exist.

Or evidently if you are black and are on the side of the TP you are misinformed or a token right?

Perhaps. But in any event, that person has proven themselves to be someone I wouldn't take advice from.

Do i thiunk there ar black people who hate other black people - Of course there are but i would think they hate them for a reason - Not for being black

Then that explains a lot. You don't know much about black intra-racial dynamics.

Then that explains a lot. You don't know much about black intra-racial dynamics.

No doubt. I have to say, though- he introduced the idea of racism as "hating blacks" as a group. So, when he says it's possible for some blacks to hate other blacks for a reason and "not for being black", it's pretty obvious that he's saying it's possible for some blacks to hate other blacks as a group for a reason that goes beyond just being black. There's a term for that. It's called "cultural racism".

I looked up the term for cultural racism.

Cultural Racism: This term is being used with increasing frequency to draw attention to a shift in the focial point of much racism from physical characteristics such as social customs, manners and behavior, religious and moral beliefs and practices, language, aesthetic values and leisure activities. Whereas post-reflective gut racism seeks to explain and justify racist attitudes in religious or scientific terms, cultural racism attempts the same thing in cultural terms. It involves prejudice against individuals because of their culture. The culture of minority groups is seen as flawed in soem way, and thus as standing in the way of their progress. Unlike post-reflective gut racism, however, cultural racism does not involve belief in the existence of any biological incapacity to change. On the contrary, change is exactly what is sought. Minorities are encouraged to turn their back on their own culture and to become absorbed by the majority culture.

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/Halstead.html#cultural

Very accurate description of what is going on in this discussion.

Yeh thats it - He hates blacks right? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? To say that a black man hates all black? Or that he is speaking in defense of their racism - Nice try

Hitler hated all Jews even though he himself was part Jew.

cultural racism? Gee i was more or less thinking that maybe one black man hates another because of a woman or because of a longtime feud - Same reason some whites may hate other whites -

You say MLK'S niece is siding with a cause that is against the interests of her ethnic group - But that is your opinion- I would guess that if you asked her she would disagree with you no?

blaqberry - You think it is cultural racism -that is your opinion -What if it is just differing opinions? Could it be that possibly MLK'S niece. Herman Cain and others just have different beliefs or opinions? Maybe it could just be as simple as that

You say MLK'S niece is siding with a cause that is against the interests of her ethnic group - But that is your opinion

How astute of you. You do realize that ALL of this is opinion right?

I would guess that if you asked her she would disagree with you no?

Your point being?

Here is a very telling remark: "That does not preclude her from siding with a cause that is opposed to the interests of many in her ethnic group."

The earlier statement about the Tea Party creating a new emancipation, and how the Democrats have enslaved applies to this statement because here blaqcherrymolasses is inferring that politicians or the government is responsible for maintaining our interests. Even more important is that the interests the Democrats (I'm assuming) support are based on ethnic groups and not plainly Americans.

A logical conclusion can be that the black people who are a part of the Tea Party are a part of the Tea Party because they don't want the government spoon feeding them and singling them out because of their race. A secondary conclusion from this first one is that the Tea Party group isn't about racism, but truly about a smaller government that does not cater to the interests of one group over another.

blaqcherrymolasses seemingly feels that blacks should vote Democrats because they will take care of them, or in the eyes of the people BostonMan quoted... the Democrats will enslave them by homogenizing their aspirations and dolling out welfare in a quantity that continues to generate this group's support for the Democrats.

Eh, but that's just one string of conclusions that can be drawn from what's being said here.

A logical conclusion can be that the black people who are a part of the Tea Party are a part of the Tea Party because they don't want the government spoon feeding them and singling them out because of their race.

...and in the process, they, or at least the ones who are given "speaking roles", never fail to single themselves out on the basis of their race:).

because here blaqcherrymolasses is inferring that politicians or the government is responsible for maintaining our interests.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Even more important is that the interests the Democrats (I'm assuming) support are based on ethnic groups and not plainly Americans.

You shouldn't make assumptions.

blaqcherrymolasses seemingly feels that blacks should vote Democrats because they will take care of them, or in the eyes of the people BostonMan quoted... the Democrats will enslave them by homogenizing their aspirations and dolling out welfare in a quantity that continues to generate this group's support for the Democrats.

That is absolutely hilarious, and you revealed yourself infinitely more than you thought you were exposing me. Since I can't expect you to know better considering our limited interaction with one another before posting to this thread, I'll let you in on a little secret. I don't play party politics. I am no more interested in garnering support for Democrats than you are.

I wish you'd not assume we'd know what your basis for your point is. Are they singled out because of the media's portrayal, are they singled out because they are countering the stereotype of the group they're representing, are they singled out because they want to be used to hide racism? Come on now... obviously there is an opinion behind your claim, so don't hide it.

... the Democrats will enslave them by homogenizing their aspirations and dolling out welfare in a quantity that continues to generate this group's support for the Democrats.

To make this meme work, one has to pretend that black people who vote for Democrats are welfare-receiving crackheads:).

blaqcherrymolasses - It's there for you to read and understand. You think that the government has or should have some swing over the interests of people. I assumed Democrats because thats in line with what you see for opinions around here... that Democrats do things to protect blacks, poor, etc, and Republicans are out to steal from the poor to give to the rich and to oppress anybody not white.

Now if you want to dispel the myth and explain how MLK's daughter speaking at a Tea Party rally was against the interests of people of her ethnicity... I'm all eyes, after all that was the aim of the comment...

Plantsmantx - And not necessarily... welfare doesn't have to mean a welfare check or a food stamp. It can come in the form of affirmative action as well... it can come in any legislation passed that targets a demographic of Americans. Now mind you... a lot of this isn't written by race, but by where people live, how much they make etc... but as people love to point out there are racial trends behind these things. Hence, if a person is for the "poor" then it is more likely they'll have the votes of those people who are poor, which has a demographic of what?

My sentiment is that legislation catering to any groups is a piss poor choice, but I'm not really talking about my opinions here either... just about various ways of looking at things.

blaqcherrymolasses - It's there for you to read and understand. You think that the government has or should have some swing over the interests of people. I assumed Democrats because thats in line with what you see for opinions around here... that Democrats do things to protect blacks, poor, etc, and Republicans are out to steal from the poor to give to the rich and to oppress anybody not white.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Keep trying.

There is no prey being caught. I'm only pointing out that there are some very telling statements within blaqberry's replies that perk an eyebrow. She/he as clarified some points and left others open to interpretation. The real question is, what was the point of the cryptic reply. And blaq... am I wrong in stating that the opinion of Democrat's support is from minorities?

I'm only pointing out that there are some very telling statements within blaqberry's replies that perk an eyebrow.

You can use any statement to justify or confirm your own biases or preconceived opinions if you try hard enough.

And blaq... am I wrong in stating that the opinion of Democrat's support is from minorities?

What? You'll have to clarify the question.

Perception is everything blaq. How one person describes or tells their opinion or recites facts does not nescessarily mean that it will take the same meaning for the person hearing it. Would you have prefered I jumped off the deep end and simply accused like a lot of other Viners, or did you like having the opportunity to offer up additional explanation without the conversation disintegrating into a stereotypical political slap fest?

And I don't know that I can make the question much clearer. The stereotype, or the presumptions is that if a person is a minority that they are then more than likely Democrat, correct? This was what the previous question was and what the previous assumption was about... I was not saying you personally were or were not Democrat but was pointing out this view point which has some statistical backing which had validity to the point being made.

3.43

I personally view people who rely on stereotypes to be lazy. It takes much more effort to ask meaningful questions as opposed to going off what you think you might know to support your position. There was nothing in my posts that revealed me to be or suggested that I was affliated with any political party. I'm sure you appreciate being viewed as an individual. You should consider doing the same for others.

Statistics are pretty much only meaningul to stasticians.

Perception defines reality, and unfortunately you don't see what I see and vice versa. If I had set my mind on assumptions and stereotypes then we would not be having this conversation blaq. There would absolutely, -absolutely- no point in participating in this board, seed, or thread if I did or was. You take my potential interpretations as the way I concluded it was... I stated in the last sentence that they were just one possible set of conclusions from interpreting what you wrote.

You clarified your stance... and asked some questions and I have put forth those answers and clarifications in return. But for whatever reason you want to keep drifting back to the original reply which again... was only one viewpoint. Even the third comment down I point out another potential viewpoint and indicate that it was not my own personal opinion. And how do I come to these things?, by trying to place myself into other people's shoes, playing devil's advocate and proposing ideas that I've come across that I'd like to see challenged.

Maybe you'll realize this, maybe you won't... I can only repeat myself in some many ways. Perhaps you would like to try viewing me as an individual now instead of trying to paint me into a picture you're use to looking at?

And... while it does not matter to any degree... if you believe statistics are only meaningful to statiticians... well then you are avoiding the creation of your own opinions and conclusions from the interpretation of the only thing that is a fact when dealing with statistics ~ the statistics. Like reality, statistical data is subject to opinion and viewpoint when they are not only interpreted, but when they are applied to conclusions. Statistics... the pure data only ever prove or show one thing as a fact... and that is the data results itself. This is why data from the same research can be sometimes used to prove and disprove the same thing. So, I highly recommend that when confronted with statistics in the future that you would spend a moment to read the data and what the data actually quantified before reading the conclusions and opinions of the author. It's not my point to lecture... but especially when it comes to politics, you find that people make use and more often mis-use of statistics to prove otherwise unsupported claims.

You take my potential interpretations as the way I concluded it was... I stated in the last sentence that they were just one possible set of conclusions from interpreting what you wrote.

What was the point of you presenting those possible set of conclusions in the first place? Was it that necessary for you to have to place me in a box? Based on my previous posts, I don't see how you came to any of those conclusions unless you were projecting on me your own preconceived biases and stereotypes. And I've already told you how I feel about people who rely on stereotypes.

Maybe you'll realize this, maybe you won't... I can only repeat myself in some many ways. Perhaps you would like to try viewing me as an individual now instead of trying to paint me into a picture you're use to looking at?

I am viewing you as an individual. An individual who baselessly attributed opinions to me that were not supported by what I posted.

And... while it does not matter to any degree... if you believe statistics are only meaningful to statiticians... well then you are avoiding the creation of your own opinions and conclusions from the interpretation of the only thing that is a fact when dealing with statistics ~ the statistics. Like reality, statistical data is subject to opinion and viewpoint when they are not only interpreted, but when they are applied to conclusions. Statistics... the pure data only ever prove or show one thing as a fact... and that is the data results itself. This is why data from the same research can be sometimes used to prove and disprove the same thing. So, I highly recommend that when confronted with statistics in the future that you would spend a moment to read the data and what the data actually quantified before reading the conclusions and opinions of the author. It's not my point to lecture... but especially when it comes to politics, you find that people make use and more often mis-use of statistics to prove otherwise unsupported claims.

I have taken enough statistics, research methodology, economics, and finance/accounting classes to to know that data can be twisted, turned, bended, and shuffled around to suit the fancy of whoever is doing the manipulating.

Most people do not live their life as a statistic. According to statistics I should have turned out very different from what I did - and not for the better. At the most basic level, statistics are meaningless as to how I go about my everyday life.

Okay blaq... lets take this back to square one.

This is the quote from you that things move from. The emphasis and key point being made from this is the inference that the "Tea Party" is opposed to the interests of her (being black) ethnic group.

Here is a very telling remark: "That does not preclude her from siding with a cause that is opposed to the interests of many in her ethnic group."

My explanation for this comes in the following paragraph. In this paragraph I pull points from the ongoing discussion and how BostonMan is trying to describe that some of the black members of the Tea Party are there because they feel that the government has enslaved them through welfare. His description of the Tea Party in this viewpoint was as a "new emancipation". I then point to your comment which reinforces this viewpoint because again... you have already demonstrated the belief that the Tea Party is against blacks ~ and by consequence that some other political party would be for their interests. The assumption of which party is of course the Democrats, which I clearly state below. Mind you, I am not calling you a Democrat here, only that the stereotypical view point is that a person of color is more than likely to support Democrats than Republicans ~ which is a statistical fact.

The earlier statement about the Tea Party creating a new emancipation, and how the Democrats have enslaved applies to this statement because here blaqcherrymolasses is inferring that politicians or the government is responsible for maintaining our interests. Even more important is that the interests the Democrats (I'm assuming) support are based on ethnic groups and not plainly Americans.

This paragraph here is a partial repeat of what I explained above and was meant to explain two possible conclusions from your statement. One as we have already discussed is that they perceive the use of welfare as a form of enslavement by the government - which is BostonMan's point. And a second conclusion that would follow this one is that the Tea Party isn't about racism ~ The reason I mentioned this second statement was because this discussion originated from a comment about MLK's daughter speaking and showing that there is an alternative viewpoint to thinking that blacks are allowed only to speak because they are reinforcing the "white" Tea Party's beliefs.

A logical conclusion can be that the black people who are a part of the Tea Party are a part of the Tea Party because they don't want the government spoon feeding them and singling them out because of their race. A secondary conclusion from this first one is that the Tea Party group isn't about racism, but truly about a smaller government that does not cater to the interests of one group over another.

Now it should be noted that all of the above has been independent of YOU, with the exception using your comment as a jumping point to show a difference in perspective. But here in this last paragraph I link it back to your statement... by stating that you feel "Democrats" take care of black people's interests moreso than other groups. Please note that the only assumption being made about you is that you see the Democrats... not the Republicans or Tea Party as being for the interests of black people. And as I stated later that and already here... this assumption was made based off of statistical data which show where various ethnicities place the majority of their vote.

blaqcherrymolasses seemingly feels that blacks should vote Democrats because they will take care of them, or in the eyes of the people BostonMan quoted... the Democrats will enslave them by homogenizing their aspirations and dolling out welfare in a quantity that continues to generate this group's support for the Democrats.

It should be noted that you have not yet clarified your opinion on this one assumption... You have only accussed me of making an assumption. Of course when I pointed out the basis of this assumption... you tell me you don't believe in statistics. Okay... I don't care if you believe in statistics.

So how about I ask you flat out blaq... which political party, movement, or group better protects and/or supports the interests of black people?

And yes it's a loaded question because in the end it shows a bias... not of yours, but of the political party. It shows just what is wrong with our politics when we have Americans pitted against Americans fighting for their interests and goals via the government as opposed to handling it themselves. And since you have already stated that you are not anymore for Democrats than Republicans... I don't see why this result would bother you or why you would take it so personally when in the end... I'm pointing out an issue with our perceptions and expectations of government as a whole.

I'm really bored with this.

You said blah blah blah.

I said blah blah blah.

No you meant blah blah blah.

No what I meant was blah blah blah.

I'm over it. I'm not agreeing with you. You're not agreeing with me. We have different perceptions and neither of us is interested in changing them. The discussion is no longer meaningful for me. I'm over it.

If you have a question about my opinion, then you would be best suited asking pointed questions instead making inferences and assumptions based on what you think my opinion will most likely be based on your latest data analysis of ... whatever.

Have a good day.

I spell everything out for you so you can understand my point of view, and in return I get "blah blah blah." Fascinating.

And as for the "agreeing" part. You keep misinterpreting what I've written... why would I agree with the wrong interpretation?, hence... the clarifications to show my point.

I suppose you either got frustrated because the last comment clarified it and you realized my point... or you just didn't feel like reading it... or maybe you feel I'm out to prove you wrong which is impossible considering this is a matter of opinion. Well you sure as heck didn't feel like answer any question(s), so I guess we'll never know [namely this one: So how about I ask you flat out blaq... which political party, movement, or group better protects and/or supports the interests of black people?]. I wonder if you'll ever realize that the majority of what I was saying... wasn't solely about you... but I guess if all you see is "blah blah blah" then I guess that's your point of view.

Have a blah blah blah day.

Power, together as one to the streets would surely have an effect on the current states of all of us.

We need to take to the streets to oust these so called patriots of the tea party.

Who is it again that is trying to divide this country?

Who is it again that is trying to divide this country?

Conservatives/TP for the most part.

Right - Read the three or so posts above this and how can you say you are not? You are all advocating taking to the streest as a groups against the Tea Party- Please post specific examples of this so called racism by the Tea Party -

BostonMan, my post was not directed at the TeaParty, but as a statement that there would be change if all people wished to end the racism that exists today. There could be white, black, red and yellow.

Boston there has been enough signs carried at TP events so there is no need to do that. The tp favorite originally signed a pledge that said:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American president

Now the pledge was changed later but it was one of the first things mentioned. It is just the TP using divisive tactics and their followers either refuse or cannot comprehend the tactic.

It was a bad choice of words but it was about the situation we have in this country with children being brought up in single parent homes as opposed to two parent homes - And again while it could and should have been worded better the truth is that there is a high number of black kids being raised by a single parent - The first words were " Slavery had a disastrous impact on African American families " -

You are all advocating taking to the streest as a groups against the Tea Party-

SImply following the lead of the Tea Party itself.

And again while it could and should have been worded better the truth is that there is a high number of black kids being raised by a single parent

Don't panic, but there is a high number of American kids being raised by a single parent. Of which a growing number being in white households no less.

Really? Have the TP gone on the streets against blacks or have they peacefully marched on Washington ? Has one TP rally ever been held where they were going after anyone other than politicians?

I am not panicking - Yes there are a high number of whites being raised in single parent homes - But if you read more then the first qwords of that pledge you would have seen that they mentioned whites also - The fact is that the number of black kids being raised by single parent is higher than whites or any race - That is a fact - You can get mad that they made that statment but prominent blacks have made the same statements -

BostonMan I agree on the poor choice of words but if she is not intelligent enough to know that the during slavery children were taken from their families especially if it was a man to work the fields and the comparison is at best stupid.

Have the TP done anything that would want more than a few to join the TP? If they were all inclusive would there not be more minorities besides the few promoted to show its inclusiveness?

You can get mad that they made that statment but prominent blacks have made the same statements -

Who's getting mad? Blacks commenting on the state of Black America usually do so with a very different motivation than Tea Partiers.

PowerIsKnowledge, when you said "take it to the streets", we know you were talking about peaceful demonstrations, but in BostonMan's mind, you meant "riot". Becuase...you know...black people never hold peaceful demonstrations:).

Right - plant - If it is the Tea Party taking it to the streets it is not though right?

And now plant you are saying or implying that i think blacks are only capable of riots instead of peaceful protests?

I have been debating with more than one of you all day - What i think is a perfectly sane adult conversation about race - Not once have i implied anything that you are suggesting - But i guess now all of a sudden because i am differing than you i am somehow stereotyping blacks?

You wonder why you cant have adult conversations with SOME on here - No matter how or what i do if i disagree i am a bigot or racist i guess?

And now plant you are saying or implying that i think blacks are only capable of violence?

I'm pointing out that you implied that:

Really? Have the TP gone on the streets against blacks or have they peacefully marched on Washington ?

No i replied to your comment with that statement - Your comment that groups were going to take to the streets against the Tea Party -

I pointed out that the TP has only marched or protested politicians

I pointed out that the TP has only marched or protested politicians

So they did take to the streets?

Not even close to inciting violence

Like I said

I am sure his ditto head followers will dismiss

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/84719/did_limbaugh_try_to_incite_violence/

An alternet link? Come on -

And are you saying i am a dittohead? Even the story you linked says"Did Limbaugh try to incite violence" - Asks a question - Tell me did any violence come of his words?

Your defending Rush and his followers PROUDLY call themselves ditto heads so is it not a positve thing to being amoung like minded individuals who refer to themselve as ditto heads?

First off i do not even listen to him - Second off did you read the shole story you linked? If you did you would see the conclusion put forth by the writer or the writer's opinion - Not that Limbaugh would incite violence yet rather that somehow his listeners acts of politics would incite violence by the Democrats - But as i said - Did any violence come of it? Yes or no?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the goal of the 'operation' for Limbaugh is not to encourage his listeners to commit acts of violence, but encourage his listeners to commit acts of politics that 'end' in Democrats committing acts of violence on each other.

Did any violence come of rush? Not that I am aware of. Does that mean it hasn't occured? Same answer NO.

Did you read the story from alternet? Maybe you missed the authors assessement:

Moreover, Limbaugh specifically claims that calling for citizens to create chaos leading to violence is a healthy part of the Democratic process, but that holding Liberal political views is a threat to democracy's survival--thereby leading his listeners to see the political opposition as a civil enemy.

You stated:

that 'end' in Democrats committing acts of violence on each other.

I know that you can see violence is violence not matter who it is against. You are more intelligent than that.

Have any committed acts of violence? Yes or no please? Any specific cases that you can clearly were attributed to the TP and Limbaugh?

DS - That was the opinion of the writer

Are you saying that because no (known) violence that resulted from Limbaugh's encouragement of violence, it wasn't really encouragement of violence on his part?

Have any committed acts of violence? Yes or no please?

I answered your question with a question because it cannot be answered 100%. Do I know of any incident that he "directly" incited acts of violence...NO...that doesn't mean it hasn't happened because I highly doubt a criminal is going to come right out and say "Limbaugh made me do it" and even if they did the right would portray it as a leftist anyway.

As for Limbaugh try this story (it doesn't include the TP):

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html

Although limbaugh has been "accused" with influencing the Norway bombing:

http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2011/07/norways_terrorist_got_his_cues.html

I am saying that the writer of that article voiced the opinion that Limbaughs words would somehow lead to violence by democrats - Violence that never took place correct? The writer implied that was Limbaugh's goal- He was obviously wrong since no violence ever happened though correct?

Let's see... because (apparently) no one took Limbaugh up on his call for violence, it wasn't really his goal, and therefore, it was alright for him to say that?

Limbaughs words are taken with a grain of salt by democrats so why would they be prone to violence because of what Rush says...he is not talking to democrats he is talking to conservative listeners and in some cases not the most intelligent people.

You are correct there was no violence reported yet he still incites violence. Because it doesnt occur doesn't mean rush does not encourage it.

You are correct there was no violence reported yet he still incites violence. Because it doesnt occur doesn't mean rush does not encourage it.

Exactly. Just because no violence occurred, it doesn't mean that he didn't encourage violence.

The writer implied that his words would lead to violence - By Democrats - A far fetched stretch that never occurred - The writer was wrong

Iron Lung FR sent after your truthful comment.