Things 99% of us Agree About

American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. We are seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of our ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements. We are a peaceful movement and respect other’s opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by our goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same.

The strength and resilience of a grassroots movement is the ability of citizens at the local level to determine their own platforms, agendas and priorities free of an overriding central leadership.

Citizen involvement at the grassroots level allows the voice of the American people to be heard and directs the political behaviors of our representatives at both the local and national level so they, in turn, may be most effective in working to preserve the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of this country's citizens.

So is this the kind of platform we all like, at least 99% of us?

Don't worry the site is is from says this: No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join.

Posted by Christine & John at October 30, 2011 10:25 PM
Comments
Comment #331262

C&J,
This Tea Party platform looks a lot like the platform of the Bush administration, with its stress on tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization. It was implemented and failed badly. Why would doing it now be any different?

And if you look through the links, a lot of the statements sound exactly like what the conservative Republicans have been saying since Bush was selected; and all of the Tea Party candidates are conservative Republicans. I can’t see any difference whatsoever between the GOP and the Tea Party.

Furthermore, this Tea Party demanded the United States not raise the debt ceiling. The Tea Party initially advocated default, and then advocated slashing the government budget by 44%, a move certain to plunge the ocuntry into economic depression.

So if the Tea Party presidential candidates of the Republican Party, such as Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, and Cain, actually represent 99% of Americans, and we are a country of people that does not believe in evolution or climate change and thinks it would be a good idea to get rid of the EPA, well… Go for it.

And I can’t help but notice that an agenda of tax cuts, privatization, and deregulation would certainly help big corporations and the wealthiest one percent, just as it did during the Bush administration, but not do a whole lot for anyone else. Just sayin.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 1:47 AM
Comment #331263

phx8

I was comparing the rhetoric with the OWS. The goal and the diagnosis of the problem are similar.

The most important difference seems to be that OWS advocated higher taxes and more government interference in order to counter the missteps by the authorities and crony capitalism practiced by Obama and other presidents, while TP advocates lower taxes and more power to the people to address the same problems and achieve similar goals.

Posted by: C&J at October 31, 2011 5:23 AM
Comment #331266

All are welcome? I’m sorry, but you have to subscribe to a certain set of views to be truly welcome, not just nominally welcomed as a person. It’s easy to be welcomed as a Republicans if you’re, for example, black.

You just have to say you agree with most of what they say! If you disagree, of course, if your natural positions are much more liberal, then you won’t likely remain welcomed for long.

The Tea Party’s main problem is that it’s defining characteristic is its unwillingness to compromise in the face of calls for change. It really is the unfortunate thing, that while the Tea Party marketed itself as a platform for positive change, what it really was, was a movement based on effectively blocking the change of Conservative policy that dominated over the last thirty years.

This nation’s government depends on compromise to work. It was designed to work through compromise, a point I make repeatedly when I discuss the Article V provisions. We were meant to come to agreements on what the general good was, and act on that. The Tea Party’s basic original sin is that it thinks it can get away with trying to force it’s agenda down everybody’s throats by any means necessary, that it can use means like blocking debt ceiling increases in order to force folks who were not elected to push such policy to serve their agenda.

The Tea Party expects everybody else to just go along with getting drug further to the right, even after all those policies failed so miserably. I mean, cutting taxes and regulation didn’t stop job growth for the last decade from being the worst since they started keeping track in the Truman Administration. But they’re going to force the rest of us, if they have their druthers, to keep on doing things this way.

What you don’t see, what you don’t perceive, is that while the Tea Party was able to get away with confusing people as to what its purpose was, with getting people angry at their representatives, none of that is going to keep people from getting angry and frustrated with them. Every movement enters a phase where it is doing more than simply saying things, where it must do things that it will be held accountable for.

The Republican Party in this current Congress, with the Tea Party as its ideological mascot, have followed up what despite Republican obstruction was one of the most productive Congresses in US history, with one of the most gridlocked. They have followed up policies that got us out of a recession, with policies seemingly intent on putting us back in. They have provoked multiple dysfunctional confrontations, and taken this country to the edge of bankruptcy in order to force their ideology on everybody else.

Long story short, the shine is off with the Tea Party.

It’s basic problem is that it more or less pushes for an intensification of the old policies, rather than real modification, and more to the point, it’s even more stubbornly ideological than the old party, which is what sunk the GOP in the latter half of the decade in the first place. They were a change from the Democrats, with all the frustration your party’s obstruction helped build against them, but their policies were never going to be a real change from the status quo they disliked.

The GOP needs a software update, I think, to deal with the new Demographics. It also needs to realize that it’s policies did indeed fail, and pushing harder on them during the next few decades isn’t going to end well for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2011 8:22 AM
Comment #331267

phx8 said,

“Furthermore, this Tea Party demanded the United States not raise the debt ceiling. The Tea Party initially advocated default, and then advocated slashing the government budget by 44%, a move certain to plunge the ocuntry into economic depression.”

There would have been no need to raise the debt ceiling, had the politicians been willing to attack spending. The TP never advocated the US go into default. This is simply a false conclusion the left came up with, because they were not willing to be responsible.

Stephen, the word “compromise” in the dictionary of the left means, “Do what we want”. Compromise never means compromise. You say the shine is off the Tea Party, but you are certainly incorrect. We are 1 year away from a national election, if anyone is burning the candle at both ends it would be the OWS. Are they willing to live in the streets under tarps for the next 365 days? The TP realizes it took many years for the liberal democrats to get us in this situation and it will take time to get out. I read one report that Obama is planning to run on an FDR 1936 campaign. I say go for it; the American people are slowing becomming aware of the socialist direction the left has been leading the country.

I made this statement on the previous post yesterday, but I think the material I research will fit in better on this article. There is a misconception, from the left, dealing with support of the TP and the OWS. These are the correct numbers:

Steve Miller said in the previous post,

“This is all well and good here in your echo chamber….but, sad to say, the OWS message resonates with the public. Big time. OWS enjoys more than 50% support among Americans.”

This has become a consistent statement by the left. And the left believes if they make a statement long enough, people will start to believe it. So, I took it upon myself to research to see if Steve Miller and others were correct or not, and this is what I found:

1. First is the latest CNN poll, which finds only 32% of Americans supporting the OWS.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/10/24/rel17e.pdf

2. Second is the Washington Post/Pew poll, which shows only 39% of Americans support the OWS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/a-movement-of-ones-own—tea-party-is-red-and-ows-is-blue/2011/10/24/gIQA1UEODM_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter

Those not supporting the OWS were almost equal in the same polls to those who support, with about another 1/3 of those polled either never hearing of the OWS or not caring.

I also found that the questions being asked by the Times Magazine poll, which is the one quoted by liberal sites and liberals on WB, were skewed. Stephen Daugherty would be the one to consult, but I believe he has stated on previous occasions that the question matter.

Time asked of the OWS:

“Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?”

“This states the views of the Occupy Wall St. crowd in as sympathetic a way as possible — even most conservatives and libertarians opposed the Wall St. bailout and the type of crony capitalism that comes with mixing money and politics. This is not the controversial aspect of Occupy Wall Street.”

In reference to the Tea Party, this question was asked:

“Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TEA PARTY TO HAVE AN OPINION?”

“So, while the “Occupy Wall Street” question is phrased in a sympathetic manner, the Tea Party question just mentions the name “Tea Party,” which has been associated with partisan fighting for over two years now. Had pollsters approached the Tea Party question in the same way as the Occupy Wall Street one, they may have written something such as: “Do you support the movement that opposes the Wall Street bailouts, thinks Washington has gotten too big and powerful, and wants to lawmakers to respect America’s founding Constitutional principles?” That clearly would have made respondents view the Tea Party more favorably.

Given the biased way the questions were phrased in the Time poll, it’s no surprise that 54 percent viewed Occupy Wall Street favorably, compared with just 27 percent who said they viewed the Tea Party favorably.

A survey by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling asked much more straight forward questions, and the numbers were much closer. “Do you support or oppose the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement?” PPP asked, and 35 percent indicated support, while 36 percent said they opposed the goals. Asked the same of the Tea Party movement, 39 percent supported it compared to 45 percent who opposed it. On a head-to-head question, “Do you have a higher opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party movement?” 40 percent chose Occupy Wall Street compared with 37 percent who chose the Tea Party. I’d predict as more people get to know the Occupy Wall Street movement, it will become less popular. But either way, it simply isn’t fair to say that it’s currently twice as popular as the Tea Party.”

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/flawed-poll-occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party

Stephen said in the last post, “To me, it seems, the Tea Party is simply the Republican Party as it has been, with all the awareness of how politically unlikely their agenda’s triumph will be stripped out, and the inhibitions that would create with it.

The Tea Party is the Republican Party become desperate.”

Actually Stephen, you are incorrect. According to the above Washington Post/Pew research poll, 18% of the TP supporters are Democrat and 11% are liberal. This means that almost 1/5 of the TP are Democrats.

I would not consider the Washington Post as a conservative skewed poll.

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2011 9:51 AM
Comment #331268

“And I can’t help but notice that an agenda of tax cuts, privatization, and deregulation would certainly help big corporations and the wealthiest one percent, just as it did during the Bush administration, but not do a whole lot for anyone else. Just sayin.”

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 1:47 AM

I am watching Fox News and they are interviewing Kirsten Powers and she said virtually the same thing as phx8; that all the Republicans want is tax cuts and deregulation. Is this the liberal talking points of the day? I wonder sometimes if the obama administration don’t put out daily talking points, which in turn are picked up by the left talking heads and then the bloggers?

Buy the way phx8, the American people want jobs; who creates those jobs? The jobs I have held were created by corporations, you know, the enemy.

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2011 10:04 AM
Comment #331270

”..that all the Republicans want is tax cuts and deregulation. Is this the liberal talking points of the day?”

I don’t know about it being the liberal talking point of the day, but it is certainly the Republican talking point, year in and year out.

Posted by: Rich at October 31, 2011 11:05 AM
Comment #331271

Corporations represent about 30% of the job market. A big chunk of those jobs went overseas with globalisation and won’t be returning.

The world is hosting 7B people, going to 10B by the end of the century. US population growth is driven through immigration. Pittsburg is looking to attract people over 45 years in age.

In times past population growth was considered a stimulus for growth/jobs. Now population growth works to lower wages and stress welfare.

Used to be that more people required more cookies which might lead to a new factory. Today a computer speeds up an automated production line. Different ball game.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 31, 2011 11:21 AM
Comment #331272

It sometime amazes me how the people on the left continually claim that a “stress on tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization” has been enacted for decades and failed, then, two sentences later come out and say that Bush spent enormous amounts of money, increased social programs, etc.

Do you not understand that the Tea Party was not happy with Bush. That Bush became a republican that spent like a liberal. That in fact before the republican party was ‘co-opted’ (your description) by the tea party, they showed themselves incapable of the financial restraint we seek. That was the outrage that started the Tea Party. The talk of financial constraint had not been employed by liberal OR republicans—so we made an effort to find politicians who would actually employ the restraint we desired. Not just talk about it, like the Republican party has done for the decades you describe.

Stephen-
I say two plus two is four. You say two plus two is ten. I refuse to accept the compromise that two plus two equals seven.

Along those same lines, I truly accept that their are two paths to the same goal. We (republicans and democrats) both want to help the nation prosper. You want a strong government to overseeing every outcome, and I want a government which keeps its role to a minimum in order to let the markets determine their own fate. When the compromise merges my restrained government with your overreaching directive, we are destined to fail. Similarly, if your strong government with my limited role becomes bloated and unnecessary. Either way, the compromise is worse than either of our original positions.

Another way to say it…if two roads diverge in the wood, you can take either path. But compromising and walking in between the two only leads to getting lost.

Don’t get me wrong, compromise CAN be a good thing. When you can pull together the strongest parts of both arguments, and merge a plan stronger than the original. But when you are are attempting to merge two mutually exclusive positions, you do more harm than good.

Posted by: adam at October 31, 2011 11:41 AM
Comment #331274

Mike,
If you follow the links in C&J’s article, it comes back to the same points again and again: tax cuts and deregulation. Every Republican calls for the same.

You are right, though, that I should be more careful about using the word ‘corporations.’ I mean big corporations, companies big enough to lobby and outsource, corporations with a large number of employees. Many businesses are incorporated small businesses, and those businesses do, in fact, provide the majority of jobs, and I do not intend to refer to them. In addition, there are many forms of corporations, including parnerships and sole proprietorships, so there’s a little more to it than most people typically describe, and if I just use the word ‘corporations,’ it’s slack on my part.

C&J,
I see very little overlap between OWS & the Tea Party. I’m not sure OWS even has much of a goal, never mind a diagnosis.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 11:46 AM
Comment #331275

Adam,
I find it hard to believe the Tea Party did not like Bush and did not like spending- (not on social programs, but on defense spending, creating the TSA, and increased medical costs due to higher private sector costs, because that is where in spending occurred- NOT “social programs”)- yet Tea Partiers never lifted a finger in protest, not even once, and in fact, voted for him in droves. I never see the Tea Party denounce Bush. If the Tea Party started demanding an end to the areas where spending increased during the Bush administration- defense, the TSA, and increased health costs driven by the private sector- then it might be believable. Instead, Tea Partiers seems committed to the same level of defense spending, to the TSA, and they oppose health care reform.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #331277

Stephen-

Another of your points: “The Republican Party…have followed up…one of the most productive Congresses in US history… They have followed up policies that got us out of a recession…”

I can’t speak for everyone else, but even from my post above, I slightly agree with you. The agenda the left pushed out of the last congress was intended (success is limited at best) to get us out of the recession and growing again. They managed to push out a lot of legislation. Productive? I’m sure it was to you, but to the rest of us it came off more as destructive.

Also, that ‘productive’ congress comes at what cost? Yes spending trillions to stave off a recession does dampen the hurt of the recession, but in exchange for placing trillions of debt on our children and grandchildren? Letting government into healthcare to ensure those without help coverage, with the cost that the rest of the population now has inferior coverage at higher costs, and business going under weekly from their additional costs? It all reminds me of the old Milton Friedman quote—“the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.”

The conservatives (that are finally taking the Republican party back) would have chosen another. Truly cutting spending and building a sustainable market economy rather than an economy so closely tied with government that the two are indistinguishable. They wanted an economy, and a government. Two separate entities, whereas the democratic agenda continually skews that distinction. You simply love pushing that their approach has been tried and failed, convincing people that their has been an environment of tax cuts, privatization, and deregulation in Washington for the past decade is a hard sell when even while a Republican controlled the presidency, we spent feverishly and expanded government into more and more aspects of the average Americans day to day life.

Posted by: adam at October 31, 2011 1:52 PM
Comment #331278

Frank-
You’ve got a factual problem here. First, there is absolutely no way that we could cold turkey the deficits without going into a depression. First, if we weren’t going to cut into Social Security, Medicare, or the Defense and homeland security budget, the deficit cutting would literally destroy everything else.

We weathered, during Fourth Quarter 2008 and First Quarter 2009, annualized drops of 8.9% and 6.1% (I think) one right after another. Your proposed path here would create an instant 10% drop.

Even without additional deficits, accrued interest on debt would push our national debt towards the debt ceiling. Tea Party leaders advocated that it would be just fine to let this happen.

That would be considered a default. So, your basic argument there is counterfactual, and disproved.

As for Compromise? Again, you have a factual problem. Obama and others agreed to cuts, agreed to form a commission to look into further cuts. That is most decidedly a compromise. It’s the Republicans who insist on no tax increases. It’s the Republicans who insist that everything come in cuts to programs.

It doesn’t get any better when you look at whether the shine is off for the Tea Party. You have something like 27% favorables. Of the folks who know of the Tea Party (39% of Americans say they’re not that familiar with it) Only 34% state that it’s had a positive impact, with 40% saying that it’s negative, and 25% saying it had little impact at all.

Only 11% of those Americans consider themselves Tea Partiers. That goes down to 6% among the general population.

It’s favorables are 54%, twice that of the Tea Party. That’s as opposed to 23% who have an unfavorable opinion, and 23% who aren’t familiar.

It just got started two months ago, and already it’s better known, better liked.

You attack it as liberal, as too favorable. But that’s your standard course. Ask yourself, what is especially liberal about the description? What is the big controversy that’s being left out? if you look through the other poll questions, things like taxing the rich more and ending tax breaks for oil companies and other businesses is pretty popular.

Your description of the Tea Party isn’t anywhere near as neutral. The thing about the Tea Party is that it’s a known quantity. To go through all that rigamarole about it would be pointless, as pointless as describing the Democratic or Republican parties in such generalized terms. Occupy Wall Street is a comparatively new movement.

Look at the other questions: people who are aware of the protests are extraordinarily sympathetic to most of its views, which I would tell you are very representative of not only OWS thinking, but liberal thinking in general.

Put another way, their positions are naturally mainstream.

I know you’ll claim otherwise, but based on what?

Do you have information that actually exposes a real problem with the poll, or are you simply assuming, because you don’t like the results or the questions that they’re not meaningful?

Take a look at your poll from Pew/Washington post. The support to oppose numbers are 39% to 35%. If you look at Democrats, though, there’s a 52% to 25% ratio, and a 43% to 35% ratio among independents. It’s the Republicans who make the poll results more ambiguous, by going 19% to 55%.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party, in the same poll is polling 32% to 44% before it even gets out of the gate. It’s negatives are stronger than ours by 9%! Among Democrats, it’s 13% support to 64% against.

And let’s be clear on something here: that’s combining both strong and weak support. Among independents, the numbers are 30% to 49%.

The shine is off.

The deal is not that there’s some sort of liberal bias. In fact, the medias got a bit of a conservative bias nowadays. The Tea Party got a lot of attention very quickly, thanks to the folks at FOXNews, who lionized them and made sure to match their crowd totals to Obama’s.

Unfortunately, now people have to deal with the policy consequences of their taking the House of Representatives. What have people gotten for it? Not much. The Republicans went in saying they’d create jobs, jobs, jobs. They’ve failed to do it.

There will be consequences for taking advantage of public sentiment without resolving public frustrations. The colossal irony of it all is that the Republicans played a big part in making sure that Americans had much to get frustrated with the Democrats about. Democrats won’t have to do so much to tick people off about the Republicans, because the Republicans will have shown how feckless they are all by themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2011 1:57 PM
Comment #331279

Phx8-
Have you not seen how much disdain the Tea Party has for RINO’s? Or possibly even how much flack Romney is getting for being the ‘establishment’ selection for the Republican party? An equal amount (if not more) of the tea party focus is on redefining the republican party as a party that truly represents the financially conservative.

That being said, I have no doubt that support for military spending will always be a point of contention within the group while striving for lower spending levels. Every single person comes in with differing levels of what is acceptable and what is not, so the specifics will the battle. But even with those differences, at least every person in the Tea party is clear on the general focus of the group—that spending levels can not continue as they have. That is still a far cry superior to the democrats idea that government is the referee of everything, and if programs costs start to overwhelm income…just tax some people more.

Your ability to believe it or not doesn’t change the validity of the argument. When Bush signed the first rounds of the bailout, he solidified the Tea Party opposition to all those Republicans who talk the right talk, but spend like a liberal.

Posted by: adam at October 31, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #331280

http://pastebin.com/gm2UV08D
It will take a long time to read this, but almost everyone will agree that what it advocates is necessary.

OK, we all agree that too much money is diluting representational Democracy, that the fraud in the financial industry needs to be reigned in, etc? It’s just that some of us balk at what is required to change this. The politicians are NOT going to just up and make big changes, we have to demand it. “you don’t have a plan” ….well, let’s make one!! Together.

Your not changing anything, nor will you ever,by trying to paint OWS negative. They’re just people trying to do the right thing. The government and big business are taking the country away from us….and we fight like children!!! Wow.

Posted by: steve miller at October 31, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment #331281

A slightly shorter version.

http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/the-99-declaration?commentId=6450411%3AComment%3A7825&xg_source=activity&fb_source=message

Posted by: steve miller at October 31, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #331282

Adam,
I see your point, that within the GOP, the Tea Party targets RINO’s. Still, it is within the party, and the conflict is how much devotion to cutting taxes, deregulation, and privatization the Republican shows.

Romney is a mystery. He may win the GOP nomination with one stand on various issues, run on a completely different one in the general election, and come up with yet anotherset of opinions as a president. Who knows? I think he is smart & competent, and might even have an ability to compromise that could make him into an effective president. Then again, maybe not. On a personal basis, no one seems to like him.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #331283

adam-
You have members of the Republican Party trying to undo the military cutbacks in the debt-ceiling deal. You have Republicans who tried to keep any such cuts out of austerity deals, and who are now basically saying that cutting that budget would be bad for the economy.

Let me be clear on what they’re saying, in essence: they are saying that despite the fact we’re running a deficit, we can’t afford to cut back on defense spending because it provides economic activity.

That’s much of what a Democrat would tell you, one of the reasons we opposed the Republican’s austerity plans.

See, there’s a difference between when you engage in austerity, and when your employer engages in austerity, for example: when you cut back, you limit some of the things you pay for.

When an employer cuts back, some of the things they pay for are people’s jobs. When the Federal, State, or Local governments do the same, the effect is the same.

The fact that quite a number of people have or had government jobs did not create the economic downturn, so laying off people and cancelling contracts that keep people employed won’t help bring us back. It will just serve to increase unemployment, or at least keep us from making progress.

That is still a far cry superior to the democrats idea that government is the referee of everything, and if programs costs start to overwhelm income…just tax some people more.

That’s not our idea, that’s your distorted idea of our actual thinking.

Such cariactures are deliberately created to mask the fact that we are much more moderate, and much more agreeable, if you take the time to actually negotiate in good faith with us, than you think. The reason for this deliberate distortion is to encourage greater radicalism on the other side, where the government isn’t allowed to referee anything, and where tremendous shortfalls in revenues were allowed, rather than entertain the notion of raising taxes.

You have to stop looking at this in terms of Democrats versus Republicans. Good government is about what works, not what passes the test of political purity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2011 4:50 PM
Comment #331284

There is no doubt that Romney will compromise; he’s a RHINO.

“Adam,
I find it hard to believe the Tea Party did not like Bush and did not like spending- (not on social programs, but on defense spending, creating the TSA, and increased medical costs due to higher private sector costs, because that is where in spending occurred- NOT “social programs”)- yet Tea Partiers never lifted a finger in protest, not even once, and in fact, voted for him in droves. I never see the Tea Party denounce Bush. If the Tea Party started demanding an end to the areas where spending increased during the Bush administration- defense, the TSA, and increased health costs driven by the private sector- then it might be believable. Instead, Tea Partiers seems committed to the same level of defense spending, to the TSA, and they oppose health care reform.”


Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 11:59 AM

phx8, the TP did not come into existence until Feb. 2009; a year after Bush left office. Those who make up the TP, retrospective, did not like TARP and certainly did not like Obama’s $750 Bil stimulus package. For that matter, they did not like obamacare, which was passed on a party line. The polls still show a majority of people who want it repealed. The conservatives dislike for Bush’s spending was in it’s infantcy stages during the closing years of Bush. I as well as many others on WB, who support the TP, have said on many occasions that we did not like the Bush spending and yet the left is tone deaf to our comments. In agreement with adam’s comments, the proof of the TP’s dislike for RHINOs is found in several elections, where RHINOs were replaced with real conservatives.

“Your not changing anything, nor will you ever,by trying to paint OWS negative. They’re just people trying to do the right thing. The government and big business are taking the country away from us….and we fight like children!!! Wow.”

Posted by: steve miller at October 31, 2011 2:36 PM

There has been article after article linked on WB showing the disorganization of the OWS. It has also been posted that there are many radical groups in the OWS who want to create civil unrest and violence. Now, you can deny it, or you can say it’s a fringe group, but it doesn’t change the fact that this group has the possility of being dangerous to America’s security.

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2011 5:03 PM
Comment #331285

Mike,
Actually, the Tea Party has been around for quite a while. It was a Libertarian group that observed Tax Day, and then became closely associated with Ron Paul during the 2008 campaign. It was not until FOX News and the Koch brothers hijacked it that the Tea Party expanded into a re-branding of the Republican party.

A regular poster on WB, Rhinehold, can probably provide more insight into the early years of the Tea Party.

I will say it again, the spending increases during the Bush administration occurred in three main areas: 1) Defense spending, especially with the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, 2) Formation of Homeland Security, and 3) increases in private health care costs, which caused increases in costs for government programs.

Supposed critics of the Bush administration’s spending ignored these three areas, instead concentrating on so-called ‘social programs,’and the voices of those supposed critics were faint indeed; certainly not enough to prevent them from voting for Bush again in 2004, or the GOP in 2006 and even 2008.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #331286

Stephen

Herman Cain is the most popular candidate among Tea Party activities. If you have looked at him you may notice he is of African ancestry. Stop with the liberal racisms already. I know that many cannot accept that a person can be both black and conservative, but you have to get over that prejudice. With some hard work, maybe you too can judge a person by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

Re having to agree or not being welcome, isn’t that sort of how things work? You (again) have fallen into your own trap, hoisted on your own petard. You say that some people are intolerant so that you won’t tolerate them, even though have said that you are welcome.

Frank

Good points. We have to keep on explaining this tolerance thing to our liberal friends. They think tolerance means joining them, as you point out and compromise means doing thing their way. We forgive them.

Rich

Re tax cuts and deregulation. If you assume that is what Republicans advocate and Democrats oppose what Republicans want, it means that all Democrats want is higher taxes and more regulation. It is good to have the sides defined.

Phx8

I was trying to ascertain a goal for the OWS. If you are right and they have no goal other than to complain and take free food, I would refer you to my earlier article about pigeons and rats. But some ostensible OWS supporters told me I was wrong. They said that OWS was against big money from lobbyists and special interests controlling the peoples’ representatives and that their goal was to return power to the people. But if you are right, there is no overlap and OWS has no useful reason to camp other than to get free stuff and pound on drums. I am surprised at your low opinion of OWS, but from what I know you are right.

Re Tea Party and Bush – I can understand the TP. I was not perfectly happy with Bush. I have never been perfectly happy with any politician, which is why my goal is to get politics out of as much as possible. However, when you consider the alternative or the spending that came after, you can see why the protest movement grew up right after.

Posted by: C&J at October 31, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #331292

“Mike,
Actually, the Tea Party has been around for quite a while. It was a Libertarian group that observed Tax Day, and then became closely associated with Ron Paul during the 2008 campaign. It was not until FOX News and the Koch brothers hijacked it that the Tea Party expanded into a re-branding of the Republican party.

A regular poster on WB, Rhinehold, can probably provide more insight into the early years of the Tea Party.

I will say it again, the spending increases during the Bush administration occurred in three main areas: 1) Defense spending, especially with the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, 2) Formation of Homeland Security, and 3) increases in private health care costs, which caused increases in costs for government programs.

Supposed critics of the Bush administration’s spending ignored these three areas, instead concentrating on so-called ‘social programs,’and the voices of those supposed critics were faint indeed; certainly not enough to prevent them from voting for Bush again in 2004, or the GOP in 2006 and even 2008.”

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 5:15 PM

Like I said, the TP started in Feb. 2009. The rest of your claims of who paid for it is BS.

So your 3 points about Bush’s spending programs were carried over to the Obama administration. Continued war spending and expanding to Libya, Pakistan,and Uganda; Obama has expanded his invasion into the privacy of Americans through Homeland Security; and Obama has certainly expanded the spending in obamacare, which darfs Bushes drug plan.

As for voting for Bush; it was better than the alternative. Al Gore, who has shown himself to be no more than a lunatic and John Kerry, who is nothing more than another fat-cat rich socialist polition from the elite New England state of MA.

And concerning the Repubican congress in 2006 and 2008; they lost didn’t they? Liberals always vote liberal, so it wasn’t liberal who voted republicans out in 06 and 08. It was lack of support by conservatives. But in 2010, once the TP kicked in and we began to take back our party; TP conservatives began winning.

Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2011 9:08 PM
Comment #331294

C&J-
It’s absurd you try to play the race card on us like this now. Just absurd. Worse that you criticize us over intolerance, after all I’ve seen directed at Obama over the last four years.

I became an Obama supporter not because he was black, but because between him and Hillary Clinton, I saw his operation as more creative, and his responses to his opponents much less cliched, even moving and inspiring at times. That he had the potential to become the first President who wasn’t a white man was beside the point. After all, I could have satisfied the same urge to do something different by choosing Hillary.

That he resisted playing the race card himself, often enough, was refreshing, and reassuring. He wasn’t trying to guilt trip people into supporting him. He relied on something greater than that.

Herman Cain is half the man - and that’s man, period - that Obama is. You want him to succeed because you’re running out of substitutes for Romney. You’re trying to keep up the energy for voters who are probably pretty disillusioned with their 2010 choices right now.

So don’t give me this racism bull****. Race doesn’t enter into it. His politics are what make me dislike him. If this was Colin Powell running a moderate ticket, that might not be such a problem, but you folks wasted Powell’s potential, his intelligence, his strength of character on selling a war that became an albatross to his political hopes.

And then, what did Rush Limbaugh, the man who now accuses people who dislike Cain of wanting to show him with big lips eating a watermelon (talk about college-level obscure racism here), say about why Colin Powell was supporting Obama?

Ah, yes: it was all about race. This is what Rush Limbaugh said about Colin Powell’s support for a man he called a “halfrican American.”

You need more than asymmetrical political loyalties to make a racial issue out of it. If anybody’s hoist on their own petard, it’s the Republicans, blown up by their own long history, even recent history of using race and dogwhistles about race to divide people against their rivals.

As for what Obama spent? Besides the emergency spending to stabilize the economy, he’s barely spent much different than Bush. No, what makes Obama’s budget woes deeper is the terrible economy that got dumped on him in his first term. Your tax cuts for example, which you folks insisted on keeping.

Telling people that they’re racists for not giving Cain a shot is a rather transparent way of distracting folks from what they really dislike about him: his far-right politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2011 9:18 PM
Comment #331295

“C&J-

It’s absurd you try to play the race card on us like this now. Just absurd. Worse that you criticize us over intolerance, after all I’ve seen directed at Obama over the last four years.”

Stephen Daugherty

President Obama and the Democrats have always played the race card.

There are many moments in history when the Democrats have shown their true colors and the idea that a black man can be a conservative is more than they can handle. Cain, like Clarence Thomas are black men, raised up in similar circumstances and successful in similar circumstances. They did not need the handouts that Democrats were offering them, and they had minds of their own. Is it possible that two black men could actually succeed in life without the aid of the Democrat Masters? Yes, and because of that, they were and are attacked by the left.

Clarence Thomas went through something that no white man or woman has ever had to deal with. The so called Democratic Senators of the United States of America made embarrassing, unsubstantiated accusations against Thomas. Why, because he was a black conservative man.

Listen to his statements:

“I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.”

Clarence Thomas also stated that, “This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee. It was then leaked to the media. And this committee and this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our entire nation.” He called the hearing a type of lynching:

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

And who was it that was conducting this modern day lynching of a black conservative; none other than the elitist, racist Democrats of the US Senate.

Now we have déjà vu, once again the liberal left has conspired to attack another conservative black and why; because he has become too uppity and thinks he can actually become the President of the United States.

No Stephen, this is a case of racism from the left. The left accuses the conservatives and the Tea Party of satisfying their own racism by backing a conservative black Cain; but in reality, the left always accuses other people of the own sins. The difference between today and the attacks on Thomas in the early 90’s is our access to multiple news sources and conservatives speaking out on radio and cable TV

The actions from the left are shameful at least.

Posted by: Jeremiah at October 31, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment #331297

Jeremiah-
Nice that you just lay out your accusation, but do not follow up with examples. Then you follow up with, more or less, a face value example of Clarence Thomas playing the race card to get out of dealing with a tawdry episode in his life. Now, faced with the same problem, that race card is taken right out again. It’s another high-tech lynching of another black guy, who has the temerity to be conservative!

But I guess that should make him little different than most Conservative politicians. You can’t criticize their tax or economic policies policy without getting them hollering about class warfare. Obama can’t get the tiniest bit sarcastic or negative with them, or he’s being uncouth. And nobody can call out a black conservative politician on anything without being accused of being a racist, or question policy in Israel without being called an antisemite.

People are just so mean to Republicans, aren’t they?

Quit making excuses for him. There are already questions about how he set up his Presidential campaign, and whether he accepted illegal help in building it. Are you going to call the people who bring this up racists? It’s shameful how quickly the GOP went from making dogwhistle accusations about Obama to declaring Cain a martyr based on his race.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2011 11:09 PM
Comment #331298

One of Cain’s competitors in the GOP race put Politico on the trail. Politico gave the Cain campaign a ten-day notice about breaking this story. For some strange reason, Cain acted as if he were completely unprepared for this. Over the past 24 hours, going from almost no detail to a recollection of a five figure settlement for at least one woman. His memory has improved remarkably! There are still one or more cases out there.

Back in the clown car, Herman!

Somewhere, Mitt Romney is smiling tonight.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #331303

phx8, I agree with you, this looks like the information came from a GOP candidate.

Stephen, the issue is not about what tax or economic policies. It is about an orchestrated effort by the left to attack any conservative who happens to be black. It is inconceivable that a black man would be conservative. Thomas was attack by Democrat Senators, had nothing to do with his record as a judge; it was all biased on personal allegations of sexual impropriety. Which by the way were false. It was a lynching then, and it is a lynching now.

Stephen, you have no idea what it means to be a black man who makes a conservative stand, but I do. In my lifetime, I have faced the same racism, and far more racism comes from those of liberal persuasion. I work with the Tea Party and have NEVER been single out in ridicule, but I have been by liberal organizations.

You say, “Nice that you just lay out your accusation, but do not follow up with examples. Then you follow up with, more or less, a face value example of Clarence Thomas playing the race card to get out of dealing with a tawdry episode in his life.”

What examples do I have to follow up with? I gave two examples of prominent conservative blacks who have been specifically attacked for their conservative ideals. And tragically, from your statement about the “tawdry episode” in Clarence Thomas’s life, you are admitting that you still believe the setup lies that were used to try to ruin his life. As I said before Stephen, this is shameful. Bill Clinton was proved to have had sexual relations with women, and accused of even rape, and I bet you have no problem with that. Why, because he is white and a liberal? Why do you believe the false accusations about a Thomas or Cain, because they are black and conservative? There have been so many things said by those on the left, whose remarks are based upon racism, it would be impossible to list them all. Things are said by black liberals, who are racist, but the left does not consider them racism because they come from another black. Do you believe a black can be racist against his own race?

Here is an example from a liberal site:

“In the immortal words of Megatron in Transformers: The Movie, Herman Cain’s speech at CPAC really is bad comedy. As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.
When race minstrelsy was America’s most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the “black” coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow. Adding insult to injury, in a truly perverse and twisted example of the power of American white supremacy black vaudevillians would often pretend to be white in order to denigrate black people for the pleasures of the white gaze.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/02/12/black-history-month-is-herman-cain-playing-the-race-minstrel-for-cpac/

“Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher said GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is “racist” and “bigoted” for his comment this week that African Americans have been “brainwashed” to not accept conservatism.
Belcher, a pollster for President Barack Obama, told CNN‘s Anderson Cooper that Cain’s remarks exposed a “double standard” and should be a “teachable moment.”
“What Herman Cain said was a racist, bigoted statement and it should treated like a racist and bigoted person who makes those racist and bigoted statements,” Belcher said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/democratic-strategist-calls-herman-cain-racist-bigoted-for-saying-blacks-have-been-brainwashed/

“Left-leaning comedian and talking head Janeane Garofalo is back at it, appearing again on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” program to chat all things politics…

“[He’s] in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherit in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly.”
Now, she’s following up on these statements with even more commentary about Cain and his presence in the GOP presidential field. Last night, aside from saying that Palin and Fox News have no credibility, she railed on about the GOP’s alleged racism:
“Herman Cain is…is…is…a…is probably well-liked by some of the Republicans, because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party, conservative movement and Tea Party movement — one in the same…
Herman Cain provides this great opportunity so that you can say ‘look this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement…look we have a black man over here! Look, he’s polling well and he won a straw poll over here.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey tackles these statements head-on, writing that the arguments presented are “vapid,” as liberals like Garofalo accuse conservatives of racism regardless of how well a minority candidate fares in the polls. He writes:
…this clip encapsulates perfectly how intellectually vapid the Republicans-are-racists argument truly is. If African-Americans don’t do well among Republicans, it’s evidence of racism, and now if they do get support among Republicans, that’s also racism. It’s an unanswerable assertion that not only is completely circular in its logic, it’s also lunacy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/janeane-garofalo-herman-cain-helps-gop-hide-racist-elements-of-the-republican-party/

“BILL MAHER: New rule: Newt Gingrich - just stop. Seriously, your campaign isn’t just off to a rough start. It’s like you hired me to run it and I purposely ran it into the ground. Let me put your unpopularity in context for you: you’re a Republican and you’re polling behind a black guy.”

Imagine for a moment the media firestorm that would have happened if back in 2008, a conservative talker made such a remark about Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or any of that year’s Democrat candidates that were at times polling behind Barack Obama.”

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/11/bill-maher-takes-racist-swipe-herman-cain-newt-gingrich-republican-po#ixzz1cSpkegA5

Stephen this type of trash has been coming from the left for the past year. Not one time have I heard racist statements like this from those on the right of from the Tea Party. If it weren’t for the fact that liberals keep bringing up race, we would never hear the word. He left accuses conservatives of racism and hating Obama because he is black (never mind that he won the election with a large white vote), and then they accuse the conservatives of being racist because they support a black conservative, why, because is only a token black who fulfills the desire to seem non-racist. It takes a warped mind to think like this.

Stephen, you are not fair, and I would consider you unable to think outside of the liberal box. No matter what you say, or how you try to spin the facts, we still see the racism as coming from the left. How dare those uppity n*****’s act as if they are equal to white liberals?
How dare they think they can succeed without handouts from the left?

Posted by: Jeremiah at November 1, 2011 10:45 AM
Comment #331304

SD

“Nice that you just lay out your accusation, but do not follow up with examples. Then you follow up with, more or less, a face value example of Clarence Thomas playing the race card to get out of dealing with a tawdry episode in his life. Now, faced with the same problem, that race card is taken right out again. It’s another high-tech lynching of another black guy, who has the temerity to be conservative!”

If you are the man you try to make people here think you are, then prove the allegations against Clarence Thomas. You don’t have a leg to stand on. It has proven all lies, smears, and the sewer talk that goes with such pap.

For your message to castigate Jeremiah for whatever was in your head, is a disgrace to the situation. Everybody who is honest will position themselves to the fact that Clarence Thomas and his comments about the lynching is absolute truth.

Things are getting pretty weak on the left for these things to be rehashed and tried to bring new life and conclusions to an old sordid story.

I will agree with you it was a tawdry episode. The words are all I agree with you on. The tawdry part was the people that lined up Anita Hill and slandered this man.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at November 1, 2011 10:53 AM
Comment #331306

“It has proven all lies, smears, and the sewer talk that goes with such pap.”

The case was and remains a classic “he said/she said” case. Nobody has proven the charges false/lies/smears, etc. Anita Hill remains adamant that the charges were true. Clarence Thomas denies the charges. That where it stands and probably will remain.

Posted by: Rich at November 1, 2011 11:42 AM
Comment #331318

Jeremiah-
I don’t detect any real targetting of Cain to the exception of his white competitors. Cain’s frontrunner. Obama, when he became front-runner got slammed with Reverend Wright, and a lot of rhetoric that had dogwhistles coming out of the ying-yang.

But Obama didn’t play the victim. He faced his problems with dignity. He didn’t use his race to strike back at his attackers, but instead called on all people to recognize the difficulties in making peace between the races after ages of bigotry.

As for Thomas? That charge was never proven false. This was a guy who had to follow up in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall himself, the guy who argued Brown vs. The Board of Education. Thomas can complain about a high-tech lynching, but the truth is, he used his race to get away with being an inferior candidate for the job.

Again, this in contrast to Obama, who used the controversy to demonstrate his qualities, rather than further divide people in order to maintain support in the face of a scandal.

African Americans in this country see themselves as a distinct community, and many, most in fact, in that community, are Democrats. It is a matter of historical fact that the Republican Party intentionally appealed to disaffected whites by taking on issues like Busing and affirmative action. The language about Welfare Queens and Quotas was no accident. Hell, you had one of the architects of the strategy, Lee Atwater, explain it in terms of it no longer being permissable to say n*****, n*****, n*****, to appeal to those people, that instead the message had to be more subtle.

It’s buried deep in the subtext, but it’s there, and two or three generations of African Americans had to live with those attacks.

I may not know what it’s like to be a black man in America of any political stripe, but I know what it’s like to be a political punching bag, and guess what: I hated it!

Nothing about what Clarence Thomas said functioned as a functional denial of the charges. It was a distraction, an accusation of racism in order to exploit the anxieties of those politicians concerning being thought of as racists.

Or, in other words, a prima facie use of the race card to get out of a tawdry episode in his life.

And no, Clinton was not proved to be a rapist. You seem to have a lose idea of what proved and disproved are, one that seems to relate closely to the opinions of those you listen to.

For one thing, you can grab one editorial out of the many that get posted on the web, but that doesn’t prove a general sentiment about racial attitudes. Congratulations, some guy said something very offensive about Cain. Why are we to believe that his attitudes are generalized?

I happen to agree with Belcher. I think when you say that most black people are of diminished capacity, and that greed and laziness drives their attitudes, you are saying something racist and bigotted. If Cain were white, the comment would have been instantly flagged as such. Why ask for a double standard?

Garofalo is an outspoken liberal, to be sure, and she doesn’t hold back. On the subject of racism, well, we saw plenty of things, like Obama bucks with fried chicken on them, images of watermelon patches in front of the White house, White supremacists showing up at Tea Parties and as supporters of their political efforts. There was even this charming little letter by Mark Williams, organizer of the Tea Party Express.

So, many liberals have their doubts that Tea Party supporters are genuinely color-blind here. If you’ve got that point of view, of course, then Herman Cain’s popularity looks to be more of an ends justify the means approach to politics. It’s not a vapid argument, simply a complex and subjective one. But is that news in politics? The Tea Party has done some things to earn doubt as to the level of its racial enlightenment, to say the least, so Cain’s candidacy isn’t convincing for many, and some wonder about Cain’s level of concern for his own people, given that.

As for Bill Maher? Well, the hidden premise is that the Republicans have a problem with black candidates. Again, the GOP’s done some rather questionable things in the past concerning racial politics, including television spots which relied on racial prejudices to deliver a negative assault.

Harold Ford, Jr’s opponent in a Tennessee race had a blonde Playboy model type girl saying “Call me”, among other things, is just a recent example. The Willie Horton ad, the “Hands” ad, and that incredibly offensive (not to mention bizarre and weird) gangsta ad from that California, are just a few examples.

Again, we’re not dealing with strong deductive arguments here, but the GOP’s earned itself a reputation for dogwhistles and divisive racial attacks.

So here comes along Mr. “Politically Incorrect” himself, who points this out in his usual blunt, sarcastic way. Is this a guy known for being fair and balanced? No. He’s known for making fun of and being unfair to everybody. Claiming he’s offensive and politically incorrect isn’t news.

If Republicans are victims, they are victims of their own reputations, of the intolerance and divisiveness they pursued for decades, before the change in social/racial interactions made that kind of casual, offhand commentary difficult to get away with. My advice? Quit claiming yourself the victim of some harsh prejudice. Your real problem is that you’ve aligned yourself with a party that pretty much destroyed its own good name with a rather sizable percentage of African Americna out there. Worse yet, they protest that fact by employing many of the same offensive arguments that made these folks angry in the first place. It’s sort of an “I’m sorry if you were offended” approach that doesn’t carry much credibility with people.

Black people are equal to whites. That means they deal with all the flak that whites get. Look at John Edwards. The guy cheated on his dying wife, got divorced for his troubles. That could have been our choice. But he deservedly fell from grace for his actions. Bill Clinton got hit up for Sexual Harrassment, same as anybody else. Did protesting that do Democrats much good? No. If White Democrats get this treatment, why is a Black Republican not to be subject to this scrutiny?

Equality is a door that swings both ways. John Murtha and William Jefferson were both corrupt. So, they deserved equal fates.

You want equality, you take the good with the bad. You don’t play the race card to get out of verifiably facts that are verifiably bad for your image.

tom humes-
How was it proven wrong, pray tell? By the collective disbelief of the GOP? Simply repeating such mantras of political rhetoric proves nothing. For the record, I have not said that Anita Hill’s testimony is proof in and of itself, but it is sworn testimony before Congress, so you need better evidence than you’ve shown (like more than nothing, for starters) to refute her testimony on such a basic level.

You can’t emotionally blackmail me into accepting a position that your facts and premises haven’t delivered a satisfactory argument for.

You can assert that you possess the truth all you want to. Everybody does that. The question is, what’s provable? Where are the facts that form the test that proves your facts?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #331319

Stephen, you did a lot of talking and really didn’t say much. You did say you agreed with Belcher and evidently Maher, which in my book is racism and evil. You continued to defend Clinton, who paid settlements, and who used his position to be immune to further prosecution. And you continue to attack Clarence Thomas under false charges. Why would you do that? Didn’t the liberal left say of Clinton, “it’s only sex, and what he does doesn’t affect the Presidency”. There were many, many allegations against Clinton, not only in DC, but followed him from Arkansas. Concerning Obama and the charges of Wright; he didn’t have to cry foul, the only news outlet investigating Wright, Ayers, or Jones was Fox. The MSM never touched it.

But the most important statement you made was this:

“African Americans in this country see themselves as a distinct community, and many, most in fact, in that community, are Democrats.”

Unknowingly, you hit the nail on the head. I believe the greatest fear from the left is that a conservative black will resonate with the black community. It would be a sad day for the Democratic Party, when blacks figure out what has been going on for the past 50 years. I guess if I were a Democrat, I would be in fear of losing the blacks to the conservative side. Hence, attack every conservative black with as much zeal as possible. At what point will liberals ever deal with issues, instead of resulting to personal attacks.

Stephen, I have been reading some of your comments and you want to place yourself above the fray intellectually, but I believe you are no different than some of the other liberals on WB. I don’t think you have the capability of thinking for yourself; especially when you defend everything the left does. So I probably won’t be communicating with you anymore. There are many liberals on WB who appear to either be HS students or people who just want to say the most outrageous things they can. I actually enjoy the few times I have discussing topics with Warped Reality; even though he is young, he seems willing to actually look at what is being said. You often say how long you have been on WB, but I don’t think you have ever learned anything. Don’t get me wrong Stephen, I don’t dislike you and I’m not attacking you, I just don’t think you have the ability to look at situations outside of the box.

Posted by: Jeremiah at November 1, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #331322

Stephen

“It’s absurd you try to play the race card on us like this now. Just absurd.” You played it. I trumped it and neutralized it. You Just have to give up the Idea that you can call people racists because they are conservative. That is old thinking, overtaken by events. Get with the program.

It is getting pretty dumb. Liberals have become so accustomed to calling their opponents “racists” that they have become racist themselves.

So I never play the “race card” first but I don’t accept when it is played against me.

I believe that we should judge people by the contents of their characters, not the colors of their skins. I believed that as long as I can remember. Anything else is a type of racism, whether people consider it is used for “good” or not.

Posted by: C&J at November 1, 2011 6:03 PM
Comment #331331

Jeremiah-

You did say you agreed with Belcher and evidently Maher, which in my book is racism and evil.

Racism and evil, eh?

Not swinging for a base hit on playing the race card, are you? First, let me repeat: Maher makes his living off this stuff, off of making comments that are, well, politically incorrect. He’s said something to offend everybody.

And here he’s got a point. First, Newt Gingrich probably was polling worse than Cain at that point. More to the point, Cain got passed over until Perry, Bachmann, and other candidates self-destructed.

Second, has it escaped your notice that the GOP caucus is not that diverse in either caucus? There’s some meat on that accusation, even if it’s not sensitive to those who think the world of the GOP.

As for Belcher? Belcher is a black man who just heard a fellow black man get up and effectively insult the intelligence, industry, and integrity of most black people in this country, using stereotypes which have long been employed by White racists, and probably are all the more galling to most blacks in America for coming out of the mouth of one of their own. Why should he go easy on Cain?

Why should anybody who’s just been told that they are brainwashed, lazy, and willing to sell their integrity to remain on welfare reward Cain with good regard? Why do you expect people to flock to him in droves, given the disrespect he’s shown them, insulting their intelligence and integrity?

It’s not merely a Black Republican’s problem, this tendency, it’s there all over the Republican party. Folks on the Right these days are so used to listening to folks who say offensive things about other people, so used to being able to say such offensive things to their conservative friends, that they don’t register that others have neither the agreement nor the attitudes that would render such judgments on other people palatable.

They also don’t register that certain conclusions don’t carry such weight beyond the doors of the political hothouse within which they dwell. First, let me say that it’s categorically false that reports on Wright, Ayers, and Jones only played on Fox. They were all over the news, particularly Wright. You vastly underestimate how far the conservative media has pulled the Mainstream Media towards it.

Second, Anita Hill has not been forced to retract her accusations by any facts that have since come up, so nothing’s been disproved at all. You’re simply taking what they say at face value and pushing that as proof. This, however, is not sufficient proof for those relying on basic evidence. To claim she has been disproven, you have to back that claim with proof that contradicts her testimony on a factual level.

You haven’t proven her crazy, or a pathological liar with a history of confabulating other accounts. You haven’t proved that she wasn’t with him on the days in her account. You haven’t, in essence, ruled out her account of events as a possibility. It’s he said, she said, and no court of law has made a decision on that.

You don’t get what a serious charge you’re leveling at me. The truth is, the fact that Herman Cain’s black is beside the point, just as the fact that Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell’s a woman is beside the point. It’s their politics that get such strong opposition. The great variety of female, black and other minority candidates and office holders in the Democratic Party shows the reality of your charges is false. Hell, look at Harold Ford, Jr. He’s somewhat conservative, and that didn’t bother Democrats.

It’s the far-right nature of the politics that’s the problem. Calling it racism is a distraction.

It’s you who needs to step outside the box and recognize that there are major holes and problems with your arguments and tactics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #331333

SD

So now it is getting thru your thin skin.

You now charge me with blackmailing.

That is a pretty serious charge.

It is also attacking me. Something you never do, of course.

Really?

You threaten others when the fire gets to hot for you but you turn around and throw gasoline on the fire.

Is that being responsible? Of course not. And you will never admit that you are wrong in an honest way.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at November 1, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #331338
It is getting pretty dumb. Liberals have become so accustomed to calling their opponents “racists” that they have become racist themselves.

What is pretty dumb is the unfounded claims of racism by those on the right C&J. Lets face it Tom, Jeremiah and others are unable to come up with anything more intelligent that the kindergarten line of “well you did it to”.

They seek to redeem those on the right by labeling those on the left. They seek to make the charge of racism meaningless by abusing it. They seek to protect the racist in the ranks of movement members by negating the effect the term racism. They seek to blame everything on those that oppose them in their quest for political domination.

You seem to want to jump on the bandwagon for some reason C&J. This is how authoritarians work. You can be better.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2011 8:04 PM
Comment #331345

j2t2

The “you did it too” is a fair argument. It is the substitution that tests fairness, the one I always catch Stephen. Actually it is a good test for racism.

If you judge something somebody says or does in a certain way and then change your response when nothing changes but the race of the person, that is prima facie evidence of bias.

It is even how science works. You test by changing a variable and see what happens.

I don’t think I need to redeem “those on the right”. I see that there is racism in our society still, but ours is not a racist society anymore. I also see that racist behavior is spread on right and left, among blacks and whites.

Condi Rice used to talk about the soft bigotry of low expectation. I see a lot of that now on the left. It is a very insidious form of racism because it is stealthy and difficult to confront.

Herman Cain is the front runner among TP activists. This is also prima facie evidence that race is not a determining factor among them. It indicates that they did NOT oppose Obama primarily because of his race.

This is not partisan; it is just logical.

Put it in neutral terms.

You claim that TP members object to a black man as president. Yet they support a black man as president. This is a significant inconsistency.

Cain part of the black experience in America. His ancestors suffered slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S. He grew up in the still racist South and attended a historically black college. I am sure that even the most inattentive TP member must have noticed these things. So their support indicates that they do not consider his background as important as his ideas, or should we say that they are judging him by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

Posted by: C&J at November 1, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #331349

Thank you C&J for your annalysis. We (conservatives) are racist for not accepting Obama as the Almighty, and when we (conservatives and TP) support a great black man, who has made something of his life, despite the deck stacked against him; we are then called racists for making it LOOK like we support a black man. As I said before, it takes a warped mind to come to these conclusions and with some of the things the left has implied.

Posted by: Jeremiah at November 1, 2011 9:02 PM
Comment #331358
The “you did it too” is a fair argument.

Right C&J and 2 wrongs make a right. The “you did it to” is not accepted by kindergarten teachers or most parents why do you think it is acceptable?


You claim that TP members object to a black man as president.

Umm, no I don’t.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 1, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #331361

j2t2

It is not that two wrongs make a right. But if you can indicate that the person making a claim that you are the only one doing something is also doing it, it takes his credibility.

My argument is better than that, however. I am using (1) the substitution argument and (2) a type of progression. My argument is that most TP members are NOT racists and that the constant refrain about race when it is no longer a dominant factor in choices, is at best silly and at worst it has tipped into racism itself.

Your last point - if you don’t believe that TP members object to a black man as president, you are much smarter or at least more honest than the average “progressive” who constantly implies or says outright that conservatives don’t like Obama as president because he is black. It also indicates that you believe the accusation of racism against TP members is bogus or at least not crucial to their decision making.

If these things are true, you more or less agree with me and we are writing for nothing.

Posted by: C&J at November 1, 2011 10:07 PM
Comment #331376

tom humes-
Your arguments bore me. I talked of emotional blackmail, of your trying to guilt-trip me with accusations of racism into buying your terrible arguments. I’m not saying that you’ve got shots of me with a watermelon and an underaged moose, and are telling me you’ll give them to the press if I don’t pay you.

But there you go again, getting in all this high moral dudgeon, trying to make up for the lack of innately compelling logic in your arguments.

C&J-
Tu Quoque arguments are tedious attempts at moral paralysis, not good quality responses. Essentially, it’s aimed at compromising people’s motivation to hold you accountable for what you’ve done. It doesn’t refute the charge; in fact, by it’s nature, it validates the charge.

Remember, it’s a “You as well.” argument.

As for the relationship you claim, that the fact of Herman Cain’s race is enough to prove that those folks aren’t racist? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

Limbaugh’s “Halfrican American” language, his race-baiting over those kids getting beaten up on the bus, his accusation that Colin Powell supported Obama purely on racial grounds, etc. do not go away just because he defends Cain. People can do things out of expedience, can’t they?

They can also be weighing which is the lesser of two evils, rather than simply going for Cain because electing a black man is their ideal.

I mean, there were many who looked at McCain as a terrible candidate, and were resisting voting for him, owing to the notion that he was some terrible RINO, right up to the end. But faced with Obama becoming President, many people showed up anyways, figuring that was the better outcome, despite all the problems.

If you’re saying something more like: The Tea Party’s willingness to pick Herman Cain as a potential presidential candidate means that racism is not so valued a motivation as some are accusing, sure. But there happens to be the confounding element of his politics, which might lead some to overlook other factors.

Jeremiah-
I have seen actual racist material and messages coming out of the Republican Party and Tea Party. The racism is real, though not everpresent.

It doesn’t take a warped mind to see Herman Cain’s behavior the way many do. It only takes somebody who thinks they don’t respect the culture they came from, who think that he has taken on, wholesale, the harsh, cruel stereotypical beliefs that whites inflicted on them for so long. It only takes somebody who doesn’t agree with his politics, and won’t overlook them to avoid somebody’s hamfisted attempt to appeal to their guilt over the racial mistreatment of blacks over the years.

Problem with too many on both sides is that they fail to properly imagine that normal people can disagree with them for understandable, if not persuasive reasons. The heart of good tolerance, and good compromise, is the ability to see that we are, as human beings, often different sides reflecting the same needs and motivations.

If you can’t see that people can reject Herman Cain on legitimate grounds, you have no chance of properly addressing the real reasons folks refuse to give in to your appeals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2011 9:05 AM
Comment #331382

Stephen

Fine about the use of the argument. The “you too” doesn’t absolve of blame. You are now saying that both Democrats and Republicans are racists, but Republicans cannot use Democratic culpability to mitigate their own.

I disagree with the premise. There are racists among Democrats, Republicans and all groups, but Neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is racist.

My main argument is that recent events proved that most TP members are NOT racists, not that Democrats are indeed racists.

The only reason we are talking race at all is because you tried to use it as an offensive weapon. I do INDEED believe that the use of race instrumentally is a form of racism.

The simple test of racism is whether you opinion or behavior changes based on race. If you decision about someone changes when you learn the race, you are racist. If you make race an important factor in your decision making, you are racist.

If, on the other hand, you support or oppose someone’s behavior or ideas, it doesn’t matter what color they are, this is not racist.

For example, Obama advocates big government solutions. Conservatives oppose such things. Therefore they oppose Obama for reasons unrelated to race. The same would go for liberals who oppose Cain. They don’t like his ideas and their opposition is not racist.

I know you have no trouble understanding the latter case, why cannot you understand the identical case with merely the names changed? I merely ask you apply non-biased standards, as I do.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #331385
There has been article after article linked on WB showing the disorganization of the OWS. It has also been posted that there are many radical groups in the OWS who want to create civil unrest and violence. Now, you can deny it, or you can say it’s a fringe group, but it doesn’t change the fact that this group has the possility of being dangerous to America’s security. Posted by: Mike at October 31, 2011 5:03 PM

Mike using your logic, as you attempt to smear OWS, it seems some of your own may need to be watched. Maybe even you.

“A suspected member of a fringe north Georgia militia group intended to use the plot of an online novel as a model for plans to attack U.S. federal law officers and others, authorities said.”

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-online-novel-played-role-ga-militia-plot-111437565.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 2, 2011 12:50 PM
Comment #331388

C&J-
You say it proves it. I don’t see how. Like I said, racists can support a candidate of a disliked race if the reasons are compelling enough. As it does not follow from the very real cases of some Tea Partiers being racists that all Tea Partiers are racist, so does it not follow that from some Tea Partiers not being racists, that all Tea Partiers are not racists.

Additionally, I could site you cases of the rare racist Democrat voting for Obama because the reasons for doing so, in their view, are better than their reasons for not voting. Now, of course, if a person’s racism were an overwhelming part of their personality, that would mean that the person wouldn’t ever vote for a black person.

So what you can prove, given the available evidence is that enough Tea Partiers are willing to vote for Cain to help make him a front runner, and any racism, latent or overt, is not enough of a factor for them to decide against him.

The latest Gallup Poll data has him at 80% recognition, and among them, up with 44% approval, with 32% strongly favorable, and the highest “positive intensity” score of any of them (though Romney’s approvals are ten points higher.)

But even so, that means that less than half of the Republicans who recognize him look at him positively, and only a third strongly so. This might rise if he conquers his competitors, but do remember that Edwards was high in the favorites early on in his campaign, too, so their are limits to what you can say this current popularity indicates about the strength of Tea Party approval for a black candidate.

I do think the Tea Party has a race problem, that some of its constituent groups are tinged with racial politics far stronger and much less successfully deal with than similar components among the Democrats.

It’s up to Republicans to decide how much they want to be associated with certain groups. I know Republicans like to comment on the way we Democrats “throw people under the bus”, but at least we tend to dissociate ourselves from those who might bring us shame or bad press.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment #331392

Stephen

Think about it. PRESIDENT. I don’t think supporting a guy for president is getting him to know his place. Or if “his place” is in the White House, we all hope to suffer that sort of bias.

If you are willing to have someone as president from a particular group, prejudice against that group cannot be strong and probably is practically meaningless.

And when will you learn not to destroy your own arguments. When you say of the Democrats “Now, of course, if a person’s racism were an overwhelming part of their personality, that would mean that the person wouldn’t ever vote for a black person.” You are 100% correct. The same has to go for Republicans, unless you think Republicans are just not human and subject to similar feelings.

Re Cain himself, personally I doubt he will win. He doesn’t have the experience, IMO. I favor Romney and have for a long time. I think Romney will will both the nomination and the presidency.

Of course, some people will vote against Romney because they are religious bigots.

The unmistakable bottom line is that if both Republicans and Democrats are willing to support Black men for president, there really is not much racism left in the U.S. This is the fear of liberals. For years they have used the charge of racism as a stick against their enemies and used it as a threat to keep black supporters on the liberal plantation. If the power of racism is diminished, the power that liberals have been invoking for good and evil for more than a half century will fade.

What really terrifies liberals is more people like Herman Cain. That is why the attacks have been so strong and personal. Men & women who feel that their future is in their own hands. Men and women who don’t feel beholden to special interests and government generosity. In short, free men and women who just feel like Americans.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2011 2:53 PM
Comment #416552

You said absolutely right things 99% of us agree about. Infect, here you mentioned the valid reasons which behind the whole issue. Here i must say you did great job to express it in simple and very easy way. Actually, I want to become assignment masters and for this purpose i’m doing hard work.

Posted by: Isabelle54 at May 21, 2017 2:38 PM
Post a comment