It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Tea Party claims that they're not racist

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


I'm going to, against my better judgment, post my first ever reply to this OP.
This seems to me to be an attempt at trolling. There are a number of issues I have with this post but I won't go overboard.
Firstly, you are implying that "The Tea Party" is, in and of itself, a single political party much like the republican or Democrat parties.
This is far from true. The main-stream media has led you (and many) to believe that "The Tea Party" is, in fact, a "Party" in the traditional sense. I suppose this could, if it were benign, be attributed to the word "Party" being a part of the name. What it is, in all reality, is a movement. We are all, or at least I hope, aware of the original BOSTON tea Party. (Which was neither a celebration nor a political party. It was a protest. Like the Boston Tea Party, the new "Tea Party" is itself, a "protest" of sorts. It is a protest against "politics as usual" in Washington. It is, in modern terms, a group of "revolutionaries". What you have is a group of like-minded individuals rallying around a number of issues. Now, not all "Tea Partiers" believe exactly the same thing, and you will find that there are people who are racist, ignorant, and hateful. But that comes with the territory. Being a "Tea Partier" isn't like being a Republican or Democrat. It's an idea and a movement. As a comparison, let's look at the "hippie"/"counter-culture" movement of the 60's/70's. We can all agree that being a "hippie" didn't mean you were part of some greater system or governing body. It was a movement that people identified with and ascribed to. By and large the "hippies" were just regular people that had had enough with "society" i.e. Government in the form of Big Brother, the War in Vietnam, Free love, anti-conformity... what have you. A better term would be "counter-culture" because it speaks of the breadth of social discord that people were feeling. Whether you were fighting against the War, Fighting for civil rights, peace, love... It's a rather large umbrella. Anyone with sense could tell you that it is impossible to paint "hippies" and the "counter-culture" with a broad stroke. They were about as diverse a "group" (and I use group as loosely as possible) as can be imagined. Now, looking at individuals one could point out that there were numerous people that weren't "good" for the image of the "counter-culture". Drug users, domestic terrorists, sexual deviants, psychopaths, racists’ et al. taking it one step further, look at Charles Manson. The man used the "counter-culture" for his personal, psychotic ends and people were murdered.
If one wished they could parade an endless list of examples of "counter-culture" evils, much like people are parading out the nutcases calling themselves "Tea Partiers", and claim that the entire movement is "wrong, racist, homophobic, evil," etc. This is simply disingenuous. It is seeking to discredit anyone calling themselves a "Tea Partier" by exposing those same nutcases and claiming they are representative of the whole. As I said, in truth, there is no "whole".
I will agree that there are plenty of nuts calling themselves "Tea Partiers". But there are also nuts calling themselves "Liberals", "Democrats", "Republicans", "Christians", "Jews", "Muslims", "Gay", "Straight"... you get the idea.
If one were to take another step, one could look at it like this. Take the Boston Red Sox professional baseball team. They have, for a number of years, pushed the idea of the “Red Sox Nation”. What this means is that, all over the country and the world, are Red Sox fans. They are united behind an ideal, of sorts; A shared love of the Red Sox.
Now, are they an actual group? No. But people still identify themselves as being a part of the Red Sox Nation. They believe in the team, support it, and rally behind it. But they are not a “group” per se, nor are they a nation. Much like the “Party” in “The Tea Party” does not make “TTP” a political party, neither does “Nation” make “RSN” an actual nation.
In carrying the analogy further, no one decides who is or is not a part of the “Red Sox Nation”. Anyone is free to identify themselves as being a part of it. What that means is anyone from the President, to a construction worker, to a CEO, to an inmate, to a racist, or to a pedophile can claim themselves as being in the “Red Sox Nation”. The same applies for “The Tea Party”. Just as anyone can claim themselves a part of any “movement” or “idea”. But taking individual examples and then presenting them as indicative of the average “member” is absurd.
To post something implying, if not outright saying "The Tea Party is racist" is woefully ignorant and speaks to the writers prejudice, disregard for facts and willingness to see, not what is there but what they want to be there.
One dangerous aspect of coloring your “foe” as “evil, stupid, racist, sexist, etc.” (as those politically minded always seem to picture those whose beliefs differ from their own as their “intellectual” enemy.) Is that it allows you to demean the entire “movement” and reduce your enemy to something less than you. This is a classic propaganda technique. Make the people “dehumanize” their “enemy” and then whatever they say or do is seen as “wrong” (or worse). And it justifies any words or actions taken against that “enemy”.
In this case the ammo is calling “The Tea Party” racist.
Automatically you are dehumanizing the enemy, making them seem ignorant, backwards and just plain evil. In today’s world “Racist/Racism” is a short-cut to true debate and thinking. It’s easy to lob that grenade. We, as a country, have still not come to terms with our history. We have also allowed “Racism” to become a topic that nearly everyone is intellectually dishonest about. It’s not a subject easily spoken of and when used as ammo it allows the wielder of the word to disarm their “enemy”, cast doubt on them, and ultimately distract from the true issue at hand.
How often have you heard someone say “so and so doesn’t like Obama because he is black”? It ignores his politics; it ignores intellectual discussion of fact, and simply contaminates the entire subject. Instead of defending your position you’re put on the defensive. The defensive party then has to explain his position as well as refute the claim of racism. But the defense is doomed to fail because if a person is willing to call someone a racist simply for not liking Obama they most likely have their mind made up, not only about your position but also about you.
It’s an underhanded tactic and, unfortunately, one that has gained traction. I will freely admit that there are racists out there. There are people who dislike President Obama simply because he is black, but they are in the minority. And I don’t mean 51% to 49%; I mean a very low single digit, if even that. But some people aren’t willing to listen. They have their minds made up about their enemy and “Tea Partiers”; they are ignorant, white, racist, buffoons. This applies even to those not identifying themselves as “Tea Partiers”; if you are anywhere right of center you get this label.
I have a friend, A Poli-Sci professor in NY with whom I debate from time to time. He once had the gall to say I “don’t know what I’m talking about…” I’m “just a white guy from the suburbs.” I found it ironic being that he, too, is a “white guy from the suburbs” yet because I disagreed with him about politics I couldn’t possibly know what I was talking about. I didn’t believe what he believed, and in his own mind he knew the “truth” and I was just an ignorant white guy from the suburbs. He had labeled me as the typical “White man conservative”. An image that has become a caricature in the media.
The media, which is unquestionably “left-leaning”, has made a point of discrediting anything further to the right than “liberal” on the political spectrum. If you dislike Obama? You’re racist. If you want to cut spending? You’re cold-hearted and callous to the poor. If you support immigration law and want to prosecute or deport illegal immigrant? Again, you’re racist (not to mention that you are a hypocrite because this country was built by immigrants.). If you support Palin or Bachman (or whomever they have deemed the next frontrunner)? You’re not only ignorant, but you’re homophobic, xenophobic, racist, or just plain crazy. Support Free Market? You’re greedy. You get the point?
Guys like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have become ridiculously powerful political figures. Remember the Rasmussen Report from March 2009? If not here is a bit of it:
“Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets.
Thirty-two percent (32%) of adults ages 30-39 believe this to be true, while 42% disagree, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Thirty percent (30%) of those ages 18-29 say programs like the two Comedy Central shows that feature news reports with a comic twist are replacing traditional news outlets, but 35% disagree and another 35% are not sure.”
To me, that is scary stuff. Not only are the two shows supposed to be “Satire” but they are also not exactly the great bastion of facts non-biased reporting. Both shows go out of their way to discredit and demean the “right”. Sure, some will argue that they skewer the “left” as well, they aren’t being honest. While it’s true the Stewart and Colbert take shots at the “Left” they are more than making up for it by ridiculing and belittling anything right of center. They’ve made a point of character assassination. In the name of “Comedy” they wield a mighty weapon: The attention of the viewer and the platform that they have, Couple that with poorly informed people and a willingness to believe what they are told about their “enemy” and you have a recipe for propaganda. And let’s not kid ourselves, that is exactly what it is. It’s astounding to see people’s opinions formed by what these two say.
An intelligent viewer can appreciate the humor and understand that it’s a comedy show, but for those who base their political beliefs off of what these two men say, they are a dangerously ignorant lot. An intelligent viewer knows to both check his facts and to get a well-rounded view of the issue and those involved.
Many will point the finger at fox news and say that they are equally, if not more guilty of the same thing. I will cede the point but with a qualifier. Given that the media is inherently left-leaning, anything even remotely to the right is going to be seen as extreme. People aren’t used to seeing the opposing viewpoint. They are inundated with the views of the “left” in nearly every facet of entertainment and don’t bat an eye because it is the status quo. Don’t get me wrong, I am not strictly defending Fox News. They have their issues, but they are more than balanced out by the other major cable news stations (and movies, and music, and television in general.).
The one place “conservatism”, for lack of a better word, has a foothold is in radio. But even that has been deemed a threat and I am sure you are all aware of the “left’s” campaign to shut down guys like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michael savage, et al. It’s almost as if the media sees it as abhorrent. They cannot conceive of the idea that political radio is inherently right-leaning and call it dangerous, fear mongering, and hateful.
The left has tried to use the “Fairness doctrine” against talk radio. Trying to shoehorn the idea that there must be parity between viewpoints on the airwaves. From Wikipedia:
“ The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]”
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3]. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost.”
en.wikipedia.org...
The equal time rule (also from Wikipedia):
“The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.
However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
This rule originated in § 18 of the Radio Act of 1927 [1]. It was later superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, where the Equal Time Rule is codified as § 315(a).
Another provision of § 315(a) prohibits stations from censoring campaign ads. A related provision, in § 315(b), requires that broadcasters offer time to candidates at the same rate as their "most favored advertiser".
The rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections.
The Equal Time rule should not be confused with the Fairness Doctrine, which deals with presenting balanced points of view on matters of public importance.”
en.wikipedia.org...
Obama himself has spoken on the topic, most notably in September 2007 when he submitted a written statement supporting his “pro-localism” viewpoint to an FCC hearing held at the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Operation Push headquarters in Chicago.
Localism, in terms of broadcasting and the FCC, is that Radio and television stations are required to serve the interests of their local community as a condition of keeping their broadcast licenses. So what we have is an opportunity to hold the local broadcasters feet to the flames when it comes to what they will and will not air. Numerous organizations have thrown their two cents into the discussion, all aiming to take “conservative” talk radio down. Also in 2007 the Center for American Progress issued a report titled “the structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”. The report itself states:
“Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.
As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:
 Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
 Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
 A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.
This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast.
These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.
There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.
Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.
Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.
In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.
The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.
This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:
 Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
 Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
 Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

www.americanprogress.org...
One theme you will notice is the repeated use of terms like “disparities”, “local needs”. It’s clear to anyone that there is an agenda here. Namely, to not only established so-called “parity” but to reduce the amount of “conservative programming”. There are a number of telling passages in the above text; “While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast.”
The use of the word “pushed” as if the conservative radio is not wanted but rather forced on the listener.
“…but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.”
They are attempting to justify removing conservative talk radio as a move for the greater good of the American people, as if conservative radio is inherently dangerous. They are couching the argument as wanting to erase the disparity between the number of hours conservative versus “progressive” radio is on the air but it is clear, yet unmentioned, why this disparity raises “serious questions”. The implication is that there is a nefarious plot to inundate the American public with conservative “propaganda”.
“The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.”
A rational, non-biased person would see that consumer demand is in fact more than enough reason for a program to be aired. We all know that ratings are what determine if a show, whether on television or radio, stays on the air. It comes down to money. The owners are in a business that lives and dies by the ratings. The higher the rating the more they can charge for ads. The wonderful thing about television and radio is that, at any time, the viewer/listener has the option to change the channel or turn of the radio/TV. They say consumer demand does not “adequately explain why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves” yet I say it does. Why does any show stay on TV/radio? Because there is a demand for it. If no one were listening then these shows would not exist. It’s pretty simple, really. No one is forcing anyone to listen. There are plenty of options out there in the 21st century as far as entertainment and news goes. This is partially why the “fairness doctrine” was repealed. Viewers/listeners are free to explore and listen to whatever they choose. Simply because the majority of talk radio happens to be “conservative” (though it’s more fair to say “right of center”) doesn’t mean they have to listen to it. Yet the C.A.P. sites the repeal of the “Fairness Doctrine” as one of the reasons the “disparity” exists. Invoking the name “Fairness Doctrine” and its repeal as being a “cause” implies that the proliferation of “conservative talk radio” is adversely “unfair”. The Center for American Progress goes on to expose itself even more as they continue.
“…multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.”
The C.A.P. seems to believe that, if it were up to the public and “local” ownership we would see much less “conservative talk radio” on the airwaves. They say that, because the stations airing the programs are not locally, they are ignoring public interests. What this means is that they believe the public wants less “conservative talk radio” and, left to their own devices, would increase the amount of “progressive talk radio”. But because stations aren’t locally owned and operated, and that because they are part of a larger ownership group i.e. rich white guys they “push” “conservative talk radio” on the public despite local “need”.
“Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.
In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.”
Here is where C.A.P. shows it bias and its clever use of statistics. The idea that “Ownership diversity” is an “important variable” in terms of disparity is ludicrous. They ignore the facts when they discount consumer demand, which is easily quantifiable, yet use misleading figures to prop up their own untruthful claim. They cite a “quantitative analysis” by the ‘Free Press’ www.freepress.net... as showing that stations locally owned, owned by women or owned by minorities air less conservative shows and have fewer conservative hosts. What they fail to show is what percentage of the 10,506 licensed radio stations do these 3 groups make up? Nor do they account for format or revenue.
One can see from the report that there is an effort being made to take “conservative talk radio” off the air. They fail to understand that there is a demand for it. They don’t see it because they don’t understand it. They want to say it is due to “disparities”, or white, non-Hispanic dominated group ownership, or local needs not being met. Look at some of their ideas to “fix” the problem? It amounts to blackmail. They believe it is simply a lack of “localism” and that the larger, white non-Hispanic owned stations are basically looking to make money and ignore the needs of local communities. They seek to “encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming” and throw statistics at us. But the numbers don’t add up. It’s another case of “we are doing it for the people” but don’t be fooled, it’s far from being about “the people”, it’s about silencing the one area of the media that the left doesn’t control. How ironic is it that in every other facet of media the left dominates, yet in the one area they aren’t they seek “parity” and “balance” and “responsibility of broadcasters”. It’s laughable. They are thugs and doing what thugs do best, trying to intimidate. They are trying to hit them where it hurts, in the wallet. There 3 great ideas to “correct” the disparities in radio?
 Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
 Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
 Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
1. Limit businesses from growing or owning too much. I support the idea that there should not be monopolies, but the motivation here is not “the welfare of the people” but, again, to silence the “right”.
2. Threatening to revoke broadcasting licenses unless broadcasters adhere to their “rules”. Basically: Stop airing what people want and air what they want.
3. The last one had me laughing for a good long while. Not only will failure to adhere to what amounts to a rather unenforceable policy get a station fined but the fine will be payable to Public Broadcasting. If that isn’t an admission of the fact that Public Broadcasting is left-leaning I don’t know what is.
This is as transparently biased as possible. It’s a clever tactic, I’ll give them that, but it amounts to nothing more than intimidation. I don’t see how anyone can look at this issue and not want to laugh. As I said, at the end of the day we all have a right to turn the TV/radio off and we all have access to information such as we’ve never had before. If one wished they could watch and listen to nothing but their political ideology of choice 24 hours a day. We have newspapers, magazines, the internet, TV. In this day and age we have more opportunities than ever to seek out information and make our own minds up about a subject. How anyone can say that “conservative talk radio” is an issue is beyond me. It’s obvious that those on the left see it as a threat of some sort and don’t like to acknowledge that there is an audience for it. They’ve wrapped up that media cocoon so tight that they forgot that not everyone thinks the way they do.
The free press, in the expanded report, go on to explain why they believe that minority and female owners air less “conservative talk radio” and opt for more “progressive talk radio”:
“…we believe that minority and female owners, who tend to be more local, are more responsive to the needs of their local communities and are therefore less likely to air the conservative hosts because this type of programming is so far out of step with their local audiences. Additionally, minority-owned stations are more likely to be found in areas with high minority populations- areas that also report high percentages of progressives and liberals”
They then have a graph showing percentages of stations airing a=“Conservative talk radio” and b=“progressive talk radio”. Female owned stations will be marked with an asterisk and non-female with a double asterisk. The percentages are x=minority owned stations y=non-minority owned stations. These are their figures: All stations: ax=4.6% *9.2% ay=12% **11.6%, News/talk stations: ax=22.5% *42.6% ay=50.6% **50.1 , All stations: bx=1.67% *1.31% by=1.60 **1.63%, News/talk stations: bx=20% *11.48% by=9.5% **9.69%.
Oddly enough though, if one goes over the numbers you find out that, as far as what determines whether or not “conservative” or “progressive” talk radio is aired, the percentages all fall well under 1%. Meaning, they are truly insignificant. They are, as many do, using statistics to their own end. An easy thing to do.
Take this example. Let’s say Pleasant town news reports a 100% increase in the murder rate. Sound frightening, right? Well, what if the town had no murders and then one was committed? That’s a 100% increase. The problem with statistics is that, when it comes to people, generally there are too many variables. It’s difficult if not impossible to ascribe motivation based on a statistic. For example, you could have data that says people who drink tend to be more depressed. But you could just as easily say people who are depressed tend to drink. It all depends on how you interpret the data, what variables exist, and in some cases what the motivation of the statistician is. With ‘Free press’ it is plain to see that they have an agenda beyond what they claim. The front page of their site says:
“The Fight for Better Media Begins Here
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Please join us.”
Obviously they are anything but “nonpartisan”. a cursory reading of their materials will-l tell you that, but they are careful not to say it, but only imply where they stand. It’s these types of “sources” one must be careful of and not implicitly trust.
One glaring omission from their report are the numbers. They report on the supposed disparity in programming and attempt to explain it yet never disclose exactly what numbers they are using. Out of those 10,506 stations, just how many are owned by women or minorities. Common sense would tell you that it is most likely a statistically insignificant number yet they use it as a basis for comparison. This seems to be more about the message they are trying to give than any real disparity. Even in their notes they detail a breakdown of the 2004 presidential election by race and sex: 88% of African Americans, 53% of Latinos, 56% of Asians voted for Kerry. Yet, of the white non-Hispanic voters only 41% voted for Kerry: 44% of men and 37% of all white, non-Hispanic men reported voting for Kerry He gained 67% of the non-white male vote. Women were nearly split with 51% of all women and 44 % of white non-Hispanic women. Of the non-white voting population 75% voted for Kerry. According to PEW 27% of whites identified as democrat in 2003 versus 35% as republican. Latinos were at 36% versus 22% for Republican. Women were 36% democrat versus 29% for Republican. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Nov. 55, 2003.
They continue in their note stating that their results are merely suggestive because, in reality, they couldn’t get a comprehensive list of what radio hosts could be considered “conservative” or “progressive”. They attempt to make the issue black and white but neglect to address the content of broadcasts. Without analysis of content one cannot truly say whether a station is simply airing “conservative talk radio” or “progressive talk radio”. It’s an oversimplification of the situation.
Why do I bring all this up and go into such detail? Because it speaks directly to the lengths that the media and left will go to to discredit anything on the right. Today’s target of choice is “The Tea Party”. They are systematically trying to dismantle it, discredit it, and destroy it.
How are they doing it? By trying to ascribe it motivations, give it a face, expose “tea partiers” as “Ignorant, white, racist, buffoons”. It’s not hard to do. One could do it to any group they want to discredit. Like I said, using the Red Sox Nation as an example. I’m sure I can find all sorts of awful people who are a part of the “RSN”, tell you about crimes they’ve committed, racist remarks they’ve made, idiotic things they’ve done. But, again, it does not indict the whole.
There is an effort being made, especially after the last major election cycle, to destroy the “Tea Party”. The left, through whatever means at their disposal, is trying to make the “Tea Party” implode. Convince people that it is full of nuts and whack jobs, make it seem as if people are walking away, disenfranchised. It’s all garbage. People are more and more angry at this government with each passing day. It’s not a republican thing, it’s not even a conservative thing… It’s an American thing. People from all parts of the spectrum are waking up to what Washington has been doing. They want change. Not simply to put Republicans in office, but real change. Some of these people thought Obama was going to be the one to change things, and he has… unfortunately it’s not for the good of the country or the people. And those same people are now the ones turning to the “Tea Party”, realizing that it’s not about electing republicans but about an ideal. That we are Americans, we have rights, and we don’t want the government controlling everything we do, spending all of our money, bankrupting the nation and ruining the future for our children it’s as simple as that. It’s the people wanting to take back the government that should never have been taken from them in the first place. After all, it is still a country by the people and for the people. They work for us and for too long we have let them make us think it’s the other way around.
I cannot excuse the nuts identifying with the movement, but I can condemn them. They do not speak for me; they do not speak for most. It’s easy to point out ignorance and idiocy. It’s harder to try to understand your “enemy”. It’s easier to belittle, dehumanize and demonize your “enemy” than to listen and debate intellectually, it’s easier to be told what to think than to go out there and learn the truth for yourself. If you wish to continue making ignorant statement like “The Tea Party is racist” and then give the flimsiest of reasons then by all means, continue. But you will not accomplish what you set out to do.
The “Tea Party” is the biggest movement in American politics in decades. Yet, according to the media, it’s a “group” that can be quantified, labeled, exposed, discredited and destroyed. They are actively attempting to do this, and it’s obvious that people believe it. The beautiful thing, though, is its damn near impossible to kill an idea. And since the “Tea Party” is, in fact, an idea and not a group, they won’t be able to kill it. It doesn’t need a name, it needs thinking people. Thankfully there seem to be more and more of those every day. And if people will stand up to baseless rubbish like “The Tea Party is Racist”, not with vitriolic debate but with facts, passion and determination, no amount of propaganda will extinguish that flame.
I urge you to educate yourself.
I urge you to stand up for your rights.
I urge you to read between the lines.
I urge you to fight ignorance.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   

edit on 25-8-2011 by Skippy1138 because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Well is this not the typical liberal/progressive tactic? If you can not debate the issue on merit or find facts to back up your heart felt claim, then you start flinging insults. Straight out of "Rules for Radicals" by Obama's good friend Sal Alinsky. Repeat the insults long enough and people believe it. Marginalize and attack. Whatever



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
But some members/worshipers use racial slurs as evidenced by words like "ObaMoa", etc.

So, how can this be then?

I realize that there are a bulk of anti-Tea Party threads on ATS at the moment.

In each thread, the Tea Party faithful come in to defend their "cause" while flinging # at Barack Obama.

But, they forgot one critical thing: leave the hateful language at the door.

This isn't "Tea Party Central". This is Above Top Secret. Why has it turned into the headquarters for the CIA's latest political psyops?


Defending the Left as always Sword. Well done.

Why are the Tea Party people blasting "the messiah" (little "m")
?

Due to his (and those like him) blatant disregard for what the people demand.

"We dont want to spend any more money"

(O). Lets put a huge socialized medical bill on the people and stunt job growth!

Regardless of who is in there, if they suck, they will be lambasted. Period.

The "right" have thick skins though friend.

We've been called terrorists, "tea baggers" (during the time kids are up!), nuts and so forth. Its ok though. All it does is piss us off and reinforce the idea that whomever is behind BO (or if you like Barry Sotero...BS) really doesnt give a rats butt about our country.


Racial slurs? Black Cloud? Really? Too thin skinned. Why play a race card when you have an entire deck of legit cards to use instead?

Take care Sword. Dont poke yourself in the eye



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 




I realize that there are a bulk of anti-Tea Party threads on ATS at the moment. In each thread, the Tea Party faithful come in to defend their "cause" while flinging # at Barack Obama. But, they forgot one critical thing: leave the hateful language at the door.


I tend to think it is more political than racial. It's the nature of all politics to splash around in the septic tank and the Tea Party is no different. Obama represents, to them, their worst nightmare; a liberal incumbent president on the verge of an election. The same thing happened in reverse to Bush... though applied with different material, of course.

I try to avoid political threads or, at least, taking sides. If I were global dictator, I would have to outlaw all politics and make people spend their negative energies tossing tomatoes at Monsanto.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by The Sword
 




I realize that there are a bulk of anti-Tea Party threads on ATS at the moment. In each thread, the Tea Party faithful come in to defend their "cause" while flinging # at Barack Obama. But, they forgot one critical thing: leave the hateful language at the door.


I tend to think it is more political than racial. It's the nature of all politics to splash around in the septic tank and the Tea Party is no different. Obama represents, to them, their worst nightmare; a liberal incumbent president on the verge of an election. The same thing happened in reverse to Bush... though applied with different material, of course.

I try to avoid political threads or, at least, taking sides. If I were global dictator, I would have to outlaw all politics and make people spend their negative energies tossing tomatoes at Monsanto.



the funny thing about all of this?
The real divide in the country/world is based on class not race. We are fed the "racE" issue to keep us from uniting against our real enemy. That is those who seek power and to control us.
I don't mean to sound like a nut job, but it's fairly obvious that we are purposefully distracted from the real issues.
I just think, when someone starts saying things like "The Tea Party is racist" they are playing right into the "machine".
Thats a dangerous road to go down.
As i said in my uber-long post, to think of "The Tea Party" as an entity or as an actual political party is erroneous. It is not a party or a group. Ascribing beliefs to it, as a whole., is foolish.
The Tea Party is not racist.
99.9% of people who dislike Obama don't do so because of his race but because of his politics.
To say differently is to be woefully ignorant of facts and truth.
The race card is all to easy to play and between people being ultra P.C. and intellectually dishonest its like using napalm to light a candle.
You can't just throw "racism" out there any time you lack for an answer nor should one do it to discredit. If there is a racist, call him a racist, but to characterize the entire movement known as the Tea Party is disingenuous and asinine. One can easily find examples of awful people within any group or movement. That has more to do with individuals than any affiliation theyy may have.
Its like saying the nazis were good people because there were some nazis trying to sabotage the party.
Its reverse logic, but speaks to the same issue.
Or, as the Osmonds said "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch"



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Pot calling the kettle black?


Seem to remember Bush being bashed relentlessly. But, he was white so it's o.k.

Enough with the racist threads.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


The Tea Party movement should be more like POTUS BO,( praise be his name), He has fulfilled his promise to bring Americans together and stop partisan bickering and putting an end to class warfare while cutting the deficit in half. It is a great new beginning as he continues to fundamentally transform us into His glorious utopian vision as shared by Mao, Soros, Marx and Wasserman-#z.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


It is simple really.....Some people are racist.Some are not....

Just because some are racist,does NOT mean all are...

In fact, to suggest so....is ironically prejudiced....

I don't like the tea party either...Sure,some of them are racist...Not all of them though....I promise you...Some in EVERY party are racist..This does not mean all are....



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


for a dirty,liberal hippie you sure as hell got your head on straight.
:0
Maybe your the one GOOD apple in the whole rotten bunch?
Just kidding.
there has to be at LEAST two of you.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gannicus

Originally posted by illuminatislave
funny how Tea Party shills cannot stand to own up to or discuss the racist behavior of their ilk, so they want to deflect and derail the topic of this thread.


What about the racist behavior of the Democrat party and many of the organizations who are part of it?
You do realize you just proved his point with that reply right?


Originally posted by SM2
Well is this not the typical liberal/progressive tactic? If you can not debate the issue on merit or find facts to back up your heart felt claim, then you start flinging insults. Straight out of "Rules for Radicals" by Obama's good friend Sal Alinsky. Repeat the insults long enough and people believe it. Marginalize and attack. Whatever
Seriously, did you not read the first page of the thread?

Originally posted by The Sword
You asked for it.







Really? Monkey See, Monkey Spend?





I could go on and on and on with more examples that can be easily found on the good 'ol intrawebs.

So deny it all you like.



edit on 25-8-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I like a few of the Facebook pages from these........people, and a page called "The Refounders" posted something about how middle-eastern people were infiltrating our Military, and they shouldn't be allowed to serve.

I flew off on a tangent, stating how I didn't understand how this is news pertaining to the Tea Party, and that it's obviously geared towards inequality, and racism.

Each person who read it found the article to be Tea Party news, and defended it.

At that moment, I was done. I unliked all those pages, and told myself that obviously these are not the kind of people who are smart enough to actually open up their brains and realize how ridiculous posting that article was.

Blind followers.

EDIT: Most of them could hardly spell or write complete sentences.
edit on 25-8-2011 by mahoosta because: Tea Party Grammar.

edit on 25-8-2011 by mahoosta because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2011 by mahoosta because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Individuals will have their own thinking, in any party. But the most radical racists types I see, are Democrats. I mean, that crazy McKinney woman, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and I am sure Farrakhan is a Democrat too. I think the number of radical racists is way way bigger among the Democrats, and these people are rather well known and sadly have large supporters. I don't think there is an equal assortment of people in the Tea Party, that say and believe such radical racist things as the people I mentioned, as well as have a big following. I bet all the Black Caucus are Democrats too.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Funny isn't it? It would be more amusing if they weren't so dangerous and in the process of killing an entire Nation. Here's hoping the MAJOR demographic changes coming to America over the next ten years thwart it. Because after the old white male dies off, everything is Latino and Liberal.

www.nationaljournal.com...

I'm an old white male and my generation just can not die off soon enough.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
In all honesty. There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to address it. Easily more than half of this country is racist. Hell, 90 percent of people are racist in some way or another. This is because different races to have slight differences. It's not criminal or wrong to state this. Yes of course we are all human beings and strive for the same things, but there are differences there.

Racism is a natural thing. Hatred is not, but racism is. We see differences in one another and it's all over the place. The music we listen to, the clothes we wear, the way we speak, where we live etc.... There are just differences.

Sure the Tea PArty has racists in it. This isn't because it's inherently a racist movement though. It is because it's a human being thing. Racists are everywhere. The thing about today is, we pretend it isn't nearly as widespread as it is and we crucify those who are either openly racist or found out to be.

Human beings are severely flawed. This isn't anything to be surprised about. C'mon.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01


If Barack Obama was on fire and begged for my help, I wouldn't even piss on that man to put the flames out. That's how much I hate that lying, corporate lap dog.

So to answer your question, I actually believe what I said.






So you are a racist then?


Hey, einstein, just because someone has a negative opinion of a particular person because of their character (and that person happens to be black), doesn't make them a racist. Got it? Get your intellect out of grade school. The race card ain't gonna work this time. Obama has screwed up so bad in transcends any possible race argument you could conjure.

The ignorance of your statement is astounding.





edit on 25-8-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scytherius
reply to post by The Sword
 


Funny isn't it? It would be more amusing if they weren't so dangerous and in the process of killing an entire Nation. Here's hoping the MAJOR demographic changes coming to America over the next ten years thwart it. Because after the old white male dies off, everything is Latino and Liberal.

www.nationaljournal.com...

I'm an old white male and my generation just can not die off soon enough.


The country is not becoming latino and liberal because old white men are dying off. It's because the latino liberals are sneaking into this country illegally and have twice the birth rate of whites.

Oh yeah let me guess what is coming next: I'm a racist!

Spare me the display of ignorance.


edit on 25-8-2011 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
Well is this not the typical liberal/progressive tactic? If you can not debate the issue on merit or find facts to back up your heart felt claim, then you start flinging insults. Straight out of "Rules for Radicals" by Obama's good friend Sal Alinsky. Repeat the insults long enough and people believe it. Marginalize and attack. Whatever


SAL ALINSKY A.K.A

You and all your stars are brought to you by FOX news, who created a rebranding effort

The TEA party...

Isn't it awesome that you guys have been using "Repeat the insults long enough and people believe it" model
for years now. The President alone is an Illegal Alien, a Muslim, A Marxist, Anti American, Black Panther

I almost think the AGE OLD tactic of - accusing your enemy of what YOU do in plain sight - is the actual method at work.

There is nothing radical about the left's policies at this moment in time, we are simple trying to maintain
a middle. You guy are pushing an agenda that makes Winston Churchill look like John Lennon.



edit on 25-8-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MuchTooSerious
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


for a dirty,liberal hippie you sure as hell got your head on straight.
:0
Maybe your the one GOOD apple in the whole rotten bunch?
Just kidding.
there has to be at LEAST two of you.


Ha, well to be fair, I am more independent... But my political beliefs lean further left than they do right...

I am just realistic.I try to be anyway.

Yeah, I don't like the tea party or their politics....But I can also use my head and know that not all are racist.You can look at any group of people...You will find a person or two who is racist....Again, this does not mean all from that group are racist at all.

Quite frankly, it would be silly to think such a thing. It makes about as much sense as saying the Antarctica is hot. Well...No....It's pretty cold there and not all tea partiers are racist... In fact... I would say the majority are just ordinary run of the mill people...

They have their beliefs and I have mine.... And I think that is wonderful... It is what this country is all about.

edit on 25-8-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join