Tea Party is Racist?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Socialism is a bridge to communism.

And how do you define socialism exactly?

Must I really?

I can just make it really short and go with the Merriam Webster definition

I'm not concerned with the official definitions. If I wanted that, I'd do a simple good search. I want your personal account and definition of socialism. Is it government involvement in healthcare? Is social security socialist? Is socialism a form of distributive wealth? I ask you this because from my time debating with tea partiers and those on the right, the definitions of socialism vary. What part of our government is socialist again?

Originally posted by Indigo5
Beyond the xenophobic rhetoric, the signs with Pres. Obama dressed up like a wich-doctor, the racist letter the head of the TP sent to the NCAAP...etc. etc.

Or the repeated Polls that show 90-95% of TPers are WHITE, with maybe 1% black....


Out of all the polling and data...Ironically the one item of evidence that tells me most succinctly that the TP is racist is the fact that EVERY time they see the rare black man at one of thier rallies they swarm him with cameras and video tape him, put him on youtube and shout "see! we are not racist" and then ask him to go on stage and speak!

Next time you see a vid of that black man at a TP rally, look over his shoulder...look out into the crowd as far as you can see, and see if you can spot another black man or family. See any white folks?

edit on 29-8-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

So by your definition of racist (all or mostly all attendees are of one race) does that make Miss Black America beauty pageant a racist event? How about that NAAC/P, racist? I think not. Your definition is flawed and then consequently your argument!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Socialism is a bridge to communism.

And how do you define socialism exactly?

Must I really?

I can just make it really short and go with the Merriam Webster definition

I'm not concerned with the official definitions. If I wanted that, I'd do a simple good search. I want your personal account and definition of socialism. Is it government involvement in healthcare? Is social security socialist? Is socialism a form of distributive wealth? I ask you this because from my time debating with tea partiers and those on the right, the definitions of socialism vary. What part of our government is socialist again?

Why? Because then you can't refute it?
Merriam Webster makes it very clear that it is a bridge between capitaism and communism, something I have said here for months. It makes it clear it's collecivism. Yes, it is re-distributive wealth.
I bet you plan to challenge me on what in our govt is redistributing wealth. You could for instance say that using taxpayer money to build roads is redistributing wealth, and it is part of the collective, and you would say what's wrong with that, wouldn't you, because the average American would say that.
However, when we get into the real agenda, such as social justice, then we start to get into some moral and ethical situational thinking. For instance, confiscating my wealth to pay for a program to allow other individuals to have health insurance is an obvious abuse and very obviously a socialistic agenda. You know it and I know it.
That of course is not all that's wrong with the healthcare program.
Then there is the issue of degrees. That falls into the category of Fabian Sociaism, which is sociaism in increments. That is, they don't do it all at once because the people get spooked or even revolt. If you do it over a long period of time, like has been done with us, then the people forget about it until the next program comes up, then it's debated and passed and then forgotten till the next battle.
Obama tried to do too much too fast and everybody knew and caught on, and thus the Tea Party gained momentum.
The end result is to be communism. Karl Marx said it, and it's a known fact in those circles.
The healthcare sham in my opinion falls into the fascist totalitarian category in part because of the enforcement of it using the IRS to collect fines. There is also some social engineering involved because of the end of life counseling panels direcited at people who may be terminal. It is just not government's business and they are way in over their heads on that level. It's way over the line, but thats liberal fascism. They want to counsel you in your death plans for your own good(and the good of the collective). After all, that is the definition of the collective, the group over the individual.
Do I need to keep going on or do you need more?

Been following this thread. Just waiting to see if anyone would ask these questions............

How are the tea party members racist?

Are they mostly conservative?

Anyone????

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Here, expressly, is Engels line of reasoing which is diametrically opposed to the concepts of our Founding Fathers

We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie; that this eternal Right found its realization in bourgeois justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, the Contrat Social of Rousseau, came into being, and only could come into being, as a democratic bourgeois republic. The great thinkers of the 18th century could, no more than their predecessors, go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.

www.marxists.org...


Here's another great gem from Engels which exposes the basic conquest for world domination embedded in socialism

The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the 19th century, and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and English Socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I bet you plan to challenge me on what in our govt is redistributing wealth. You could for instance say that using taxpayer money to build rroads is redistributing wealth,

Actually no. Most free marketers admit that there is a need for tax payer funds to be involved in roads, and police, and defense and so forth. I am already aware of this. It is however still distributing the wealth of individuals in the end. But this was not going to be my focus.

and it is part of the collective, and you would say what's wrong with that, wouldn't you, because the average American would say that.
However, when we get into the real agenda, such as social justice, then we start to get into some moral and ethical situational thinking. For instance, confiscating my wealth to pay for a program to allow other individuals to have health insurance is an obvious abuse

If confiscating your wealth to pay for public health insurance is abuse then I'd assume the world is drowning in a mass of socialism and communism right? In actual fact, every developed country in the world has some kind of a publically funded healthcare system, the United states included. Those countries that don't simply cannot afford it. Aside from the United States, I'm not aware of one country opposed to it because of it's "communist" roots. We have medicare here in the US and have had so since the 60's. If you believe this is a sign that america is on the road to communism, well it's been more than 40 years already and if anything, we're more rightwing of the economic spectrum than other developed countries.

I'd to see the next president try to touch medicare. It certainly got Reagan running.

and very obviously a socialistic agenda.

It's a "global" conspiracy decades in the making.

Tea Party gained momentum.

I swear, listening to tea partiers is alot like listening to a fantasy novel. Completely out of touch with reality. And regarding Obama's healthcare bill? I think it's a complete joke. You cannot mandate people to pay for private insurance. He had to pay his dues to his corporate overlords though, just like those among the tea parties.

The end result is to be communism.

Why is communism taking so long to engulf the world? I suppose the fall of communist Russia over 20 years ago was a stunt? The rabbit hole just got alot deeper.

liberal fascism.

I don't know about liberal fascism. I do know that the tea parties want fascism at a state level, provided it follows their agenda. Socialism by your standards ain't going anywhere, I assure ya.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

If confiscating your wealth to pay for public health insurance is abuse then I'd assume the world is drowning in a mass of socialism and communism right? In actual fact, every developed country in the world has some kind of a publically funded healthcare system, the United states included.

Yes, hospitals cannot turn away individuals. That is one reason why hospitals, especially in California are beginning to go bankrupt because ambulences are literally crossing the border from Mexico to bring people to American hospitals.

Now, did I not specify HEALTH INSURANCE in my post? As we all know that people are not turned away from the ER in emergencies. Forcing people to buy health insurance products falls into the totalitarian aspect of things. This is definitely an aspect of totalitarian bureaucracy, where the govt begins to get into the business of being a broker in providing healthcare. And remember what is the definition of socialism? What is the definition of communism? The common principle is state ownership of the means of production.

Now what is your real reason for this line of questioning by you? Is it really to grill Tea Partiers to see if they fit your moral compass of what you think govt should be doing for the citizens? Is it to shame Tea Partiers into admitting we already have elements of socialism and that our current level of society would fall apart without it? Again, we are going to have to go back to the incrementalism factor. It becomes an exercise in relativity. Humanist philosophy seeks to replace absolute cosmic law with moral relativity.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Why is communism taking so long to engulf the world? I suppose the fall of communist Russia over 20 years ago was a stunt? The rabbit hole just got alot deeper.

I don't know. Was it a stunt in your opinion? Is communism alive and well? I would certainly say so. Remember Van Jones? Do you think it is just a wild anomaly that a self-professed communist would turn up as an advisor to Obama? Do you think it is a wild anomaly that Anita Dunn, an avid Mao admirer, also turned up in the Obama team? These questions need to be addressed if we are to get to the bottom of what appears to many Tea Partiers as a communist coup d-etats in the WH.

I don't know about liberal fascism. I do know that the tea parties want fascism at a state level, provided it follows their agenda

Would you mind giving me some specifics? Are you referring to religion here? If so, let's talk about James Madison. Religion is usually the first issue Progressives have with the Tea Party outside of their claims of racism.
Is it the PATRIOT ACT? Because I am against the PARIOT ACT. However, that is not to say I don't care about the issues of terrorism. I can assure you that Progressives reasoning on the PATRIOT ACT Is not the same as conservatives. Leftists want to hide their money laundering activities, whereas the more Libertarian types are interested in preserving genuine liberty and freedom, and privacy as well.
The ACLU tends to be communistic, so they don't count as advocates of individual liberty. My sister once commented to me that the ACLU only supports collective rights.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Those countries that don't simply cannot afford it. Aside from the United States, I'm not aware of one country opposed to it because of it's "communist" roots.

So European socialism is ok because they do not believe they are heading towards communism and it seems humanitarian? Is that right? We should go the way of European socialism because our POTUS wants to essentially change our society?
America is the only country with a Constitution like ours. Do you want to be like the Europeans just because? Or like Cuba where they recently had a shortage of toilet paper?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


and why the hell do you think that is a good thing?!!


ya i want the colonel and his men doing all of this for me.

especially blackie,




don't want to shoot you in the hand. lol!!

reply to post by Southern Guardian

We have medicare here in the US and have had so since the 60's. If you believe this is a sign that america is on the road to communism

Again, how many times do I have to say the word "incremental"? No politician wants to suggest that we get rid of Medicare. It would be political suicide wouldn't it? Social Security? Well it's been described as a Ponzi scheme, you know one where to pay for the first people in, new people have to join. But we all pay in to the system and get something out of it. The issues with Social Security are around it's solvency. It is also an issue of being forced to give the State something you worked for, and letting the govt control it for you. It is definitely against free market principles and individual liberty. It is elements of Statism and Totalitarian control.
How about the Progressive income tax? That was expressly a goal of communists to implement in the US as part of the internal takeover.

Here's an interesting article I found from 09 and look at the title! "Medicare is Socialism"
www.psychologytoday.com...

Ronald Regan, on behalf of the AMA, released an LP record (remember those?), Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine, in which he said:
"Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country...And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

The thing is once these Fabian Socialist programs become embedded in society and that's all people know, it is difficult to find alternative ideas that people will be open to.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Is communism alive and well? I would certainly say so. Remember Van Jones? Do you think it is just a wild anomaly that a self-professed communist would turn up as an advisor to Obama?

Van Jones is not the president. Him formly being an advisor to Obama doesn't equate to communism being installed or established by this administration. I'm not so much concerned about the political views of advisors, more the actions of the president himself. If this is all you really have against progressives and liberals, including Obama, the fact that Van Jones is a communist, then you're not really getting anywhere.

Would you mind giving me some specifics?

I don't need to be specific. Tea party advocates like Ron Paul want to give states absolute power to dictate as to what they wish to do in their states. Do you know what the core argument for the civil war was? The rights of states. What rights of states would you ask? The right of states to legalize slavery. Do you know where goldwater and his fellow supporters of the south and on the rightwing argued back in the 60's? The right of states to dictate racial segregation. Tea partiers and libertarians such as yourself have made it clear, you want states to be given the powers they held prior to the civil war. But hey, fascism at a state level was acceptable back then so it should ben now, right?

Religion is usually the first issue Progressives have with the Tea Party.

If tea partiers had their way, we'd be teaching creationism in public schools. Yes, I have a very big issue with this.

Is it the PATRIOT ACT? Because I am against the PARIOT ACT.

Funnily enough, the majority of GOP tea party freshman voted to extend the patriot act, but we didn't hear a peep from tea partiers on here. We did hear about Rand Paul though, as if he made up the majority of the tea parties. I oppose the patriot act, always have, one of the reasons I don't support Obama.

Leftists want to hide their money laundering activities,

You're accusing me of participating in laundering activities?

whereas the more Libertarian types are interested in preserving genuine liberty and freedom, and privacy as well.

I've made it clear where libertarians really stand on liberty and freedom. Most libertarians are not that much interested in privacy, unless it involves guns and christianity, hence the fact they wish to get involved over such issues as women's bodies.

The ACLU tends to be communistic, so they don't count as advocates of individual liberty.

Can you give an example of an event where the ACLU was being communistic? I'd really like to hear this.

So European socialism is ok because they do not believe they are heading towards communism and it seems humanitarian? Is that right?

"European socialism" as you refer to it has been in place for over a century. Try telling a Brit or a Frenchman that their country is communist or heading that way because of their healthcare system. Most of them will laugh at you. You're being silly to think programmes like socialized healthcare are indications to a (very slow) road to communism. Corporate private insurers are making a tonne, and thanks in part to people like you.

We should go the way of European socialism because our POTUS wants to essentially change our society?

Are we not technically experiencing European socialism by your standards? Considering that we have programmes such as medicare in place? Or is there an exception to the level of "socialism" a country can have? As stated, every developed country, including those outside of Europe, have programmes such as public healthcare in place and have had so for years. The United states has medicare, social security, welfare. By your standards, we're already a socialist country, or communist.

Again, how many times do I have to say the word "incremental"? No politician wants to suggest that we get rid of Medicare.

Yes, I'm aware that many tea partiers hate to tread the line of medicare, they always lose that argument, so they make any excuse necesarry to back out of arguing against it. Medicare is public healthcare, regardless of whether it's only for the elderly or not. You gotta ask yourself why many tea partiers and other free market advocates literally run away from medicare and privatizing it? Well you can ask yourself that question. Reagan didn't touch medicare despite his howls against it and with good reason, he knew this idea of privatization was just a rightwing gimmick during election time, it doesn't amount to much in reality.

All you appear to do in your argument is move goal posts and make little exceptions here or there, and then argue about some global communist plot to take over the world. It's not the cold war anymore for pete's sake.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Who said Van jones was all I had against Progressives? That was just one example of the prominence of communist sympathizers around the current POTUS. The Progressive agenda has always been Totalitarian at least since Wilson. Progressives embraced the Totalitarian fascism of both Hitler and Mussolini in the early years of that movement. That is historical fact, so you needn't bother trying to prove otherwise.

Yes, I'm aware that many tea partiers hate to tread the line of medicare, they always lose that argument, so they make any excuse necesarry to back out of arguing against it. Medicare is public healthcare,

First I haven't said it isn't, and second, I haven't proposed an alternate program, but then again, who else has? This is why Fabian Socialism has been able to take root in a society which has regarded free enterprise as a sacred principle of our Founding Fathers.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I notice you are using the European and UN version of "programmes". Not that it surprises me.

joke. You cannot mandate people to pay for private insurance

reply to post by Southern Guardian





The individual mandate is exactly the part which has already been declared UnConstitutional. Haven't you heard?
Los Angeles Times article

2011-08-12: A federal appeals court struck down a key part of President Obama's national healthcare law Friday, ruling that Congress does not have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance. In a 2-1 decision, judges in Atlanta said this mandate is "unprecedented" and unlike any commercial regulation upheld in the past. Even during the Great Depression or World War II, "Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods," the judges said. Although Congress may regulate those who buy insurance, it may not regulate those who... more »

www.latimes.com...

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Funnily enough, the majority of GOP tea party freshman voted to extend the patriot act, but we didn't hear a peep from tea partiers on here. We did hear about Rand Paul though, as if he made up the majority of the tea parties. I oppose the patriot act, always have, one of the reasons I don't support Obama.

Well funnily enough

Posted at 8:00 PM ET, 02/ 8/2011
GOP freshmen help derail Patriot Act extension
By Scott Butterworth
Nine Eight House Republican freshmen and three inaugural members of the Tea Party Caucus voted against a proposed extension of three Patriot Act provisions Tuesday night, blocking the measure from passage under fast-track rules.

House clearly backed the measure, voting 277 to 148 to extend the provisions, and most Republicans stuck by their leadership and supported the extension. But enough defected, joined by most Democrats, to keep the measure seven votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage under the fast-track procedure.

yah I posted about this somewhere on some thread. I remember this. I have been very vocal about the PATRIOT ACT. But then, that's just me. I wonder why people insist that the Tea Party is one voice with zero dissenting opinions. Oh that's right we are sheople controlled by TPTB and zionist Republican neocon big business oligarchic coprporate billionaires.

lmao

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Who said Van jones was all I had against Progressives?

Where did I say Van Jones was the only far left person you could find among liberals? And I think you've got your work cut if you intend to prove that liberals are infested with communist sympathizers.

The Progressive agenda has always been Totalitarian

uhuh

Progressives embraced the Totalitarian fascism of both Hitler and Mussolini

huh

That is historical fact,

hmmm. Sounds like you're just refering to all the bad men of our history as progressives and that's about it.

First I haven't said it isn't,

No you didn't say it wasnt a socialist or government run programme, but you did claim your wealth used to distribute to public health insurance was a violation of your rights and liberty. When I raised medicare as an example, you made an exception to this by claiming it was "incremental", which doesn't change the fact it's still tax payer money being used for public insurance. The fact you don't see the hypocrisy in your previous post amazes me.

and second, I haven't proposed an alternate program, but then again, who else has?

So let's sum up your argument.

1) Public healthcare is an example of socialism and the road to communism.
2) Medicare is somehow different from public healthcare because it's "incremental", so, really it's still public healthcare as you admit, you're just not proposing to have it abolished. You don't think this is hypocritical.
3) You don't propose an alternative programme to medicare, but you do oppose public healthcare because it's a violation of your liberties and wealth, thefor, medicare should be abolished, but it shouldn't really have to be abolished because it's incremental?
4) Nobody else has an alterntive to medicare.
5) You never claimed that medicare should be privatized, but it's very system is a violation of your liberties as you stated before.

Right.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


My argument is that this is what we have and no alternative (other than Paul Ryan's plan which has been demonized of course) has been approved. What do you want me to do? Am I supposed to be Superwoman? I have already posted President Reagan's voice on the subject of Socialised healthcare.
I am not interested in seeing people not be treated so just stop with the effing stereotype profiling here.

You are really full of it you know! Desperate to pick fights with Tea Partiers and prove that they are either socialist and don't know it or don't know that America already has socialist programs or that somehow Tea Partiers are evil because they are against your beloved Socialism. What I understand is that being humanitarian is not the ultimate purpose of what the Statists are doing. At best it is misguided.

Yes we are in danger of moving into something worse than what we are now.
Are you the least bit concerned about Globalism in general? About the New World Order in general? Or do you somehow think that is just a NEOCON thing?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Who said Van jones was all I had against Progressives?

Where did I say Van Jones was the only far left person you could find among liberals? And I think you've got your work cut if you intend to prove that liberals are infested with communist sympathizers.

The Progressive agenda has always been Totalitarian

uhuh

Progressives embraced the Totalitarian fascism of both Hitler and Mussolini

huh

That is historical fact,

hmmm. Sounds like you're just refering to all the bad men of our history as progressives and that's about it.

First I haven't said it isn't,

No you didn't say it wasnt a socialist or government run programme, but you did claim your wealth used to distribute to public health insurance was a violation of your rights and liberty. When I raised medicare as an example, you made an exception to this by claiming it was "incremental", which doesn't change the fact it's still tax payer money being used for public insurance. The fact you don't see the hypocrisy in your previous post amazes me.

and second, I haven't proposed an alternate program, but then again, who else has?

So let's sum up your argument.

1) Public healthcare is an example of socialism and the road to communism.
2) Medicare is somehow different from public healthcare because it's "incremental", so, really it's still public healthcare as you admit, you're just not proposing to have it abolished. You don't think this is hypocritical.
3) You don't propose an alternative programme to medicare, but you do oppose public healthcare because it's a violation of your liberties and wealth, thefor, medicare should be abolished, but it shouldn't really have to be abolished because it's incremental?
4) Nobody else has an alterntive to medicare.
5) You never claimed that medicare should be privatized, but it's very system is a violation of your liberties as you stated before.

Right.

wow, you mean dorn and ayres and the plethora of radicals don't count?

do you even know who is in the administration?

who has the ears of the most powerful man in the world?

rev wright?

ok, make the case for obama steeling himself against these ideologies.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Dontcha hate it when you're wrong!

Apparently you didn't bother to read my prior comments properly, so let's go back to it:

Funnily enough, the majority of GOP tea party freshman voted to extend the patriot act, but we didn't hear a peep from tea partiers on here. We did hear about Rand Paul though, as if he made up the majority of the tea parties. I oppose the patriot act, always have, one of the reasons I don't support Obama.

ok.

130 tea party endorsed candidates ran for the house, 40 won. There are 40 politicians, all of whom are Republican, who are tea party endorsed in congress.

House tea partiers:
firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

Out of 40 tea party members, only 8 of them voted against the patriot act being renewed.

In total, 28 republicans voted against the Patriot act along with 122 Democrats. The vast majority of Republicans voted for extension of the patriot act as well as many democrats. Many big tea party names, the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Kristi Noem voted for extension. Obama signed in the Patriot act extension.

And no, I did not say Rand Paul was the only republican to vote against it, he was the majority tea party freshman to gain attention from his vote against. Members here were too busy praising the actions of Rand Paul a,d the tea parties to acknowledge that the majority of the tea party caucus voted for the extension.