Bad News for Tea Baggers

Comments

1
Another scary statistic for the Repression Party: about half all babies born in America grow up to be women!
2
This is good news for tea baggers. It gives them more to fret and fretting is a high they can’t resist.
The addiction of agonizing and dramatizing the loss of a fantasy cause people to fear black presidents and gay marriages.
3
It is amazing how stereotypes and racism is always served on Slog, and quite early in the morning to.
4
@3 - oh look, a deluded Republican playing the victim card.

'Waaaah! We can't oppress minorities or women! WE'RE SO OPPRESSED YOU GUYZ! WAAAH!'
5
@3: point out the "racism" for us, please. i'm looking forward to the sophistry.
6
Yet another reason the 1% is extending the recession.
7
Let's see at 3, how does the tea party feel about gay rights or a half black president who is often portrayed as a white culture hating witch doctor?

You want a positive stereotype thrown out there since it is still early? I suppose they do pick up after themselves more than 99% protesters.
8
Good Morning Charles,
After reading the piece last night, I had a hunch you were to comment on it this morning.

I'm not surprised at all given what we know about birth rates in minority communities. Been that way for awhile. Clearly, I've no problem with it. If this country in a hundred years becomes like Brazil, majority-minority so be it. However, the article also mentions the problem of caring for the aging, ever increasing Baby-Boomer generation and the paucity of jobs for this new generation of non-white children. The debt that they are inheiriting is enormous as well.

My point is, fine. But, will these babies Quality of Life be better than the Baby-Boomer Generation? To me that is far more important the "appearance demographic". We want to give ALL of our chidren a better life. I wish these youngsters well.
9
Also not sure where GDFR is finding the racism in this post. Stereotyping sure, but racism?
10
BTW, I read this fascinating piece on the Death of the OWS Movement:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/w…

Like the Tea Party, OWS is essentially history.
11
@ 8, good points.
12
charles thas racess!
13
Great! Now that I'm a minority I can just check the "Caucasian" box and get shit I didn't earn, right? More likely, Chuckie will give up affirmative action when you pry it from his cold, dead hands.
14
@13, Uh, yeah, white people totes don't wield institutional power anymore. And it's not like you don't already get shit you didn't earn just for being white.

Die in a fire, you piece of trash.
15
You mean bad news for Repubs -- not just Tbaggers.
16
@3 Pointing out a statistic is rascism? Is that the same as screaming liberal bias when reporting facts?
17
If they vote, and only if they vote , will it make a difference.
18
@17,
I was going to comment that we'll start seeing even more legislation from the right designed to disenfranchise people they see as threats to their power (i.e., minorities).

I would not be in the least bit surprised if they tried to establish poll taxes or "grandfather" clauses to voter eligibility. Mark my words. They WILL become that desperate.
19
I should have noted that Charles did not serve up the racism, but did lay a fertile bed for it with a very mean-spirited and offensive headline.

Correction Charles, it’s ‘Tea Partiers’ not ‘Tea Baggers’.

No, sall sprouted the racism in @2 with “…cause people to fear black presidents and gay marriages.”

Saying that people fear a black president is by no doubt insulating that they are racists. Barack Obama won a decisive plurality of vote in 2008 to become our first black president. As a broad generalization, it is more plausible to say that Americans welcome black presidents more than fear them.

Polls show a plurality of Americans supporting gay marriage, with acceptance growing dramatically in the last decade. Also, liberals do not hold the copyright on accepting same sex marriage as we have seen from Dick Cheney and an assortment of conservative pundits.

As I recall, the tea party movement was galvanized primarily over the health care bill. To what extent they are racist or homophobic is purely stereotypical since there were hardly any polls because the tea party was deliberately kept unorganized from party chairpersons, committees, party membership data, etc.

I find it offensive to label any group of people, except for groups such the KKK, as racist. One can only evaluate whether someone is racist on an individual, case by case, basis.
20
Trollin' trollin' trollin'.
21
They ARE called Tea Baggers!
22
@19
"Saying that people fear a black president is by no doubt insulating that they are racists."

I think you combined "insinuating" and "insulting" there and ended up with insulation. At least my scripts are spell checked.

"As a broad generalization, it is more plausible to say that Americans welcome black presidents more than fear them."

You are confusing "Americans" with "Tea Party".
They are NOT the same.
Look up the "is it still the WHITE house" joke from 2008.

"As I recall, the tea party movement was galvanized primarily over the health care bill."

You recall incorrectly. Again, my scripts are fact checked. And affordable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_m…

"To what extent they are racist or homophobic is purely stereotypical ..."

Of course it is. They aren't "racists". They're just "realists".

"I find it offensive to label any group of people, except for groups such the KKK, as racist."

Of course you do. They aren't "racists". They're just "realists" who are "telling it like it is".

Anyone holding a racist sign is probably just a "fringe element" who is not a real Tea Party person.
23
@ 19, I doubt very many tea partiers represent the portion of Americans who voted for Obama. Call it a hunch.

And I based my comments off the fact that tea party supporters like Glen Beck have made comments that Obama hates white culture. And the witch doctor comment is based on the signs I've seen at actual tea party rallies - signs that display the president as a witch doctor. If these observations make me a racist then I'm thoroughly confused about racism.

Oh yeah, and I believe they called themselves tea baggers before anyone else.
24
@ 22, A very prevalent fringe element at that.
25
@19: If you don't believe the Tea Baggers (who came up with the term themselves, you dolt) have racist stripes, feel free to google "tea party racism". But only if you care to learn something, rather than just spout GOP talking points. Of course, if you were capable of a Google search, you probably wouldn't still buy into trickle-down economics either.

And to cite Dick Cheney as a supporter of gay marriage is a farce and you know it.
26
@24
"A very prevalent fringe element at that."

And one that is not openly mocked or ostracized at the Tea Party rallies.
27
@18 Right on. The movement to repeal the 14th Amendment is the first step towards wider disenfranchisement. This sort of statistic is like an accellerant for the white supremist "full-quiver" movement of which the Duggars are the poster family.
28
@22:
First off, yes it should be 'insinuating'. You spotted a wrong autocorrect click, and I dearly thank you.

Yes, Americans are not the tea party, but I play upon the general (people or Americans) with the specific (tea party) as @2 did, and tie it together in the "As I recall..." paragraph.

Link as you please to Wikipedia, but there is no doubt that the health care reform (in addition to taxes) was a huge motivator for the tea party movement. Note this from the New Deal Blog.

You lost me on your racist/realist thing. Care to define or elaborate?

@23: I didn't say that you are racist. I'm simply objecting to the stereotype of tea partiers being racist. We're too sophisticated for that, regardless of kooks such as Glenn Beck on the right or Louis Farahkahn on the left.
29
We can cure the long depression for minorities by lowering test scores/ job standards (again). Or just pay Chuckie's neighbors to have their shoot outs on Rainier Ave S. Has your son jacked his first car yet, Chuckie?
30
Bets on when Tea Baggers are going to switch to being pro-birth control?
31
@18 More likely you will see a sudden about face on Latino issues after the coming crushing defeat at the polls. Latinos skew conservative and will be the backbone of the republican party for the next 100 years.

Their will always be a conservative opposition. They Republicans just don't yet have the impetus to make the painful adjustment.
32
The tea people convened within 3 weeks of Obama's inauguration in a desperate move to quickly shift the blame for the crumbling economy. The tea movement was clearly a reaction to the failures of the Bush years, but they never have to acknowledge that when it's so easy to hang everything on a "Kenyan anti-colonialist." Race isn't the motivator, just a means to an end.
33
@28: Yeah, I can really see how the tea baggers are the more sophisticated side of the debate.

The obama-as-hitler imagery, the violent rhetoric, the misspelled signs, false claims of socialism/foreign birth, the racism, misunderstanding of basic civics....

It all screams sophistication.

Even if most of the people are not this way, they assent to it and welcome these people in, meaning they either believe it too, or simply do not care. Real integrity there.
34
GD4R, you have more than a bit of the trimmer in you.
35
@28
So your post was admitting that your previous post was incorrect?

I am serious. I can write a script that would replace you.

But let's talk "birthers" and the Tea Party.
Since, as you claim "no doubt that the health care reform (in addition to taxes) was a huge motivator for the tea party movement".

There seems to be a LOT of doubt about that.
What do allegations that Obama was not even born in the USofA have to do with health INSURANCE reform?

Wasn't Trump going on about that just months ago? And the Tea Party LOVED it.
If you want to claim otherwise then please show any Tea Party rally that opposed Trump's "birther" claims.
36
@25: Yes dear, if you google it it must be so. Google "kittens and racism" or any combo you want and there will be plenty of reading material and commentary.
The link you gave regarding Cheney notes:
In 2009, Cheney stated his support for same-sex marriage on a state-by-state basis.[28].

That, incidently, is also Obama's current stand: on a state-by-state basis.
37
@33: "Even if most of the people are not this way, they assent to it and welcome these people in, meaning they either believe it too, or simply do not care. Real integrity there. "

Wow. Most people? Are you really that jaded and bitter about America?

@35: Now you're really starting to unravel with the 'birther' tangent. You claim you could write a script to replace me, but a script to replace you wouldn't even compile.
38
Hmm, re @37 script quip, I think I may have complimented instead of insulted you f.b. - so you're welcome to take it either way.
39
@37
"Now you're really starting to unravel with the 'birther' tangent."

Really? Because you were the one claiming that the Tea Party was about stopping the health INSURANCE reforms that Obama was pushing.

But there are an awful lot of "birther" signs and comments at Tea Party rallies.
Even Trump was a Tea Party favorite while he was making his "birther" claims.

Try to keep up with the basic facts, okay?

"You claim you could write a script to replace me, but a script to replace you wouldn't even compile."

Why would a script need to be compiled? Hmmmmmm?

All you have is that you are against Obama and you know nothing of Romney's platform or the Tea Party.
40
@39: You're right, Java and .NET scripts need only be run with their required DLLs and assemblies for their runtime environment.
41
This again? It's only been what, a week?
42
My error - it was way back on April 30.

And presuming racial determinism in voting behavior decades in the future is profoundly racist.
43
@37: Most of the people in the Tea Party, not most Americans. I am well aware that most Americans are smart enough to see through all the bullshit I mentioned, likely you included.

But if you join a movement that welcomes and encourages such activities, then you have thrown in your lot with the crazies, whether you like it or not.
44
@43: Thank you for clarifying.
45
@19 Tea Party started on April 15, 2009 as a tax protest. It was only 3 fucking years ago, people. It shouldn't be hard to remember all the silly TV news stories about stores running out of tea bags because of all the protester purchases. We were all alive during that time, right?

What were they protesting? That taxes in 2009 were suddenly much higher than in 2008? Not at all. They were protesting the the figurative head of the government to which they paid those taxes was a black man. Obamacare was signed in 2010. Someone probably tweeted about it, so maybe some folks can remember that.

APRIL 15, 2009. I understand if you can't remember things from 3 years ago. It would explain why you think Rmoney is now a winner.
46
@45: Yes, the Tea Party was a revolt over taxes per its namesake of the 'Boston Tea Party' but it is not factually inacturate to say that that the health care bill was also a motivation behind the tea party movement. Obana signed it in 2010, but the furor started in 2009, or don't you remember?
47
@46: Yes. The bill was signed A YEAR AND A HALF after the Tea Party came to prominence.
48
@36: You realize you're proving me right about your inability to google something, right? ...No, I suppose you don't. Here's a couple results, for your edification. There's plenty more.

(1) The Daily Beast asks, "Are Tea Partiers Racist?" Based on a 2010 study, it's more likely.
(2) Glenn Beck, their idiot former poster boy, says that's his opinion.
(3) Teabaggers confirm it's not only race, but good ol' bigotry, as they shout epithets at--and spit on--elected members of Congress (but only Dems, of course).

As to the idea that Cheney is somehow an ally of LGBT people, I can only shake my head and hope you're trolling. If he and his cohorts' attempt to amend the Constitution to deny them marriage doesn't disabuse you of that notion, I don't know what I can say that would.
49
I think even worse news is that it turns out old people die. The glut of old people are going to die and we'll be less old proportionally as time goes on.
50
@47: Please read before you type. Obama started the motions for this health care bill when he took office. The tea party did not exist before Obama took office. Taxes and the health care bill were BOTH a motivation for the tea party. I watched it all unfold before my very eyes, as did you. Are you saying that my link in @28 to the New Deal Blog in wrong in supporting my case?

@48: You're extrapolating that just because Cheney supports same-sex marriage on a state-by-state basis, which is a fact, that I'm saying he's an ally of GLBT people. That's quite a stretch. I never implied that. Please read before you type.

51
@50
"Taxes and the health care bill were BOTH a motivation for the tea party."

What was that?

"Obama started the motions for this health care bill when he took office."

So since Obama had not had a chance to change any of the existing taxes at that time ... that means that the Tea Party formed to oppose taxes that Obama had not changed.

But they weren't there complaining about Bush.

So they were formed to oppose health insurance reform that they had not read because it had not been written yet.

And they certainly did NOT oppose the people holding the racist / birther signs at the Tea Party rallies (prior to settling on the Tea Party name).
52
@51:
Protests against the stimulus package, the bank bailouts, and health-care legislation continued throughout 2009, with major events held on July 4 and September 12. During the summer, Tea Party protesters were criticized for their disruptive outbursts during meetings held by members of Congress in their home districts to discuss health-care reform.

Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/…
53
@51: "So they were formed to oppose health insurance reform that they had not read because it had not been written yet."

Of course it wasn't written yet. There was protesting while it was being written, or is such a concept completely unfathomable to you?
54
@50: Yeah, I guess you're right, you didn't say that explicitly. It's my fault for assuming that your conflation of "accept" and "support" carried through into the following sentence. "Tolerate" would have been a less confusing and more accurate choice of words.

The sad reality is that, as possibly the most powerful Vice President the US has ever seen, Cheney was a willing party in attempting to write bigotry into the Constitution for cynical, short-term political gain. Yet still, you point to him as an example of how the GOP is coming around on gay rights, because he now says--after having left the White House, where he could have actually made a positive difference if he cared to--that the basic rights of LGBT people should be up for vote on a state level. That's pathetic, and you know it is.

My main point previously was that the Tea Party is largely built on racism. Though you fail to offer any defense on that point now, unless "anyone can search for stuff on the Internet" is your actual retort, as if that means anything.
55
@53
"Of course it wasn't written yet. There was protesting while it was being written, or is such a concept completely unfathomable to you?"

Yes, yes it is "unfathomable" to me.
How can someone protest something that has not been written yet?

I mean, aside from racists who just hate the idea of a black POTUS.
I can see how they would protest anything and everything that he worked on.

But aside from those racists, how can someone protest something that has not been written?
Does it go too far?
Does it not go far enough?
Are the grandfathered clauses not sufficient? Are they overly broad?
56
@55: Do you agree that the tea party was protesting the proposed health care reform legislation before it was eventually passed by the Congress and signed by the president?

If you say yes, that it is my fault for saying "bill" instead of "proposed legislation."

57
@56
"Do you agree that the tea party was protesting the proposed health care reform legislation before it was eventually passed by the Congress and signed by the president?"

Allow me to repost what I had just posted.

But aside from those racists, how can someone protest something that has not been written?
Does it go too far?
Does it not go far enough?
Are the grandfathered clauses not sufficient? Are they overly broad?

"If you say yes, that it is my fault for saying 'bill' instead of 'proposed legislation.'"

I am saying that the RACISTS were opposing everything and anything Obama tried to do BEFORE Obama even had anything in writing for them to read to know what they were supposed to be against.

When the reality is that all they were against was the idea of a black POTUS.

Now if YOU want to claim that they are not racists then YOU have to explain how they could protest something that had not even been written.

Does it go too far?
Does it not go far enough?
Are the grandfathered clauses not sufficient? Are they overly broad?
58
@54: Re: Cheney - Baby steps are pathetic, but they are still baby steps.

Some tea partiers are racist, but if you want to extrapolate the sentiments of those few to the whole tea party then I really can't go on arguing with you because I can't say anything that would change your view.
59
@58
"Some tea partiers are racist, ..."

Thank you, Captain Obvious. No one would ever have noticed that.

"... but if you want to extrapolate the sentiments of those few to the whole tea party ..."

I've given you the explanation for one sub-set to oppose Obama's efforts BEFORE such were even written.

It is up to YOU to explain what logic non-Racists would use to oppose Obama's health insurance reform work before it was even written.

Does it go too far?
Does it not go far enough?
Are the grandfathered clauses not sufficient? Are they overly broad?

YOU are the one claiming that the Tea Party was formed to oppose the health insurance reform work.
Chronologically, that means that the Tea Party was formed BEFORE anything was written down for them to read.
60
"YOU are the one claiming that the Tea Party was formed to oppose the health insurance reform work."

I never said that, and you know I never said that. I said "one of the primary motivators..." and "in addition to taxes was health care ..." and I clarified myself multiple times.

I've had enough of you. You're starting to get rabid. Go ahead and toss another retort and have a "last laugh" on me buddy, but I'm through with this thread.
61
@60
"I never said that, and you know I never said that."

No, actually you did.

"I said 'one of the primary motivators...' and 'in addition to taxes was health care ...' and I clarified myself multiple times."

So you claim that a primary motivation for forming the Tea Party was to oppose Obama's health insurance reform before such was even written.

But you deny saying that the Tea Party was formed to oppose Obama's health insurance reform before such was even written.

"I've had enough of you. You're starting to get rabid. Go ahead and toss another retort and have a 'last laugh' on me buddy, but I'm through with this thread."

Even the self-proclaimed Republicans cannot explain the mysterious origins of the Tea Party.
At least not without acknowledging that it is either irrational or racist.
62
@60 ...sigh... I knew I'd have to step into this again...

Here was my first statement in @19:
>>> As I recall, the tea party movement was galvanized primarily over the health care bill.

Yes, I'm guilty as charged at insinuating in this statement that health care reform was among the reasons for the tea party formations. But you can't argue that the tea party did not also move on to Obama's pending HC bill. Or don't you remember all that hysteria? That's what I meant by 'galvanized'.

63
@62
"I never said that, and you know I never said that."

Not only did you say it but now you're quoting yourself saying it.
But even if you said it you didn't SAY it because you only "said" it.

Whomever is paying you is NOT getting value.
I could replace you with a script that would be consistent.

"But you can't argue that the tea party did not also move on to Obama's pending HC bill."

Argue it?
I'm telling you that the RACISTS were opposing EVERYTHING about that black POTUS even before he had written a single thing down for them to read to disagree with.

YOU are the one trying to claim that there was some OTHER reason that makes them NOT racist.

Taxes? Nope. Obama had not had a chance to change anything. Taxes were still running as Bush had left them.
Health insurance reform? Nope. It wasn't even written down.
Bailouts? Nope. Another Bush legacy.
Racism? Oh yeah!
64
@63: Just because legislation is making its way through the Congress and it's not in the final bill awaiting the president signature does not mean that we did not know what was being proposed regarding the mandate, the role of providers, insurers, doctors, etc..
That is all I've been saying.

I acknowledge that racism exists throughout our society. But I don't label any party as racists just because a few of them hold up nasty signs -- unless, of course the are a self-identified racist group.

Are you really saying tea party = KKK?

Just like the Occupy people don't want us to label them as anarchists just because a few of them smashed windows and burned cars.

We should all extend that courtesy to everyone. Racism must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

If you are not gracious enough to concede that point f.b., you are a very bitter person.
65
@64: Congressional committees first sat down on June 17th to decide what to put into the bill. Prior to the formation of the Tea Party, all that had happened was Obama saying that he believed that the health care system needed to be reformed. The Tea Party was against Obama's plan before he even revealed it.
The Tea Party is not the KKK, because the KKK is more overtly racist and more focused on the issue of race. (By the way, rioting is not a principle of anarchism.)
You can say "case-by-case basis" all you want, but considering the number of people IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS in the Tea Party who have expressed racist views or said racist things AS PART OF THEIR POLICY WORK, it's ludicrous to say that the Tea Party as a whole is not racist.
If a member of the KKK had never said anything racist himself, would you give him the benefit of the doubt as well?
66
@65: The tea party is, by design, unorganized but it does have quasi leadership positions. Please provide links supporting your assertion that such "leaders" expressed racist views. And even if you can, you can't extrapolate those views to the grass roots demographic who identifies themselves as supporting the tea party. There was some booing at a black congressman by a couple of idiots during a tea party gathering at the Capitol - that's the only racist event I recall besides a few signs here and there.

Per its Boston Tea Party namesake, the tea party was about taxes, then about more oppressive government stances like heath care that they were worried that Obama would take.

67
@65: No to your last question because the KKK is a self-identified racist organization. And as we all agree, the tea party does not identify itself as a racist organization.

Therefore to assert that the tea party is a racist organization requires demonstrable proof that a majority of its followers have that racist sentiments. You can't do that with the tea party or Ron Paul's followers for that matter given Ron's old racist newsletters.
68
@64
"Per its Boston Tea Party namesake, the tea party was about taxes, then about more oppressive government stances like heath care that they were worried that Obama would take."

Yet it was formed prior to Obama changing any of the taxes.
So YOU have yet to explain how YOUR claims about the Tea Party can be explained by anything other than racism.

"Therefore to assert that the tea party is a racist organization requires demonstrable proof that a majority of its followers have that racist sentiments."

Nope. All I have to show is that the people with the racist / birther signs are at the Tea Party rallies and that no one is ostracizing them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0F14rJwtJp8/TV…

69
@68 - No, my definitions and evaluations of racism are more granular than yours, so we could never agree and I don't have to explain to you anything.
70
@69
"No, my definitions and evaluations of racism are more granular than yours, so we could never agree and I don't have to explain to you anything."

Of course you don't.

You can just claim that the Tea Party is not "racist" by your definition and skip over why they were opposed to Obama before he did anything and how the people carrying racist / birther signs at Tea Party rallies and being welcomed by other people at those Tea Party rallies SOMEHOW means that the Tea Party isn't racist.

You can just claim that.

It's not racist because YOU say it isn't racist.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0F14rJwtJp8/TV…
71
@70: Racism can only determined by:
- In individual who has written, or verbally, drawn, painted or otherwise projected racist ideas and sentiments.
- A group of individuals who belong to a group that self-identifies itself as racist or promoting only one race at the expense of antagonizing those that are not of that race.
- Racism cannot be extrapolated from the actions of a few (nasty signs, verbal taunts) who attend a political gathering as to express the official sentiments of the political gathering. Such is the case with the tea party.

If you do not totally agree with these three points, then you are destined to live a very sad and lonely life because you will be angry and bitter by continuously projecting nasty sentiments on other people just to make you feel better.


72
@72: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, two darlings of the tea party, are not racist and they would have never given credence to the tea party if they felt that the tea party was fundamentally racist in nature.
73
@72
"Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, two darlings of the tea party, are not racist and they would have never given credence to the tea party if they felt that the tea party was fundamentally racist in nature."

Sarah Palin says that "birther" questions are legitimate.

YouTube!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ6TdBld…

You could at least spend some time learning what the facts are.
74
@73: I never said anything about birthers. Birthers are kooks, but they are not racist; although some birthers might be racist.

There you go again, extrapolating into hyperbole!
75
@66: "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar" --sign held by TeaParty.org owner Dale Robertson
"Illegals everywhere today! So many spicks makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?" --tweet by Tea Party founder (FOUNDER!) Sonny Thomas
Plus the fact that the Tea Party allows white supremacist groups to recruit at its rallies.
@67: So you admit we don't always have to go on a case-by-case basis? ALL members of the KKK can be called racists without looking into the specifics of each.
@74: The point is that the Birther movement is "fundamentally racist in nature", and yet Palin has no problem with that.
76
@74
"Birthers are kooks, but they are not racist; although some birthers might be racist."

So you are claiming that in your view, people who claim that the black POTUS was NOT born in Hawaii are NOT racists. Despite all the evidence showing that he was born in Hawaii.

Despite his birth certificate.
Despite the newspaper announcement.

But you claim that they are NOT racists.

:)
77
@75&76: What does questioning Obama's birth in Hawaii (as silly as it is) have to do with racism? There is no inherit link. Please enlighten me.
78
@76: Also, the evidence that he was born in Hawaii isn't quite as open-and-shut as you say it is. I believe that he was born in America, and that the birthers are barking up the wrong tree, but it is a valid question for them to be asking.
79
@77
"Please enlighten me."

Instead I'll just bookmark that statement so it can be easily referenced in the future.

"Also, the evidence that he was born in Hawaii isn't quite as open-and-shut ..."

It is very difficult to convince a racist that he is a racist.
Most of them describe themselves as "realists".
Of course the "real" that they use requires that all kinds of evidence be ignored or discredited.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
80
@79: There is only one thing worse than being a racist, and that is to be falsely accused as a racist. Do you agree or disagree. You must answer Yes or No.
81
@80: I disagree. I believe that there are many things worse than being a racist, but that being falsely accused of racism is not one of them.
82
@80 - I goofed. Let me try this.

It is immoral to be a racist.
It is more immoral to falsely accuse someone as racist.

True, or False?
83
@82
False.

In your mind it is BETTER to be a Klansman than to ...

I'm so glad I have this bookmarked.
84
@1 Yes !

And worse than that for them, this female half of the population will go to school and may even learn things there. No wonder they keep on disembowelling the school system.
85
@82: Which is worse: murder or falsely accusing someone of being a murderer?
86
Not to worry Chuck, Asians, latinos and African immigrants are already sick of African-Americans stealing their shit. Expect most to turn out to believe in those great American values of individualism, personal responsibility and self-reliance and not the massive nanny state you think you'll get if the 'black' man is in charge.
87
@85: It is worse to be a murderer because a life has been taken.

But in the case of @82, it is worse to falsely accuse someone as being a racist because that person now has the ordeal of disproving that accusation.
If one is a self-proclaimed racist, that is their right (as awful as it is) unless they use it to cause destruction, harm, or injury to others.
88
@87
So what you are REALLY saying is:
It is BETTER to be a racist (as long as your racism is unexpressed and ineffectual) ...

Kind of like the racists in the 1960's with the "coloreds welcome" signs at their diners?
Or would that be the racists who refused to put up "no coloreds allowed" signs at their diners?

In fact, what specific behavior would distinguish your "racist" from someone who was not racist?
Nothing?
89
@88: There you go again, glossing over my clause "... unless they use it to cause destruction, harm, or injury to others."

You're shaking in some Jim Crow just to spice things up.

Millions of people are secretly racist only to themselves, for some reason or another. They could be whites harboring resentments against blacks or blacks harboring resentment against whites. Not to mention other racial combos. As long as these folks keep their immoral and dark thoughts only to themselves, they are free to do so because they are not breaking any laws or causing hurt to anyone.

Such a person whom I just described is better than someone who falsely accuses someone of a racist because the person that is being accused must try and prove to the community that the racist charges against them are false. It is more immoral to tell a lie that causes harm and character assassination to someone else, than it is to shut up about your own racism and making sure it is never uttered or seen.
90
@89: ...but if being an innocuous racist isn't such a bad thing, like you say, why is it such a bad thing to falsely claim that someone is racist?
You just activated
my trap card.
91
@89
"As long as these folks keep their immoral and dark thoughts only to themselves, they are free to do so because they are not breaking any laws or causing hurt to anyone."

So these "racists" that you describe behave EXACTLY as non-racists behave.

"Millions of people are secretly racist only to themselves, for some reason or another."

How do you know that if their behavior is EXACTLY the same as non-racists?
Can you read their minds?
Is that what you are claiming now?
92
@91: Their behavior might not be exactly the same, but for millions of people, it's so close as not to be noticed. (I have statistics for the "millions" figure.)
If someone has racist thoughts but acts the same way as non-racists do, it would be wrong to accuse them of being a racist, even if they are one, because there'd be nothing to make a sane person think that the person they were accusing was actually racist.
@90: Like I said, the only reason to accuse someone of racism is if they're acting racist. Accusing someone of being a racist is the same thing then as accusing them of acting racist. I'm not going to even click on those links.
93
@80: Because it is a bad thing to falsely accuse and target an innocent person, causing harm to their reputation, for malevolent purposes and causing that person to have to disprove the allegations, that as we know were false from the beginning.

Did you really need me to clarify that?

@90

f.b: “So these "racists" that you describe behave EXACTLY as non-racists behave.”

I’m not sure that I understand your equivocation regarding behavior here. Non-racists keep to themselves dark thoughts about other things as well. We all do. That’s how we get along. This is a discussion for another forum on how our prejudices affect our behavior, and how our perceived behavior by others affect our prejudices. Sorry, but I’m not going to hazard any novice commentary for such tangential arguments, perhaps you can find a forum on some academic blog you can chime in to.

Good luck!

94
Drat, I meant @90 in 93 in reference to venomlash's last comment.
95
@92
"... it would be wrong to accuse them of being a racist, even if they are one, ..."

What was that you had posted previously?

"It is more immoral to falsely accuse someone as racist."

So, in your mind, it is possible to "falsely accuse" someone of something that they are actually guilty of.
It is possible to "falsely accuse" someone of murdering his wife when he actually did murder his wife.
But it is "falsely accuse" because he cleaned up the evidence.

OMG
LOL

I am glad I have this bookmarked.
96
@95: Something is odd with @92.

I don't recall writing something so convoluted, but hey, itit always looks weird when you look back on it.
I don't have a hangover. BUT: I'm positive I did not write:

>>>>> I'm not going to even click on those links.

>>>>> (I have statistics for the "millions" figure.)

They make no sense. I wasn't referring to any stats in this whole thread and I always lick on veonlashes's links.

Even though I posted it. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH SOFTWARE. Some IT clown is having his jollies at my expense.

97
@96
And yet his postings seem identical to yours. Even down to the delusions.
Oh well, back on track then.

@93
"I’m not sure that I understand your equivocation regarding behavior here."

Because I don't equivocate on behavior.
YOU are the one doing that.
As I posted before:
So these "racists" that you describe behave EXACTLY as non-racists behave.

"Millions of people are secretly racist only to themselves, for some reason or another."

How do you know that if their behavior is EXACTLY the same as non-racists?
Can you read their minds?
Is that what you are claiming now?

98
I can prove there is an imposter (I removed my avatar).

- Scroll up this comment box window and note the timestamp for @92, it is: 2:54 pm
- Click on any one of the ‘Gay Dude for Romney’ links under my comments to get to my profile.
- Note that there is not no:
‘Gay Dude for Romney commented on Bad News for Tea Baggers 2:45 PM’
99
Want to meet racists? Ask blacks about their opinions on Asians and Africans. You'll get a bucket full of stoooopid.
100
@97: You're playing word games. They might not act exactly the same but it's close enough that nobody can tell them from other people. Otherwise, there would be many more incidents of racist actions.