Captain America Takes on the "Tea Party"

[Mistral]

As stated above-I really don't care about the "Tea Partiers".

As I suspected.

I'm really just waiting for your definition of "normal Americans".

FIFTH REQUEST for clarity without a direct answer.

If you want clarity, go to back to post #53 in this thread. You'll see that I used the phrase "ordinary Americans," not "normal Americans." You've been misquoting me all this time, and I have ignored it.

BTW, "normal" is another one of those touchy words for liberals, and I'm sure that's why you're obsessed with it.

For the record, my definition of "ordinary Americans" refers to the middle class and working class, regardless of their location, race, religion, sexual preference or party affiliation.

You're right, my mistake "Ordinary" not "normal".

So, based on #53, you think that all middle class and "working class" (isn't that a socialist term? I digress) are opposed to "runaway government spending" and a "runaway deficit" and that all "liberals" call them racists because of that? As a member of the middle class and someone who works I can honestly say that, except for your snide "Uncle Tom" allusion earlier, no one that I can recall in recent memory has called me a racist. Yet I oppose "runaway govt spending". And where does your "working class" definition cut off? If the radio pundits you named truly do call Ordinary Americans(by your definition) racists as you said, and if they are paid for their work on radio and TV, are they not part of that self-same "working class"? So are you telling me that they call themselves racists? If so, should we care? And is it only non-working Americans who make up the faction you refer to as "liberals"? Since you said the "liberals" target Ordinary Americans, which you defined as those who work and belong to the middle class. Most of the unemployed people I know are too concerned with finding a job to spend time on political debate and provocation. So that doesn't leave too many "liberals" out there, does it? And where did you source your "re-definition" of the term racist, anyway? From the Ultra-conservative "think tank" called The Heritage Group that you have referred to in several prior posts? Expiring minds want to know!

ed.- not obsessed with "normal" as I have yet to meet anyone that that would truly define-we are, all of us, unusual in our own, individual ways. One of the nice things about growing up free to develop as we want. There is no bar for "normal", no line in the sand, no yardstick. And no obsession. Just mis-phrased your comment slightly. My earlier requests for clarification still stand.

 

[Squiggy]

You'll see that I used the phrase "ordinary Americans," not "normal Americans." You've been misquoting me all this time, and I have ignored it.

Rightfully so, because it's not like they mean THE EXACT SAME THING.

 

[Mistral]

You'll see that I used the phrase "ordinary Americans," not "normal Americans." You've been misquoting me all this time, and I have ignored it.

Rightfully so, because it's not like they mean THE EXACT SAME THING.

For our purposes-Exactly!

 

[Bad Bishop]

You'll see that I used the phrase "ordinary Americans," not "normal Americans." You've been misquoting me all this time, and I have ignored it.

Rightfully so, because it's not like they mean THE EXACT SAME THING.

No, there is a difference. For example, most people come from "normal" parents, and some people come from Queens.

 

[Sci]

So what's an ordinary American?

And, by the way, why is it that the vast majority of Tea Party members are European-American? How come whites are so disproportionately over-represented in the Tea Party movement? Why are racial and ethnic minority groups so under-represented? Sure, there are always a couple of outliers, but the general trend of whites being vastly over-represented and minorities vastly under-represented in the Tea Party movement is clear.

Why are there not more people of color in the Tea Party movement?

 

[Bad Bishop]

So what's an ordinary American?

And, by the way, why is it that the vast majority of Tea Party members are European-American? How come whites are so disproportionately over-represented in the Tea Party movement? Why are racial and ethnic minority groups so under-represented? Sure, there are always a couple of outliers, but the general trend of whites being vastly over-represented and minorities vastly under-represented in the Tea Party movement is clear.

Why are there not more people of color in the Tea Party movement?

There would be more Asians, but they are culturally very self-sufficient and less demanding of government than other groups. And this means they just aren't into open demonstrations or protests. This does not apply to younger Asians in college.

There would be more black Americans, but most of them are hypnotized by their leadership into believing that conservatism is bad instead of empowering.

There would be more Jews, but Jews go liberal for absolutely no good reason, as author Norman Podhoretz argued recently during a C-SPAN appearance.

 

[Sci]

So what's an ordinary American?

And, by the way, why is it that the vast majority of Tea Party members are European-American? How come whites are so disproportionately over-represented in the Tea Party movement? Why are racial and ethnic minority groups so under-represented? Sure, there are always a couple of outliers, but the general trend of whites being vastly over-represented and minorities vastly under-represented in the Tea Party movement is clear.

Why are there not more people of color in the Tea Party movement?

There would be more Asians, but they are culturally very self-sufficient and less demanding of government than other groups. And this means they just aren't into open demonstrations or protests. This does not apply to younger Asians in college.

There would be more black Americans, but most of them are hypnotized by their leadership into believing that conservatism is bad instead of empowering.

There would be more Jews, but Jews go liberal for absolutely no good reason, as author Norman Podhoretz argued recently during a C-SPAN appearance.

In other words, you're claiming that there are few Asians because Asians are too rich, few blacks because blacks have no brains of their own, and few Jews because Jews are irrational.

And that's why you're not a racist.

 

[Bad Bishop]

In other words, you're claiming that there are few Asians because Asians are too rich, few blacks because blacks have no brains of their own, and few Jews because Jews are irrational.

And that's why you're not a racist.

Self-sufficiency among Asians doesn't mean "rich." Self-sufficiency (including a good work ethic) isn't a quality exclusive to rich people.

You say blacks have no brains. I say that most of them have learned the wrong things about conservatism, and they don't appreciate the costs of liberalism (meaning welfare) to their community.

Jews ought to feel a sense of common cause with conservatives, which is more consistent with the teachings of Judaism when it comes to the social issues (i.e. abortion and same-sex marriage). From here on, perhaps the voting habits of Jews will start trending in a more conservative direction, after they come to appreciate Obama's tepid support for Israel.

 

[Davros]

There would be more black Americans, but most of them are hypnotized by their leadership into believing that conservatism is bad instead of empowering.

There would be more Jews, but Jews go liberal for absolutely no good reason, as author Norman Podhoretz argued recently during a C-SPAN appearance.

Both of these statements are both nonsense and ignorant.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Is that all you have, Davros?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100211/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1129

If I read this right, Marvel was trying to create a facsimile of a less-than-respectable fringe element and the "Tea Party" group identified with it too much. Hmm, what does that say about their status in our current society? I mean, if a Marvel employee just yanked some slogans off the Internet that sounded controversial to fill the spaces and the Tea Party was offended does that mean they know they are a negative impacting group-or were they just pissed that their slogans were used in that way? It was kind of hard to tell from the quotes.

I think what they didn't like was the tie between the anti-spending slogans and the implication that the protesters only want people of a certain color around them.

That isn't true.

There are definitely people who have said and done things I think they are very wrong to have done, and they are embarrassing themselves, in some cases embarrassing a faith they claim to avow, and embarrassing those of us who are legitimately concerned that our tremendous debt is going to hurt the country as a whole over the long term even if there might seem to be short-term benefits.

I believe that the real, long-lasting solution to the problems we face as a society come from learning not to expect Washington to solve our problems, but solving them ourselves. I do not want a middleman (i.e. an oversized government) taking my money and mismanaging it and failing to do the good they say they can do. That's not to say there is no place for government, but I believe that if we the people quit pushing off our personal responsibility to directly help those who are suffering, that we will be able to do a better job in many cases than the public sector.

I believe in education, that we should be ready and willing to help teach our fellows--we need to relearn how to live below our means, how to manage our finances and use them with temperance so that those of us who have experienced great blessings will be in the position to...and willing...to use the resources we do not need to live in order to help them live. I think that if we really did this, then we would feel less and less need for Washington to do some of the things that put us into debt. I think that if we are able to do this, that being closer to the ground than our government, we'll be able to get a better sense of what works and what doesn't, figure out how to help people more effectively than the government can.

(That's not to say that people who work for the government can't have good ideas or that they can't have their hearts in the right place. I imagine some of them have good ideas, especially those who work in field positions and get to see the everyday tribulations that their clients go through. But the bureaucracy does not help them to get their ideas expressed, or to weed out ideas that aren't working in practice, or in some cases, to remove people within the bureaucracy who are not helping.)

All of this, of course, takes a major shift in public attitude. In my case, I believe my faith needs to wake up and really recognize the power they could have to effect a positive change if they pushed themselves a lot harder than they did and were willing to be more self-sacrificing. But I am hard-pressed to know how this will happen if we keep looking to the government as the source of the answer.

And my disgust with the way the government often handles things makes me sympathize with the anger the Tea Party supporters feel towards the government's policies. I don't like mismanagement--I think it's hurting everyone and will have even worse consequences for all of us in the future should the world decide it no longer is comfortable supporting our debt and we have not reined in our lifestyles to something more reasonable and less reliant on debt, public and private both. But understand this. Anger at mismanagement does not mean that I hate those who disagree. Or that I hate those who might be different in other ways--race included.

If someone wants to say that because I feel this way about what Washington is doing, that "the only thing black I like is my tea," as one poster in this thread said about the Tea Party types...wow. That is way wrong. And that's what leaves a really unpleasant taste in my mouth about this whole thing--the crack that's made in the dialogue implying that the protesters must have a problem with black people.

 

[Sci]

You say blacks have no brains.

No, I say that saying black people are "hypnotized" (your word) is the same thing as saying, "Black people have no brains." I haven't said anything whatsoever about black people, other than to ask why there aren't more of them at the Tea Party rallies. Develop some reading comprehension; re-stating somebody else's statement isn't the same thing as endorsing that statement.

Everything you've said -- that Asians are "self-sufficient," that blacks are "hypnotized," and that Jews "go liberal for absolutely no good reason" -- is a racial or religious stereotype.

And you wonder why people think the Tea Party movement is racist when you explain the absence of people of color from the movement in that way?

BTW, I'm curious. What's your excuse for why there's a disproportionately small number of Latinos?

 

[Squiggy]

You say blacks have no brains. I say that most of them have learned the wrong things about conservatism, and they don't appreciate the costs of liberalism (meaning welfare) to their community.

Wow. Keep digging.

 

[Mistral]

So what's an ordinary American?

And, by the way, why is it that the vast majority of Tea Party members are European-American? How come whites are so disproportionately over-represented in the Tea Party movement? Why are racial and ethnic minority groups so under-represented? Sure, there are always a couple of outliers, but the general trend of whites being vastly over-represented and minorities vastly under-represented in the Tea Party movement is clear.

Why are there not more people of color in the Tea Party movement?

There would be more Asians, but they are culturally very self-sufficient and less demanding of government than other groups. And this means they just aren't into open demonstrations or protests. This does not apply to younger Asians in college.

Who protest all of the time?

There would be more black Americans, but most of them are hypnotized by their leadership into believing that conservatism is bad instead of empowering.

Yeah, well, we all know that since blacks are inherently less intelligent and inferior in their abilities they are more likely to be hypnotized in such a fashion-as opposed to whites who have been brain-washed by their poorly educated parents and their church deacons/pastors to think a certain way since childhood...that's just caused by circumstance and doesn't encompass an entire ethnic group, right?

There would be more Jews, but Jews go liberal for absolutely no good reason, as author Norman Podhoretz argued recently during a C-SPAN appearance.

Maybe they go liberal because if they stuck to the status quo traditionally, they would preserve their beliefs despite actively violent opposition(at times) for thousands of years-oh, wait. Maybe they "go liberal" because taking the conservative view means keeping what is rather than embracing change and, until recently, it was considered a good idea to wipe out every Jew in the area if things were going badly in any way. Can't really blame them for not wanting to preserve this kind of tradition, can we?

OVERALL:Seriously? My, your brush paints with broad strokes, indeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100211/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1129

If I read this right, Marvel was trying to create a facsimile of a less-than-respectable fringe element and the "Tea Party" group identified with it too much. Hmm, what does that say about their status in our current society? I mean, if a Marvel employee just yanked some slogans off the Internet that sounded controversial to fill the spaces and the Tea Party was offended does that mean they know they are a negative impacting group-or were they just pissed that their slogans were used in that way? It was kind of hard to tell from the quotes.

I think what they didn't like was the tie between the anti-spending slogans and the implication that the protesters only want people of a certain color around them.

I'll buy that.



All of this, of course, takes a major shift in public attitude. In my case, I believe my faith needs to wake up and really recognize the power they could have to effect a positive change if they pushed themselves a lot harder than they did and were willing to be more self-sacrificing.

Sadly, this scares the Hell out of me. I respect your opinion, Nerys, and love your writings but NO FAITH should ever have a say in the operation of its nation's government-look at what the Muslim world is becoming as an example of some of the things that can go wrong. In the last 20-30 years the "Christian Right" has interfered with and manipulated American politics in ways that our Founding Fathers, with their separation of Church and State, would find anathema to the underlying concepts they established. You want to fix something with your faith? Go teach people not to harm others. But the second you get involved with the body politic you are looking at a Faustian condition-backed by fanatic believers. Jihad, anyone?

You say blacks have no brains. I say that most of them have learned the wrong things about conservatism, and they don't appreciate the costs of liberalism (meaning welfare) to their community.

Wow. Keep digging.

Agreed. I've been to Inglewood, to name just one black community who's members generally "get it" in regards to the dangers of a welfare state. There's that broad brush again...

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Mistral, you misunderstand, and I feel that you read your own biases into what I said. If you continued further in my post...in fact, to the very next sentence after the section you snipped...you would have noticed that I feel the government is inherently unable to carry out many programs efficiently, that I believe when it takes our money and tries to do things with it, that very often it squanders far more than it uses effectively. You would see that I said that I do not believe real change will come about if we keep looking to the government as an answer.

I am speaking not of faith operating the government, but of cutting out the middleman altogether--as much as possible--and going directly to the people to help and provide for them. I want to see the church institutions themselves doing more to help, rather than looking to the government for an answer that will not come.

 

[Mistral]

Mistral, you misunderstand, and I feel that you read your own biases into what I said. If you continued further in my post...in fact, to the very next sentence after the section you snipped...you would have noticed that I feel the government is inherently unable to carry out many programs efficiently, that I believe when it takes our money and tries to do things with it, that very often it squanders far more than it uses effectively. You would see that I said that I do not believe real change will come about if we keep looking to the government as an answer.

I am speaking not of faith operating the government, but of cutting out the middleman altogether--as much as possible--and going directly to the people to help and provide for them. I want to see the church institutions themselves doing more to help, rather than looking to the government for an answer that will not come.

In that, I have no problem. We seem to have developed a "babysitter" mentality at the government level that I personally find insulting and detrimental. If more good faith organizations could marshall their efforts as you suggest maybe the clown posse in Washington would realize that we are "all growed up" and can handle our own affairs. Sorry if i misread what you said.

 

[Bad Bishop]

You say blacks have no brains.

No, I say that saying black people are "hypnotized" (your word) is the same thing as saying, "Black people have no brains." I haven't said anything whatsoever about black people, other than to ask why there aren't more of them at the Tea Party rallies. Develop some reading comprehension; re-stating somebody else's statement isn't the same thing as endorsing that statement.

You didn't "re-state" what I said, so much as put the worst possible spin on it. "Hypnotized" may be a blunt word, but it is a fair word to describe the uncritical, automatic acceptance of liberalism by the majority of blacks.

Everything you've said -- that Asians are "self-sufficient," that blacks are "hypnotized," and that Jews "go liberal for absolutely no good reason" -- is a racial or religious stereotype.

Translation: My statements contain truths that make liberals uncomfortable. Refute what I've said, point by point, instead of just saying "that's a stereotype!"

You are so locked into political correctness that you can't even at least agree on the strengths of Asian community.

And you wonder why people think the Tea Party movement is racist when you explain the absence of people of color from the movement in that way?

BTW, I'm curious. What's your excuse for why there's a disproportionately small number of Latinos?

It's simple. Latinos are hardcore Democrats, and hardcore Democrats are liberal and thus foolishly unsympathetic to the legitimate concerns of the Tea Party. Most Latinos just accept the lie that Republicans or conservatives are their enemies, and the Democratic Party shamelessly mines Latino fears about issues such as illegal immigration and bilingual education. There will be more Latino Tea Partiers when there are more Latino conservatives or Republicans.

 

[Squiggy]

It's simple. Latinos are hardcore Democrats, and hardcore Democrats are liberal and thus foolishly unsympathetic to the legitimate concerns of the Tea Party.

Wow. This is great.

 

[Mistral]

It's simple. Latinos are hardcore Democrats, and hardcore Democrats are liberal and thus foolishly unsympathetic to the legitimate concerns of the Tea Party.

Wow. This is great.

Yeah. What are those silly Latinos thinking? I mean, sure, there are extreme groups advocating the expulsion of all Latino illegals and sure, they all seem to have a conservative bent or inclination and, yeah, such prominent "Tea Party" leaders as "Dick" Cheney have advocated hardcore measures for dealing with the "Latino" issues we have in America today but still, why would those little brown people want to support the Democrats? Right? Don't they know that groups like the Minute Men have their best interests at heart?

 

[Squiggy]

Latinos are hardcore Democrats...which is why Kerry only got 53% of them in 2004.