US gubmint shutdown + default + subprime sequel?

[Koga No Goshi]

http://www.teapartynationalism.com/t...ilitia-impulse

This was a study about the Tea Party's ties to various nationalistic groups in the U.S.

It's all pretty relevant, including various Tea Party figures inviting anti-semitic and other controversial figures onto radio discussions and to events, but in particular I liked:

"In preparation for Tea Party protests held on July 4, 2009, national socialists and other white supremacists created a discussion thread on Stormfront.org, the largest and most widely accessed of the many white nationalist websites.[216] While highlighting the distinction between themselves and the majority of Tea Partiers who were not self-conscious about their own racism, one person argued, “We need a relevant transitional envelop-pushing flyer for the masses. Take these Tea Party Americans by the hand and help them go from crawling to standing independently and then walking towards racialism.”[217]"

Know what Panzer? If your political party has supporters on Stormfront.org, you're pretty much up a creek defending that the Tea Party doesn't have an overtly racist following. The article also mentions how the discussion preparing for the Tea Party event over at Stormfront expressly included a discussion amongst themselves of leaving the racist symbology at home when they went to the event for PR purposes, lol.

But yeah you know, there's crazies in every group. I'm sure over at Stormfront they have big discussion threads about attending Democratic rallies in support of Democratic candidates. Right?



Also since it didn't get past the cranium last time, I already said the right routinely accuses the left of being anti-American at all times, just as a normal, usual part of their rhetoric. So again, and for the third time actually, I fail to see what point you believe you are making. You're saying you can "leap to some conclusion" now that is routinely used in utterly normal every-cycle part of right wing rhetoric about the left. Somehow I have a hard time picturing that during the 8 years of Bush you were running around playing burden of proof games when all the right-wingers were calling us America haters because we opposed the Iraq War or the Patriot Act.

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.teapartynationalism.com/t...ilitia-impulse

This was a study about the Tea Party's ties to various nationalistic groups in the U.S.

It's all pretty relevant, including various Tea Party figures inviting anti-semitic and other controversial figures onto radio discussions and to events, but in particular I liked:

"In preparation for Tea Party protests held on July 4, 2009, national socialists and other white supremacists created a discussion thread on Stormfront.org, the largest and most widely accessed of the many white nationalist websites.[216] While highlighting the distinction between themselves and the majority of Tea Partiers who were not self-conscious about their own racism, one person argued, “We need a relevant transitional envelop-pushing flyer for the masses. Take these Tea Party Americans by the hand and help them go from crawling to standing independently and then walking towards racialism.”[217]"

Know what Panzer? If your political party has supporters on Stormfront.org, you're pretty much up a creek defending that the Tea Party doesn't have an overtly racist following. The article also mentions how the discussion preparing for the Tea Party event over at Stormfront expressly included a discussion amongst themselves of leaving the racist symbology at home when they went to the event for PR purposes, lol.

But yeah you know, there's crazies in every group. I'm sure over at Stormfront they have big discussion threads about attending Democratic rallies in support of Democratic candidates. Right?

Really, a 'report' by an NAACP front group littered with demonstrably false claims? You can do a lot better than that.

And since when does StormFront get to dictate who's racist and who isn't? I'm a white, Right-wing male that loves the German military. If they identify me as a potential convert to radical white nationalism, does that make me a radical white nationalist?

Also since it didn't get past the cranium last time, I already said the right routinely accuses the left of being anti-American at all times, just as a normal, usual part of their rhetoric. So again, and for the third time actually, I fail to see what point you believe you are making. You're saying you can "leap to some conclusion" now that is routinely used in utterly normal every-cycle part of right wing rhetoric about the left.

No, I am saying that, based on your reasoning, I can leap to those conclusions because I found pictures on the internet that reinforce them. That is the standard you've established.

Yes. You cannot ask for objective proof of the thoughts of a group of people.

Oh, but you can. There are plenty of people who are overtly racist and don't mind saying as much, like KKK members. When they are not, however, I think the burden of proof is a bit higher than a few pictures on the internet if they are to be labeled racist. That's a powerful word, and it needs some strong backing - not 100% objective proof, but more than has currently been demonstrated. Kind of like:

a legion of youtube videos and remarks made by those in government who call themselves tea party members/supporters.

This is where I'm having trouble. You and Koga have repeatedly referred to the 'large number', 'huge quantity', 'countless examples', and 'legions' of pictures, videos, and now remarks that are out there, but I can't seem to find them. There are lots of videos on youtube of people accusing the Tea Party of racism, but very few that actually show Tea Party racism - many of them showing the same six pictures Koga posted earlier. Coincidence?

I don't need white America pledges, white America platforms, or white-only rules (which are present in every major KKK branch), but I do need something beyond what has been shown so far, especially considering that this is the same Tea Party that supported dozens of black GOP candidates in 2010, rabidly supports Allen West and Tim Scott, and makes up Herman Cain's base.

Are we to assume that these people's racism is so secret that they are willing to vote for black candidates to represent them just to throw you guys off? Crazier things have happened, I guess, but these have to be some of the crappiest racists to ever grace the American political scene. If they're going to follow in the proud footsteps of avowed racist giants like George Wallace and David Duke, they're really going to have to step up their game. I mean, really, voting for black candidates? They ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Or maybe, just maybe, a majority of Tea Partiers are more interested in conservative orthodoxy instead of race. Maybe the signage, as mean and hateful as it is, is not representative of the majority.

As mentioned, there is a burden of proof here if you want to apply labels to a group comprising millions of people. It's certainly not 100% objective proof, but it's more than purely anecdotal evidence. The comparison to the Islamic extremist=/=larger muslim sentiment argument surely cannot be lost on you... Do we really want to start defining groups by their most radical and/or fringe elements?

[Vladimir]

Good job Panzer!

However, those two no doubt consider you a NAZI(!!!) so all your posts are invalid.

Well done though.

[Centurion1]

PJ I had to let you take this one. You just cannot argue with some people who want something to be true.

[Lemur]

However, those two no doubt consider you a NAZI(!!!) so all your posts are invalid.

We went ten pages before Godwin. That's some kind of win for the Org, surely?

I have to concur with Panzer on this one. I was around when Clinton was in office, and there was much the same mainstream hysteria over whether or not he was legitimate as a president. (Note: there is always someone, somewhere declaring that the government is illegitimate. The question is whether or not that becomes a mainstream enough meme to result in, say, impeachment or a continuation of the rhetoric by a public officials.)

I do not believe the Tea Party is essentially racist. Rather, they are anti-tax and anti-Democrat. Does anyone think the right would be calmer if Hillary had won? Seriously? These are some of the same people who thought it was a fantastic and patriotic act to mock a Dem candidate for having won purple hearts in combat. Some of the same people who campaigned against a triple-amputee war hero as unpatriotic.

The fact that President 44 has a funny name and a high melanin count is just bonus for these people. Any democrat would be illegitimate in their eyes.

[Koga No Goshi]

I do not recall claiming that the Tea Party was wholly or even primarily motivated by racism. Which I assume is what you mean by "essentially racist", and is most certainly the goalpost Panzer is using when he's trying to demand proof of millions of people's mindsets or something from the Tea Party charter.

That's a strawman by Panzer which he's using to disprove (in his own mind at least) any noteworthy element of racism to the Tea Party movement, which is most undoubtedly really there.

[Lemur]

disprove (in his own mind at least) any noteworthy element of racism to the Tea Party movement, which is most undoubtedly really there.

Hmm. Two thoughts:

1. Doubtless there are racists and bigots in every large movement. Are you arguing that there are more racists than usual in the Tea Party? (I'm put in mind of the comedian who said something like, "Being a Republican doesn't make you a racist, but if you're a racist you're probably Republican." Which ignores things like blacks voting for Obama because he's black, but that's meat for a whole 'nother thread.)
2. Again, do you really think the right would be calmer with any other Dem as president?

-edit-

And Gutmensch, what the heck is up with your siggie? I thought we all avoided animated GIFs out of courtesy and kindness to each other. What are you trying to do, turn this place into MySpace or something? **** man, why not include some auto-playing music while you're at it?

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes, I think the GOP and the DNC, much larger groups by the way, do not have to take down dozens of offensive signs, banners and billboards in the span of a couple of years because they were too widely considered offensive. Whether that's because either group manages its crazy element better and has more expertise with public relations really doesn't change the fact that people who think something like putting Obama's face on a tribal medicine man and calling it Obamacare is perfectly acceptable are apparently big enough in the Tea Party to be having a say in things like their public signs and billboards and websites.

#2

Nope, we're talking about people who, when Hillary was a serious contender, were calling her a "radically far left winger" which is pretty LOL. Of course they were going to eviscerate any Democrat, what does that have to do with pointing out that the Tea Party has a strong racist element and that this is an inescapable part of their public presentation and what frequently gets them headlines? If Hillary were President it would probably be "back to the kitchen" signs from these people, and I'd call that sexist. What's the problem with that?

I don't see what that has to do with anything at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Really, a 'report' by an NAACP front group littered with demonstrably false claims? You can do a lot better than that.

And since when does StormFront get to dictate who's racist and who isn't? I'm a white, Right-wing male that loves the German military. If they identify me as a potential convert to radical white nationalism, does that make me a radical white nationalist?



No, I am saying that, based on your reasoning, I can leap to those conclusions because I found pictures on the internet that reinforce them. That is the standard you've established.




Oh, but you can. There are plenty of people who are overtly racist and don't mind saying as much, like KKK members. When they are not, however, I think the burden of proof is a bit higher than a few pictures on the internet if they are to be labeled racist. That's a powerful word, and it needs some strong backing - not 100% objective proof, but more than has currently been demonstrated. Kind of like:



This is where I'm having trouble. You and Koga have repeatedly referred to the 'large number', 'huge quantity', 'countless examples', and 'legions' of pictures, videos, and now remarks that are out there, but I can't seem to find them. There are lots of videos on youtube of people accusing the Tea Party of racism, but very few that actually show Tea Party racism - many of them showing the same six pictures Koga posted earlier. Coincidence?

I don't need white America pledges, white America platforms, or white-only rules (which are present in every major KKK branch), but I do need something beyond what has been shown so far, especially considering that this is the same Tea Party that supported dozens of black GOP candidates in 2010, rabidly supports Allen West and Tim Scott, and makes up Herman Cain's base.

Are we to assume that these people's racism is so secret that they are willing to vote for black candidates to represent them just to throw you guys off? Crazier things have happened, I guess, but these have to be some of the crappiest racists to ever grace the American political scene. If they're going to follow in the proud footsteps of avowed racist giants like George Wallace and David Duke, they're really going to have to step up their game. I mean, really, voting for black candidates? They ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Or maybe, just maybe, a majority of Tea Partiers are more interested in conservative orthodoxy instead of race. Maybe the signage, as mean and hateful as it is, is not representative of the majority.

As mentioned, there is a burden of proof here if you want to apply labels to a group comprising millions of people. It's certainly not 100% objective proof, but it's more than purely anecdotal evidence. The comparison to the Islamic extremist=/=larger muslim sentiment argument surely cannot be lost on you... Do we really want to start defining groups by their most radical and/or fringe elements?

Still haven't explained why if the Tea Party is legitimately about its spoken principles it is a reaction to Obama and not to Bush. You've dodged that twice.

It's also pretty ridiculous that you really think you're on logical high ground here when you simply handwave at anything we actually do present and call it biased.

Also, since it bears repeating:

Yes. You cannot ask for objective proof of the thoughts of a group of people. There is no way you can say, oh here is a piece of paper that proves everyone in the KKK is racist and/or has racist thoughts. So when you say, give me proof, you are saying show evidence of the thoughts of millions of people. And by saying that since we can't do that, that the allegation must be false or rejected, the case can also be applied to the KKK that since I cannot prove that every single member (or even a majority) harbors racist thoughts that the KKK thus must not be a racist organization.

But what can be picked up on and demonstrated are the overall tone and language that a group becomes associated with, which reveals the overall characteristic of what the group is, even if it isn't super solid evidence of the kind you find in court. This is where common sense kicks in. When the tone and language of the group repeatedly becomes associated with the kind of stuff I have copy pasta'd in previous posts here, it become evident that the group as a whole has a very racist undertone to it. And this isn't a case of the leftist media shoving certain exposure down our throats, these associations come from the legion of youtube videos and remarks made by those in government who call themselves tea party members/supporters.

You apparently didn't read this since you simply keep asking for exactly this kind of "proof" over and over again and handwaving away anything else we mention or bring to your attention. There is, in fact, no possible way to provide proof you are asking for--- and, even if we did, you would separate it out from the group as a whole and call it anecdotal or "just one case" or whatever. That's patently obvious from the exchange with you so far.