Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Not really -- there is nothing inherently wrong with being white, or angry, or middle aged. Yet when the phrase is put together by some it becomes as insulting and dismissive as "pond scum". Now I am not a fan of a lot of the Tea Party nonsense, but that's not relevant. Dismiss them for the total lack of logic in their position, not for their race, emotional state, or age. Because as I said, all of those descriptors can be applied to those nearly deified heroes who brought the US into being.

 

LKD, these are different times my friend.

 

Maybe I think comparing the Americas of 2010 and 1773 doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, and I don't expect you (being Canadian) to have thought too deeply on my nations history. But I'll answer this way.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the colonials actually WERE being subjected to tyranny. One may dislike Obama and his policies, but by no rational definition could you call President Obama a tyrant, especially when we have actual tyrants in the world. Or perhaps it has something to do with fact that the colonials actually WERE subjected to "taxation without representation," rather blatantly, unlike today's citizens. There's also the fact Americans have arguably the lowest tax rates in the western world, yet to hear the TPP's tell it, there's a government agent standing outside your house RIGHT NOW sucking money out of your sock drawer with a big vacuum. They malign the government as the source of all life's problems while taking for granted all the benefits they are afforded by that government*. And don't even get me started on comparing the "attack on Liberty" the colonials faced vs. the perpetual victimhood wankfest the TPers whip themselves into a hot mess over today.

That they're almost exclusively white and middle aged is about the only thing the current Tea Partiers have in common with their namesake. And since the white and middle-aged tend to have the bulk of the power, and money, and influence, and opportunity in America, I think it's pretty reasonable to see why they receive some due ridicule on that account.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying these people don't have anything to complain about, and I certainly respect their willingness to stand up to government policies they disagree with. If they think their taxes are too high, fair enough. If they are worried about the debt we're facing, great. It is the degree they exaggerate EVERY friggin' "injustice" that makes them such whiny, misguided buffoons. Fascism? Naziism? Communism? Really, folks?

* Example (one of many):

Spoiler

 

Only Tea Party members would be dumb enough to keep their money in their sock drawers...

 

Good grief! They couldn't even spell "Medicaid" correctly. WTF? Do they think it's like Gatorade? Of course, the sign alone is enough to show their ignorance.

EDIT: Upon closer inspection, they cannot spell "government" or "damn it" correctly either. I love the NRA hat - nice touch.

 

And I'm not one to nutpick, either. If this was an isolated kook, that would be one thing. But I've actually seen a Tea Party rally with my own eyes. The bulk of the signs are like this, sadly. That, and "Show the REAL birth certificate!" In fact, one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement, Michael Vanderboegh, lives on...wait for it...Government disability checks. WOLVERINES!

 

Oh crap, hope they don't suck off the cover of Miss Febuary while their at it...they can have the money, but for God's sake, don't take miss Feburary away!

 

Yes - and so was the King of England, and most of Parliament. So if you want to complain that they were the like the original revolutionaries, they were also a lot like the enemy in that regard.

 

DR:
Thanks for the info, but I've seen other claims as well. Wikipedia claims it results from a sign at one protest saying "Tea-bag Congress before they tea-bag you". I just first saw it from liberals criticizing the Tea Party and figured it was a clever spin.

Well, they're not really potters, either, are they?

Seriously, I'd like to know where that term came from. I've googled and found... Handcrafted pottery, tea pot sales, The Teapottery - "Home of the eccentric teapot!", but nothing political.

As for the rampant accusations that the Tea Party is a racist movement composed of angry, middle aged white men, a google image search for 'Tea Party rally' produced this as the very first result.

Now, I'm not saying the Tea Party isn't mostly white or angry, and I have no idea what the average age or gender is, but most of the signs I've seen have actually been about excessive spending, not race, origin of birth, or anythign else, and I've seen more than a few blacks, hispanics, and asians protesting along side the whites. Wikipedia has this to say about them. It seems that the one thing binding these people is a desire to see drastically less government spending.

 

They did some studies to find out who the potters are by demographics:

And you really needed someone to tell you that about the potters, NOG?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289821

 

All in all, all of those statistics seem to be more of a leaning than an identifier, though. They are more likely to be white, male, conservative, Republican, Christian, and the like, but none of those were identifiers.

Sure, 44% are 'born-again', but that means 56% aren't. Sure, 79% are white, but that means 21% aren't (and incidentally, 75% of Americans are white). Sure, 61% are male, but that means 39% are female (I hope). All of those are more significant differences than the national average, but not grossly.

On the other hand, the Democratic party is disproportionately young, minority, poor, and Unionized. None of those are identifiers for them, though.

And that's my point. The liberal media today is tearing into this conservative movement for not being perfectly representative. Well guess what, any group that isn't the whole group won't be perfectly representative. What repeatedly comes up with numbers over 90% in polls are their beliefs: the direction of this country, the amount of government spending, etc. These are the identifiers of the group. If you want to attack the group, attack them on that basis.

 

Representative of what? The site I posted was actually very neutral, and even posted an analyis by a conservative blogger AND a liberal one on the numbers, which was more than fair. Of course before, in your previous post, you just posted a supposed photo as if that was supposed to be somehow "representative," at least in some minimal way. Now of course, you are trying to twist the actual numbers into what you would like them to be.

So what?

So what? None us care what religion they claim to be and I never indicated any religious intent among this bunch. They can pretend to be Christians, or not, it matters little, at least to me. But if you wish to make that an issue, that's fine, go ahead and make your point.

Maybe the unaccounted for 10 percent are transvestites....

...And? You started saying that and then you said this:

...And started ranting about the "media." Can you connect the two comments so that they mean something? Or is your point really that you feel the media is too hard on the TP crowd? What does that have to do with the Democratic party?

Most "liberals" wish that the media would just shut-up about the TP, since it is giving it more attention than it deserves, at least in their opinions, which I share -- as a liberal. But there is a suspicion, right or wrong, that the movement is fronted by corporate America, thus the heavy coverage in the corporate media. There is certainly some evidence of that, particularly in the TP crowd's opposition to health care. But the movement also seems organic and growing on its own at the grassroots level. IMO, that's a good thing because it is more representative of at least someone, other than just a front.

 

Were those blatant math errors intentional NOG.

44 + 66 = 110

61 + 49 = 110

... or did you learn math from USA Today?

 

See, the later stuff that demostrates WHY the tea baggers are nutso is, to me, much more useful than merely dismissing them as stereotypical "white guys". It's the easy stereotyping that aggravates me.

To put it another way, when a white fellow makes a complaint about a government policy, here are two possible responses to his position:

1: That complaint is ridiculous. Barack is not a tyrant, nor do we have fascism, Nazism, or anything even close in play in the current political climate. Your ideas are absurd and should not be listened to on that basis.

or

2: Don't listen to that guy -- he's just an angry white guy.

Now, let's do a reversal of that: a black guy has a complaint about a government policy. Here are two possible responses to his position:

A: Your complaint is ridiculous. Not every single cop in America is a racist who would kill all the Black people possible if he could get away with it. Your ideas are absurd and should not be listened to on that basis.

or

B: Don't listen to that guy, he's just an angry <n-word>

Do you think for one second anyone would seriously say respnse B? And if someone did, it would result in such a hue and cry as to deafen aliens in galaxies far, far away. Seriously. Yet when such stereotypical stuff is written or said about white people, we let it slide.

Make no mistake, i oppose the ideas of the tea party, or potty, or baggers, or whatever you want to call them, but that doesn't mean I support racial caricaturing in serious debate.

 

The American people in general.

I never criticized the sight you linked to, though I have a slightly different opinion of them than you.

I never claimed it was 'representative' of anything more than a sub-set of the Tea Party group. I was only trying to prove that there were more than white people in the Tea Party, and that any real effort to investigate the movement would have shown that. Instead, they call the group, as a whole, 'racist'.

On the contrary, I'm trying to show them for what they are: meaningless. The liberals accuse this group of being racist because... wait for it... they're 4% more white than America as a whole, with a margin of error of 3.1%. That means the statistical racial division of the group is just barely outside the margin of error for the study, and yet they choose to not only use that to characterize the entire movement, but also assume racism because, of course, a 'white' movement is opposing the first black president. Of course, they couldn't possibly just disagree with his policies, it must be racism.

Actually, it's very much my intent that people don't make religion an issue, especially since there doesn't appear to be any statistical majority in the group. Still, I've seen some liberals characterize the entire movement as a 'christian right' movement. Maybe they think that makes them more racist or something.

... 61... plus... Hey, I was tired!

My whole point, which I thought was clear, was that these demographics, which so many have made much of, are meaningless. Despite what your link said, the Tea Party movement isn't 'older, white male, Republicans, with money'.

I'm curious why you would say this? What 'evidence' do you have? Or do you simply think that anyone who opposes the health care bill must be backed by corporate America?

It was organic and grassroots from the beginning, which may be both it's strength and it's weakness. I think it will be quite powerful for a few years, but then rapidly die out unless it gets something more than 'less spending' as it's unifying factor.


LKD:
I think much has been made of a fringe minority in the Tea Party. I also think a lot more of them are objecting to what's actually going on, but don't realize it isn't called what they're calling it. That may be a bit optimistic, though.

 

You think the TPers represent the American People?

Who does?

No, you weren't and you know it.

Yes, because it disturbs your fantasy world.

You don't know what a liberal is, let alone know what they think.

Again, you are the only one who keeps bringing it up, at least here. So you can pretty much quit ranting about it, since no one else really cares.

This has been written about and even a casual amount of research can turn up some links. Try it, if you dare....

Yeah, whatever....

Here's what a liberal thinks about how absurd the topic of race is in America:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-22-2010/on-topic--scandal-list---tea-bagging

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-15-2010/tea-america

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-17-2010/on-topic--in-the-news---race-in-america

 

No. That was my point. Apparently the media thinks it should, though.

Let's see, who has called the TPers racist? MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NY Times. Or, wait, no, they ask the question. I think you or Ragusa had something to say about Fox for doing that some time back.

Yes, yes I was. And if you think you know better, please, provide your evidence.

Petty jibes like this may make you feel better, but it doesn't strengthen your arguement at all. You can do better, I've seen it.

Ok, excuse me, the 'opponents of the TP party, who support big government and universal health care', 'strongly imply' that the TP is racist. Is that better?

Actually, you brought it up with your link, which sought to characterize the TP with such statistics.

I've seen a few accusations that the few organizers for the Tea Party that there are may be funded through various conservative organizations. That's a far cry from evidence of anything, though.

He's a liberal? I mean, I know he's generally a little left of conservative, but I loved his piece on the ACORN scandal. "I'm a fake journalist, and I'm embarassed!"

 

Could you post a source for that? I've done some searching on my own, and while there is some variability (probably because we haven't finished the 2010 Census), the numbers I'm seeing are between 65%-66% white. So it's more like 14% more than the general population, which is definitely a statistically significant deviation.

EDIT: And the 65% is skewed towards older Americans. I saw a news article a while back that through the end of March, there were more non-white babies born in the US than white babies. So this year may mark the "tipping point", where minorities start out-pacing white in births. (It was just a hair over 50%, and since it's only the first quarter, it may change by the end of the year.) With the current growth rates, by 2050, white will still represent a plurality of the US population, but no longer the majority.

EDIT2: From Bill Maher, he said the most annyoing part about the Tea Baggers/Potters is their slogan of "We want our country back." Because it seems that they mean they want to move back to a time 30, 40, or 50 years ago, which simply isn't going to happen. Most people agree that a nation must move forward.

 

Argument? Maybe. Since this is not a worthwhile debate, in any sense, it may be just that, an argument. It really was not as much a petty jab, but that I really believe you are in denial (a touch delusional). The Jon Stewart case is a pretty good point. The Daily Show has been labeled by none other than arch-consevative, Bill O'Reilly, as an example of the dreaded, "left wing media." He is a supporter of Anthony Weiner, one of the biggest liberals, I'm proud to say, in Congress; You ignore his attacks on countless conservatives (including Glenn Beck), Fox News and The TP. And what is your response?

I little left of conservative? How funny is that? Check this out. Jon Stewart explains [as a liberal] why he doesn't like Palin as a conservative politician:

http://rackjite.com/archives/4183-Jon-Stewart-tells-Bernie-Goldberg-to-go-fock-himself.html

http://vodpod.com/watch/2994408-anthony-weiner-agrees-with-jon-stewart-lieberman-is-a-dick

 

Well, I originally got it from Wikipedia. They agreed with this odd site. Interestingly, the US Census Bureau's QuickFacts site estimates 79.8% in 2008, but only 65.6% are 'white persons not hispanic'. On second look, it looks like those other sites were mixing things as well. It gets confusing when they have White and then Latino, but White apparently includes Latino.

So, saying that some random demographic statistics that don't isolate anything, and only show that a group is a little more X than Y are actually meaningless and insignificant, that makes me delusional? Saying that trying to define and pidgeon-hole a group by showing that it's not 100% representative of the whole United States is dishonest means I live in a fantasy world? Showing that the Democratic Party is just as disproportionate as the Tea Party makes you think I'm in denial? I'm sorry, I thought we were trying to judge people 'not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character'. I guess I was delusional, thinking that liberals may embrace that standard.

One, taking Bill O'Reilly's word for who's conservative and who's liberal is about like taking Osama bin Laden's word for who's a Muslim and who's a heathen. I'm surprised you'd go there. Two, my opinion of the Daily Show is a case of ignorance, not delusion. I don't usually watch it, and what little I've seen has shown that he's exactly what he pretends to be: a comedian. He's perfectly happy to take shots at anyone who pokes their head into idiocy. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, clowns. I'll bet he even had a gag on the strippers advocating a pole tax in NY City.

What I mean is, I don't think that who he jokes is a good ground for judging his political affiliation. If he's ever said anything in a serious interview, off the Daily Show, then I'd take that, but I don't know anything about that.

That's right, satire and facetiousness don't communicate over the internet. I forgot. My apologies. I should have added a smiley or something. I know he's somewhere left of conservative, but I honestly don't know how liberal he is.