GOP Presidential Debate

[Hemodoc]

"Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit  organization FreedomWorks, which  is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called  Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January  2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon  explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly  effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick  Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for  Radicals to Tea Party leaders."

HemoDoc:  I do believe that you do not know of what you speak.

gerald

You have no clue what a Tea Party person is. There is NO membership, NO leadership and scattered organizations across this nation with a Tea Party name. The reason why you can't zero in on the "Tea Party" is because it is within the people themselves who have a deep and abiding love of this nation. By the way, the term Tea Party only represents what has always been here in this nation. In such, with no membership, no organization, no leaders, it is a movement of the people, by the people and for the people.

I know hundreds of folks who are Tea Party people who have never heard of Alinsky. I could care less what some weirdo in NY or where ever you said this happened. Not sure what you thing that proves since their is no "Tea Party" in the first place. It is mindset Gerald, not an organization. Never heard of FreedomWorks before. In any case, Tea Party people are those who share the same common beliefs. It is NOT an organization which is why you cannot touch it with your false allegations of racism and all this other nonsense like we follow Alinsky.

Good try my friend but you need to find out what Tea Party people really are first. You still have no clue do you?

[Gerald Lively]

I gave you some well documented facts.  You deny by implication.  This says that you don't deal in facts, so, don't talk to me.

gerald

[Hemodoc]

I gave you some well documented facts.  You deny by implication.  This says that you don't deal in facts, so, don't talk to me.

gerald

Gerald, you quoted a conservative group that IDENTIFIES with the "Tea Party." It is NOT the TEA PARTY. Please show me where I can register anywhere in America as a Tea Party member? Please, just one registry of Tea Party people in the "TEA PARTY."

When you figure out that there is no such entity as the Tea Party except in the hearts and minds of people with shared beliefs, you can then apologize to me for your ignorant and uniformed accusation against me.

[Hemodoc]

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[5][6][7] It endorses reduced government spending,[8][9] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[9] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[8] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[10]

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor.[11] Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".[12][13]

The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.[15]
The Tea Party's most noted national figures include Republican politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, and Michele Bachmann, with the elder Paul described by some as the "intellectual godfather" of the movement.[16][17] The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans,[18][19] and the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates.[20] Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far".[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

[Gerald Lively]

HemoDoc said, "you quoted a conservative group that IDENTIFIES with the "Tea Party." It is NOT the TEA PARTY."

Then you went to a Wikipedia website and extracted certain quotes.  What you left out is in the following which shows that the Tea Party is not a registered political party (nobody said it was) but it is an organization.  See the following:

The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.

Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far"

The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[83][89][90] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[91][92] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[93][94] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[

82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power

FreedomWorks, an organization led Dick Armey. Like Americans for Prosperity, the group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates. It makes local and national candidate endorsements.  Dick Armey distributes Alinsky for use as a tactical manual.
..........................

Not only does the Tea Party exist, it has a radical racist membership. (see above)

gerald

[Hemodoc]

HemoDoc said, "you quoted a conservative group that IDENTIFIES with the "Tea Party." It is NOT the TEA PARTY."

Then you went to a Wikipedia website and extracted certain quotes.  What you left out is in the following which shows that the Tea Party is not a registered political party (nobody said it was) but it is an organization.  See the following:

The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.

Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far"

The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[83][89][90] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[91][92] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[93][94] However, analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on race "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.[

82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power

FreedomWorks, an organization led Dick Armey. Like Americans for Prosperity, the group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates. It makes local and national candidate endorsements.  Dick Armey distributes Alinsky for use as a tactical manual.
..........................

Not only does the Tea Party exist, it has a radical racist membership. (see above)

gerald

Dear Gerald, am I racist as well since I identify with the "Tea Party?"

[Gerald Lively]

It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist.  To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.

gerald

[Hemodoc]

It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist.  To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.

gerald

Dear Gerald, which ORGANIZATION is that my friend?  There are dozens of conservative organizations that identify with the Tea Party, including some in congress as well, but there is not now, nor likely every will be any Tea Party to join. Get your facts straight my friend, you are once again in error.

I am a born again Christian, I am a military man who swore an oath to defend and protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. I have seen men literally die for this oath. That may not mean much to you, I hope it does, but I suspect it won't have much meaning (if I am error, accept my apologies). When I first joined the military, I was a Boston liberal and agnostic who couldn't really care less about that oath. I took it not really appreciating what I was really agreeing to uphold.

Since that time, I have come to appreciate the constitution, with all of its flaws of course, not as a perfect document by any means, but as a document that has given me here in this nation freedoms that the world in all of its history has seldom if ever seen.  The majority of the constitution is derived from English Common Law which according to Blackstone was derived from Christianity.

I have now come full circle in accepting the constitution, the English Common law since I am now a born again Christian.

Yes, I identify with the stated goals of the Tea Party, but I have never joined any organization, I am not a member of one today or eve and I am beginning to question how this new entity called the Tea Party is likely a fraud, not because of our beliefs as the grass roots level, but because of how it now becomes a target for the left to apply rule #13.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

[Hemodoc]

CHARLES GRANDISON FINNEY[1]
1792 - 1875

America evangelist and educator, Charles Finney was born at Warren, Connecticut, but two years later his family moved to upstate New York where he received his early education in frontier schools. As a young man he studied law and set up practice at Adams, New York. While reading Blackstone's Commentaries On Law, he noted continuous references to the Holy Scriptures; Blackstone repeatedly mentioned the Bible as the highest authority. This moved Finney to buy a Bible and he soon was reading it more than law. The Word of God brought deep conviction to his soul, and on October 10, 1821, out in the woods, he was converted to Christ.

http://www.jonsquillministries.org/CharlesFinney.htm


THE LINK TO ENGLISH COMMON LAW

The supremacy of God's law was generally recognized in the English common law. Sir William Blackstone, the preeminent English legal authority widely followed by the American founders, recognized the binding legal nature of the law of God as understood in its basic principles. Blackstone maintained that English law (and therefore, American law) had its roots in the laws of God.

Blackstone recognized that "law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action." He identified the essential legal relationship that exists between God and his creation by observing, "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being."20 God was acknowledged as the lawgiver and therefore the one who laid down certain immutable rules of action, that is, of right and wrong conduct.

Recognizing the relevance of the creation and the Bible, Blackstone noted that "pon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."21 In other words, the law of God whether written in God's creation (nature) or in the Bible (revelation), spoke with a unified voice. Moreover, this law is absolute: any law of man to the contrary is of no effect.


http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm#4

Blackstone's commentaries influenced American law in other ways. For example, the Supreme Court cited Blackstone in Marbury V. Madison in its opinion of this case.

Blackstone's theories influenced the writers of the United States Constitution. Especially in the first ten amendments to this historic document. Two examples of this are in the impeachment clause and in the second amendment.

The impeachment of a public official argument uses his commentaries to explain and define what high crimes and misdemeanors means in American Constitutional law. In his essay, What Rises to the Level of an Impeachable offense, David Barton argues that the Founders understood the fundamental understanding of impeachment. He goes on to say that the impeachment process and language in the United States Constitution is based upon the long traditions of British legal history as found in the commentaries.

The second amendment right to keep and bear arms is a tradition based upon Blackstone's Commentaries. In his sources for his article on the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms in state constitutions, Professor Eugene Volokh, cites Blackstone's commentaries as a source. This source reads in part "... to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."

http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1121.shtml

[Hemodoc]

The constitution is founded mainly on the principles of English Common Law. I have listed Blackstone's contribution as one of the foremost scholars on English Common Law during the time of the writing of the constitution. While the constitution is not in any sense a religious document, it is not in conflict with the Bible either as are many of the laws of today here in America.

As a young military officer embued with liberal political ideology, I didn't have any understanding of why people would become teary eyed simply saluting the flag. I was ignorant of the sacrifices of millions of men in our history who fought for the flag in what it represents, freedom and justice. Freedom and justice do not just appear in the world out of nothing. They are very precious virtues that the world has seen far too little. The experiment of America and the principles that guided the founding fathers are on the other hand that of recognition of God, our Creator which is mentioned in our documents. Most of the colonies were founded upon religious freedom and these documents were wholely reflective of the Bible itself. Some colonies simply made pacts that the Bible would be their guiding principle in all matters.

Today, freedom of religion is now egregiously thought of as freedom from religion. That was not at all the origninal intent of the constitution. The Federal constitution did not in any sense abrogate the state constitutions in effect at the time it was adopted. Going to the early docuements such as in Massachusets, we see some very intereting findings:

CHAPTER II.--EXECUTIVE POWER

Section I,--Governor

Article I. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled "The governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts;" and whose title shall be "His Excellency."

Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm

The current EVOLVED interpretation of the first amendment would find the MA constitution "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." However, at the time it was written, the first amendment had not been adultered by interpretation and its original intent was to protect the church from the government. It DID NOT overturn the MA state constitution in any manner. Folks today fail to understand the Christian influence on our government and fail to acknowledge the underlying truth that America was a Christian nation.

America today no longer could be called a Christian nation much to our shame. Nevertheless, since becoming a Christian myself, I have gained an entirely new understanding of the Federal Constitution for which I took an oath to uphold and protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

Ii would urge folks to understand the true nature of our American history which is ebbing away in historical revisioinism.

I am still under my commission which you do not resign when you leave active military service. If it were not for my renal disease, I could still be called back to active duty at any time until the age of 60. The above oath that I took so many years ago is still in effect as an obligation I freely took. However, today, despite my ignorance of its true meaning all those years ago, today, I understand it very well and would gladly reafirm it today.

[Hemodoc]

It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist.  To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.

gerald

I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.

[RichardMEL]

With reference to earlier mentions of attacks and abuse that if you find any post offensive to you, or to another member(ie: an attack) there is a "report to moderators" link at the bottom of each message (you can even use it on this post!) and this will alert all moderators and asmins to a potential issue.

[willowtreewren]

It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist.  To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.

gerald

I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.

Hemodoc, really.

You protest that you think Gerald is trying to read your mind, but then you simply turn around and do the same to him.

In reading the quote you pasted above, it seems to me that Gerald was simply offering an explanation of why one might make an assumption by association. Granted, I cannot read his mind. But first he says that it is possible that you are among the 26% of Tea Partiers who are not racist. You have claimed to identify with the Tea Party rather vehemently. To me the raised eyebrow reflects exactly the meaning of this idiom:

Idiom: raise an eyebrow (raise one's eyebrows)

    To show surprise, interest or disbelief.

(with an emphasis on the first two, but shades of the third) If you strongly identify with the Tea Party, it would cause me to raise an eyebrow at the over-arching implications.

You may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, but your admitted identification with them would cause others to wonder.

It just seems that you doth protest too much.

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist.  To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.

gerald

I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.

Hemodoc, really.

You protest that you think Gerald is trying to read your mind, but then you simply turn around and do the same to him.

In reading the quote you pasted above, it seems to me that Gerald was simply offering an explanation of why one might make an assumption by association. Granted, I cannot read his mind. But first he says that it is possible that you are among the 26% of Tea Partiers who are not racist. You have claimed to identify with the Tea Party rather vehemently. To me the raised eyebrow reflects exactly the meaning of this idiom:

Idiom: raise an eyebrow (raise one's eyebrows)

    To show surprise, interest or disbelief.

(with an emphasis on the first two, but shades of the third) If you strongly identify with the Tea Party, it would cause me to raise an eyebrow at the over-arching implications.

You may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, but your admitted identification with them would cause others to wonder.

It just seems that you doth protest too much.

Aleta

Please explain why affiliation, association or agreement with some or all of the tenants of the Tea Party causes you such distress?

[willowtreewren]

Please explain why affiliation, association or agreement with some or all of the tenants of the Tea Party causes you such distress?

Funny, I never said it caused me distress. Where in the world did you get that idea? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

It is quite possible that you are a part of the 26% Tea Party membership that isn’t racist; I have no way of knowing whether you are or are not a racist.  To claim an affiliation with such an organization does raise an eyebrow.

gerald

I guess the answer is yes, since you make an insinuation of a raised eyebrow.

Hemodoc, really.

You protest that you think Gerald is trying to read your mind, but then you simply turn around and do the same to him.

In reading the quote you pasted above, it seems to me that Gerald was simply offering an explanation of why one might make an assumption by association. Granted, I cannot read his mind. But first he says that it is possible that you are among the 26% of Tea Partiers who are not racist. You have claimed to identify with the Tea Party rather vehemently. To me the raised eyebrow reflects exactly the meaning of this idiom:

Idiom: raise an eyebrow (raise one's eyebrows)

    To show surprise, interest or disbelief.

(with an emphasis on the first two, but shades of the third) If you strongly identify with the Tea Party, it would cause me to raise an eyebrow at the over-arching implications.

You may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, but your admitted identification with them would cause others to wonder.

It just seems that you doth protest too much.

Aleta

Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"

[Gerald Lively]

Wow!  I am not a part of this discussion either.  It seems like I posted here eons ago.

gl

[willowtreewren]

Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"

For the same reason that it might cause anyone who is not racist to raise an eyebrow. When an individual professes to be associated with a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism, a certain amount of disapproval is bound to happen.

Gerald's suggesting that you might be part of the remaining 26% minority speaks volumes to his graciousness.

Since you have proclaimed that you are not racist, it settles the point. On the other hand, those who do not know you, and learn of your association with the Tea Party may also come to the conclusion that you support a racist attitude along with the majority of Tea Partiers. That would be guilt by association, and perhaps not warranted, but part of the risk of proclaiming support/alliance/identification with a movement.

Aleta

[cariad]

Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"

For the same reason that it might cause anyone who is not racist to raise an eyebrow. When an individual professes to be associated with a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism, a certain amount of disapproval is bound to happen.

Gerald's suggesting that you might be part of the remaining 26% minority speaks volumes to his graciousness.

Since you have proclaimed that you are not racist, it settles the point. On the other hand, those who do not know you, and learn of your association with the Tea Party may also come to the conclusion that you support a racist attitude along with the majority of Tea Partiers. That would be guilt by association, and perhaps not warranted, but part of the risk of proclaiming support/alliance/identification with a movement.

Aleta

Well-said, Aleta!

[Willis]

... a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism...

I'd like to know where that number came from. And how "racism" is being defined as it is being used to describe Tea Party members in this context. (BTW - I'm not a Tea Party member and have never been to any sort of Tea Party gathering or townhall meeting.)

 

[willowtreewren]

... a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism...

I'd like to know where that number came from. And how "racism" is being defined as it is being used to describe Tea Party members in this context. (BTW - I'm not a Tea Party member and have never been to any sort of Tea Party gathering or townhall meeting.)

 

I was responding to previous quotes by Gerald Lively, taken form Wikipedia, I believe.

[Gerald Lively]

The 74% number mentioned and questioned, came from a survey/poll taken by the University of Washington.  The purpose of the survey was to determine the pollitcal makeup of the Tea Party.  If I remember it correctly, 25% of the Tea Party membership were outright racists, the 74% took racist views on issues but did not think of themselves as racist.  I hope that clears things up.

gerald

[Hemodoc]

Why would it cause you to "raise your eyebrow?"

For the same reason that it might cause anyone who is not racist to raise an eyebrow. When an individual professes to be associated with a movement in which 74% of its adherents support some sort of racism, a certain amount of disapproval is bound to happen.

Gerald's suggesting that you might be part of the remaining 26% minority speaks volumes to his graciousness.

Since you have proclaimed that you are not racist, it settles the point. On the other hand, those who do not know you, and learn of your association with the Tea Party may also come to the conclusion that you support a racist attitude along with the majority of Tea Partiers. That would be guilt by association, and perhaps not warranted, but part of the risk of proclaiming support/alliance/identification with a movement.

Aleta

Dear Aleta, you believe you know who the Tea Party folks are, their motivations, their shortcomings and have accepted a blatant media propaganda set forth by rule number 13 that Tea Party folks are racist. After two weeks of giving example after example proving that false accusation wrong, please think of us as racists just as Thadeus Matthews accused Charlotte Bergmann of being a racist as well if that is what you wish to believe. The absurdity of that association only shows the depths to which those that want power will go. The absurdity that  people like me and those that I know within the Tea Party are racist only shows how gullible you folks are to this propaganda. So be it.

If you wish to judge me and Tea Party folks as racists, then that puts you folks in the same category as Thadeus Matthews in the end analysis. Where were all your protestations of racism against that man.  Crickets is all that we heard. In the end analysis, the guilt by association, raised eyebrows all convey the simple meaning that I am among those that you feel are racist which is right back to the original issue I entered this discussion two weeks ago.  It has not been a vain exercise in that the original premise is what was suspected in the first place.

In any case, my wife finds these implications about people like me and our many friends who likewise would be called Tea Party folks absurd to no end. I guess the lesson learned here is that reason and evidence will not undo the biases people have against folks like us. If the Lord should choose to overcome what has come against this land, that will be by His hand and not by any political activism.

I would hope folks do read enough of Alinsky and those that buy into his premises to understand that the goal is not to bring forth more social programs, but to use the social programs to crash this system and bring in a new "utopian" society first through a dictatorship of the proletariat. Remember that you do need to be careful what you ask for. Yes, Alinsky has been very "successful" in America, but who in the end will he have lied to the most?

[Willis]

The 74% number mentioned and questioned, came from a survey/poll taken by the University of Washington.  The purpose of the survey was to determine the pollitcal makeup of the Tea Party.  If I remember it correctly, 25% of the Tea Party membership were outright racists, the 74% took racist views on issues but did not think of themselves as racist.  I hope that clears things up.

gerald

Gerald, you seem to be a very analytical and reasonable man. I suspect most of our political and religious views are 180 degrees out of phase but that's OK. Maybe we can have a beer sometime. 

Now that I've buttered you up...are you so quick to accept weak data from possibly biased sources when it comes from conservative organizations? Didn't think so.

Unless we can examine the actual poll questions and how it was administered we should be very suspicious of the results. This applies to left or right. (Back when Noah was building the ark I used to teach statistics, sampling, and survey development and administration so I know how easy it is to create a biased survey either intentionally or not.)

What criteria was used to define "racist"? I believe I could write a question that if anyone answered it truthfully their answer could be used to call them racist. What is a racist? Substantially, it means someone of one race who believes that their race is superior to others. I live in the South and I think--at least among anyone younger than 60--that such a view is virtually extinct. I think most of what is called "racism" today has more to do with cultural differences than actual racism. Opposition to an issue or policy proposed by President Obama, for example, can be due to any number of reasons inherent in the issue itself and not the pigmentation of the President's skin. Yet too often the alternate positions are dismissed without due consideration based on an emotional response arising from the "race" of the parties involved. This can certainly be prejudice or bigotry, but we are all prejudiced about many things...that does not equate to racism.

 

[willowtreewren]

That's a good point, Willis. In fact, I intend to do further research on this exact issue.

And I do appreciate that you refrained form labeling anyone such as "you folks" and "people like me" which calls to mind a tribal mentality. When I see arguments resorting to tribalism "people like me" against "you folks" it actually reminds me of the kind of prejudice of which you speak.

In order to be clear, Merriam-Webster defines tribalism thus:

1: tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2: strong in-group loyalty

Arguments that resort to this approach are weakened, and often make it more difficult for all parties to move beyond prejudice in order to listen to the content.

While I enjoy hearing (and learning from) a variety of points of view, I often dismiss "arguments" that are heavily laden with pejoratives.

Aleta