H.P.: Your request is being processed... Tea Party Federation Expels Mark Williams Over 'Offensive' Response To NAACP's Racism Charge

[jpyaks3]

I don't agree. GWB is very different from the perspective of ideology. Carter and Obama are exactly the same except that Carter was unable to force change. Obama has been very succesful there but the two men share almost exactly the same ideology.

You are using extremely broad terms, what parts of Obama's ideology is the exact same as Carters?

[addicted]

The problem with this, as I see it, is that Americans don't identify with Racisam in election years nearly as much as they do pocketbooks. So long as our economy is where it is, the Democrats are at a distinct disadvantage IMO. The race card strategy is not going to work. At least, I don't think it will.

Maybe your right, but doesn't "every vote" count? Attacking both groups like this may not strengthen the Dems but weakening both parties ensures that the tides still can flow either direction. Instead of another situation like 2008 where no matter who was running the country was not voting Republican.

[DjTj]

This is all great, but my post was about Carter, not Bush.

But the point is that Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all supported those same things: federal involvement in education, expansion of government health care, social security reform, immigration, energy reform, etc.

Why do you believe that Obama is similar to Carter, when he is simply doing the same thing that every single President is doing?

And you have already admitted that Carter wasn't actually successful at implementing any of his policies.

Reagan was the last President to successfully implement Social Security Reform: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2005/0305saving_light.aspx

Reagan was also the last President to successfully implement Immigration Reform: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html

George H.W. Bush enacted the first cap-and-trade law: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

Clinton did Welfare Reform: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html

George W. Bush did No Child Left Behind: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803484.html

George W. Bush expanded Medicare to Prescription Drugs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001076.html

If you think that Obama is similar to Carter because of these policies, then Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush were also similar to Carter.

[NoCalMike]

not to mention wire tapping, torture, miranda rights, military spending, privacy, etc ... anything that expands the role of the government in our lives you would think ought to be a huge concern for libertarian types, but all too often they just turn out to be closet republicans, with no real problem with big government as long as it's doing the things they approve of. (incarcerating more, punishing more, waging war, subsidizing big business, etc)

Right, which is exactly my point about the tea party. They want to come off sounding anti-government, which is fine, but it seems they are only anti-government-doing things they don't particular like. If they are against government spending, then where has this mass group of people been for the last 30 years? The Stimulus & bailouts, are not really brand new Obama concepts, yet because it is Obama who implemented them all of the sudden the country is in ruin.

Also, the media is seeming to give the tea party a big pass on their hypocrisy regarding what constitutes "government over-reaching" Government spending bad because it is tyranny, yet all the things listed in the above quote are a-ok even though some of those policies are in violation of the constitution. To me the evidence is there more and more the tea party is just a bunch of angry republicans, mad that Obama got elected, drummed up by right-wing radio to go out and do something, but it makes them feel better to say they are independent, because it shows "nobody controls me" I think for the most part they are lying to themselves in order not to deal with the realization they have been manipulated and duped.

[addicted]

But the point is that Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all supported those same things: federal involvement in education, expansion of government health care, social security reform, immigration, energy reform, etc.

If you think that Obama is similar to Carter because of these policies, then Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush were also similar to Carter.

I actually think we haven't had a real President since Kennedy. All of the Presidents since have just been puppets regardless of what party they affliated with. Republican and Democrats are the same, it's a big con we all argue over. They are both jacked up equally.

If you can't tell I agree with this post but you probably already know I'm nut so it's just my opinion but appreciate you pointing this out

[ABQCOWBOY]

Are you suggesting both parties unanimously voted in favor of invading Iraq? because that's incredibly wrong.

The invasion of Iraq was absolutely GWB's baby. He sold it to the American public and pushed it through Congress. The most you can say about Democrats at the time is that they ranged from opposition to lukewarm support of Bush's policy. House Democrats voted against the use of force in Iraq 82-126. In the Senate they voted for it 29-21.

But there is no way you can say with a straight face that the Democrats were pushing for a war in Iraq. At best some of them didn't oppose the idea. An idea which was completely George Bush Jr.'s

Unaimously, no. The resolution passed in both houses fairly easily. Now, you can say that he sold it but that's not really the truth of it. Both sides of the house believed that Weapons were present. I don't think it's fair to say that the President did it. Both parties and both houses did it. Warm, lukewarm, call it what you will but at the end of the day, they voted it through. As example of this, when McCain voted for TARP, he was lukewarm in his support but he still voted for it. He's just as guilty as anybody else who voted for it. Degrees do not matter. The Bill passed and the responsibility is his, so to speak.

[Prosperity]

So why can't we have a NAAWP? If that's wrong then an NAACP has to be wrong. No if there was a NAAWP I would join it. As long as they equally hated Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc with the same degree that the NAACP hates these groups then I'd be fine with it. However if they took it too far and talked about lynching or burning babies I'm out. The truth to me is that if it's ok for an NAACP then it's ok for an NAAWP. Start it up, send me an invite. Thanks

if you white people were oppressed to the point were they couldn't go to the same schools, be hired, or basically just treated like equally human by their society, do you think a NAAWP would be useful?

When would you get rid of it? To a certain extent the NAACP is a relic of the civil rights movement, but you have to understand why it formed in the first place any why the Colored People would be reluctant to give up something that helped them overcome REAL oppression.

[Duckus]

I don't agree. GWB is very different from the perspective of ideology. Carter and Obama are exactly the same except that Carter was unable to force change. Obama has been very succesful there but the two men share almost exactly the same ideology.

Obama is just like Carter is such a lazy argument.

You hear it over and over from the right - it is a lovely talking point. When I asked you for specifics you listed off a list of general similarities that MANY Presidents have in some way supported. People even posted links documenting how Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush all supported those items on you list.

[twa]

But the important point is that it's not really about anything that Obama did or didn't do; it is the internal dynamics of the Republican Party that really determines how loud the Tea Party can be. When the Republicans are in power, fiscal conservatism and limits on federal power are an inconvenience, so the neo-cons and the so-cons and the def cons try to push the fiscal cons and the libertarians to the side. When the Republicans are out of power, everyone can all unite in opposition to Obama, but it will revert back to big-government conservatism when the Republicans are in control again.

Democrats do the same thing. Obama rode the support of a lot of civil libertarians and anti-war activists to the White House, but it's not so easy to close Gitmo or finish off Aghanistan now that he is in control.

Any platform based on opposing or limiting the government is going to fall apart once you become the government. The same thing has been happening from Jefferson through Reagan...

The only change will be if the fiscal cons can form a new majority party or take over the Reps(similar to the so-cons effort)

Our system our govt makes all politicians a similar shade of grey by default:silly:

added

Even if they gain power the policies enacted will startle the sheep enough to see it end soon.

Fiscal cons are a dying breed ...much like our country

[The Evil Genius]

I think too many people assume that Joe Public really wants less "government" spending.

[addicted]

if you white people...

Let me try this and see how reasonable of a thinker you are

If I said to you

"if you black people...."

Does that anger you? Does that seem a little racist to you? Guess what? If it's not ok to do for your group it's not ok to do with mine. That's what it's all about right? Equal treatment for everyone

were oppressed to the point were they couldn't go to the same schools, be hired, or basically just treated like equally human by their society, do you think a NAAWP would be useful?

I think an NAAWP would be useful, I think an NAAAP (Asian People) NAAFP (Female people), NWWGP (Gay People), NWWMP (Mexican People), etc. I think they would be useful for every people. Name one "People" who couldn't find advancing useful?

When would you get rid of it? To a certain extent the NAACP is a relic of the civil rights movement, but you have to understand why it formed in the first place any why the Colored People would be reluctant to give up something that helped them overcome REAL oppression.

I didn't say any of that. I don't want someone to give up advancing thier people, I want everyone to advance. I don't want to end the NAACP. I want to expand it.

Look I know I'm crazy so just try and understand I think every one advancing is a good thing, not just one group. My problem is not with NAACP, its with the media and how we look at other groups advancing and instead of rejoycing about it we think it's racist. That's brainwashing

[addicted]

I think too many people assume that Joe Public really wants less "government" spending.

Joe Public wants Government spending on him, he will only complain when it's not going his way

[ABQCOWBOY]

But the point is that Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all supported those same things: federal involvement in education, expansion of government health care, social security reform, immigration, energy reform, etc.

But not as national platforms. Carter, Clinton (Hillary), Bush and Obama, yes. All of those used education as a major platform, that's true. Reagan, not so much as the others. Education will always be important but not as a major legislative piece of the Administration in all cases.

Why do you believe that Obama is similar to Carter, when he is simply doing the same thing that every single President is doing?

He is not doing the same things, or in the same degrees, as others. The HealthCare bill is a perfect example. So is cap and trade. Social Security is another. Reagan, GHB nor GWB has advocated Socialized Healthcare. Carter, Clinton and Obama have. That's much more of a Left thing.

And you have already admitted that Carter wasn't actually successful at implementing any of his policies.

He did manage to get a few things done but by and large, no. He didn't get nearly as much passed as he wanted to. But, his ideas were almost identical.

Reagan was the last President to successfully implement Social Security Reform: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2005/0305saving_light.aspx

A fair point but what is being done now is not reform. What's being done now is abolishment of the program. That is very different.

Reagan was also the last President to successfully implement Immigration Reform: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html

I disagree here. Reagan was not succesful on his Immigration Reform. It's true that Reagan granted amnesty for 4 million illegals but the other part of that policy was the promise, from Congress, that they would in act legislation that would close illegal immigration off and take steps to secure our boarders against further illegal immigration. That was never held up so essentially, the President's immigration reform failed.

George H.W. Bush enacted the first cap-and-trade law: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

Cap and Trade is not the same as Clean Air Act, which is what Bush implemented. I do not, and I think most Conservatives do not, oppose cleaner air. The problem is that President Obama's bill does not provide for alternative energy. It simply serves as a method by which energy providers will increase costs of energy. It doesn't even lesson emissions enough to make a difference in the ecology. It's nothing more then a means by which certain groups will soak the taxpayer for more money.

Clinton did Welfare Reform: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html

Yes, and GWB reversed it. That's true.

George W. Bush did No Child Left Behind: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803484.html

One of the worst political decisions he ever made. However, No Child Left Behind was not GWBs. That was actually Clinton's and more to the point, Hillary's. When Clinton left office, Bush picked up that POS and completed it. Was bad legislation then and it's still bad law. GWB gets no credit from me for doing that one.

George W. Bush expanded Medicare to Prescription Drugs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001076.html

Hated that decision also. Bush had some crazy liberal ideas as well. GWB was not a Fiscally Conservative President. Ideologically, he was Conservative but he wasn't a real Conservative. He was much more moderate in that area.

If you think that Obama is similar to Carter because of these policies, then Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush were also similar to Carter.

I don't agree.

[Prosperity]

Does that anger you? Does that seem a little racist to you? Guess what? If it's not ok to do for your group it's not ok to do with mine. That's what it's all about right? Equal treatment for everyone

no

and it does make sense

I think an NAAWP would be useful, I think an NAAAP (Asian People) NAAFP (Female people), NWWGP (Gay People), NWWMP (Mexican People), etc. I think they would be useful for every people. Name one "People" who couldn't find advancing useful?

Those groups exist, but there is an extra need for the NAACP because of the problems blacks had in the recent past.

Of course those names aren't used. White people have groups like the Tea Party and the Heritage Foundation, Wall Builders etc

Now granted those groups don't focus on race they focus on other things important to white people, like preserving wealth, and the established cultural norms. The NAACP focuses on race because of racism was a problem for their supporters, not taxes etc

[twa]

I think too many people assume that Joe Public really wants less "government" spending.

I think the problem is people want less spending and lower taxes till it effects them or theirs....we are on a unsustainable path and corrections are coming.

The nature and severity is the only question.

[addicted]

Those groups exist, but there is an extra need for the NAACP because of the problems blacks had in the recent past.

Of course those names aren't used. White people have groups like the Tea Party and the Heritage Foundation, Wall Builders etc

If the Tea Party was the NAAWP I would join it. But those fools are over run with Republicans now that the whole thing is stupid. Started off good until the Republican masses took over.

I don't feel like white people have an NAACP, I wish we did. But then again I'm crazy

[alexey]

I don't feel like white people have an NAACP, I wish we did. But then again I'm crazy

You do have it... It's called "the South".

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ - don't worry, I don't think O is a fiscal conservative. My problem is, neither was Dubya (imho.) If you don't account for inflation or percentages, you are probably 100% correct for claiming that O has spent more money than any other president in our history...however that would also put Dubya in the solid #2 spot

So why didn't the TP complain during the Bush years? Racism? No. Hypocrisy? Yes.

I agree with your view of Bush on the subject. He spent way too much money.

I think they did. I think they showed it in 2008 and 2010. The country, IMO, is Center Right as a whole. Yet, they have voted decidedly left for two straight elections. The real problem, for Conservatives IMO, is that the Republican Party stopped representing their ideas and politicians on the whole did not represent the will of the majority. I think that people just decided that neither side is worth a crap and they needed to voice their own opinions. Now, certainly, not all believe this. Liberals believe their opinions are now being voiced but Conservatives, especially Fiscal Conservatives didn't. That, IMO, is why the Tea Party took off IMO. People did believe Obama and they still want to today but the problem, IMO, is that he doesn't represent their core values and the sad part of this thing is that it has nothing at all to do with race. Unfortunately, we are just not sophisticated enough to get past that in order to discuss the real philosophical issues that should be the matters of importance between us.

[addicted]

Now granted those groups don't focus on race they focus on other things important to white people, like preserving wealth, and the established cultural norms. The NAACP focuses on race because of racism was a problem for their supporters, not taxes etc

Understand but if I wanted to do politics I'd do politics. Black people aren't the only group with race concerns are they? Where does a crazy man like me go with any race concerns I may have? If I started the NAAWP then the media would brainwash you into thinking I started a new racist skin head group. The NAACP isn't anything like the skinhead group or considered to be it, but if try out an NAAWP and I bet it would be. The point is we all need to advance, we all have race issues. We all could use a group like the NAACP but because of the media we simply can't. It's a fact

[Prosperity]

If the Tea Party was the NAAWP I would join it. But those fools are over run with Republicans now that the whole thing is stupid. Started off good until the Republican masses took over.

I don't feel like white people have an NAACP, I wish we did. But then again I'm crazy

What sort of problems do white people face as far as race goes?

If there are any I would at least verbally support your NAAWP

[twa]

You do have it... It's called "the South".

The South that is filled with brown and black people?

Funny I never saw so many white people in one place till I went up in the North

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are using extremely broad terms, what parts of Obama's ideology is the exact same as Carters?

I've already outlined those earlier in this thread. All you have to do is read up on Carter and it should become apparent to you how they are similar.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Maybe your right, but doesn't "every vote" count? Attacking both groups like this may not strengthen the Dems but weakening both parties ensures that the tides still can flow either direction. Instead of another situation like 2008 where no matter who was running the country was not voting Republican.

I suppose. I just believe that the dye is already cast. If their is going to be a surprise, I think it will be that incumbents are out, no matter what party. I think that this country is going to move back to Center Right in it's politics but that doesn't mean that more then just a few Republicans might see the bricks this coming election. Will be interesting to see what happens.

[addicted]

What sort of problems do white people face as far as race goes?

If there are any I would at least verbally support your NAAWP

Oh I don't know, maybe we as a white people could face up to the fact that white jesus really didn't exist. Jesus was colored. Or maybe as white people we could talk about how because of the ozone our fair skin is going to cook and how to take care of it better. Or maybe as a white race we could all talk about why we continue to pay blacks and women less then we pay white me and how to change that. Or maybe as a race we could talk about other things, we have race issues to talk about. But talking about them is covered up and treated as evil. Until whites have a place to be proud of themselves and deal with race issues publically without the media labeling us as racists we will never get over racial issues

again you are talking to a crazy person man, what do I know?

[Prosperity]

Oh I don't know, maybe we as a white people could face up to the fact that white jesus really didn't exist. Jesus was colored. Or maybe as white people we could talk about how because of the ozone our fair skin is going to cook and how to take care of it better. Or maybe as a white race we could all talk about why we continue to pay blacks and women less then we pay white me and how to change that. Or maybe as a race we could talk about other things, we have race issues to talk about. But talking about them is covered up and treated as evil. Until whites have a place to be proud of themselves and deal with race issues publically without the media labeling us as racists we will never get over racial issues

again you are talking to a crazy person man, what do I know?

you had me up until the proud part

pride is a sin you know

but yeah go ahead crazy man you have my blessing