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

[Jeeb]

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

Life has been so hard for us white people, always discriminated against and downtrodden. Why I remember how my grandfather was shot with a fire hose for trying to vote.

[addicted]

you had me up until the proud part

pride is a sin you know

but yeah go ahead crazy man you have my blessing

Thank you sir I appreciate that.

[addicted]

Life has been so hard for us white people, always discriminated against and downtrodden. Why I remember how my grandfather was shot with a fire hose for trying to vote.

I think you missed my point

[Hubbs]

Sure. The decision to invade was voted on and passed by Congress. Both parties, unanimously, voted for it.

You said "Bush did not start those wars." Congress did not declare war. Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force "as he deemed necessary and appropriate." It was up to him.

Assuming a thousand Floridians vote the other way and Gore is president, with the exact same Congress, do you think we would have invaded Iraq?

[jpyaks3]

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.

No you pointed out broad similarities that were true for ever Presidency since World War 2. You haven't pointed out any specific policies or initiatives that are exactly the same as Carters and differ radically from any other President. You have pointed to broad initiatives that every President has undertaken but that doesn't really help your argument that Obama is some radical or Obama is exactly like Carter.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You said "Bush did not start those wars." Congress did not declare war. Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force "as he deemed necessary and appropriate." It was up to him.

Assuming a thousand Floridians vote the other way and Gore is president, with the exact same Congress, do you think we would have invaded Iraq?

The start of those Wars were the result of 9/11. The authority to wage war came from Congress. However, because it was not a Declaration of War, the budget used to fight the War was passed by Congress each year as a separate appropriation. At any time, Congress could have effectively ended the War by simply not funding it. Congress did approve of it and they continued to approve of it all the way down the line. Even today, after promises were made by President Obama, they are still approving funding for it. As Commander in Chief, GWB did have authority on where and how but that doesn't mean Congress did not approve or support it because they did, every step of the way.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No you pointed out broad similarities that were true for ever Presidency since World War 2. You haven't pointed out any specific policies or initiatives that are exactly the same as Carters and differ radically from any other President. You have pointed to broad initiatives that every President has undertaken but that doesn't really help your argument that Obama is some radical or Obama is exactly like Carter.

No, I pointed out the differences in policy from each President. I also pointed out that there could not be SPECIFIC policies between Obama and Carter because of Carter's lack of effective policy making.

I am not arguing anything. Carter and Obama are the same in many, many ways ideologically. Obama is different, by far, in policy from any other President in the history of our country. It is not an argument. It's just how it is.

[Hooper]

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

Truer words have never been written.

[DjTj]

I am not arguing anything. Carter and Obama are the same in many, many ways ideologically. Obama is different, by far, in policy from any other President in the history of our country. It is not an argument. It's just how it is.

So ... what you're saying is that Obama represents change?

[Madison Redskin]

At any time, Congress could have effectively ended the War by simply not funding it.

From a theoretical standpoint, Congress undoubtedly could have stopped the wars by denying the troops funding. However, as a practical matter, just how feasible is it to tell troops in the field, "Hey, go **** yourselves. We are cutting off your funding. Buy a ticket home from Iraq if you want to come home."

[ABQCOWBOY]

So ... what you're saying is that Obama represents change?

Absolutely. I just don't believe it's Change We Can Believe In.

[Hubbs]

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?

I disagree with that last part, or at least with what I believe you're saying.

I'm white, and I honestly don't want a place for white people to try to do what's best for white people, even if it's all with the noblest of intentions. Really, I don't. And that's not because of some sort of white guilt, or because I think it's wrong to think in racial terms at all, or because of some sort of evil liberal agenda that's been stealthily implanted in my mind. It's because I think the whole point of coming to terms with our nation's racial history is aiming to do better. I just want a place to advance people. Just the NAAP. I don't want to define who I'm helping by race. And I know it's completely different for me to say that than it is for a black person to say that, and I know it's because of what people who look like me did to people who don't look like me for hundreds of years. I wish I could change that. I like to think that I do the tiny, tiny things that I can. But if we decide that the sins that came with defining each other by race can be absolved by continuing to emphasize those definitions, well, I don't think we've really learned very much.

[NavyDave]

So the NAACP claims the tea baggers are racist...so the tea baggers reply with a racist, fake letter to Lincoln?

Teabagggers?? Are you calling the packagers of Lipton tea Racists??

Or are you jealous of not participating in said activity??

Man these liberal gay bashers are running a muck.

[NavyDave]

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.

The problem is that Team elephant has fewer true Conservative than those who are in or support the Tea Party.

National Review is very accurate in the upcoming magazine about both parties being viewed as the Ruling class and the priviledged class.

A lot of people would not have thought that Trent Lott would snivel about true conservatives attempting to reshape the GOP until he became another Metro DC lobbyist and his true colors came out.

[addicted]

I disagree with that last part, or at least with what I believe you're saying.

I'm white, and I honestly don't want a place for white people to try to do what's best for white people, even if it's all with the noblest of intentions. Really, I don't. And that's not because of some sort of white guilt, or because I think it's wrong to think in racial terms at all, or because of some sort of evil liberal agenda that's been stealthily implanted in my mind. It's because I think the whole point of coming to terms with our nation's racial history is aiming to do better. I just want a place to advance people. Just the NAAP. I don't want to define who I'm helping by race. And I know it's completely different for me to say that than it is for a black person to say that, and I know it's because of what people who look like me did to people who don't look like me for hundreds of years. I wish I could change that. I like to think that I do the tiny, tiny things that I can. But if we decide that the sins that came with defining each other by race can be absolved by continuing to emphasize those definitions, well, I don't think we've really learned very much.

I completely get you.

The entire idea that white people can get together as a group to talk about white people issues really freaks most people out. It conjures up images of KKK and other disgusting things. Before we can come together as ONE people, we have to be ok with meeting AS a people. Today I have no doubt that any meeting of white people to discuss racial issues would be met with scorn, racism, and hatred within the media and public. The media would not be interested in presenting the truth, not when such idea arouse such feelings. They would capitalize on it, sensationalize it, and make it the new KKK regardless of the message. It would not stand.

The problem with your idea in my opinion is that it's not radical enough to confront racism in America today. If you want to join together and be a group then we need to act like a group first. I attend meetings every day with all mix of people in it. Its not radical to see white people joining a meeting with other people from other ethnic groups in it even joining groups that talk about racial issues. But it would be pretty radical to see white people joining a white people only group to discuss racial issues. That would freak everyone out man. The truth is white men could be in a NAAWP group and have no evil message behind it but the idea would piss people off because we've been brainwashed to think that white men only come together as a white group to do evil. We need to show then that we can come together and discuss white issues and it not be evil at all like the NAACP does. I know this won't ever happen because the media won't allow it to and people wouldn't accept it. But if you want to work on racial issues then the first step is to be ok with white people being a group.

[addicted]

The problem is that Team elephant has fewer true Conservative than those who are in or support the Tea Party.

The problem with this is your average person doesn't know why they see Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham with the Tea Party. All we see is those polarizing people and know they are Republicans. It weakens any chance the TP has for attracting independant voters like myself. As soon as I see any figureheads from that party on the TP I'm much less interested in the TP then I was before. And I mean this no offense to your party (I think your on that side) but to me they are both equally bad and they are the same thing. I'm looking for something different then the same. I don't want the same. The TP was not known as the Republican party in the beginning now it's the same thing. It's weaked the TP imo.

Of course the Republicans want those independant votes so they want to join the TP but for it to have any lasting affect they should have told those popular Elephants to piss off not try and join the party.

Tea Party = Republican party now

That's not good for Tea Partiers.

[ABQCOWBOY]

From a theoretical standpoint, Congress undoubtedly could have stopped the wars by denying the troops funding. However, as a practical matter, just how feasible is it to tell troops in the field, "Hey, go **** yourselves. We are cutting off your funding. Buy a ticket home from Iraq if you want to come home."

Well, you would think that it would pretty much be unthinkable but clearly, it's not. Just earlier this year, the Defense Budget was held up and almost denied until the Jobs Bill got approved as a rider. What you describe was going to happen this year if the GOP did not approve the Jobs bill in conjunction.

[twa]

Tea Party = Republican party now

That's not good for Tea Partiers.

Eh ya'll just need to deal with your issues;)

The Roots of White Anxiety

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[Madison Redskin]

Well, you would think that it would pretty much be unthinkable but clearly, it's not. Just earlier this year, the Defense Budget was held up and almost denied until the Jobs Bill got approved as a rider. What you describe was going to happen this year if the GOP did not approve the Jobs bill in conjunction.

I can't believe you're still trying to argue that Iraq wasn't Bush's baby. Yes, other people paid for the war. Yes, other people helped plan the war. Yes, other people fought the war. And yes, other people died in the war. Ultimately, however, there would never have been a war had Gore, Kerry, Reagan or just about any other politician been in the White House in 2003.

[luckydevil]

I can't believe you're still trying to argue that Iraq wasn't Bush's baby. Yes, other people paid for the war. Yes, other people helped plan the war. Yes, other people fought the war. And yes, other people died in the war. Ultimately, however, there would never have been a war had Gore, Kerry, Reagan or just about any other politician been in the White House in 2003.

Ok, so let's pretend the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act didn't happen

[The Evil Genius]

Ok, so let's pretend the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act didn't happen

Supporting regime change and actually declaring war (or military actions) are two different things.

You know that. So I am not really sure what you are arguing.

[19Skins72]

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.

I voted O and still have a lingering sense that he's done better than McCain would've but OMG that sense is getting more and more thin...at least McCain wasn't a real fiscal conservative, otherwise I'd never forgive myself.

I agree with most of your points but have to skip the fine details cause work keeps dragging me back to lesser issues of importance =p

The one thing we deeply part on is Iraq - that was Bushes war. He sold us all on cherry picked intel. (ignoring German intel. that tore what he had to shreds) and sold us on WMDs and a link to 9/11 - of course we all went along with it, how could we not?

Still, this is about TP and racism for the most part, and I find that whole line of thinking as crap. Yes, some people in the TP are racist, no the group as a whole is not...I think most independants get this. I hope they do - I dont even have a horse in the race (yet) when it comes to TP but it drives me nuts when this kind of crap gains traction.

[jpyaks3]

No, I pointed out the differences in policy from each President. I also pointed out that there could not be SPECIFIC policies between Obama and Carter because of Carter's lack of effective policy making.

I am not arguing anything. Carter and Obama are the same in many, many ways ideologically. Obama is different, by far, in policy from any other President in the history of our country. It is not an argument. It's just how it is.

You have not proved a thing, so you are making an argument, a thin argument based on nothing but broad generalities. And saying that it's just how it is, is a pompous way to avoid backing up your assertions.

Why don't you point out specific policy initiatives that are so radically different from any other President?

You pointed out broad general things like federal involvement in education or social security reform or immigration reform then when presented with the fact that nearly every President since the second world war has grappled with those things you made weak qualifiers about how they didn't do it in exactly the same way that Obama has, which is true but doesn't excuse the fact that your claims that Obama is radically different from every other President is based on the assertion that

Carter supported a World Banking System. Carter supported Government driven Public Education initiatives. Carter supported expansion of Government and Social Programs initiatives. Carter wanted to reform Social Security, he wanted Energy reform, he wrote, what was the basic foundation used by Obama's healthcare reform strategy. Carter's Presidency ran deficits every year he was in office.

The fact is that every President dealt with those exact same issues and supported what you claim only Carter and Obama supported. You still haven't shown in the least why Obama is so radically different from all other Presidents in history. So don't say that "its just how it is" when you haven't backed up your article at all.

[[[ghost]]]

nope nope nope...ONE person replied with a stupid ass letter and they kicked him out.

but nice try on lumping everyone who associates with "Tea Party" with one person.- fail.

If there was any one guy who would speak on Teabaggers behalf, wouldn't it be teh Spokesperson?

[Teller]

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

Affirmative Action.

Race-based scholarships.

Discrimination by ©BCU's. Can you imagine a university that used to be exclusively white returning to that policy? And getting away with it by calling itself "historically" white?

Having its groups assumed racist because of percentage of white membership. (Not only the Tea Parties, but the REPUBLICAN PARTY.)

A DOJ that drops the most blatant case of voter intimidation that I've ever seen AFTER WINNING the case. (And had one if its former lawyers testify under oath that the DOJ will not prosecute any such cases when the defendent is black.)

And someone, IMHO, needs to combat the idea that because we've had slavery and segregation in this country, that THIS generation of white Americans owes a "make-up call" of sorts. This is far more of a perceived problem on my part than an actual hard-fact issue. But then, so is a lot of the discrimination against blacks that is alleged today. (Not saying it ALL is. Not by a longshot. But I don't think the problem is nearly as big as we're led to believe it is.) There's no reason whatsoever for this generation to harbor "white guilt."