Tea Partiers showing their colors.

[Revolverman]

And I take offense to saying anything about Glenn Beck and especially Rush Limbaugh, considering Rush is my political idol. He's one the most intelligent men around and he gets the worst rep from people that are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Oh man. Here, take this Hellfire Power Armor. I think your going to need it.

[Dizzied]

I think the vast majority of people who want freedom and despise tyranny do not support racism.  I suppose its easy to get hot-headed when politicians are debating what to do with money they stole from you.  Those people can think whatever they want, but they give a bad name to the movement when they do something like that.  =\

[Vekseid]

You admitted yourself that the report made it sound much worse than it was.  It seems like this was just a few jackasses at a demonstration.  What action would you like the right wing leaders to take?

Actively renounce the racist demographic, and renounce the calls for armed revolution. I wonder if the people holding up the picture of Dachau at Bachman's rally would have cheered to the phrase "All Americans should know that work makes freedom."

Arbeit macht frei.

It does.  The 40% figure is in response to being asked "how much the federal government gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product".  What does this prove?  I'm going to be completely honest here and say it doesn't surprise me that your average tea partier cannot accurately nail this figure.  (I would be amazed if your average US Elliquian could.)  When asked how much the average family pays in taxes, the Tea Partiers you're sneering at said "between 20% and 25% of income" which is spot on according to the CBO.

That wasn't the answer to the same question. That is still a horribly misinformed answer:

To follow up, Tea Partyers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710, the median $10,000. In percentage terms this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further.

According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

Actually I'd have to say it's downright self-deceptive. As a self employed person, I'm rather aware that it takes quite a bit before the government takes a significant amount of income taxes. Sales taxes piss me off far more than income taxes do, aside from the mess (I would firmly support a flat tax with a 90k + 30k per dependent exemption). I'm pretty sure that a lot of Americans are actually paying more in sales taxes than they are in income taxes. I pay it out of both ends - it's basically a 14% tax that I have no control over (I pay it on a portion of my income, and then again when I buy goods).

I think it's stupid to group all of them as saying that stuff. Not all of them say that stuff and most just wanted that stupid bill to not pass, but alas, it did because some congressmen can't hold their ground. I've been to a protest before and I can say not all Tea Party folks are like that.

And I take offense to saying anything about Glenn Beck and especially Rush Limbaugh, considering Rush is my political idol. He's one the most intelligent men around and he gets the worst rep from people that are dumber than a bag of hammers.

How do you take offense in someone else's name? What sort of sense does that make? Are their (many) words sacred for some reason?

Rush Limbaugh is intelligent. That does not excuse his bigotry. The only thing he's got going for him is that he is consistent.

Glenn Beck will crash and burn on his own. He takes a paycheck from a company in cahoots with communist China. I doubt he minds, but he's eventually going to make a choice between two alternative statements and pick the wrong one, probably because he's brought himself to a point where there is no right statement to make.

[HockeyGod]

I think that it is unfortunate that these things happen. I also don't dismiss the comments by Representatives of the use of derogatory terms, but I also put it into context.

The same polarization occurred in 1935 with the passage of OASDI (Social Security) and in 1965 with the passage of Medicare & Medicaid during The Great Society.

I, for one, have not seen any rationality out of the Tea Party Movement which relies on fear mongering and bully tactics.

Shame.

[Remiel]

I think we should be very careful about making sweeping generalization fallacies here simply because we disagree with certain ideologies.

Namely, assigning characteristics to everyone who opposes the health care reform legislation, or even just everybody who identifies with the Tea Party, based on the actions of a very vocal few.  Although yelling out racial epithets, or even just trying to shout down political opponents, is certainly a deplorable debate tactic, I can't help but feel like this whole thread is trying to say that everybody in the Tea Party is a racist bigot.  Which they may be, I simply don't know;  but I'm certain that one can have perfectly valid reasons for opposing the health care legislation without being painted with the same wide brush.

[DrFier]

I don't think anyone is implying that all tea-partiers are racists/terrorists, but any political group that has members leaning in that direction probably has something wrong with it.

[Vekseid]

I think we should be very careful about making sweeping generalization fallacies here simply because we disagree with certain ideologies.

Namely, assigning characteristics to everyone who opposes the health care reform legislation, or even just everybody who identifies with the Tea Party, based on the actions of a very vocal few.  Although yelling out racial epithets, or even just trying to shout down political opponents, is certainly a deplorable debate tactic, I can't help but feel like this whole thread is trying to say that everybody in the Tea Party is a racist bigot.  Which they may be, I simply don't know;  but I'm certain that one can have perfectly valid reasons for opposing the health care legislation without being painted with the same wide brush.

I probably come off as more hostile to tea partiers in general than I should - I apologize for that. The leadership, however - those directing the movement - are quite responsible for this. For not condemning it, for not pointing out the obvious fact behind all of this if this language gets taken to its conclusion.

And, in turn, the general membership is likewise responsible for choosing its leaders.

Fun fact: John F Kennedy was an extremely unpopular president. Then someone killed him.

The only thing that could be worse for the conservative movement in this country than an assassination, is someone's family dying over this.

If someone's daughter dies, there will be no tolerance for 'buts'.

If someone's brother dies, there will be no respect for 'yets'.

Good luck with discourse then.

[September]

This is like a Two Minutes Hate that doesn't stop after two minutes.

Vekseid, are you also angry that prominent Democrats aren't condemning violence and death threats used against Republicans?

Jim Bunning receives bomb threats

Threatening voice mail left for Jean Schmidt

Bullet shot through Eric Cantor's office window

Did the left wing leadership stand up and denounce open calls for violence at demonstrations like this?


Seems like you would like the right to be held to a much higher standard of conduct than the left.

[Vekseid]

This is like a Two Minutes Hate that doesn't stop after two minutes.

Vekseid, are you also angry that prominent Democrats aren't condemning violence and death threats used against Republicans?

Like this?

Political Violence: Pelosi Tears Up

What leaders, on the left, have called for something anywhere remotely comparable to O'Reilly talking about Nancy Pelosi's head bobbing up and down in Boston Harbor?

Threats have quadrupled against Obama.

Jim Bunning receives bomb threats

All I can find is stuff copied from this
http://www.wtvq.com/news/2432-bomb-threat-at-bunnings-hazard-office-

Do you have any more details?

Random violence and threats of violence never help.

Threatening voice mail left for Jean Schmidt

There isn't a threat against a specific person in the audio of that. It is certainly threatening. How does it compare to threatening to snipe Louis Slaughter's family, or calling Tom Perriello's brother, after his gas lines had been cut, 'collateral damage'?

Bullet shot through Eric Cantor's office window

As I understand it, it's known now that that was simply a stray bullet.

Did the left wing leadership stand up and denounce open calls for violence at demonstrations like this?

That was seven years ago, as near as I can tell looking for that image. I remember it being discussed but I'd hate to go on memory.

Seems like you would like the right to be held to a much higher standard of conduct than the left.

Compare the response to these two incidents:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0715-07.htm

I'll be happy when the third-way movement masquerading as the 'right' in this country actually is held to the same standard.

[dorthyinwonder]

I want to go on record as saying I'm not affiliated with either party. I have gone to a local Young Republicans meeting when the group was created, and while it was interesting to observe (it was for a government course at school) and the people were interesting to meet, I don't find myself classifying myself as a Republican. I've never really been drawn to either side.

Having said that, I want to point out that Rep. Nancy Pelosi didn't outright condemn the behavior, particularly not passionately as one would imagine. She simply stated that one should take responsibility for their words and consider the audience. I think her point was a very good one, however, and one that I'm sure was taken into consideration beforehand. Grassrooting (I know, its not a real word, but go with me here) is a practice to get those that are a bit less educated about the issues to take a stand. I can see why the protests are getting as out of hand as they are - when you throw political temper tantrums, people see...people pay attention. I mean, the Republicans have chanced their reputation on these outbursts...from Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during President Obama's Healthcare Reform speech last September, but I think a lot of people realize that its not the entirety of Republicans (or Democrats) that act like this.

Yes, when I was observing the Young Republicans for my class, I was invited to a Tea Party (and a GOP picnic)...and to be honest, I almost went. I don't do things alone and if I had someone to go with me, I would have. I wouldn't have acted foolishly or even picketed or shouted or joined in the tea-party festivities, but I think it would've been interesting to experience firsthand and I do kind of regret not going.

I digress,  the point here is that you guys are doing just what is intended by these outbursts. You're pointing to these few cases and highlighting them over all the other ones that didn't make such a fuss. The parties can always just throw their hands up and claim, "We're not responsible for the individual, so don't hold their actions against us!" and isolate themselves from the problem-protesters. I imagine they do it all the time. Politically speaking, which is better? - to isolate yourself from a problem person or to stand behind them and chastise them for their behavior when the whole world knows that you can't do anything about it? When the person is nothing more than a name that's causing your image problems, I don't think you'd have any problems isolating yourself from them.

Oh, and by the way, racial and sexual slurs and opinions should never be dragged into politics. But its hard for some of them to hold true to that when that's the only advantage they have over their opponent, you know? I mean, its not often you hear about a white man (or woman) getting elected Representative of a predominantly Hispanic or African-American area...or vice-versa.

And I didn't hear anything about the "N-word" in the videos...all I heard was "Kill the bill"...

Quite honestly, I hate the reform. It was pushed through too quickly and I hope it gets overturned when the Republicans take back over. I think Obama is the stupidest man (or maybe his speech-writer is) for making the argument that mandatory health care is the same as mandatory auto insurance. I could've slapped that man silly for saying that. Property taxes are the same as  Auto Insurance...not mandatory healthcare. You're equivocating an optional fee with a mandatory one and there is no way that flies. Furthermore, when you purchase car insurance, the minimum requirement is liability (If I'm not mistaken), which is to protect the other driver when you're at fault. How is this even close to an insurance policy you're required to purchase to cover yourself?

Furthermore, if you don't want to pay the car insurance, the solution is simple - don't get a car. Rely on public transportation or greener methods of getting around (i.e. bicycling, rollerskating or walking). How in the world are you supposed to get around having mandatory health coverage? O.o  Are you supposed to...cease living? (I don't suggest this as a solution, btw)

I'm alright if the government wants to take complete control over the health care system, offering free life to death coverage for all citizens. Raise taxes to cover the cost, etc., I'm good with all that. But don't push through a piece of legislation that's only been half-assed, especially when half the country is rallying against it.

In an instance like this, I think it should've been something that should have never passed unless the people were behind it...
<.<
>.>
I know I probably shouldn't have included this last bit (which is why I'm making it smaller), but I just wanted to say *something* about it.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I have some points to make.   Or some questions to be answered.

The tea party movement calls for less involvement of federal government right?.     The current state of economy and the bail outs.  Is a direct result of less government in deregulations right.   So how going back to that is going to allow the economy to grow again in a safe manner.   Did not Smith himself the father of modern day capitalism.   Say that proper balance needed to be maintain less each side fall to far and thus the break down.

How is it that half the nation opposes the health bill.  Because some one yells the loudest and throws the biggest fit.  Does not mean they are a majority.   

The health bill how many really have read it.  Instead of listen extractions taken in half truths, from either side.    From digging a bit.  On the mandatory requirement of health insurance.  What I can gather only those making over 100,000.00  will be fined.   So what penalty is going to effect the rest.    This is done to insure those that can do acquire health insurance as not to burden medicaid as in the past.     While taxes to support this bill is being raised amongst those single at 200,000.00 and families of 250,000.00 and over.

You can cry that it is not your intent.  But words do incite and instigate.    History bares witness to this. 

[Remiel]

Fringe extremists threatening violence against political leaders is nothing new.  I remember, during the eight years of the Bush administration, many many examples of bumper stickers, signs and banners which said everything from "impeach Bush" to "Bush is a Nazi" to "Fuck Bush" or worse.  I hated it then, even as I hate the anti-Obama extremism now.  But, as September pointed out, I don't remember any left-wing leaders denouncing that type of rhetoric.

In this country, we do have the freedom to express our opinions, as distasteful as they may sometimes be.  And although there are limits to this freedom, merely expressing the desire to see a public figure dead is not (at least as far as I know, anyway) a crime. 

On a side note, I did see this article on TPM, which is encouraging.  But there will always be idiot extremists on both sides of the political spectrum that will go just a bit too far in their protest, and that is a shame and a tragedy.  But to claim that the Tea Party movement is unique in the extent of its vitriol is, simply, false.  It's human nature to be emotionally invested in one's own opinions and beliefs, and when one does that, there is always a tendency to forgive the shortcomings and rogue elements of one's own side while decrying those on the opposing side.

[Jude]

But to claim that the Tea Party movement is unique in the extent of its vitriol is, simply, false.

What're you basing this on exactly?  Until you have actual information to point to that contains numbers, that's an opinion, not a fact.  Granted, you could be right.  It's even possible that left-wing protesters were worse than the Tea Party, but the jury is still out on that.

It's just as ridiculous to take one or two points of data and extrapolate an opinion on an entire political movement as it is to take no data and make the same claim.  You're committing the same logical mistakes you're rallying against:  making big claims without solid data to back them up.

[Remiel]

What're you basing this on exactly?  Until you have actual information to point to that contains numbers, that's an opinion, not a fact.  Granted, you could be right.  It's even possible that left-wing protesters were worse than the Tea Party, but the jury is still out on that.

It's just as ridiculous to take one or two points of data and extrapolate an opinion on an entire political movement as it is to take no data and make the same claim.  You're committing the same logical mistakes you're rallying against:  making big claims without solid data to back them up.

What sort of numbers are you looking for?  There are lots of anecdotal examples if you look at the link in my previous post -- just as the examples provided by Vekseid were anecdotal.  I suppose you use the claim that the threats against Obama are four times what they were against Bush, but according to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, this is not in fact the case.

The one thing that the Tea Partiers may have that the anti-Bush protestors didn't is a charismatic, controversial personality with a nationally syndicated television and radio program goading them on, but anyone who believes everything that Glenn Beck tells them will never have my support--just as anyone who believes everything that Michael Moore spouts will never have my respect.  They are both entertainers, pseudojournalists, more concerned with making money than with effecting real social change.

[Jude]

What sort of numbers are you looking for?

The ones that prove that the tea party is no more "vitriolic" than other political movements--you know, what you were just claiming.

There are lots of anecdotal examples if you look at the link in my previous post -- just as the examples provided by Vekseid were anecdotal.  I suppose you use the claim that the threats against Obama are four times what they were against Bush, but according to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, this is not in fact the case.

The threats against Obama and Bush have absolutely nothing to do with this.  We don't know if the threats against either of them were/are delivered by Tea Party People/Liberals.

The one thing that the Tea Partiers may have that the anti-Bush protestors didn't is a charismatic, controversial personality with a nationally syndicated television and radio program goading them on, but anyone who believes everything that Glenn Beck tells them will never have my support--just as anyone who believes everything that Michael Moore spouts will never have my respect.  They are both entertainers, pseudojournalists, more concerned with making money than with effecting real social change.

I don't know if the Tea Partiers are worse than Liberals.  I definitely don't think they're any worse than the "9/11 Truthers," but I do equate them in a way that many people would believe to be unfair.  It's perfectly valid to object to my viewpoint there also, because I don't have the facts to back up this opinion.  It's based on a comparison of rhetoric.

Anecdotal information doesn't prove a trend.  It simply proves the existence of particular cases.  It can show that generalizations aren't true (case in point:  the news articles on this thread show that not all of the Tea Partiers are tolerant).

A simple measure would be:  Total Number of Racist Incidents in all Tea Party Protests/Total Amount of Time That the Tea Partiers Spent Protesting.  Then you'd need to divide that by the populations of each group as well.  Then if that number was larger for the same calculation by the 9/11 Truthers (or liberals in general) then you could say the Tea Partiers are more racist than other groups (according to the approximation).  It would still be up for debate regardless, but if the numbers were comparable, you would have some facts to lend credence to your claim.

[Trieste]

I think the correlation between the number of threats delivered against Obama and the "no more vitriolic" argument is pretty clear. One would think that if the Tea Party were more extremist, more vocal, and more active than other parties in the past, then there would be a marked increase of threats against the president. There are not. Therefore it is less likely that the Tea Party is more vocal than other anti-establishment parties. Of course it doesn't prove things conclusively but it's a step toward the logic.

[Vekseid]

The ones that prove that the tea party is no more "vitriolic" than other political movements--you know, what you were just claiming.

Err. You need to prove that something is out of the ordinary, not prove that something isn't. Present the number and scale of threats and actions that people associated with the Tea Party have performed and then ask for people claiming that it's no more exceptional than mainstream left wing criticism to provide a similar number and scale of incidents.

I do think the Tea Party, and those driving it, have been exceptionally vitriolic and more prone to violence - and worse violence - than any other mainstream political wing of America since the civil rights era. The onus is on me to present that, however, and I only have so much time to dig up the plethora of crap.

I think the correlation between the number of threats delivered against Obama and the "no more vitriolic" argument is pretty clear. One would think that if the Tea Party were more extremist, more vocal, and more active than other parties in the past, then there would be a marked increase of threats against the president. There are not. Therefore it is less likely that the Tea Party is more vocal than other anti-establishment parties. Of course it doesn't prove things conclusively but it's a step toward the logic.

Well, Remiel's article did point out that threats to Obama were unusually high during the campaign, then immediately before and after the inauguration. Given that that article comes several months later, it might be that the Secret Service thought that they were going to have a much tougher time on their hands, and the time it took from that leak to publication took longer.

That said, I was around during the kuro5hin "threat" incident. Comparing that to the videos of people firing automatic weapons in their threats that I've seen, I'm not exactly convinced that the situation for Obama, personally, is not more serious. I don't think any threat against Bush I've seen involved an automatic.

[Jude]

Err. You need to prove that something is out of the ordinary, not prove that something isn't. Present the number and scale of threats and actions that people associated with the Tea Party have performed and then ask for people claiming that it's no more exceptional than mainstream left wing criticism to provide a similar number and scale of incidents.

I do think the Tea Party, and those driving it, have been exceptionally vitriolic and more prone to violence - and worse violence - than any other mainstream political wing of America since the civil rights era. The onus is on me to present that, however, and I only have so much time to dig up the plethora of crap.

Yeah, you're right about that.  I don't have the data to back up my view.  I'll fully admit it's just an opinion.  I'm extremely bothered by all of the Obama-Hitler comparisons, the Socialist Rhetoric, and the Communist imagery.  This Healthcare plan might not be purely capitalist, but it's far from the most Socialist option.  Both the Public Option and Single Payer were rejected offhand, they are the most extreme liberal answers to this problem, so the hyperbole is completely ridiculous.

On a more inclusive note, I think the 9/11 Truthers were pretty ridiculous as well.  Anyone who called Bush a Nazi was an idiot.  People who claimed malevolent intentions were being overly cynical and not giving the Republicans the benefit of doubt.  The bottom line is, that sort of venom should have no place in our political discourse whether it's being spewed by a Republican or a Democrat.  It doesn't even matter which is worse to me, because ultimately neither is acceptable in my view.

((EDIT:  That's not to say I'm against their right to free speech.  I'm not.  I just think they should be politically marginalized in a way that respects their rights by the rest of us.))

It's fair to criticize many things about this bill.  It certainly moves the country to the left, has the possibility of increasing the debt if the CBO's projections turn out to be false, and raises taxes.  This healthcare bill does increase the size of government.

I just wish the opposition would recognize the basic reality of the situation:  the Democrats are doing this because they think it's a necessary step, not because they want government to be a monolithic entity--no one's for a larger government than they believe is necessary.  Obama does not believe in Facism, Obama does not believe in Communism, and we're already a Democratic-Socialist Republic (hello USPS).  We're arguing about the extent of Socialism, not a fundamental transformation.

Also people need to stop glorifying our Founding Fathers.  They held slaves, didn't let women vote, and were acting in a completely reactionary fashion to their previous governance by a Monarchy.  They had some great ideas, laid out an excellent set up for us to follow (after failing once, Articles of Confederation anyone?), then got out of the way and let other American Pioneers take this country where it is today.  They are not solely responsible for our success.  Any one generation could've been the death of America, but none of them were.  We owe the continuation of America's existence to our fathers every bit as much as we owe it to our Founding Fathers.  It only takes one weak link in the chain to destroy our collective, national dream of freedom.

p.s. I think the people of this generation on both sides of the aisle who debate in a civil manner work to this end every day.