Just finished reading, what I thought was an interesting article in the NYT about the Tea Party Movement. It looks at the complexities and diversity of the movement. Whether you think it is fair or foul is up to you. But, thought I'd share it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

Good read.

Quite a good read. I have often wondered about what appears to be a glaring lack of minorities in the many "Tea Party" incarnations around the country. Perhaps minorities haven't lost anything in this recession and aren't mad. Perhaps they simply aren't welcome, as they might dilute the purity of the membership. I don't know. Perhaps someone can enlighten me about this. It seems that every time I see an article about this movement every face I see is white. Why is that?

Interesting article. I seem to agree with many of the things these groups protest. And St. Louie, I think it is mostly white people because it is most republicans and independents, and most black peoploe are democrats. I highly doubt they are unwelcomed. I'm sure the movement would rather have more people in it then to discriminate. Not sure why race was even brought up. Purity of the membership? Give me a break.

iclfan2 wrote: I think it is mostly white people because it is most republicans and independents, and most black peoploe are democrats. They seem to like the government teet. I highly doubt they are unwelcomed. I'm sure the movement would rather have more people in it then to discriminate. Not sure why race was even brought up. Purity of the membership? Give me a break.

This.

Can it be racist if it's simply following statistics? A majority of blacks are democrats. But that won't stop "baiters" from running with it.

iclfan2 wrote: Interesting article. I seem to agree with many of the things these groups protest. And St. Louie, I think it is mostly white people because it is most republicans and independents, and most black peoploe are democrats. They seem to like the government teet. I highly doubt they are unwelcomed. I'm sure the movement would rather have more people in it then to discriminate. Not sure why race was even brought up. Purity of the membership? Give me a break.

I understand what you're saying, but i think what i bolded is highly unfair.

Just as ridiculous as what you're complaining about in regards to "race being brought up."

When the article mentions the John Birch Society it automatically brings up race. I don't think there were many card-carrying blacks, Hispanics or Asians in the JBS either. Do you think it's a coincidence that the teabaggers are speaking up now that an African-American occupies the Oval Office? I can see why you wouldn't admit to the reasons why minorities aren't part of this movement, but it's glaringly obvious. There is a common thread with just about all of the teabaggers, but nobody wants to say it out loud.

^^^^

That has to be right, with the obviously booming economy and the government wisely reducing spending and the national debt, its apparent that all these teabaggers are racist. They just need to be re-educated that the country is going in the perfect direction and that they should all be happy, especially those funemployed.

cbus4life wrote: I understand what you're saying, but i think what i bolded is highly unfair.

Just as ridiculous as what you're complaining about in regards to "race being brought up."

I agree it wasn't necessary, and kind of a shot, I will edit it. As for the other part of your post, I wasn't complaining, I'm just tired of the constent race card being played.

I also think that black people and hispanics are less involved in politics as a whole too. Which could explain why they aren't at Tea Party rallies.

St Louie, you must just not be that bright. Obviously white fringe groups would agree with the tea party because they are "right-wing". You are just crying racism for no reason.

So a lack of a particular race automatically means there's racism involved?

Does that mean when you have nearly 100 percent of blacks voting for one black candidate it's also racism?

The ONLY reason race is brought into any of this is because it's a way (a tactic consistently used by liberals over the years) to discredit and/or disparage the group.

How about we discuss the actual reasons these folks are getting together, instead of inventing ways to smear them.

Yeah, race was not the focus of the article. Let's try and steer back to the article.

I have no doubt that race is an issue with a portion of the "tea partiers." I know a few "tea party" people, and I am confident that race is part of it with them. All I hear from them is anti-Obama fear mongering rhetoric...nothing to do with "Taxed Enough Already". I doubt they are the only ones in the whole movement who feel that way. I'm sure that some of the members are there for genuine reasons, but to pretend that race is not an issue for a certain percentage of the tea party followers is disingenuous, IMO. This has been my experience, and if someone wants to provide evidence that this is just an isolated few people who feel this way, I'm all ears.

Ronald Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ALL increased government spending and the national debt many times over. There were no "tea parties" going on when they were in office. If these people would have been rallying and been pissed off at the government like this for the past 30 years, I would lend it more credibility. I know...someone is going to mention some obscure protest group that has been around forever to legitimize that his kind of sentiment has been around for years. Why is this movement just now taking off when things have been headed this direction for the better part of 30 years?

These protests would not be a quarter of the size they are today had John McCain won the Presidency and enacted the exact same policies that Obama has to this point...of this I am certain.

None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

You're telling me the Patriot Act didn't intervene on the private sector?

Notice the "Thank you Glenn Beck" sign. I suppose there could be signs offering praise for Thomas Sowell in the back but I have my doubts.

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

You're telling me the Patriot Act didn't intervene on the private sector?

Not financially.

With weapons ... right is right

I admire the movement, and really enjoyed the article, but it was disturbing how many references there were to "Glen Beck" and how he has "shown them the light."

Not the man that i would want to be ideological figurehead for a so-called "revolution."

Beck is in it for the money and exposure, nothing more, nothing less.

derek bomar wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

You're telling me the Patriot Act didn't intervene on the private sector?

Seriously...that's the best you can come up with?

Not good, bro.

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

First of all, these are not close personal friends...more like acquaintances, neighbors, and family friends. Could that be why these people I know hate Obama? Sure, it could be. Let's just say I have heard enough questionable language regarding black people from these people to highly doubt it.

It's also very tiresome that people on the right try to pretend that our current situation is all the other side's fault, and only really get pissed about it when the other party is in power. It shows a higher concern for party than country.

It's also very tiresome to see very complex issues reduced to labeling like "socialist, Marxist, communist, etc.",

It's tiresome to see Republican congressmen vote against issues that they sponsored in the name of short term political expediency.

I could go on and on, but that's not the point of this thread. I continue to ask "where was the outrage?..." as our previous three Republican Presidents buried us in debt...only to hear deafening silence from the Tea Party advocates who just magically became furious about a year ago...

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: None of those folks intervened into the private sector -- or attempted to insert government into the private sector -- as much as Obama has.

Could it POSSIBLY be that that is why your friends are so scared of Obama, as opposed to him simply being black?

It's too easy and convenient for folks on the left to automatically race bait on this -- and it's both tiresome and disgusting.

First of all, these are not close personal friends...more like acquaintances, neighbors, and family friends. Could that be why these people I know hate Obama? Sure, it could be. Let's just say I have heard enough questionable language regarding black people from these people to highly doubt it.

It's also very tiresome that people on the right try to pretend that our current situation is all the other side's fault, and only really get pissed about it when the other party is in power. It shows a higher concern for party than country.

It's also very tiresome to see very complex issues reduced to labeling like "socialist, Marxist, communist, etc.",

It's tiresome to see Republican congressmen vote against issues that they sponsored in the name of short term political expediency.

I could go on and on, but that's not the point of this thread. I continue to ask "where was the outrage?..." as our previous three Republican Presidents buried us in debt...only to hear deafening silence from the Tea Party advocates who just magically became furious about a year ago...

Good point about the previous Republican administrations. I just wonder which one of those 20 years of running up the debt was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I think a good point to make is that in the article it clearly said they were targeting both Dems and Reps with the ideology of big gov't. Limited government is clearly a conservative value, not necessarily a Rep value anymore (hence the term neocon). These people want control of their lives back and are tired of what is going on in Washington. It's not 100% about Obama (though a push to the left does scare many conservatives), it's about what's been happening over the past 30+ years, maybe more.

It was a good article, and though I don't advocate violence, there may come a time when a physical revolution comes. Our forefathers did it and proved it can work and produce a free country. Thomas Jefferson said it best.... “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Do you guys honestly think that a "violent revolution" could happen?

Seems a little much, we still have liberty, better than can be found anywhere else in the world. Yea, changes should be made, and i think are in the process of being made, that is what this movement is showing.

But, if a "violent revolution" were to begin, we would be the laughing-stock of the entire universe. The most prosperous nation on Earth, incredibly high standard of living, etc., etc., rebelling in violence.

Yes, they can advocate for change all they want, and good for them, but i think the idea of violence is ridiculous.

Unless, of course, you believe some of the BS about internment camps, Interpol becoming Obama's personal police force, etc.

Make change at the polls, it is already going to happen in 2010 and possibly in 2012. Violence is absolutely not necessary.

And, if i see another person quote Jefferson one more damn time, i'm going to puke.

We all know he said it, we all know what it means and why it applies. A great quote. But, come on.

I'm buying ammo ........
Sig .45 ...........2000 rounds
Sig 9MM ........3000 rounds

If i get the Sig556......I pick up another 3000 round

Never hurt to be prepared............but it will hurt not to be

Yes, the changes can happen at the polls. and more than likely will in 2010/2012.

Here's the big question. Will those elected vow to make the changes needed to turn this ship around, or will they, as those that have gone before them, become drunk with the power and money that is DC???

The Tea Party is just one of many grassroots efforts used by "average Joe's" to try and make a difference. PK's have tried....Million/thousand Man March tried....Hope and Change tried....etc etc etc.