The ideology of the TeaParty movement

[african1]

We said it time and time again, many older whites cannot stomach the fact that there exists a black president. So they formed a party.



Ladies and Gentlemen, David Duke, a proud supporter of the tea-party movement.

[hippifried]

I don't think all the teabaggers are klan/nazis, but they have a major infestation problem.

[PomonaCA]

Oh noes! They call me a nazi!

[hippifried]

See something in that statement that you recognize as relating directly to you, do ya?

[PomonaCA]

See something in that statement that you recognize as relating directly to you, do ya?

And don't forget that we're all racist, too.

[african1]

And don't forget that we're all racist, too.

glad to see you finally came clean.

[muhmuh]

the funny thing about colonies is that ultimately history has proven that convicts and hookers are better at running a country than religious nutters

[onmyknees]

We said it time and time again, many older whites cannot stomach the fact that there exists a black president. So they formed a party.



Ladies and Gentlemen, David Duke, a proud supporter of the tea-party movement.

Ok Africa...I'll bite mainly becaue of your ignorance...but let's lay some facts on the table. First off...The TEA Party existed well before Obama was elected, that's just a fact.
Secondly...Obama won the presidency by a coalition, and by attracting white middle calls Americans by the tens of thousands. That too is a fact. Sooo...if we follow your twisted logic, we would have to believe that all these white folks voted for him, only to turn against him one year later? Frankly that's wishful thinking by you, and it's the lazy mans way of explaining Obama's problems with white voters.
Third fact...David Duke may be talking to the Tea Pary, but they ain't listening. Please do some homework and find the research papers done by real researchers who studied the tea party movement. Stop listening to Al Sharpton and playing on You Tube and get informed. Knowledge is a powerful thing.

By assuming you know the motives and desires of Tea Party members and try to explain them by calling them racist is lazy and ignorant. Sorry, but it's much deeper than reaching for the race card like so many blacks and liberals seem to be doing these days. Your tactic of labeling people who disagree with Obama as racist lacks credibility and it's frankly lame an old. Jesse Jacksson has been trying that for years, and he's essentially becaome a side show.That certainly won't stop you from trying though...you're bound and determined to find a racist behind every tree.
Your punishment for being so lazy is to read the following paragraph several times until you understand it. It explains rather nicely what you're trying to do....you seek to depress dissent by trying to play the oldest trick in the book.
"
There is a great deal of genteel moaning in the air about civility, or the lack thereof, in American political life today. One can certainly sympathize with some of it, in the abstract. And yet too often the real object of such talk is the suppression of dissent rather than the improvement of debate, by disparaging the opposition as “uncivil.” That misses the very point of civility and its reason for being. The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard. One of the most blatant violations of the canons of civility in recent years has been the persistent effort to defame conservative policy prescriptions, groups, and movements as toxic, racist, pathological, and unworthy of public standing. We are seeing it happen once again in the sneering treatment of the Tea Party by reporters, pundits, and politicians, as well as, most lamentably, by the president of the United States himself. This is just another example of the persistent compulsion on the part of American liberals to write self-aggrandizing and self-defeating obituaries for ideas that remain stubbornly, persistently, and vigorously alive."

[Amsterdamage]

yeah and to add a little something to it: the Tea Party (which originally is more of a movement rather than a 'party') of nowadays has quite little to do anymore with what the Boston Tea Party used to stand for when it was funded. Same counts for the Republican party by the way. There's a world's difference between what these parties originally stood for and what most members of them stand for today. Unfortunately.

[african1]

Your punishment for being so lazy is to read the following paragraph several times until you understand it. It explains rather nicely what you're trying to do....you seek to depress dissent by trying to play the oldest trick in the book.
"
There is a great deal of genteel moaning in the air about civility, or the lack thereof, in American political life today. One can certainly sympathize with some of it, in the abstract. And yet too often the real object of such talk is the suppression of dissent rather than the improvement of debate, by disparaging the opposition as “uncivil.” That misses the very point of civility and its reason for being. The core value of civility is the concept of a fundamental respect for the opposition’s right to be heard. One of the most blatant violations of the canons of civility in recent years has been the persistent effort to defame conservative policy prescriptions, groups, and movements as toxic, racist, pathological, and unworthy of public standing. We are seeing it happen once again in the sneering treatment of the Tea Party by reporters, pundits, and politicians, as well as, most lamentably, by the president of the United States himself. This is just another example of the persistent compulsion on the part of American liberals to write self-aggrandizing and self-defeating obituaries for ideas that remain stubbornly, persistently, and vigorously alive."

Well maybe it took you a long time and many reads and rereads to slightly comprehend the passage you just posted, but at least have the decency and self-respect to quote the original author of that passage. Or are you going to plagiarize everything written on the subject and call it your own? Will you at last do some original thinking of your own?

For all: the essay was written by Wilfred M. McClay on Commentary Magazine. Unsurprisingly it was the conclusion of his comment as well.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/pr...gerated--15561