Summations Only

Granted. However, this rhetoric is not confined to the likes of Beck and Limbaugh. It permeates the party representatives themselves in the statements of people like Cruz, Gohmert, Bachmann, and so forth. That is what makes it so blatant at this stage. Cruz invokes Nazis in his filibuster in deference to the health care law, saying they tried 'appeasement' to placate to Hitler and that didn't work out so well. Gohmert invokes fear with his 'terror babies' remarks which is essentially creating a strawman to justify his dislike of Hispanics. And Bachmann is so utterly batshit, that we are probably suffering a worldwide guano shortage at this time.The ignorance is not only overly prevalent at this point, it is actually a quality that is being admired by the far right. While this had its origins in the 80s, it has come to a head the moment a black man has taken office.How many Tea Party folks often have signs that state 'Take America Back' or 'I want my America Back'. What drives this hatred and outrage but racism? Were they making similar statements during the Clinton years?Finally, if being fiscally conservative is the main predicate of their movement, than why are SO many Tea Party supporters completely ignorant of the actual state of their own taxes? As yenmor indicated, all this false outrage is little more than a mask to hide their true motives.

That's pretty much the line used by every (bad) politician everywhwere, every time.Locally, we recently had a referendum on building a new water treatment plant. The opposing sides advertised (basically): I vote for the guy who says he's going to raise taxes.Edited by ringo, : Spellng.

Not a single thing in that paragraph actually provides evidence of racism. Invoking Nazis is not evidence of racism, it's evidence of escalating your hyperbole past the point of Godwin's Law. "Terror babies" is just yet more over-the-top rhetoric.You're showing that they're scare-mongers, "terrorists" after a fashion. You aren't saying a single thing that shows them to be racist.I'm sure we'll both agree that they're crazy. But Craziness and racism are not the same thing. The various conservative movements in the US have been praising ignorance and denigrating education and knowledge since long before Obama ran for President. It has, in fact, been largely why the Evolution vs Creation issue has continued to be a current event, and why this site exists. That valuation of ignorance over education did not suddenly become racism when Pbama was elected. ...yes. And Progressives said similar things when Bush was President. Some people mean "take it back from that black guy." But that's not the exclusive meaning, and it's foolish to act like it is. And as I replied to yenmor, this is evidence of ignorance, of being misled, of stupidity. You can't jump from "false argument about state of Federal budget and taxation" to "OMG RACIST!" That's just a simple non sequitur, no matter how many times you say it.

Indeed. Which is why it doesn't become "Racism" just because the President happens to be black this time around, or when Glenn Beck says it, even if Beck is a racist.

And you would not expect it to. Was that not the initial point that it is essentially a subterfuge to mask their true motives? None of them (except for a few) will come right out and say it. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. They are ignorant, that is for sure. And one can argue that they are being misled. But the main point is the level of vitriol with no foundation in logic. Something had to initially rile them up to the point of frenzy. The rhetoric is just the affirmation of their view. You may call in hyperbole or a non sequitor, but I don't agree.Consider the birthers, many of whom are also affiliated with the Tea Party. They still continue to defy logic to this day and denounce Obama's presidency as being legitimate. Was it ignorance that led them to that conclusion? Of course not. It was a response to the shock of seeing someone in public office that didn't look like them. So they started to desperately try to find excuses and evidence of it not being true. Once again, their ignorance and stupidity may assist in their delusion, but ultimately, the core of their dislike of the current President has the same roots. It even now has moved into strong dislike for the First Lady. How many times in the history of this country has the First Lady been the target of that much backlash? The left absolutely despised Dubya, but how many times were they chastising Laura when she went on her little pet projects, which all first ladies do?Anyway, not to draw this out much further as I think we have some different conclusions in regards to the Tea Party. While we may disagree on their motives, we can agree that they are absolutely and to the core frackin nuts.

And yet, Diomedes, you're making a claim, and providing arguments intended to justify that claim....yet your arguments do not actually support the claim.By the logic you're using here, I am a Russian spy...because everything else I do is a subterfuge to mask my true motives, and few Russian spies would just come out and say so.If you have a reason to think that the singular or at least primary motivational factor in the Tea Party is actually racism, you need to explain what that reason is. What you've actually posted are simple post-hoc rationalizations - you're pattern-matching behaviors that fit with the racism hypothesis, but you're neglecting the fact that not a single one of those justifications supports the allegation of racism more than they support the numerous alternative hypotheses I've posted.Racism is not the only possible explanation for the various positions of the Tea Party. It's one, in a large number of alternatives, and none of them are mutually exclusive - Jimmy could be racist, but Johnny could have just heard Jimmy's (as you put it) "smokescreen" argument that Obama is going to raise taxes, and Johnny joins up because he believes a false argument, and isn't particularly racist himself at all. Jimmy and Johnny are both Tea Party members, but it would be inaccurate to say that they're both racist. It takes frighteningly little to rile people up to the point of frenzy. Certainly racism is one way, but racism is not required.All it takes, in fact, are a pair of soccer teams. That's it. How many times have soccer hooligans erupted in not just a rhetorical frenzy, but actual violence simply because the Other Team won/scored/whatever?You don't need anything to whip people into a political frenzy beyond establishing that there are two parties.And our system feeds it with plenty of other reasons to get riled up - abortion, gay rights, religious issues, actual fiscal policy beliefs...any of these and plenty of others are more than sufficient to cause either side of any particular issue to start foaming at the mouth and crying "Nazi." I've heard plenty of my own liberal friends call Bush and Cheney "Nazis," and they didn't need to be racist to do it. And this is the very first example you've given of a Tea Party position that actually stems from racism. Thank you - I was wondering if I'd have to point it out myself.Yet the Tea Party is not solely comprised of birthers. You could perhaps say that the birther movement is racist, but since birthers are just one subset of the Tea Party, you wouldn't be justified in identifying that entire Tea Party as racist, simply because it encapsulates a racist contingent. Americans contain a subset of racists, yet it would be inaccurate to say that "Americans are racist." Some Americans are racist...just as some Tea Party members are racist.ABE: It's not a matter of agreement, Diomedes. Logical fallacies aren;t based on opinion. You made a logical leap - you said "A, therefore B," when there is no actual direct link between A and B. That's a non sequitur. You did that. If you have a problem with having committed a logical fallacy, the appropriate response is to alter your argument so that it does not make an unjustified leap. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

I am afraid you are misconstruing opinion with statements of fact. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my initial statements, but I am not making a point of fact in regards to the Tea Party being inherently racist. I am stating my opinion on the matter based on the evidence I have seen to date. The only way I could ultimately prove the premise would be to ascertain the racial views of every single member of the Tea Party and those that claim affiliation with them. That would be inherently not feasible, now would it?If you read my post, I indicated we can agree to disagree. That in an of itself is an admission on my part that I am not making an outright claim that my view is absolutely correct. It is conceding that we have a difference of opinion on a topic that can only clearly be considered subjective.So to clarify, I am not making a statement of fact that the Tea Party's motives are racist. If I presented my opinion in that way, then it was poorly worded on my part. I am merely asserting what I believe their motive to be based on the evidence at hand, but I am in no way stating unequivocally that I am correct.

I never said it was.

Hi Diomedes,I'm sure that the racist overtones of Tea Party groups is just a function of their hatred for all things progressive. They'll latch on to the most obvious difference - in Obama's case, his mixed parentage, and ride it for all they're worth. They don't see it as racist, in fact the just love this guy, Dr. Carson:Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism - 404 Not Found You know, there are those of us in this society who have told women that there’s a war on them because that cute little baby inside of them, they may want to get rid of it and there are people that are keeping you from doing that, Carson continued. And women say, ‘No, no, they’re not doing that to me! No!’ And they get all riled up.

​

He added there was obviously not a war on women because men give up their seats to pregnant women.

​

There is no war on them, the war is on their babies, Carson insisted. Babies that cannot defend themselves. Over the past few decades, we have destroyed 55 million of them. And we have the nerve to call other societies of the past heathen.

​

What we need to do is re-educate the women to understand that they are the defenders of these babies.If (when) Hillary Clinton is nominated for president, it will quickly flip to a more mysogynistic tone, with digs at her looks & age & shrillness.Sure, they have some racists. It's not the prime motivation, though.

You stay classy, Tea Party.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think there is some plausible deniability behind "take the country back". But there are plenty of racists versions of that statement that are out there. Take it back from the black guy. Or from the Kenyan. Or from the Stealth Muslim. Or he's not one of US.All of those expressions are of a piece, and the most plausible explanation is the racist one. Apparently being Canadian or having Canadian citizenship is perfectly okay. Being African is not.I just don't recall similar forms of expression being thrown at Bush or Clinton. Take America back seems fairly unique.

Hello Rahvin again, I was out all day with my boyfriend so I haven't been able to get back to you until now.When I read your responses to my previous post and Diomedes', I was reminded by my time as a TA in grad school. There was always that one or two students that frequently turned in homework late or not at all, late to class or not show up at all, and did poorly on quizzes and tests. Every instructor knows what I'm talking about. The one universal trait that all these individuals seem to share is they always have an excuse for everything. Every late homework, every missed class, every poor test score had some kind of seemingly legit excuse, whether their girlfriend broke up with them or their grandmother died.What TAs and instructors usually do is they have to take a step back and look at the totality of the circumstance. Looking at each individual mishap and the excuse that followed doesn't really tell you the whole story. You just have to step back and look at the totality of the circumstance.Law enforcement investigators call this circumstantial evidence. In many cases, it is impossible to directly prove a person's guilt. That's why investigators and prosecutors would rely on a circumstantial case.I see the same kind of thing going on here. I provided a string of tea party official positions and how they are bullshit, and you countered saying each individual thing I said could be explained away with ignorance and misinformation. And you are absolutely correct. If you ignore the forest and just focus on the bushes right in front of you, then sure they can all be explained by ignorance and misinformation.I certainly never said racism was the only thing that the tea party was about. I believe there are several things driving the tea party, and some of those things include ignorance and misinformation.But ignorance and misinformation about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 100, etc. different things that all seem to relate back to the first black president? Just exactly how many racist signs do we have to look at before we start thinking there is something more sinister as a driving force for these people than just ignorance and misinformation? Just exactly how many times do we have to tell them that our taxes hasn't increased at all and have actually lowered since Obama took office before we can say "ok, something else is driving these people beside ignorance and misinformation"?I'm not talking about just being riled up. I really like your sports fan example. You are right that it doesn't take much to rile people up. But again, all this 'take our country back' and other misinformed rallying cries we've been seeing from the tea party are all firsts. And coincidentally, these rallying cries happened to show up for the first time when the first black president got elected.Now, had we seen the same sort of frenzy back during the Clinton era, you might have a point for missing the forest. But clearly, this is not the case.

All you folks insisting that the Tea Party is a wholly racist movement are acting like creationists. You are so sure of yourself and your hatred of your opponent is so deep that you will say anythingconcoct anything; construe any evidenceto maintain your position.It's no different than to hear 'Evolutionists are all atheists', and then to hear that position maintained even as numerous religious evolutionists step forward to refute it.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

And I can concede that this is also a possible explanation. It just appears the rhetoric during Obama's tenure has been unusually loud and more prevalent. Perhaps. Although I don't think the GOP would be idiotic enough to take such a hardline against a woman. My suspicion is that they could focus on her age, although that could be deemed hypocritical since McCain was older when he ran and Reagan was almost as old.My guess is they will focus on some of the 'scandals' that existed during the early 90s that involved Hillary. Additionally, there will be more than ample sound bites for them to delve into as a means to discredit her.For the record, from a spectators standpoint, I am actually looking forward more to the Republican primary in 2016 than I am to the Democratic one. And not because I think a great candidate will emerge from their ranks. It was just that the 2012 primary was one of the funniest side shows I have seen in my lifetime as it pertains to politics. Can't wait for the sequel:GOP Primary 2016: Dumb and Dumberer

Hello, Jon, thank you for your post. Unfortunately, the word "all" has never been used by either myself or Diomedes.I've found that simple minded folks have a lot of trouble understanding that the world isn't all or nothing. I try to think of the world as more of a spectrum, with most of it in the gray area.While we certainly do not claim that ALL tea party members are racist, we do claim that the movement itself is heavily to mostly fueled by racism. Take away racism and the movement would poof up in smoke just like that. But since racisms isn't fashionable anymore, they have to put up smokescreens to explain away their frenzies. Please read the 2 previous posts where I explained how we can identify these smokescreens and tell that they are all bullshit.I would also like to add that the reason I do not buy the "ignorance" and "misinformation" as an explanation for their frenzy is because we're not talking about a subject that takes years of schooling and a lifetime of studying and research to understand.It is understandable that some people do not find evolution convincing simply because the subject itself is not black and white like people like to think. I've found that normal people have a lot of trouble understanding something as simple as allele frequency.Or take a look at quantum mechanics. I absolutely do not expect people to understand the first thing about it. Again, it is completely understandable that there are a lot of resistance to the new scientific discoveries in these fields.But what we're talking about here are things that are a lot simpler. Things that are so simple that any idiot could understand. Our taxes have gone down under Obama. Obama has only vetoed twice in theh last 6 years compared to Bushes vetos of 12 times during his 8 years tenure. Bush turned Clinton's surplus into a big debt hole and Obama has halved the deficit. Spending increases have been the lower under Obama than any president since the end of WW2.These are all things that any simple person can understand. This is why I do not buy the ignorance and misinformation as an explanation for the tea party frenzy. The only other explanation for this willful ignorance in the extreme is if they are fueled by something else, something that they can't say it out loud because it's not fashionable. So, they have to resort to willful ignorance and downright lies as smokescreens.Edited by yenmor, : No reason given.