Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p
They were wrong and hateful, period. There is nothing else to discuss.
Actually, according to a recent survey conducted by the American Political Science Association as discussed in this
article from the WashingtonTimes.com:
"Academics dub tea partyers devout, racist"
...several professors argued that tea party Republicans are more likely than other voters and more likely than most others in the GOP to harbor racial hostility, as judged by their answers in a broad pre-election survey administered in October.
“Tea Party activists have denied accusations that their movement is racist, and there is nothing intrinsically racist about opposing ‘big government’ or clean-energy legislation or health care reform. But it is clear that the movement is more appealing to people who are unsympathetic to blacks and who prefer a harder line on illegal immigration than it is to other Americans,” Gary C. Jacobson, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, wrote in his paper, “The President, the Tea Party, and Voting Behavior in 2010.”
So, it's not just Rep. Carson who holds this view about some elements within the Tea Party movement.
Sorry, Klan members were largely (D's). Argue all you want that the (D)'s in the klan switched sides later but this claim is absolutely wrong. Byrd was a (D) then just as he was when he died.
See commentary by theplaydrive in post #723.
What if they did? How does what happened 50 years ago justify these hateful words today?
Again, see commentary in post #723. Furthermore, if people within a certain political party are still conducting themselves in a dispicable manner today, wouldn't you want to call them out for it no matter when it happens? It's like saying earmarks shouldn't be allow yet one party continues to use it despite calls to stop the practise by both the opposing political party and the people.
I see, because Rev Wright was black it should have been off limits. It was a very valid point.
If you haven't read or heard the entire serman, then you really have no right to an opinion on the matter. If on the other hand, you have then I have to question how you can still come away thinking anything Rev. Wright said was untrue? Nonetheless, you still didn't answer the question at hand, towit, who really planted the video (snippet) of that sermon? Someone within the Republican party of a Democrat out to win at any cost by planting the seeds of racism? Regardless of who did it, it was wrong because the sermon wasn't a condemnation of America overall, but rather a condemnation of the atrosites committed by this nation's government over the years towhich slavery was just one aspect.
Breitbart has been around for years. Things are taken out of context in politics. It's never a good tactic but it's commonly done. It's always wrong no matter who does it.
Glad we can agree. And with that as a framework for concilation, can we not agree that this very topic is one of those that has been taken way out of context?
I never had a problem, not did I express one for blacks voting for Obama for this reason. Chris Rock was wrong though, he wasn't qualified. I wouldn't qualify what happened here as racism. People were voting for the guy they felt was most like them. It would have only been racism if they would refuse to vote for someone of another race with the same positions. If Obama hadn't run, most of those who voted for Obama would have voted for Hillary.
To that last part in bold, I agree. Which makes the entire racial argument that Blacks voted for Obama just because he was Black all the more odd considering as you well pointed out those same Black voters likely would have voted for Hillary or even John Edwards had he not fallen prey to inmoral behavior.
No way was the reaction an overreaction. As a U.S. Senator you do not falsely accuse anyone of wanting to lynch blacks. You simply do not do that. He's just pissed that people disagree with him and he's lashing out by indefensible means. Yet, some (including yourself) seem to want to try and excuse it.
See the linked article above on the APSA survey and get back to me on that.
There has been racism. There are still far smaller elements. That is no excuse for what he said here. It's no excuse for instittutionalized racist organizations being a part of of our government.
Again, the survey says...
And if you truly feel that strong about not having "instittutionalized racist organizations being a part of of our government," I suggest you start researching the validity of the claims being rendered against the Tea Party membership and vote accordingly come 2012 for those House seats that are up for re-election.
There is no excuse for racism from anyone. Why is that so hard to accept?
To this we 100% agree. So, why are you fighting so hard to defend what appears to be the indefensable?
