• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

My defense here was only to show exactly what Rep. Carson said, not to prove which Tea Party congressman/woman his accusation was directed at. You want to know exactly who the man was speaking about, you'll need to ask him.
Horse****. "but what he said was truthful". Your words. So...show me the money. SHow me thesde racist Tea Party congressmen that want to see blacks lynched. That want to see Jim Crow laws enforced. Your statement endorses his words. Pathetic.
 
We could have saved a ton of posting if that had been your position from the beginning.

I don't think the Tea Party wants to lynch blacks or return to the Jim Crow era. Andre Carson is just plain wrong :shrug:

Still not fond of the Tea Party though.

So, for the record, I believe Carson is wrong and that he should apologize.
 
Thats racist to you??? (Re: "tar-baby" reference to President Obama)

From the ColoradoSprings Gazette article linked in post #759:

Though “tar baby” is defined in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “something from which it is nearly impossible to extricate oneself,” it has also long been recognized as a derogatory term for blacks.

Once you go in that direction, it's very difficult to be viewed as anything but a racist.

Tar baby...money...ape...Sambo...welfare president...

All such connotations denote racism.
 
Last edited:
well, now you're just being obtuse. And as I pointed out before, there's a distinction between nativism and racism. And it doesn't take a genius to that nativism and xenophobia still exist in large segments of America. FFS it exhibits itself right here on this forum.
Obtuse? Why...because you think it is APPROPRIATE to use a study to label Tea Party members as racist based on some study by a group you know nothing about that uses vague genaralizations and NOT to other groups? You can express bigotry towards Tea Party participants (and be VERY clear...you are endorsing the congressmans comments and calling people you cant identify and dont know "racists") and dont think that is the same as someone saying that since there are so many blacks in prison it sure says a lot about blacks? Geeeezus, SB...really?
 
Thats racist to you???

“I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it — you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away,” Lamborn said. “I don’t want that to happen to us (Republicans), but if it does, or not, he’ll still get — properly so — the blame, because his policies, for four years, will have failed the American people.”

Please by all means cite when this went from being an apt descriptor of a no win situation where once you get in you are stuck and cant get out to "well...some people believe it is a racist comment." And please tell me what other positions Congressman Lamborn has taken that are racist. The floor is all yours.

Read more: Lamborn calls Obama a "tar baby" | lamborn, obama, rep - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

Did you bother to read the article in its entirety?
 
From the ColoradoSprings Gazette article linked in post #759:



Once you go in that direction, it's very difficult to be viewed as anything but a racist.

Tar baby...money...ape...Sambo...welfare president...

All are connotation denoting racism.
Hell son...you are using descriptive words seen here by Hatuey describing other 'blacks'. His comments were 'racist' because you WANT them to be. But seriosuly...THATS your defense? A congressman from Colorado uses the term Tar baby and you use TAHT to justify your defense that Tea Party Members want to Lynch black folk? Pathetic.
 
Did you bother to read the article in its entirety?
I did. And I ask again...WHEN did the term Tar Baby go from the meaning ascribed in the Uncle Remus story to being a racist term that people like you use to justify your bigotry against an entire group of people?
 
"Welfare president" is racist?
 
So, for the record, I believe Carson is wrong and that he should apologize.

Hey, sorry. My post was addressed to the wrong person. Yes, I've had no problems with your position. My bad.
 
Obtuse? Why...because you think it is APPROPRIATE to use a study to label Tea Party members as racist based on some study by a group you know nothing about that uses vague genaralizations and NOT to other groups? You can express bigotry towards Tea Party participants (and be VERY clear...you are endorsing the congressmans comments and calling people you cant identify and dont know "racists") and dont think that is the same as someone saying that since there are so many blacks in prison it sure says a lot about blacks? Geeeezus, SB...really?

Vance, you need to chill out and actually read what I say. I called no-one racist. There is EVIDENCE that Tea Party members exhibit xenophobia and nativism more so than the average population. That is CLEARLY a GENERALIZATION, as I have freely admitted.

Saying that blacks are overrepresented in the prison population merely means that blacks are criminalized more (meaning they are either caught committing crimes more, or actually committing crimes more). It really says nothing about black people beyond that. Any further conclusions an individual wishes to draw beyond that is just bull****.
 
Did you bother to read the article in its entirety?
"Lamborn isn't the only politician to ever land in hot water by using those two words. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was lambasted in 2006 for using the phrase in reference to a construction project, and U.S. Sen. John McCain had to apologize in 2007, during his presidential run, for using it in reference to divorces."

Oh...but he is a RACIST. Calling a divorce a Tar Baby is a code word for John McCain hates black people (and you know how he feels about Tea Party people...right?) and Mitt Romney calling a construction project a "Tar Baby" also is just code for "republicans unite and string up black folks!" Good lord.

Read more: Lamborn calls Obama a "tar baby" | lamborn, obama, rep - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
 
Vance, you need to chill out and actually read what I say. I called no-one racist. There is EVIDENCE that Tea Party members exhibit xenophobia and nativism more so than the average population. That is CLEARLY a GENERALIZATION, as I have freely admitted.

Saying that blacks are overrepresented in the prison population merely means that blacks are criminalized more (meaning they are either caught committing crimes more, or actually committing crimes more). It really says nothing about black people beyond that. Any further conclusions an individual wishes to draw beyond that is just bull****.
SB...you need to stop defending the indefensable. Using an argument by an idiotic congressman as a platform to launch your own bigoted attack is pretty reprehensible. You dont LIKE bigotry then stop BEING a bigot. MOST Tea Party people I know are interested in nothing more than a smaller and more fiscally conservative government.
 
I did. And I ask again...WHEN did the term Tar Baby go from the meaning ascribed in the Uncle Remus story to being a racist term that people like you use to justify your bigotry against an entire group of people?

I don't know the history of the term precisely, but I do know it has clear racial connotations. And once again, I have to repeat myself that I DO NOT BELIEVE the Tea Party, as a whole, to be a racist movement. You simply asked for an example, and I provided one.

And beyond that, I'm not a Tea Party bigot. I respect their right to have their own views, and I have friends and parents of friends who are Tea Party supporters, believe it or not. I simply wish to have an honest discussion about who they are and what characteristics they exhibit.

Slinging around terms like "bigot" is just as idiotic as doing the same with the term "racist." It obscures honest discussion, which happens too little these days. You criticize the President, you're called a racist. You wish to call racism out, you're accused of "playing the race card." You criticize the tea party, and you're a "bigot." Hold pro-choice views, you "hate babies." Hold pro-life views, and you "hate women." Critical of Israel, you're called an anti-Semite. Critical of Palestine, you're called a Zionist. It's just more of the same bull****.

I simply wish to have an honest discussion about who the Tea Party is. I have already made it clear that I don't believe them to be racist. If attempting to have an honest discussion about it makes me a "bigot," then Vance, ****ing take a chill pill and we can have a reasonable discussion.
 
SB...you need to stop defending the indefensable. Using an argument by an idiotic congressman as a platform to launch your own bigoted attack is pretty reprehensible. You dont LIKE bigotry then stop BEING a bigot. MOST Tea Party people I know are interested in nothing more than a smaller and more fiscally conservative government.

repeated from previous post:

I don't know the history of the term precisely, but I do know it has clear racial connotations. And once again, I have to repeat myself that I DO NOT BELIEVE the Tea Party, as a whole, to be a racist movement. You simply asked for an example, and I provided one.

Please calm the **** down and actually read what I say.
 
Trying to defend Carson's statement. One only needs to know one thing about the CBC. They only let you join if you are the correct color. White? no. Hispanic? No. Asian? No.

Do you feel groups that only allow membership based upon color should be a part of our government?

Yes and No. There are dozens of "caucus" in Congress and not all are based on race or ethnicity. Most are, however, exclusionary. There are caucuses for Blacks, for women, for Hispanics, for Veterans. There are also professional caucuses, i.e., for doctors, as well as for specific organizations or foreign entities. While I don't agree that any one caucus should be made up of members of any single racial group, I do acknowledge their right to exsist under House rules and/or Senate rules. So, if you have a problem with it, might I suggest your write your Congressman?
 
SB...you need to stop defending the indefensable. Using an argument by an idiotic congressman as a platform to launch your own bigoted attack is pretty reprehensible. You dont LIKE bigotry then stop BEING a bigot. MOST Tea Party people I know are interested in nothing more than a smaller and more fiscally conservative government.

I'm not sure where SB is going but labels are a problem. Both in the use and the reaction. Both words simply mean that people feel more comfortable around people they are used to. That would describe the vast majority of people. In that regard it's a perfectly benign statement that really doesn't mean much. If SB is saying that those who are Tea Party members are likely more at ease with the known as opposed to change, then really, I wouldn't disagree. Sometimes that can be positive and sometimes not.

Sometimes people use these terms as blanket bitter statements with intent to inflame as their meaning can expand beyond that. Ask for context.
 
I don't know the history of the term precisely, but I do know it has clear racial connotations. And once again, I have to repeat myself that I DO NOT BELIEVE the Tea Party, as a whole, to be a racist movement. You simply asked for an example, and I provided one.

And beyond that, I'm not a Tea Party bigot. I respect their right to have their own views, and I have friends and parents of friends who are Tea Party supporters, believe it or not. I simply wish to have an honest discussion about who they are and what characteristics they exhibit.

Slinging around terms like "bigot" is just as idiotic as doing the same with the term "racist." It obscures honest discussion, which happens too little these days. You criticize the President, you're called a racist. You wish to call racism out, you're accused of "playing the race card." You criticize the tea party, and you're a "bigot." Hold pro-choice views, you "hate babies." Hold pro-life views, and you "hate women." Critical of Israel, you're called an anti-Semite. Critical of Palestine, you're called a Zionist. It's just more of the same bull****.

I simply wish to have an honest discussion about who the Tea Party is. I have already made it clear that I don't believe them to be racist. If attempting to have an honest discussion about it makes me a "bigot," then Vance, ****ing take a chill pill and we can have a reasonable discussion.
Is it possible. Now...work with me here...is it POSSIBLE that the term "Tar Baby" DOESNT mean the same thing to some people as apparently it does to you and others? You used it and this one instance as your defense of "Tea Party politicians are racist" (the only reasin we are talking about it...you brought it up). But could it be that he WASNT bewing racist? I cited two other examples in YOUR cited story that OBVIOUSLY arent racist usage of the term.

You want to have a discussion of what the "Tea Party" is? Fine. Great. having that discussion within a thread where Tea Party members are accused of wanting to see black folks strung up might not be the best venue. But based on what and who I know...Tea Party people believe in LEGAL immigration (and site 20-30 million illegal immigrants, 14 million jobless Americans, etc) and enforcement of laws. They believe in smaller and more fiscally conservative federal government (and use as their justification a 15.5 trillion dollar and climbing debt). Thats pretty much the extent of it. Do YOU believe in legal immigration and enforcement of existing laws? Do YOU believe the government should be fiscally conservative? Good lord, SB...is it posasible you are a xenophobe too?
 
Yes and No. There are dozens of "caucus" in Congress and not all are based on race or ethnicity.

Not all? Clearly not. It wouldn't be acceptable.

Most are, however, exclusionary. There are caucuses for Blacks, for women, for Hispanics, for Veterans. There are also professional caucuses, i.e., for doctors, as well as for specific organizations or foreign entities. While I don't agree that any one caucus should be made up of members of any single racial group, I do acknowledge their right to exsist under House rules and/or Senate rules. So, if you have a problem with it, might I suggest your write your Congressman?

We would not have problems with an organization for doctors. Agreed. We would have a problem with an organization for only white doctors. No?

I suggest that you can not find where it's O.K. under any of those rules. I suggest it's unconstitutional.
 
Yes and No. There are dozens of "caucus" in Congress and not all are based on race or ethnicity.

Not all? Clearly not. It wouldn't be acceptable.

Most are, however, exclusionary. There are caucuses for Blacks, for women, for Hispanics, for Veterans. There are also professional caucuses, i.e., for doctors, as well as for specific organizations or foreign entities. While I don't agree that any one caucus should be made up of members of any single racial group, I do acknowledge their right to exsist under House rules and/or Senate rules. So, if you have a problem with it, might I suggest your write your Congressman?

We would not have problems with an organization for doctors. Agreed. We would have a problem with an organization for only white doctors. No?

I also do not you will find House or Senate rules that O.K.'s membership based upon race.
 
repeated from previous post:



Please calm the **** down and actually read what I say.
Is it possible. Now...work with me here...is it POSSIBLE that the term "Tar Baby" DOESNT mean the same thing to some people as apparently it does to you and others? You used it and this one instance as your defense of "Tea Party politicians are racist" (the only reasin we are talking about it...you brought it up). But could it be that he WASNT bewing racist? I cited two other examples in YOUR cited story that OBVIOUSLY arent racist usage of the term.

You want to have a discussion of what the "Tea Party" is? Fine. Great. having that discussion within a thread where Tea Party members are accused of wanting to see black folks strung up might not be the best venue. But based on what and who I know...Tea Party people believe in LEGAL immigration (and site 20-30 million illegal immigrants, 14 million jobless Americans, etc) and enforcement of laws. They believe in smaller and more fiscally conservative federal government (and use as their justification a 15.5 trillion dollar and climbing debt). Thats pretty much the extent of it. Do YOU believe in legal immigration and enforcement of existing laws? Do YOU believe the government should be fiscally conservative? Good lord, SB...is it posasible you are a xenophobe too?
 
Yes and No. There are dozens of "caucus" in Congress and not all are based on race or ethnicity.

Not all? Clearly not. It wouldn't be acceptable.

Most are, however, exclusionary. There are caucuses for Blacks, for women, for Hispanics, for Veterans. There are also professional caucuses, i.e., for doctors, as well as for specific organizations or foreign entities. While I don't agree that any one caucus should be made up of members of any single racial group, I do acknowledge their right to exsist under House rules and/or Senate rules. So, if you have a problem with it, might I suggest your write your Congressman?

We would not have problems with an organization for doctors. Agreed. We would have a problem with an organization for only white doctors. No?

I also do not you will find House or Senate rules that O.K.'s membership based upon race.
 
Hell son...you are using descriptive words seen here by Hatuey describing other 'blacks'. His comments were 'racist' because you WANT them to be. But seriosuly...THATS your defense? A congressman from Colorado uses the term Tar baby and you use TAHT to justify your defense that Tea Party Members want to Lynch black folk? Pathetic.

My "defense" where the ColoradoSprings article is concerned was merely to show how one derogatory term has a racial sting to it when espoused to African Americans. You, on the other hand, have attempted to claim that I've used the phrase as evidence that they were spoken by a member of the Tea Party whom Rep. Carson has raised racial allegations against. I have done no such thing where this particular article is concerned.
 
I'm not sure where SB is going but labels are a problem. Both in the use and the reaction. Both words simply mean that people feel more comfortable around people they are used to. That would describe the vast majority of people. In that regard it's a perfectly benign statement that really doesn't mean much. If SB is saying that those who are Tea Party members are likely more at ease with the known as opposed to change, then really, I wouldn't disagree. Sometimes that can be positive and sometimes not.

Sometimes people use these terms as blanket bitter statements with intent to inflame as their meaning can expand beyond that. Ask for context.

Thanks Perry.

For the record, I don't mean nativism and xenophobia to have negative connotations (but I admit that often they do). To me, those attitudes generally signify an aversion to societal change, fear unease, or concern about immigration both legal and illegal, and in general a change to what it means to "be American," fear of a change of a shifting American identity. That is what I mean.

I don't know if MOST Tea Party members exhibit these characteristics, but I believe they exhibit these attitudes more so than the rest of the population.

And obviously, even if we're not talking about the Tea Party, these attitudes still exist at large among the American population - just look at all the comments about Obama not being truly American, etc. This is what I mean by nativism.
 
I'm not sure where SB is going but labels are a problem. Both in the use and the reaction. Both words simply mean that people feel more comfortable around people they are used to. That would describe the vast majority of people. In that regard it's a perfectly benign statement that really doesn't mean much. If SB is saying that those who are Tea Party members are likely more at ease with the known as opposed to change, then really, I wouldn't disagree. Sometimes that can be positive and sometimes not.

Sometimes people use these terms as blanket bitter statements with intent to inflame as their meaning can expand beyond that. Ask for context.

Thanks Perry.

For the record, I don't mean nativism and xenophobia to have negative connotations (but I admit that often they do). To me, those attitudes generally signify an aversion to societal change, fear unease, or concern about immigration both legal and illegal, and in general a change to what it means to "be American," fear of a change of a shifting American identity. That is what I mean.

I don't know if MOST Tea Party members exhibit these characteristics, but I believe they exhibit these attitudes more so than the rest of the population.

And obviously, even if we're not talking about the Tea Party, these attitudes still exist at large among the American population - just look at all the comments about Obama not being truly American, etc. This is what I mean by nativism.
 
Back
Top Bottom