• 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!

Tea Party Fireworks: Speaker Rips McCain, Obama, 'Cult of Multiculturalism'

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The opening-night speaker at first ever National Tea Party Convention ripped into President Obama, Sen. John McCain and "the cult of multiculturalism," asserting that Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."


The speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., told about 600 delegates in a Nashville, Tenn., ballroom that in the 2008 election, America "put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House ... Barack Hussein Obama."

What I have bolded in the quote says it all. After Civil Rights was instituted in the 1960's, and the practice of conducting literacy tests in the South was effectively ended, racist elements in the United States fell back on subtle "code words" to push their racist views. Lately, however, racists have been emboldened and, as illustrated here, the code words are out, and the real meanings and intents are back.

I for one, do not believe that Obama's plans for America are the right ones, and I will always fight against them. But let's call a spade a spade, and tell it like it is. Some of the Obama bashers (not all of them, but some of them, and I want to make that crystal clear), are dedicated racists, and a few (Such as O'Keefe) have long-time connections to white supremacist groups. As the uncle of 3 wonderful kids who are the product of a mixed marriage (and a wonderful one, too), I will fight against these vermin, just as hard, if not harder than I will fight against Obama's policies. If I have my way, these kooks will not gain so much as a foothold inside the Republican party.

To the creeps who are attempting to infiltrate and poison the mainstream Conservative movement - The gloves are off. Not in MY house, you sonofabitches.

Article is here
.
 
Again and again tea party folks prove their lack of metal. Sad. Really sad.
 
What I have bolded in the quote says it all. After Civil Rights was instituted in the 1960's, and the practice of conducting literacy tests in the South was effectively ended, racist elements in the United States fell back on subtle "code words" to push their racist views. Lately, however, racists have been emboldened and, as illustrated here, the code words are out, and the real meanings and intents are back.

I for one, do not believe that Obama's plans for America are the right ones, and I will always fight against them. But let's call a spade a spade, and tell it like it is. Some of the Obama bashers (not all of them, but some of them, and I want to make that crystal clear), are dedicated racists, and a few (Such as O'Keefe) have long-time connections to white supremacist groups. As the uncle of 3 wonderful kids who are the product of a mixed marriage (and a wonderful one, too), I will fight against these vermin, just as hard, if not harder than I will fight against Obama's policies. If I have my way, these kooks will not gain so much as a foothold inside the Republican party.

To the creeps who are attempting to infiltrate and poison the mainstream Conservative movement - The gloves are off. Not in MY house, you sonofabitches.

Article is here
.

Nothing new here tancredo is a loose cannon........
 
I think the OP is reading WAY too much into this. Of course Tancredo is right, there are many people mostly minority who voted for this guy because he is black and for no other reason.

Lets not delude ourselves to thinking otherwise.

And Tancredo is awesome. He is NOT a racist and he is the only representative who actively stood against illegal immigration not to mention getting consistent As from every conservative watchgroup on the issues.
 
The opening-night speaker at first ever National Tea Party Convention ripped into President Obama, Sen. John McCain and "the cult of multiculturalism," asserting that Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

Did this guy just say that people who disagree with him are stupid? Isn't that something that conservatives tend to complain about when talking about liberals?
 
Did this guy just say that people who disagree with him are stupid? Isn't that something that conservatives tend to complain about when talking about liberals?

Exactly so how does that translate into racism unless someone infers it.
 
What I have bolded in the quote says it all. After Civil Rights was instituted in the 1960's, and the practice of conducting literacy tests in the South was effectively ended, racist elements in the United States fell back on subtle "code words" to push their racist views. Lately, however, racists have been emboldened and, as illustrated here, the code words are out, and the real meanings and intents are back.

I for one, do not believe that Obama's plans for America are the right ones, and I will always fight against them. But let's call a spade a spade, and tell it like it is. Some of the Obama bashers (not all of them, but some of them, and I want to make that crystal clear), are dedicated racists, and a few (Such as O'Keefe) have long-time connections to white supremacist groups. As the uncle of 3 wonderful kids who are the product of a mixed marriage (and a wonderful one, too), I will fight against these vermin, just as hard, if not harder than I will fight against Obama's policies. If I have my way, these kooks will not gain so much as a foothold inside the Republican party.

To the creeps who are attempting to infiltrate and poison the mainstream Conservative movement - The gloves are off. Not in MY house, you sonofabitches.

Article is here
.

Good lord, what is so wrong with requiring someone to be competent before they can vote?

If you can't bother to learn to read, you shouldn't be voting.
 
Exactly so how does that translate into racism unless someone infers it.

I didn't get into that issue because Danarhea covered it pretty well. So ask him.
 
Good lord, what is so wrong with requiring someone to be competent before they can vote?

If you can't bother to learn to read, you shouldn't be voting.

Because it is infringing on a basic civil liberty and it gives the people who decide on the tests way too much power to disenfranchise people who do not share their views on the correct interpretation of the constitution, political philosophy, etc.

Jim Crow laws are one example of this sort of abuse.
 
Again and again tea party folks prove their lack of metal. Sad. Really sad.

Dana just called out people on basically his side of the aisle for unacceptable rhetoric. I think the least I can do is point out that Tancredo is not representative of the tea party people as a whole, or even most. Most are people who simply have real disagreements with the way the government is run. I am not a tea partier, I don't agree with them for the most part, but let's not judge them all based on one idiot.
 
Because it is infringing on a basic civil liberty and it gives the people who decide on the tests way too much power to disenfranchise people who do not share their views on the correct interpretation of the constitution, political philosophy, etc.

Jim Crow laws are one example of this sort of abuse.

The guy said nothing about Jim Crow laws, he said, in short, that people should have some concrete understanding with the realm of reading and civics.

That does not equate to purposeful discrimination of black people.
 
Dana just called out people on basically his side of the aisle for unacceptable rhetoric. I think the least I can do is point out that Tancredo is not representative of the tea party people as a whole, or even most. Most are people who simply have real disagreements with the way the government is run. I am not a tea partier, I don't agree with them for the most part, but let's not judge them all based on one idiot.

Well, it IS more than one idiot, but they are not representative of tea partiers, whose real issues are that of being sick and tired of big government, high taxes, and redistribution of people's hard earned money. Unfortunately, their voices are being drowned out by the loonies. They need to speak louder, and let people know that these loudmouths do not represent them.
 
The guy said nothing about Jim Crow laws, he said, in short, that people should have some concrete understanding with the realm of reading and civics.

That does not equate to purposeful discrimination of black people.

I am not trying to combine the two, I was just using a historical example. My fear is that if there is a commission for voter testing someone will skew it towards only certifying people who are strict constructionalists (or loose constructionalist, or whatever) or some other philosophy. If we have such a commission, it is going to be extremely controversial from day 1 because everyone is going to be fighting to shut out their political opponents from having the right to vote. Whether it is based on race or some other factor, people will try to use this for their own or their side's political gain.

This would be like the fights between conservatives and democrats about voter registration issues times one thousand.
 
Last edited:
The guy said nothing about Jim Crow laws, he said, in short, that people should have some concrete understanding with the realm of reading and civics.

That does not equate to purposeful discrimination of black people.

And Jim Crow laws didn't really say "No niggers allowed". They used other words like "Coloreds". And the American civil war wasn't really about slavery. It was about states having rights(like the right to own slaves). And the KKK doesn't say it is a group of white people who hates niggers. It is now a White Nationalist group. We can sugarcoat this thing all day if you want.
 
I am not trying to combine the two, I was just using a historical example. My fear is that if there is a commission for voter testing someone will skew it towards only certifying people who are strict constructionalists (or loose constructionalist, or whatever) or some other philosophy. If we have such a commission, it is going to be extremely controversial from day 1 because everyone is going to be fighting to shut out their political opponents from having the right to vote.

This would be like the fights between conservatives and democrats about voter registration issues times one thousand.

I'd rather use my idea of people being allowed to vote based on two criteria.

1.You must pay taxes, $1 is fine but you must pay something.

2.You must not receive pay, benefits etc from the government.
That includes special tax provisions, corporate welfare, et all.
 
And Jim Crow laws didn't really say "No niggers allowed". They used other words like "Coloreds". And the American civil war wasn't really about slavery. It was about states having rights(like the right to own slaves). And the KKK doesn't say it is a group of white people who hates niggers. It is now a White Nationalist group. We can sugarcoat this thing all day if you want.

:violin

Did anyone ever say that "coloreds" shouldn't vote in this thread?
Not at all, voting should require something.

If we allow every moron to vote, why not allow children?
 
:violin

Did anyone ever say that "coloreds" shouldn't vote in this thread?
Not at all, voting should require something.

Read what I actually wrote. If you did you wouldn't post such asinine bull****.

If we allow every moron to vote, why not allow children?

Why stop there though? Why not bar homosexuals from voting considering 85% of this country has religious disapproval of homosexuality? What about parties which do not fit the perfect democratic picture? Why not poor people? Why not old people? Why not young people? Why should we let you vote? How do I know you're not a moron? For all I know you're just some dumbass poor, gay homosexual student with piercings. Why should we let you vote?
 
Last edited:
… After Civil Rights was instituted in the 1960's, and the practice of conducting literacy tests in the South was effectively ended, racist elements in the United States fell back on subtle "code words" to push their racist views. Lately, however, racists have been emboldened and, as illustrated here, the code words are out, and the real meanings and intents are back. …

Another American who joins you in his concern about the language and the imaginary characteristic of the Tea Party movement is a former President.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.” — President Jimmy Carter¹

“And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.” — President Jimmy Carter²
 
Good lord, what is so wrong with requiring someone to be competent before they can vote?

And who decides exactly what is on the test, how it is worded, what score you need? Who is going to pay for this?

You effectively want to create a LARGER government to handle this.

Why is this necessary?
 
A test like this is one of those things, in theory, I like.

In practice, I don't.

In a perfect world it'd be relatively simple, straight forward, focused on basic civics things.

In reality I could see it horribly manipulated and used to attempt to exclude portions of the population that SHOULD be voting (IE Not just illegal immigrants, of which I have no problem weeding out from the voting process because they SHOULDN'T BE VOTING) and used to reduce the liberty of citizens of this country.

Its a great thing in theory, but I'd be against it in reality because once you add the human element to it it falls apart
 
Back
Top Bottom