The Tea Party are RACIST!!

[Reba]

Of course it is low class ... but legal. It is legal because no reasonable person would actually believe that Obama is a chimp. No reasonable person would believe his parents were chimps.

There was no malicious, libelous or slanderous attempts in the e-mail. It was simply "low class".

Racism, on the other hand, has a malicious intent.

Legal and smart aren't always the same thing.

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality of sending the email.

Racism is a heart attitude inside that is manifested by words and actions outside.

 

[Steinhauer]

Legal and smart aren't always the same thing.

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality of sending the email.

Racism is a heart attitude inside that is manifested by words and actions outside.

I do know what racism is. I also know that crying "racism" has been over played by the left anytime anyone criticizes Obama for anything.

It is the knee - jerk defense mechanism that has over extended its intended purpose. Racism is very real. It is very damaging. Over use of the "race card" is also very real and very damaging.

Trying to label an entire political activist movement into a group of racists is indicative of such a futile strategy from the left. Anytime I see the cry "racist" from the left, I am often times reminded of a little boy who once cried "wolf".

 

[TXgolfer]

But in this case, the receiver also forwarded. Would you do that with an email you found offensive? I wouldn't. I'd delete it.

I actuallY received this email before the thread. I laughed because I took it in a different context. Realizing others might take it differently I did not forward it. My grandfather was one of those that loved those posters of chimps in clothes with funny sayings that were popular during the 70s and my first reaction was in part a memory of those posters. I think it is possible to have not seen the implications.

 

[StSapphire]

One would think that "willfull ignorace" would be played out by the accusers claiming that Davenport is a racist. It would take a racist to make that accusation, and there are plenty of reasons why.

Ah, right. I forgot, as a white male, you're the one who gets to define what "racism" is. As an unrelated question, are you by chance a regular reader of Scott Adams' (the creator of Dilbert) blog? He recently attempted to make a similar argument

Although it has been a historic fact that bigotted and hateful individuals have portrayed African-Americans as "monkeys" - the same is also true for portraying a sitting US President as a monkey. In fact, politicians have been portrayed as "monkeys" far more often than anyone here is letting on.

No. Nobody here is pretending like politicians or presidents don't or haven't been portrayed as monkeys. In fact, that has been agreed upon several times. And has been carefully explained over and over to you, that doesn't matter in this case.

Now, of course, those who "need" Davenport, as well as the entire TEA Party to be "racists" are hoping that people will simply ignore this fact. Ignore the fact that many people in power have been portrayed as monkeys - regardless of color. It becomes apparent that these accusers are also hoping that people will ignore many facts about Obama.

Nobody "needs" Davenport to "be" anything - she was called out by fellow Republicans who were disgusted by how blatantly racist her email was. Yes, some people will try to indict the entire Tea Party (side quibble - why do you capitalize "TEA" when you write that? Is that the correct way to refer to them?) and use this as "evidence", including the original poster. The fact that some people are wrong doesn't mean that the people who realize Davenport really is still likely a racist (or at best extremely ignorant/insensitive) are wrong.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, had this done by a Democrat about, say, Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell (had either of them been elected president), it would still be racist, and we would still be calling it out, meaning that my opinion on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of Obama.

As Larry Flynt's US Supreme Court case has taught us all ... if a reasonable person would not actually believe that Obama is a monkey, then the message is neither libelous, slanderous nor malicious.

Free speech is free speech. Since it is a historical fact that sitting US Presidents (as well as many other politicians) have been portrayed as monkeys, and Obama is a sitting US President, then Davenport's email was not racist. It was political speech mocking a President - not hate speech mocking an African-American.

Yeah, nobody's claiming she didn't have the right to send that out. We're just pointing out how incredibly stupid it was to send it. Very different. Keep in mind, even the KKK is protected under free speech laws. that doesn't make them "not racist".

Now, if you still think I am ignorant, by all means feel free to correct my assessment.

Done.

Anyone ever think that we go too far the other direction on racism? On one side we have people who truly are racist and hate Obama for the sole reason that he is black. On the other side we have people who like Obama just because he is black (I know plenty of people who have this belief). I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think some people have gone too far the other way in that they feel we need to give black people special privileges because we do not want to appear racist. He is the sitting president! Of course he is going to have pictures made of him doing all kinds of odd shit! Its all just part of the giant political game.

This sounds like the same argument when Obama was elected where people said "Oh now we have a black president, that means there's no more racism".

I do know what racism is. I also know that crying "racism" has been over played by the left anytime anyone criticizes Obama for anything.

This was brought to media attention by Republican recipients of the message. Try again.

lol!! I consider myself very much not a racist. My friends come from all different ethnic groups. I just see people from both sides of it. Some hate colored people even if they are the nicest people in the world, where others wouldn't even consider not liking a colored person if they were stealing candy from children because they are worried about being considered a racist.

Really? "I have black friends, I can't be a racist!"? :roll:

 

[Steinhauer]

Ah, right. I forgot, as a white male, you're the one who gets to define what "racism" is. As an unrelated question, are you by chance a regular reader of Scott Adams' (the creator of Dilbert) blog? He recently attempted to make a similar argument

Why would you be assuming that I would need to define something that already has a definition?



No. Nobody here is pretending like politicians or presidents don't or haven't been portrayed as monkeys. In fact, that has been agreed upon several times. And has been carefully explained over and over to you, that doesn't matter in this case.


So, where has it been carefully explained over and over again? Also, for bonus points, where has it been agreed upon several times?


Nobody "needs" Davenport to "be" anything - she was called out by fellow Republicans who were disgusted by how blatantly racist her email was. Yes, some people will try to indict the entire Tea Party (side quibble - why do you capitalize "TEA" when you write that? Is that the correct way to refer to them?) and use this as "evidence", including the original poster. The fact that some people are wrong doesn't mean that the people who realize Davenport really is still likely a racist (or at best extremely ignorant/insensitive) are wrong.

Where was she "called out" by several Republicans? Also, a side quibble, by "calling her out" do you mean fellow Republicans called her out as a "racist" or called her out for being tacky and stupid? You do realize those are very different things don't you? At least I would hope so.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, had this done by a Democrat about, say, Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell (had either of them been elected president), it would still be racist, and we would still be calling it out, meaning that my opinion on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of Obama.


And there is still a double standard by democrats. They can depict Bush as a monkey and it is "ok" and "tasteful" as well as "funny" but when a Republican does it to :their guy" its not only "racist and evil" but has recently been downgraded to "tacky and stupid". Lets just overlook the fact that the accusers brought the whole "race card" up and is a self admission of bigotted racism. Also, there was no public outcry when Powell was depicted as a "two faced Oreo" by a democrat - an obvious racist depiction.


Yeah, nobody's claiming she didn't have the right to send that out. We're just pointing out how incredibly stupid it was to send it. Very different. Keep in mind, even the KKK is protected under free speech laws. that doesn't make them "not racist".

Let's also keep in mind that racism is illegal. It's the difference you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge. Quite (almost) clever how that keeps happening over and over again.



Done.


No ... not really.


This sounds like the same argument when Obama was elected where people said "Oh now we have a black president, that means there's no more racism".



This was brought to media attention by Republican recipients of the message. Try again.

:roll:



Really? "I have black friends, I can't be a racist!"? :roll:

Well, you tried ... but failed.

Tackfully unrefined is not racism. :roll:


Should everyone just forget that Julian Bond accused the Bush administration of supporting confederate slavery? Why wasn't Larry Byrd asked to step down when he said the "n" word in 2001? Even though he was an actual card carrying member of the KKK, it was "ok" because he is a Democrat ....


http://theinsanityreport.com/home/i...litics/cprs-take-on-all-this-monkey-business/

 

[MidnightSun]

"colored"?

I usually stay out of these types of discussions,,but..."what color are they"?
that word denotes a time and an attitude that many think has passed but has a strong resurgence. Hmmm...Someone asked about comparing white men to monkeys...I would say check Darwin....and who can forget the arrival of many "Tea Party" members arriving at a Obama TownHall Meeting proudly wearing their guns strapped to their leg. Total disrespect for our president like him or not lol( they were not his security), they were making a statement at an inappropriate time and place. Hate is ugly all the time...Midnight♥♥♥

 

[saywhatkid]

I do know what racism is. I also know that crying "racism" has been over played by the left anytime anyone criticizes Obama for anything.

It is the knee - jerk defense mechanism that has over extended its intended purpose. Racism is very real. It is very damaging. Over use of the "race card" is also very real and very damaging.

Trying to label an entire political activist movement into a group of racists is indicative of such a futile strategy from the left. Anytime I see the cry "racist" from the left, I am often times reminded of a little boy who once cried "wolf".

You are guilty of using a blanket statement while attacking another blanket statement. Since most of us are trying to defend the Tea Party in this instance by saying that one member does not define a group, your defense does not mesh well. Saying that the "left" is making all the accusations of racism paints the "right" as racist. I doubt you will see it that way.

 

[TXgolfer]

"***UPDATE 4/19*** Tea activist and OC County GOP official Marilyn Davenport has apologized for sending out a racist image of President Obama"
This is with the photo!

A) that is the title line.....already covered
b) why does it say TEA activist and not TEA party activist? Scared of a lawsuit maybe?
c) one person does not a party make.

 

[StSapphire]

So, where has it been carefully explained over and over again? Also, for bonus points, where has it been agreed upon several times?

In the numerous posts you've directly replied to. And almost everyone except you agreed. Feel free to keep your dissension, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you refuse to acknowledge basic history and facts.

Where was she "called out" by several Republicans? Also, a side quibble, by "calling her out" do you mean fellow Republicans called her out as a "racist" or called her out for being tacky and stupid? You do realize those are very different things don't you? At least I would hope so.

The people who sent the email to the media were Republican recipients who recognized that the contents of the email were beyond the pale. And yes, they're different. They sent it to the media because it was racist. It's really that simple.

And there is still a double standard by democrats. They can depict Bush as a monkey and it is "ok" and "tasteful" as well as "funny" but when a Republican does it to :their guy" its not only "racist and evil" but has recently been downgraded to "tacky and stupid". Lets just overlook the fact that the accusers brought the whole "race card" up and is a self admission of bigotted racism. Also, there was no public outcry when Powell was depicted as a "two faced Oreo" by a democrat - an obvious racist depiction.

If I was politically active whenever that (Colin Powell = "oreo") happened and/or heard about it, then I would have agreed that that would have been a racist sentiment and renounced it. I have no control over what others or the media do or don't do. And I have no idea what your claim of "self admission of bigoted racism" even means. If you mean that anyone who recognizes a message as racist is admitting they're a racist... then you're a moron.

Let's also keep in mind that racism is illegal. It's the difference you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge. Quite (almost) clever how that keeps happening over and over again.

Uh... No, racist messages, especially between private individuals, are clearly protected under the first amendment. This would be why the KKK still exists and was my local city (within the past 10 years or so) was forced to allow them to put up a "Christmas" display along with all the religious groups.

Well, you tried ... but failed.

Tackfully unrefined is not racism. :roll:

Nope, but racism is racism. You're apparently simply blind to that fact. Congrats.

Should everyone just forget that Julian Bond accused the Bush administration of supporting confederate slavery? Why wasn't Larry Byrd asked to step down when he said the "n" word in 2001? Even though he was an actual card carrying member of the KKK, it was "ok" because he is a Democrat ....

CPR’s Take on all this Monkey Business… | The Insanity Report

I was 15 in 2001, and thus had absolutely no interest in politics at the time, so I can't comment on Larry Byrd, but if that happened as you implied (as in, you're not taking something out of context to imply that it's an equitable situation while not actually being one) then he obviously should have been asked to step down, and I'd be shocked if the NAACP didn't do exactly that.

As for your link, that appears to be a response to a different cartoon (which I didn't see anywhere), but of the included cartoons that he claimed were racist, only two or three of them actually looked racist to me (rather than merely being critical of a politician who is black, or in one of cases with Condoleeza Rice, more sexist than racist), and I would agree that they should have equally been denounced.

However, keep in mind that it is not the artist who is being criticized in the current case (nobody thinks the lady who sent the email actually made the image in the first place), but a person in some position of authority in a major political party propagating that image. That isn't to say that the original creator isn't a vile person for making it, but they're under far less public scrutiny, because they're just some random nobody.

=====

This all having been said, it doesn't appear that you're actually receptive to anything I've said, nor are you apparently willing to consider changing your mind, so there's really no point in continuing this discussion. Have a good day.

 

[StSapphire]

b) why does it say TEA activist and not TEA party activist? Scared of a lawsuit maybe?
c) one person does not a party make.

B) Probably wanted to leave room to also say "Republican" :P
C) Indeed. Especially with self-applied labels.

 

[TXgolfer]

On the term "colored people" I remember hearing it as a kid, even used it as a kid.....I think it was a regional thing as to when it died out. Thing is though I don't believe it was intended as racist at that time. I can remember people using the "n-word" and being corrected by saying "can you please refer to them as colored people". So in a way "colored people" was the "politically correct way of saying it at that time much like African American now. Some day the usage of African American may be seen as racist.


Granted I would consider it racist in our current time.

 

[Beowulf]

On the term "colored people" I remember hearing it as a kid, even used it as a kid.....I think it was a regional thing as to when it died out. Thing is though I don't believe it was intended as racist at that time. I can remember people using the "n-word" and being corrected by saying "can you please refer to them as colored people". So in a way "colored people" was the "politically correct way of saying it at that time much like African American now. Some day the usage of African American may be seen as racist.


Granted I would consider it racist in our current time.

It's more complicated than that, hah. For example, who is allowed to call us "deafies?" Certainly not the hearing. Well, not all of them.

 

[Foxrac]

I'm seriously consider to form Tea Party For GLBTSA to call dissatisfaction of government that how they treat with GLBT people and follow strong libertarian principle.

 

[jillio]

lol!! I consider myself very much not a racist. My friends come from all different ethnic groups. I just see people from both sides of it. Some hate colored people even if they are the nicest people in the world, where others wouldn't even consider not liking a colored person if they were stealing candy from children because they are worried about being considered a racist.

A colored person? Why not just use Negro? I haven't seen either one of those terms used for years.:P

 

[jillio]

Legal and smart aren't always the same thing.

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality of sending the email.

Racism is a heart attitude inside that is manifested by words and actions outside.

Exactly!

 

[jillio]

I actuallY received this email before the thread. I laughed because I took it in a different context. Realizing others might take it differently I did not forward it. My grandfather was one of those that loved those posters of chimps in clothes with funny sayings that were popular during the 70s and my first reaction was in part a memory of those posters. I think it is possible to have not seen the implications.

Doesn't surprise me in the least that you found it humorous.

 

[jillio]

Ah, right. I forgot, as a white male, you're the one who gets to define what "racism" is. As an unrelated question, are you by chance a regular reader of Scott Adams' (the creator of Dilbert) blog? He recently attempted to make a similar argument



No. Nobody here is pretending like politicians or presidents don't or haven't been portrayed as monkeys. In fact, that has been agreed upon several times. And has been carefully explained over and over to you, that doesn't matter in this case.



Nobody "needs" Davenport to "be" anything - she was called out by fellow Republicans who were disgusted by how blatantly racist her email was. Yes, some people will try to indict the entire Tea Party (side quibble - why do you capitalize "TEA" when you write that? Is that the correct way to refer to them?) and use this as "evidence", including the original poster. The fact that some people are wrong doesn't mean that the people who realize Davenport really is still likely a racist (or at best extremely ignorant/insensitive) are wrong.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, had this done by a Democrat about, say, Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell (had either of them been elected president), it would still be racist, and we would still be calling it out, meaning that my opinion on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of Obama.



Yeah, nobody's claiming she didn't have the right to send that out. We're just pointing out how incredibly stupid it was to send it. Very different. Keep in mind, even the KKK is protected under free speech laws. that doesn't make them "not racist".



Done.



This sounds like the same argument when Obama was elected where people said "Oh now we have a black president, that means there's no more racism".



This was brought to media attention by Republican recipients of the message. Try again.



Really? "I have black friends, I can't be a racist!"? :roll:

I have always loved that justification. Cracks me up!

 

[jillio]

It's more complicated than that, hah. For example, who is allowed to call us "deafies?" Certainly not the hearing. Well, not all of them.

Deafie, deafie, deafie!!!

 

[TXgolfer]

Doesn't surprise me in the least that you found it humorous.

Of course! Most people enjoy something that brings back the memory of a loved one.

 

[jillio]

Of course! Most people enjoy something that brings back the memory of a loved one.

So a pic of a chimp brings back the memory of a loved one?