The Tea Party are RACIST!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba said:
Do you think it was prudent for someone with a political position (GOP) to forward such an email? I don't think it's wise for anyone with a political position to forward any emails that mock a sitting President. It says something about that person's judgment.

I wouldn't forward that email (and I'm a nobody in the political realm). Would you?

On the other hand, I wouldn't perceive the email to be an indictment of an entire political movement either.

I'm more bothered by the fact that Davenport proclaims herself to be a Christian and yet found the email amusing enough to share with others. I hope no one takes that to mean that all Christians are racist. What she did also destroyed her personal Christian testimony.

This is why we all need to think twice before clicking the send button. Is the supposed humor of an email worth the harm it might cause?
Click to expand...

Apparently the email was intended to be sent to those of like mind. I find that most bothersome.
 
Reba said:
Do you think it was prudent for someone with a political position (GOP) to forward such an email? I don't think it's wise for anyone with a political position to forward any emails that mock a sitting President. It says something about that person's judgment.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything else you said, but I disagree with the sentiment that mocking should be refrained from. Knowing (at least to a slight degree) your sentiments, I assume that you weren't implying that merely "being the sitting President" should be enough to preclude someone from mocking them, but instead that mocking anyone is something which is in poor judgement.

Personally, I disagree, because mocking is (well, can be used as) a form of communication which shows someone that their position is simply so outrageously untenable that it isn't even worthwhile to waste your time taking them seriously. (It can also be used merely mean-spiritedly to imply that an individual person is worthless, which is far less acceptable, though I'm sure I'm guilty of having done it numerous times.)
 
Steinhauer said:
I wonder what the big deal is for those claiming the Tea Party is "no big deal".

Where is the proof that Davenport intended this email to be a racist one? What I see is the pot calling the kettle black (no racist comment intended by the word "black" its just an old expression and is not racially motivated at all). When Democrats depict a sitting President as a monkey, its obviously "ok" and not as evil and sinister as when a Republican makes the same exact depiction of a sitting President.

People like Jason Levin really try to streeeeeeetchhhhh the truth don't they?
Click to expand...

Still don't understand the basic difference between black and white, huh?:laugh2:
 
StSapphire said:
I agree with almost everything else you said, but I disagree with the sentiment that mocking should be refrained from. Knowing (at least to a slight degree) your sentiments, I assume that you weren't implying that merely "being the sitting President" should be enough to preclude someone from mocking them, but instead that mocking anyone is something which is in poor judgement.

Personally, I disagree, because mocking is (well, can be used as) a form of communication which shows someone that their position is simply so outrageously untenable that it isn't even worthwhile to waste your time taking them seriously. (It can also be used merely mean-spiritedly to imply that an individual person is worthless, which is far less acceptable, though I'm sure I'm guilty of having done it numerous times.)
Click to expand...

Without the concept of mocking, where would satire be? It is not the mocking that is the issue...it is the intent behind and the spirit of the mocking that is the problem.
 
Beowulf said:
Apparently the email was intended to be sent to those of like mind. I find that most bothersome.
Click to expand...
I have gotten many emails that I found offensive, but the sender thought I would be amused. It happens. Receiving such messages does not indict the receiver.
 
saywhatkid said:
I have gotten many emails that I found offensive, but the sender thought I would be amused. It happens. Receiving such messages does not indict the receiver.
Click to expand...

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.
 
StSapphire said:
Well, you're conflating "any membership at all" with "more likely to contain certain membership". I agree that the primary political aspect of the Tea Party is "TAXES IS EVIL". However, just because you can find a few outliers doesn't mean that certain groups don't tend to attract certain types of people. Nothing prevents an atheist from being a conservative, but you're still far more likely to find someone religious in a group of conservatives than you are in a group of liberals, because the modes of thinking that would incline someone to be religious have some overlap with the modes of thinking that might incline someone to be conservative.

I simply said that I was undecided if the average Tea Party member was any more likely to be a racist than a member of any other major political party.



Oh come on. Nobody actually thinks the Tea Party itself was directly involved with this in any way, it was simply a self-identifying member. An argument should not be war, and admitting that someone who disagrees with you might have at least one accurate specific point doesn't mean that you lose the argument.



Willful ignorance doesn't make you right. It's already been pointed out, numerous times, what the difference is, and it has nothing to do with Democrat vs Republican. If the Republicans had elected Colin Powell and a Democrat made this same image with his picture, it would be just as racist as it is with Obama, and pretending like there's nothing racist about the contents just makes you sound ignorant.

And really? You're claiming that using the descriptor of "black" is both racist, and at an equal level to depicting an African American as a monkey? Black or African American? - The data does not agree with you.
Click to expand...


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

You are actually using Larry Flynt as a reference? That ain't going to win you any credibility.:laugh2:
 
jillio said:
You are actually using Larry Flynt as a reference? That ain't going to win you any credibility.:laugh2:
Click to expand...

I was referencing a US Supreme Court Case (you knew this, but decided to twist it a little).
 
Steinhauer said:
I was referencing a US Supreme Court Case (you knew this, but decided to twist it a little).
Click to expand...

Still wouldn't use a Supreme Court case involving Larry Flynt if I was looking for credibility.:giggle:
 
jillio said:
Still wouldn't use a Supreme Court case involving Larry Flynt if I was looking for credibility.:giggle:
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the US Supreme Court has no credibility? my ... my :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $200,000 in damages by a lower court.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Nope. Saying that Larry Flynt is not someone to use as reference when looking for credibility.
Click to expand...

You have already failed ... twice. First of all, The US Supreme Court ruled in Larry Flynt's favor. 8-0

So that means two things. 1) Larry Flynt had credibility. 2) The US Supreme Court thought so as well.

I was referencing a US Supreme Court decision. A very specific case they felt had enough credibility to put on trial.

Of course, you would disagree with facts. Maybe you should argue with a calculator.
 
Steinhauer said:
You have already failed ... twice. First of all, The US Supreme Court ruled in Larry Flynt's favor. 8-0

So that means two things. 1) Larry Flynt had credibility. 2) The US Supreme Court thought so as well.

I was referencing a US Supreme Court decision. A very specific case they felt had enough credibility to put on trial.

Of course, you would disagree with facts. Maybe you should argue with a calculator.
Click to expand...

You just keep believing that.:laugh2:

You might want to keep in mind that even slime balls have rights that will get upheld.
 
Steinhauer said:
...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.
Click to expand...
I agree that the whole Tea Party movement shouldn't be pilloried because of the actions of one person who has some kind of vague connection with the organization.

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.
Click to expand...
The Flynt case was about the legality of publishing and distributing whatever. It wasn't about the prudence of publishing and distributing the material. It wasn't about publishing and distributing the material and being exempt from criticism or scorn.

Davenport had the free speech right to forward the email. She doesn't have the right to do it and then expect no criticism for the act. She'll have to take her lumps for such a stupid act.

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.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find all portrayals of Presidents as chimps to be low class.

I'm afraid the Davenport email picture does add an element of racism because it shows Obama as not just having chimp-like characteristics as other Presidents from the past but also having chimp parents. That goes beyond characteristics and into actually being less than human.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top