Can't You Read the Signs?

|

I've frequently expressed skepticism of the Tea Party—here for its frequent indulgence of lazy economic populism and here for the widespread historical illiteracy on display at the rallies I attended—and defended it against hyperventilating columnists like Frank Rich and Eugene Robinson, who reduce a complex movement borne out of complex motives to one animated primarily, if not solely, by race hatred.

It was an anecdotal observation, but at the Tea Party rallies I attended with my comrades from Reason.tv, we didn't spot any racist signs or talk to many people that could be obvious classified as racists. (Of all the people we spoke with at four or so separate protests, only one interviewee was borderline—and she opens this video.) Obviously this doesn't mean that there aren't Tea Partiers bothered by the president's race, but it suggests that the dominant media narrative—that race is an important component of the Tea Party movement—might need revising.

Today the Washington Post reports on a study of Tea Party signs conducted by UCLA graduate student Emily Elkins.

A new analysis of political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month reveals that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government's economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events…

Ekins's conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant but that media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does.

I wrote about the Tea Party and race here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Florida Challenge to ObamaCare Will Proceed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. COuld someone explain to me why, if

    vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government’s economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama message

    it wouldn’t be correct to conclude that

    the racially charged messages are unimportant .

  2. For that matter, could someone explain to me why the assumption appears to be that “the anti-Obama message” is “racially charged”?

    1. Because the left-wing political philosophy has become so ingrained in the pashas of African-American leadership that opposition to it now is said to be racist.

    2. Because “socialist” is a code word for “black.”

    3. Obama is President.

      Obama is black.

      Therefore, opposing the President means you oppose blacks.

      That makes you racist.

    4. B/c the statists are so convinced of their own virtue and believe they are infallible, that any criticism of their leader cannot possibly be a criticism on the merits. To them, their viewpoints are beyond contestation (and are more than willing to enact laws to prevent the contestation of their viewpoints).

      Any argument against their thought process cannot possibly be honest, it must stem from something as base as racism.

      1. Racist!!

  3. Ekins’s conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant

    Sure, they’re virtually nonexistent, but they’re still not unimportant!

  4. This required an “academic” analysis?

    Perhaps we should send 300 psychologists to the next Tea Party rally to glean the real meaning.

  5. If you have to work this hard to deny it, perhaps you should just get another hobby. Who cares if baggers are racist? Even if you ignore the racist signs and go by the others, they’re humorless half-wits. Isn’t that bad enough?

    1. They’re half-wits up until you have to have body work done on your car, the halls in your office building need mopping and the garbage taken out, or you need an electrician or a plumber to fix your wiring or your toilet…Then they’re fucking geniuses whom you need to get things done.

      1. They’re half-wits up until you have to have body work done on your car, a broker to handle your trading, someone to perform your bypass or remove that pesky brain tumor that’s always helped you vote D, a teacher who’ll impart a lesson rather than a party mantra….Then they’re fucking geniuses whom you need to get things done.

        Fixed that for you.

        the halls in your office building need mopping and the garbage taken out, or you need an electrician or a plumber to fix your wiring or your toilet…Then they’re fucking geniuses whom you need to get things done.

        These jobs are heavily unionized, if these guys are at a Tea Party, they’re gooning, not participating.

    2. Who cares if baggers are racist?

      Again using a homophobic slur! You self-loathing homo!

      1. Again using a homophobic slur! You self-loathing homo!

        I always attributed the statment to online first person shooter communities.

        I mean do gays really tea bag?

        If they do then why would it be an activity only attributed to gay males?

        Wouldn’t straight couples also engage in such activity?

        The fact that the image is a cartoon characterization for homosexuals tells me that the term probably did not originate among homosexuals and considering the general immaturity malice and general ignorance of your average video game player ( i say this as a video game player myself) i suspect that the terms origins rests in that community rather then the some hypothetical sex act invented by homosexuals.

        1. I doubt it, but maybe… of course in the online gaming community, the teabagger is the guy who just killed you and is rubbing it in your face by putting his crotch over your face. That hardly seems to be the image people are going for when they call tea party supporters teabaggers, though it does seem somewhat appropriate.

          1. It does have origin in gay culture:

            “Teabagging” is by my definition the act of dragging your testicles across your partner’s forehead. In the UK it is dipping your testicles in your partner’s mouth. I didn’t invent the term or the act but DID introduce it to film in my movie “Pecker.” “Teabagging” was a popular dance step that male go-go boys did to their customers for tips at The Atlantis, a now defunct bar in Baltimore. Hope this helps. — John Waters

            Which is why it’s funny. Let’s diagram the reasons:

            The idiots chose to call themselves tea partiers, betraying both their ignorance of the importance of the Boston Tea Party and their bizarre willingness to have themselves evoke little girls in pink dresses/British aristocrats eating cucumber sandwiches/the crazed farce of a scene from Alice in Wonderland. They are inviting ridicule, and I haven’t even talked about their retarded political slogans they think are beliefs.

            Second, old white people who mostly think gays are icky are fun to ridicule ironically by employing exotic gay sexual terms.

            I believe it originated in British gay culture and migrated to American gamer culture (with the help of John Waters), and is now practically frat. Hardly a slur, just a joke.

            1. Wow, what a forced analysis. Your bias is making you lose sight of Occam’s Razor. It couldn’t just be they called themselves after the famous Boston Tea Partiers because they had a common complaint? And that they weren’t thinking of Alice in Wonderland or odd sex acts?

              1. I know that. But the comparison is comically dumb. Hence the invitation to ridicule.

                1. I know that. But I am comically dumb. Hence the invitation to ridicule.

    3. Even if you ignore the racist signs and go by the others, they’re humorless half-wits.

      Actually, there have been some pretty funny signs at these rallies.

      If you have to work this hard to deny it, perhaps you should just get another hobby.

      I think the only people working hard on this issue are the ones trying to smear the Tea Party, Tony.

      1. This is funnier than anything you’ll see at a lefty rally.

    4. Will Reason please hire Tony to write a weekly entry on Hit & Run?

      1. That could be the new Friday Funny.

    5. If you have to work this hard to deny it

      That’s the point, throw out erroneous charges of racism, and watch the rubes run around denying it, point, laugh, rinse, repeat.

      It’s the oldest trick in the book. And sadly, it works.

      1. Which is why we’ve mostly stopped listening. When we do, it’s mostly to note another Copperhead to add to the “no longer our countrymen” list.

    6. Who cares if baggers are racist?

      a National highly popular political movement that is made up Humorless half wits vs a similarly sized movement of Racists…

      Yeah Tony i think one tends to be far more sinister then the other. So sinister in fact that it would cause me a lot of worry if such a large and popular group were in fact racists.

      So yeah i care very much weather such a large popular group is made up of racists or not.

      The fact that you don’t seem to give a shit tells me that you in fact do not think in the slightest that they are racists…you only cared that they were perceived as racists….and now that that perception has been proven to be false you are running for the escape hatch.

      You are a worthless hack Tony. This is not a perception of mine or an accusation. It is a statement of fact.

      1. I’ve seen plenty of racist signs at teabag rallies. It would be absurd to call them all racists, of course, but it’s equally absurd to claim that none of them is.

        It’s just a reasonable assumption about an angry political movement that came into being on Jan. 20, 2009 that is made up almost exclusively of white people. Some will be racists. If they want to be taken seriously it’s their responsibility to police such behavior.

        1. I’ve seen plenty of racist signs at teabag rallies.

          Sure you have, sockpuppet. Sure you have. Because you’re at all of them, right?

          1. Of course not. I’ve seen pictures though!

            And I read comments on articles linked to the Drudge Report. White racism still exists, and it’s on an upswing for obvious reasons.

            1. Obviously. Who can doubt it? Only more racists who can’t see how racist all the racists are.

            2. Just because your reasons for an alleged upswing are obvious, doesn’t mean there’s an obvious upswing in white racism.

              Got any evidence for this alleged upswing?

              1. No hard evidence no, wouldn’t know how to measure it accurately anyway, just deductive reasoning and personal experience. Such as reading the things Drudgebot dittoheads say about Obama and black people in general, not to mention their very spokespeople themselves. Dr. Laura, Rush, Beck have all been vocally racist douchebags.

                1. “Dr. Laura, Rush, Beck have all been vocally racist douchebags.”

                  There went any prtence of credibility you mi8ght have had.

                  Incidentally, I suspect I know far more about Colnial/Ministerial politics in the runup to the Revolution, you smug, ignorant, little douche: and choosing Tea Party as a name is remarkably apt.

                  I will, however, yield to your intimate and encyclopedic knowledge of gay culture.

                  1. How is it apt? Your party losing an election is not cause for rebellion in a civilized democracy.

                2. “No hard evidence no, wouldn’t know how to measure it accurately anyway, just deductive reasoning and personal experience.”

                  More like “confirmation bias and MSM indoctrination.”

            3. Monologe in Tony’s head:

              “Oh no Joshua blocked my #1 hack escape hatch.”

              #1 escape hatch: I don’t care if the Tea Pirates are racists.

              “I know i will use my double secret #2 escape hatch”

              #2 escape hatch: Well some of them are racists so it is understandable that I got confused

        2. an angry political movement that came into being on Jan. 20, 2009

          From wikipedia:

          FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries), who has also promoted libertarian think tanks (Cato Institute and Reason Foundation).[2] Citizens for a Sound Economy (grassroots machine) merged with Empower America (policy expertise) in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[3][4] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[5] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.[citation needed]

          2004 does not = 2009

        3. “I’ve seen plenty of racist signs at teabag rallies.”

          No you haven’t. What you probably saw were a few signs that had a hint of racial context that you immediately and incorrectly chaulked up as racist because you’re an oversensitive liberal crybaby who sees what you want to see.

          I just google image searched “racist tea party signs” expecting to find all kinds of insanely offensive garbage and instead I counted exactly 2 racist signs out of the first 100ish results. The rest were not-racist things like “Obama’s change = slavery for all Americans” that only an disingenuously oversensitive liberal hack would think was racist.

          1. 1 = plenty. Remember: I am comically dumb.

    7. How about you actually try to work even a little bit to try and prove it?

      Anything to district people from the actual debate on the merits of statism, right? Throw any baseless charge out there, knowing that every minute countering these mindless, lazy attacks is a minute not showing how, once again, government fails the people.

      1. So you’re not denying that the left wing types generally like to have sex with sheep?

    8. Quite frankly, I don’t give a shit if you’re a racist Tony but why do you insist on posting your stupid shit on here?

      1. Tony will leave within a few months and like magic, another troll with a tone and writing style similar to Tony will take his place.

  6. Humorless half-wits describes most of the U.S. House of Representatives.

  7. The whole racist meme is almost entirely an invention of the Formerly Mainstream Media who are desperate to find some way to neutralize the effect of the Tea party and make themselves relevant.

    1. Or… they (the “Media”) couldn’t give two shits about neutralizing the effect of the Tea Party, but instead realize that “Racists at the Tea Party, Zomgwtf!!!” will likely garner many more viewers/readers than “Tea Partiers Decry Obama’s Economic Poiliczzzzzzzz…” Sensationalism sells.

    2. I don’t think it’s very useful for lefties to go around calling people racists, and certainly there has been hypersensitivity on the left regarding race.

      However, all I have to do is read an article linked by Drudge, or even one on Politico, and in the comments sections the blatant racism is rampant. It does exist, though there may be no useful purpose in pointing it out, since racist people just get all the more defensive about their views. They don’t hold them thinking they’re wrong to hold.

  8. Funny how we never got this type of intense psychological breakdown of the participants in the various anti-war rallies that occurred over the last several years.

    Stand up against a white president= patriotic dissent.

    Stand up against a black president= RACIST!!!!

    Thanks media.

    1. I think we can all agree that the media is basically a bunch of talking heads who are dumber than shit.

      Which is why I don’t give a shit what they do.

    2. Plus, many if not most of the big anti-war rallies were organized by actual Communists. Mass-produced Communist signs and literature were everywhere, but how often was that reported? That wasn’t deemed important to understanding those rallies.

      But if one jerk makes one stupid racist sign at home and brings it to a Tea Party rally, well that just proves the whole movement is racist! Or at least contains racists, so we should be suspicious of everything they say!

    3. “various anti-war rallies that occurred over the last several years.”

      Which, of course, aren’t happening any more, given that the Savior said Afganistan was the “good war”.

  9. Man, I hate that goddamned song…

    1. Man, you must be some kind of sinner.

  10. Hey, is Obama’s 96% approval rating in the black community “racially charged?”

    1. What an interesting and original insight!

      1. How ’bout an honest response, dipshit.

        1. 100% of white people voted for a white candidate in 2004. Does that make all white people racist?

          It’s a stupid point. Blacks always vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and it’s no surprise they’d do the same and surely increase their numbers with a black Democratic candidate for president.

          1. Yes it does in fact. When 100% of white people voted for a white pres in 2004, it gave them super-racist powers allowing them to use their racist minds to bleach the film of anyone who photographs several racist signs in one snapshot.

          2. If you’re arguing they voted in a larger percentage than usual because this time the Democratic candidate was black, then you are arguing that race played a factor and they are racist.

  11. Say it isn’t so…the lefty asses that run the MSM push their own perception of those they’re too lazy to actually try and understand. Who wudda thunk it.

  12. Bush sent my ass a $300 check and Obama ain’t sent me a damn thang!

  13. I, for one, am SHOCKED that an accomplished political scientist like Janeane Garafolo has been proven wrong. Next you will be telling me that working with Ben Stiller DOESN’T qualify you to make judgements on politics.

  14. I was at a small protest in Santa Monica about 15 months ago and this group of middle aged ladies kept walking by and yelling at me that I was racist and a fascist. My sign, like just about everyone else’s, said Audit the Fed. I eventually asked them to explain what they meant and one of them just said “Face it. You lost!”. When I told them I hadn’t voted for McCain they just looked so confused. Poor little brain-dead martini soaked harpies. It is fascinating how incredibly stupid people are here in L.A. and yet how smart and “in the know” they consider themselves to be.

    1. It is fascinating how incredibly stupid people are here in L.A. and yet how smart and “in the know” they consider themselves to be.

      Those two things usually go together, especially when one can survive in a bubble completely unchallenged intellectually.

      They’re called ‘rubes’, and are the means by which the corrupt thieves in our society vacuum up taxpayer funds so easily: They see no need to (and aren’t capable of) question(ing) their own ‘side’.

      Oh, and you are absolutely correct.

    2. Ah yes, Santa Monica and Silverlake are especially full of those types. Smug factor is very high.

  15. If “only” 5 percent of the signs at a rally you’re attending are racist, wouldn’t that still give you pause? I mean, what’s the maximum percentage required to prompt some level of soul-searching? 15 percent? 25 percent? Instead of trying to deny it, when will the Tea Party confront the question of why 1 in 20 signs at its rallies have racist themes?

    1. If you’re judging people as groups, all it takes it one.
      If you’re judging people as individuals, you wouldn’t ask the question.

      If you were reporting for television or newspaper, you would have just earned your week’s pay.

    2. How about the left confront the question of why far more than 1 in 20 signs at the recent SEIU-sponsored march were by the International Socialist League, Spartacists, or other marxist fronts? Or are they not relevant either?

      1. I would confront the 19 of 20 that weren’t.

      2. I don’t see an equivalence between being marxist and being racist.

        Interesting article in the New Yorker about how the tea party movement has its roots in cold war hysteria.

        Why should we be afraid of communists again? Because they have different economic views from equally radical quasi-anarchists who fully dominate the right?

        1. Well,since you bring up communists, and why people should be afraid of them….

          How about murdering a total of 10’s of millions, in every country communism has been introduced? I mean, generally, people fear death, and guess what, communism is a weapon of the reaper. What other political movement has slaughtered as many?

          Gee, there might be a reason why no people in history have freely elected a communist government.

          Are you actually asking this question of why people should fear communism? How much of an ignorant, mindless fuck are you?

          1. Surely anyone in America that’s part of the communist party or calls himself a communist isn’t guilty by association with nominally communist regimes of the past? By the way, where are these communists? Sitting at a booth at a rally selling copies of das kapital? I think white racism is a more prevalent (and consistently so) force in the US, just a guess.

            1. You’re missing the Stalin-apologist sitting at her kiosk handing out Jew-hater pamphlets. Of course she isn’t guilty of mass-murder.

            2. Ha, “nominally communist” regimes. Anything to put distance between you and the ideology of murderers, I guess. Well I at least know how you try and sleep at night.

              And yes, those mindless apparatchiks in America that call themselves communists should be and are guilty by association. It would be understandable that one in America could call himself/herself a communist if communism had a varied history. But sadly, it does not. Communism has led to murder and death everywhere it has been implemented.

              We’re not talking about socialism here. I can not believe you are trying to defend the belief in communism. Seriously, what the hell has to happen for you to discount an ideology? If the outright murder of 10’s of millions doesn’t make you uncomfortable, nothing will.

              You are disgusting, the stench of death hangs on you. Live with it.

              1. I just think the horrors that occurred in some communist countries were more directly related to autocracy, not communism. It’s just an economic philosophy. It’s silly and stupid, but then so is economic libertarianism. I just don’t believe in guilt by association. It’s just a different political point of view. If you are a racist, however, you by definition hold repugnant views.

                1. “I just think the horrors that occurred in some communist countries were more directly related to autocracy, not communism.”

                  Occurred in “some” communist countries? Can you please name 1 communist country where these horrors did not occur? Even Yugoslavia, which broke from the Soviet Union, slaughtered political prisoners, and was considered the best we could hope for, politically, out of communism. So please, why did you use the “some” modifier? What communist countries secured human rights, the rule of law, and didn’t enslave political opposition?

                  I also like how you delude yourself into thinking that autocracy and communism aren’t related. Communism breeds autocracy. How blind are you that you ignore the totality of history on this, without exception?

                  “It’s just an economic philosophy. It’s silly and stupid, but then so is economic libertarianism.”

                  If you hadn’t noticed, communism morphed, long ago, into something much more than a simple “economic philosophy.” Seriously, are you like 12 fucking years old, that this basic shit has to be explained to you? What kind of perverted, dense moron doesn’t understand this?

                  Oh, and considering the absolute horrors that communism has subjected upon manking, I think I’d try and find a better adjective than “silly.” Murder, death, prosecution and imprisonment for dissenting ideas, aren’t merely “silly.” I don’t know of one serious, thinking adult that would conjure up the word “silly” first, in describing Hitler, or the Nazi movement. Why would you do so on a subject that at the very least, was as bad as the third reich?

                  And that you would equate economic libertarianism with communism, and describe them with the same adjectives shows just how much of a blind fuck you are. Yeah, looking out for the individual, protecting individual rights, is just as “silly” as slaughtering tens of millions to you.

                  “It’s just a different political point of view.”

                  Well, let’s ignore that you just contradicted yourself in calling communism “just an economic philosophy” and now say “it’s just a different political point of view.” I mean, that just shows how incoherent and inconsistent your thinking process (or lack of one) is. But it’s not merely a “different political point of view.” Communism, in all its forms, has led to persecution and death, without exception. For a person to ignore this, in 2010, and continue to advocate for communism, is turning a blind eye to murder. That person cannot possibly be ignorant to the history and horrors of communism. To continue to advocate for it, is to advocate those very same horrors.

            3. Surely anyone in America that’s part of the communist party or calls himself a communist isn’t guilty by association with nominally communist regimes of the past?

              Then shouldn’t that same standard apply to fascists and racists? Or even to those called fascists and racists by their opponents? Hey, maybe they’ll get it right next time, unlike the nominally fascist and racist regimes of the past.

            4. “By the way, where are these communists?”

              Academia.

              1. “Academia.”

                Ha, that’s rich KPres considering the most brutal regimes always go for the intellectuals first. You sure you want to go down that road? You sure you know whose side you’re on?

                1. pictures of signs

                  1. pleeeeeez

            5. Surely anyone in America that’s part of the nazi party or calls himself a nazi isn’t guilty by association with nazi regimes of the past? By the way, where are these nazis? Sitting at a booth at a rally selling copies of The Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf?

              They are, of course, guilty by association. And with reasons that most consider justified–as Nazis killed millions of people.

              Communists don’t get the same treatment because the tens of millions who lie rotting in the ground at their hands are a subject that is not pounded into our heads as the monstrous crime that it is.

              But you know that, don’t you, Tony–at least ‘nominally’, right?

    3. What do you mean if “only”. Nowhere near 5 out of a hundred are racist. It doesn’t give anybody pause because it’s more like 0.5 percent. Do you make sure there wasn’t a single black panther at an event before you aprove? You’re full of shit Tony. Grow a pair and face reality honestly.

      1. You mean Tom, but I agree with him. It does exist, more than you’re saying and you know it. Half the people here are openly disdainful of political correctness, meaning they don’t understand basic etiquette when it comes to race (almost the most basic aspect of etiquette). It’s there, and it’s there for the tea party establishments to denounce. Instead you play the victim of liberal media bias as usual.

        1. Sorry, indistinguishable.

          “they don’t understand basic etiquette when it comes to race”

          The only etiquette that would satisfy you would be if they became, or at least pretended to be, Liberals.

          “It does exist, more than you’re saying and you know it.”

          Absolutely not true. Produce a photograph with several racist signs in a single frame and I’ll look into it. Can’t do it? Why not? The racist signs are ubiquitous at these rallies and any of the many reporters there would benefit from publishing such a photo. Why would I have to take your word for it? Does racism disappear from photos like vampires do? It’s just more prove a negative bullshit.

          Now this time to you.
          Grow a pair and face reality honestly.

          1. I just love a leftist giving a lecture on “basic etiquette” when it comes to signs at protest rallies. Because we all know of the consistently polite, inoffensive signs at leftist rallies.

        2. Ooooh, you elitist fuck, Tony. You are saying that people shouldn’t mock and ridicule overbearing, speech-chilling political correctness.

          1. Depends on what you’re referring to. If you feel aggrieved because you feel you can’t make racist remarks, I’m so sorry. I just don’t see what the complaint is about political correctness. I’ve never run into this anxiety. Basic manners govern how people talk to each other, so what exactly do you want to say that you feel you can’t on PC grounds?

            1. You did not qualify that in your remarks. You tried to equate PC with common courtesy (etiquette) — they are not the same thing. Common courtesy can include PC elements; but PC is often used to beat down the opposition. And much of it is deserving of ridicule.

            2. Where’s my photo of several racist signs in one frame at a tea party?

        3. Half the people here are openly disdainful of political correctness, meaning they don’t understand basic etiquette when it comes to race

          No, it means cowards like you are nothing but slimy, whiney cockroach fucks despicably trying to enflame racial tensions for your political advantage and so we don’t give a flying fuck about your disingenuous version of “etiquette”.

        4. I would be very surprised if only half of the people who frequent Reason are openly disdainful of political correctness. That would mean half of the people here are dimwitted fuckheads who are easily indoctrinated and cowed by threats of ostracism over the use of magical words.

          No, I’d say other than paid shills and morbidly curious drive-by socialists, you’d get no takers on the PC kool-aid. I guess it just goes to show how far the divide is between rational discourse and the post-70’s left. I really can’t imagine anyone defending political correctness 30 years later, yet here we have a shining example of someone who equally can’t comprehend anyone failing to bend knee to the PC police.

          Hint: When a group of people assembles under the banner of freedom (liberty) you won’t find any support for speech codes among the group.

          1. The concept of PC came about on the left as a sort of joke. Give me an example of something you feel the PC police would call you out for saying.

            My point was people who bitch about political correctness are usually people who want to call people niggers and not be criticized for it. I’m trying to understand exactly what the problem here is.

            1. The only time I’ve ever heard anyone I know from the right use that kind of racist banter is when they’re spirits are being channeled through one of my liberal friends. In other words, my liberal friends say a bunch of racist shit and then just say they’re mocking baggers or neo-cons who never actually behave like that.

              Oh yeah WHERE’S THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIGNS?!?

              1. If no conservative is racist, what exactly is the complaint regarding political correctness? I don’t get it.

                Just google “racism tea party” to see plenty of racist signs.

                1. I already did. I counted 12 racist individual signs with no other racist signs nearby and then repeats of the same signs in the same handwriting. NY times says 18% of Americans identify as tea partiers. That’s around 58 million people. 0.lots of zeros2% racist tea partiers so far. Then again you could show me a picture of several in a single photograph and I’ll purge myself as a racist by association.

                  1. …like I originally asked for before you ran away.

        5. Half the people here are openly disdainful of political correctness, meaning they don’t understand basic etiquette when it comes to race

          Enforced tolerance is not tolerance at all. It is fear of reprisal. It changes no one’s mind or opinion–it simply forces it underground.

          It is this same reliance on force that produces the mountains of corpses the left routinely leaves in it’s wake whenever it gets control.

    4. “If “only” 5 percent of the signs at a rally you’re attending are racist, wouldn’t that still give you pause?”

      DUMBFUCK!

      That’s not what the study said. The study said…

      “Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president’s race or religion”

      Mentioning the president’s race or religion does not = racist. My guess is probably 1 in 5 of those was actually racist, meaning 1% of all tea party signs.

    5. I’ve been to three tea party events personally. I saw precisely zero racist signs at any event, but I saw black and Hispanic speakers greeted with applause.

      Until somebody presents a photographic census of tea party signage, I certainly will not concede that “‘only’ 5 percent” assertion is correct, and find no reason to recognize any merit in your argument.

      1. Patronizing applause, I’m sure. The baggers’ racism manifests itself in many forms.

        1. Two signs one picture

        2. We must water board the fuckers to determine their true intentions! Evil, fat, pig-nosed, racist wasps!!!!!!!!!

    6. Re: Tony,

      If “only” 5 percent of the signs at a rally you’re attending are racist, wouldn’t that still give you pause?

      No.

      You want purity? You’re in the wrong planet.

  16. it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does.

    I think everyone’s missing that fact that this statement implies that racism does dominate the tea party rallies…just not as much as some coverage would lead one to believe.

    This is not a “debunking” article at all, just another attempt to link the TP with racism.

    1. Well, it’s an attempt to soft sell the left’s party line when the data doesn’t agree.

  17. I read a study of “Tearoom” activity as part of a sociology course, back in the late 70’s.

    The term “Teabagging” arose from sexual activities of gay men in public restrooms, which were colloquially called “Tearooms’. (Yeah, the term may have come from merry old England) You can maybe guess where the “bagging” part comes from.

    As to why straight people don’t do this much, make your own guesses. At least we don’t have a name for it.

    Same goes for anal sex. The porn industry seems to love it, but I’ve only met one guy who claimed to like it, and I quickly moved away from him on the group W bench.

    All that aside, It was a very interesting study. This was the route that HIV/AIDS got to Long Island – closeted gay businessmen would get quickies in the Central Park restroom during lunch or before taking the train home to the wife & kids.

    If anyone remembers, back when the media was trying to convince us that everyone would get AIDS (70’s and 80’s) there was a spate of stories (pretty sure the NYT did at least one) that highlighted how the ‘rate of change of infections’ among long island housewives was astronomical, and this meant that everyone was going to get AIDS and it was going to wipe out mankind….The actual numbers were quite low, but they were CHANGING fast (to – still really, really low compared to the gay & IV drug population), so it made a good story.

    A little history that I observed and studied in the wayback.

    OK, folks, who is going to be the first to call me a homophobe! Step right up!

    So, yeah, the term Baggers’ is sexually loaded and denigrating, and you know damn well it is and insist on using it anyway. But please, keep it up, the strategy of making sexually suggestive ‘jokes’ about your political rivals is making the liberal brand so many friends…just the way to win them over.

    As to the historical ignorance of Tea-Partiers, first, I read the entire article linked to this statement:

    “for the widespread historical illiteracy on display at the rallies I attended”

    It doesn’t mention the tea-party rallies at all, just various figures on the right and left breaking Godwin’s law (Like THAT never happens.)Out of a couple of dozen references, the only person identified that could be associated with the Tea Party was Sarah Palin.

    I know you must write a lot, so maybe you were confused, but maybe you could link an article that actually supports your assertion about historical ignorance on the part of Tea-Partiers?

    Not to mention that the average Tea-Partier is more politically informed than your average Democrat….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10…..ref=global

    1. Hey–this article will get Moynihan into all the right parties–don’t knock it.

      Keepin’ liberaltarianism alive, right?

  18. I’m white – oops – Caucasian. I live in the hood and I’m naturally cautious of the homeys with “they pants around they knees”. My house has the same number of cameras around it now as it did when Bush was President.

    That being said, I voted for Obama. I trusted him and still do. I’ve seen tea party signs spelled worse than signs held up by the allegedly homeless that I see getting off the expressway.

    At this point I don’t care what color the guy is. I didn’t vote for him because he what not white. I didn’t vote for him because he was a democrat. I voted for him because he wasn’t a republican. I, for one, still remember the Bush years.

    So the teabaggers assume, based on the color of my skin, that I should support them. There are moderate republicans, log cabin republicans, conservative republicans and now teabaggers. In the end they’re all republicans. So an ideological difference exists and while I think they’re wrong, the fact remains that the redder the state, the lower the IQ.

    For those smart enough to do so, Google the correlation.

    1. I remember the Bush years, too–like when uneployment got down below 5%–that was awful, right?

      And the ‘teabaggers’ don’t expect you to be with them based on the color of your skin–in fact, they’d probably be wary of your obviously racist attitude(although, being a Democrat voter, they’re kinda used to racism coming from you guys) What? Not a racist? Then you didn’t say this?–

      I’m white – oops – Caucasian. I live in the hood and I’m naturally cautious of the homeys with “they pants around they knees”.

      ‘Cos that sure sounds prejudicial and bigoted, no?

      And, while we’re talking IQs, you might want to give yours a check. See, correlation doesn’t equal causation, y’know? So any conclusion you’re drawing is flawed, at best, and farcical at worst.

      In fact, while impugning others intelligence, it’s always best to make sure your offering is beyond reproach instead of bordering on incoherence.

  19. “the fact remains that the redder the state, the lower the IQ.”

    That’s true, but only because of social conservatives in the South. The more libertarian midwest has IQ’s comparable to the northeast, and the “Left Coast” are some of the dumbest of them all.

  20. “So the teabaggers assume, based on the color of my skin, that I should support them.”
    No they expect you to have a basic grasp of economics. Obviously they are mistaken. I’m guessing you dont remember the Carter years.

    1. To be fair, he spent 12 years gestating in my dessicated cabbage-filled hooch.

  21. That’s true, but only because of social conservatives in the South.

    A-ha!

    “Social conservatives” is code for “black people.” I never put it together before.

    Open secret, readily deniable, and true?it’s perfect.
    WHITE POWER

  22. Not all teabaggers are racist, but most are, like 85%

  23. Is Tea Party code word for “I like hairy balls in my face”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.