Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Angela Wheeler
102 Followers
doublerainbow
61 Followers
doublerainbow
61 Followers
Free America
878 Followers
Free America
878 Followers
Devin St. Clair
65 Followers
Devin St. Clair
65 Followers
Thomas Jefferson
26 Followers
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
"When you look at the crime and poverty and family breakdown of the African-American community ... you see a half-century of failure by the NAACP," he wrote. "None of those persistent problems was caused by the Tea Party movement, yet the principles of the Tea Party are exactly what's needed to wind down the multi-generational destruction in the African-American community.
He's right.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Wtf is an African American Community? Is that like Chinatown? Seriously they are blacks not African American. They were African American when they got off the boat. That's not the case anymore. They are just American.....unless they have some kind of duel citizenship I don't know about. You don't walk around calling yourself "European American" do you?
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
I agree with you. You'd have to argue with them. They call themselves "African American".
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
I am of Swedish, German and English heritage.
Why my brother asked my late grandfather (before coming on a trip to Europe)...where the family was from in Germany...my grandfather said: "You're a Goddamned American and don't ever forget it!"
(I'm not even sure if my great-great grandfather came from Germany...or HIS father...)
bagos1Jul 14, 2010
Your grandfather might have known Goddamn America Reverend Wright.
rugrat54Jul 14, 2010
I have NEVER met a black person. No one is black.
It has to do with nationality.
America/American is NOT a nationality.
The U.S.A. is NOT a nation.
It is a federation of many nations.
We call people from Europe Europeans. It is the continent they are from. So in that sense if they were born in North America you can call them Americans, but the problem is they carry the blood of people from another continent, (as do a lot of people). So that is how they get African American.
Jus sanguinis - of blood
Jus soli - of soil
There are nations that say if you are a child of a citizen from their country you are also a citizen of that country regardless of the place of birth; Jus sanguinis.
Others go by the place of birth; Jus soli.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, I was reading that the native Americans might actually be the ancient Phoenicians....
http://www.prophecykeepers.com/chickamaugacherokee/phoenicians.html
If anyone has more info on this I would be very interested and thankful if you could pass it my way. =)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bizzywhoJul 14, 2010
How about Asians? Should you call them yellows?
twinklyjesusJul 14, 2010
Rugrat...duuuuuuude, you need to go back to class.
"America/American is NOT a nationality. " um, Yes, it is.
"The U.S.A. is NOT a nation. It is a federation of many nations." WTF? You have America confused with the EU, or you think the EU = USA, it doesn't. Had we adopted our first constitution, The Articles of Confederation, you would be nearly right, but, we didn't. (hence the term "confederates" for the southerners during the civil war) Their view was the individual states were sovereign nations unto themselves and the Federal Gov. had no business meddling in internal state affairs. THe Civil War made this a moot point.
Now, in my opinion, if you were born in this country, no matter where your parents or grandparents were from, you don't have the right to hyphenate your heritage. You are an American. If you were born in another country and immigrated here, you would be correctly able to do so.
assigning this attribute based on skin color is racist. There are numerous white people I have met, here in Houston, that are now american citizens, and can call themselves "african-americans" But it is a huge hassle if they try.
maxxusflamusJul 14, 2010
Dual- not duel citizenship.
Unless the citizenships are fighting each other.
That'd be awesome.
albumenJul 14, 2010
This sentiment underscores the fact that many of us would like to pretend we don't view some people differently than others. But it is just that, pretend. Caucasians look more or less the same regardless of where they are from. Not that I can't identify some people's ethnic background, but their skin color is essentially the same as mine. People of color, like those of Asian descent are "the other." And they can feel it. So let them forge their own identity will you?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
I guess we should change all the Irish pubs to American pubs and ban the Knights of Columbus. I know plenty of German-American, Irish-American, Franco-American, etc organizations.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
@Landthatilove Because the Organization was founded 101 years ago, while the term African-American was not recognized until 1977.
Actually, 4 of the Official 8 founders were white.
locastusJul 14, 2010
rugrat54,
I'm afraid that the arrival of the native Americans in America significantly predates the Pheonician civilisation.
In addition, the Pheonicians were a Semitic people, whereas geneologically Native Americans are closer to Asians and Polynesians than Jews and Arabs.
corle1Jul 15, 2010
@Spininghead Franco,German,Irish etc-American, those are countries not continent. A south-African white girl that moves to the states would also be an African-American, as well as Libyans and Moroccans. What do blacks from England call themselves? African-English,British?
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
Actually, most white Americans claim to be wherever their ancestors are from.
rugrat54Jul 15, 2010
@twinklyJesus:
""America/American is NOT a nationality. " um, Yes, it is."
Um....No, it is not. For it to be a nationality it would first have to be a nation...
""The U.S.A. is NOT a nation. It is a federation of many nations."
"WTF? You have America confused with the EU, or you think the EU = USA, it doesn't. "
United States (countries/nations) of America
European Union
Both are a collection of nations that form a federation, ( Im not sure as to the makeup of the Euro. society; how they view their union,( I included the euro thing to create a similarity so it would be more easily grasped)).
Every time the reporters state FEDERAL government where do you think they came up with that? Out of their asses?
"Had we adopted our first constitution, The Articles of Confederation, you would be nearly right, but, we didn't. (hence the term "confederates" for the southerners during the civil war) Their view was the individual states were sovereign nations unto themselves and the Federal Gov. had no business meddling in internal state affairs. THe Civil War made this a moot point."
I disagree, but this is a whole other conversation. I will stay mute on this so I dont get off topic.
==================================
@Locastus:
"I'm afraid that the arrival of the native Americans in America significantly predates the Pheonician civilisation.
In addition, the Pheonicians were a Semitic people, whereas geneologically Native Americans are closer to Asians and Polynesians than Jews and Arabs."
I thank you for the information. Can you be more specific, if you have the time to discuss it, or send me in the right direction of the web? I am of the Sioux and Cherokee blood and I have been reading what the Moors have been saying lately, (they have youtube videos about law, status, their history, ect.) and they claim to have come here before native Americans. Most people believe the natives came over from the bering strait, but most natives dont believe this and I dont really either. So I have been trying to find out my origins through everything. =)
Thank you again for replying!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
locastusJul 15, 2010
Hey rugrat,
Well, this article gives some information on Native American DNA, which indicates that all modern Native Americans derive their genetic roots from just six women who lived 21,000 years ago (that's quite a legacy!)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-AP-native-amer.html
The Smithsonian Encyclopedia has some good entries on the Bering Straight origin theory: http://www.si.edu/encyclopedia_si/nmnh/origin.htm
Unfortunately, the internet isnt a great place for detail. If you want deeper stuff, you'll have to buy a book or a white paper.
I'm quite interested in your Moorish origin theory. Personally, I dont think it's likely that the Moors and Berbers themselves colonised America, but I do remember seeing something about tribes of black people right down at the tip of South America who claim to be the first Americans.
Scientists tested the DNA of these people and found it to be close to that of Kalahari Bushmen and Australian Aborigines, which suggests that at some point people came directly to South America from Africa. I don't have any further information than that Im afraid.
rugrat54Jul 15, 2010
I found the Moor theory on youtube while I was looking for videos relating to law. I believe if you search fo Taj Tarik Bey he is the one who I found this information from; I dont know which lecture it is from, but if I come by it again I will post it for you.
Whether it is correct or not is what I am trying to figure out. I know his lectures on law and status, ect are correct; he knows a lot about a lot of different things, and I'll admit some things are out there, but I always try to take as much info as possible from any given situation and then back track to see if it holds water.
Thank you for the extra information. I dont really have a lot of experience with this field; if you could give me a few names of authors I should be looking for I could start from there.
rthakidnJul 15, 2010
@rugrat. good. regarding AZ. They can tell Holder and Obama to go f**k themselves.
kaiosamaJul 14, 2010
Keep in mind it was a Republican president (i.e. Reagan) that sat back and turned a blind eye when the crack epidemic hit the inner cities.
That was 30 years ago, not half a century.
jack416Jul 14, 2010
Oh yay. The Tea Bag Screamer Brigade strikes...but this time in the morning! First time I've seen it!
Seriously? The Tea Party doesn't stand for s**t. We've seen a growing, black middle class in America in the past half century regardless whatever Russia really IS visible from here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stanssJul 14, 2010
And what principles are that? That civil inequality no longer exists? Seems like by that very principle that the tea party is encouraging the continued "poverty and family breakdown" of blacks
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
The principle of individual responsibility, instead of being a whiny bitch.
arfikeJul 15, 2010
There's plenty of personal responsibility in urban areas where poverty is rampant. It just isn't the type of responsibility that's legal. In fact street justice sounds very consistent to libertarian ideals.
Someone disrespects your sister, you shoot them. Personal responsibility.
drich255Jul 14, 2010
@Stanss
Did you know that most black communities are ran by democrats?
--Detroit hasn't had a GOP mayor since 1961.
--Philadelphia hasn't had a GOP mayor since 1952.
--Washington DC has never had a GOP mayor (mayors started there in 1975).
--New Orleans, as far as I could tell, never had a GOP mayor in the past 100 years.
--And Obama has the White House.
--And the Democrats have the House and the Senate.
Now if blacks have complaints about their communities, I think they should look at the democrat party and quit using the GOP as scapegoats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beratebirthersJul 15, 2010
@Coolestguy: Personal responsibility is the new buzzword for "separate but equal" and everyone knows it.
theinformerJul 14, 2010
Martin Luther King would be ashamed of the current NAACP.
rizzosbackJul 14, 2010
But apparently he'd love Glenn Beck?
eezyvilleJul 14, 2010
Didn't know that you knew MLK so well?
hydesJul 15, 2010
i think "Boondocks" had the best take on what MLK would think today
theswashbucklerJul 14, 2010
He's right, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
There are more whites on welfare than blacks. Who failed them? The NAACP never pretended to be able to solve all society's ills.
linuxpersonJul 14, 2010
"There are more whites on welfare than blacks. Who failed them? The NAACP never pretended to be able to solve all society's ills."
Whites make up nearly 60% of the population while blacks make up around 15%. Per capita wise, blacks consume far more than whites. Personally, I think neither group is entitled to coercively funded welfare.
imallvol7Jul 14, 2010
Welfare needs to be regulated wayyy more than it is. Drug testing mandates anyone?
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
"Charity should be voluntary, otherwise it creates a class disconnect that worsens the problem."
We tried that. When was the last time you saw a community chest? Your ideal model applies to no other first world country and every other 3rd world country. Private charities do a great job in Calcutta.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
@Imallvol7
People who are addicted to drugs should still be given food and shelter. They have a medical condition, albeit one they are largely responsible for creating themselves.
We should not be putting drug addicts in jail. We should be putting criminals who actually cause harm to others in jail.
We should legalize drugs, not because drugs are good, but because making them illegal means putting people have harmed no one in jail.
toxicshokJul 15, 2010
@TsuruchiBrian:
While we shouldn't be putting drug addicts in jail, giving them unconditional aide just allows them to continue being drug addicts and indeed worsens their condition in the long run. Give them aide to quite being addicts.
arfikeJul 15, 2010
The two greatest burdens on the nation's deficit are Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the two wars. We really shouldn't be penny-pinching on druggies when the greediest among us are making the biggest waves to destabilize the nation's economy.
I know this goes completely against Sen. Kyl and Sen. McConnell want you to focus on, but you might want to trust me on this one.
chilidogsJul 14, 2010
“In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine offenses,
the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than
for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African
Americans was 49% higher.”
Yep no need for the NAACP. No institutional racism here in the good ol' USA.
http://www.neurosoup.com/institutional_racism_kcole.pdf
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Looks like the deniers are trying to bury you. We can thank Reagan for that blatantly racist drug law.
charlotte_webJul 14, 2010
A crackhead is a crackhead, doesn't matter what color they are.
weierstrassJul 14, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804488.html
Washington Post regarding "tan tax:"
Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law.
"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect," he said.
Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal.
arfikeJul 15, 2010
Yeah, as much as there might be the possibility of racial motives behind the aforementioned "mandatory minimum", it's just as possible that racial demographics weren't even a consideration when the law was enacted; or if it were, it is just as likely (in my mind) that the target was genuinely the drug use and not the racial demographic.
Can any of you make a distinction between the possibilities? Or are we just assuming one way rather than the other our of political convenience?
Also, does anyone else get the sense that the tax on tanning salons might just be made to be an inside joke among Presidential staff and members of Congress? Ya know, just to see John Boehner on TV complaining about a tan tax? I would find that pretty funny, at least. :)
atomheartmotherJul 14, 2010
Great point weir.
jshhmrJul 14, 2010
Okay chlidogs, so you are either saying that the government created crack to keep the black man down, or you are saying that black people tend to be crackheads. Either way, that is stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsJul 14, 2010
I'm sorry but I don't have to select either option in your retarded false dichotomy. What I am saying is that the laws surrounding cocaine are a good example of institutional racism. The same institutional racism that is statistically evident in sentencing, executions, unemployment and virtually every other disparity in justice and wealth.
Powder cocaine is often used intravenous which is far worse than smoking crack.
/work in law enforcementComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webJul 15, 2010
I would prefer that the law be colorblind.
Crackheads should be prosecuted, period.
/citizen who has been victimized by a crackhead
ddrskataJul 15, 2010
@jshhmr: He's saying neither of those things. Crack cocaine carries a heavier penalty than powder cocaine. A smaller amount of crack is required to get a felony conviction. Crack is cheaper, and thus found more in poorer areas, such as housing projects. Lower-income black people are more likely to use crack than blow. Cops thus have more incentive to hang around black neighborhoods looking for crackheads than to hang around the suburbs looking for people who have small amounts of blow and probably won't end up with a serious charge that sticks. This leads to more black people getting caught doing drugs than white people, which leads to the crime rate in black neighborhoods being reported higher, which leads to cops hanging around in black neighborhoods more (and ignoring the white neighborhoods and not catching the people doing similar drugs), which leads to more black people being caught, which leads to the crime rate being reported higher...
arfikeJul 15, 2010
That actually tells me there might be more of a conspiracy aimed at those in poverty, not necessarily black people.
charlotte_webJul 15, 2010
@DDRSkata
There's poor white people, too.
If it's easier to catch folks in the poor neighborhoods, what does that have to do with skin color?
And who's more likely to break into your house and terrorize your family and steal your car, the guy in the middle class neighborhood or the guy in the poor neighborhood?
spinningheadJul 15, 2010
Charlotte, do you not get that there is very little difference between crack and coke other than crack use is more predominant among blacks while powder is more widely used by whites? Then comes along a law that makes the sentence 10xs as tough for those who use crack. Figure it out.
samoht513Jul 14, 2010
"When you look at the crime and poverty and family breakdown of the African-American community ... you see a half-century of failure by the NAACP"
When I look at crime and poverty and family breakdown of the African-American, I see the failure of those individuals who have failed and who have not taken advantage of opportunity, not the NAACP. If we want to blame anyone outside of those individuals, then we can start with a discriminatory legal system (but I'll save that argument for a different conversation). When I see those who have taken advantage of those opportunities, I see the success of the NAACP. When I see that we have a black president, or classrooms and jobs that are not segregated, I see the success of the NAACP. And NAACP, just like affirmative action, is not just for black people, as most people think.
Look, I wont deny there are a bunch of ignorant ass h**es in the NAACP who take advantage of race issues. One commentator had said that the NAACP has outlived there usefulness, I don't agree but i understand the point. But there are a bunch of dummies in the Tea Party too. Glen Beck calling Obama a racist and calling healthcare reparations for black people. Rush Limbaugh saying Obama created the recession to get back at white people. And the list goes on. I don't think the NAACP is calling the tea party racist, they are saying that they are not doing enough to condemn racism among their own leaders and supporters. Hell, the tea party just made a big deal of condemning the NAACP. Why not show the same enthusiasm when Beck or whoever say something ignorant or when the Virginia governor declares confederacy history month and dont mention slavery, which makes the movement look racist? And yes, the NAACP doesn't do a great job in condemning the nonsense that comes within their own group either.
ganymede2010Jul 15, 2010
Black Man and White Felon, same chances of getting hired.
The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-white-felon-same-chances-for-hire/
This is why we need the NAACP unfortunately.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
The NAACP is the most racist organization on the planet. Their sole purpose is to advance a single ethnicity based on race alone. It's purely racist to the core. There is no debate on this.
Note, I'm not arguing whether they need to exist or not for any purpose, I'm just saying that the NAACP is PURELY racist, it's their purpose in fact, to be so.
arfikeJul 15, 2010
Was Martin Luther King Jr. a racist?
hydesJul 15, 2010
you do realize that there is more than one color not just black.
organizations that are far more racist than the NAACP
KKK, Black Panthers, Neo Nazi's, etc...
jimintheocJul 13, 2010
The NAA(L)CP has become irrelevant, and now seeks to justify their existence with make-believe issues.
kasha34Jul 14, 2010
Exactly. They won, and rightfully so. They should have drunk champagne and disbanded 25 years ago.
captainnopantsJul 14, 2010
They should have been annexed by the ACLU. Affirmative action is a bitch.
diggthebobJul 14, 2010
Yeah, who needs the 1st amendment?
mikeyh0Jul 14, 2010
Like that brouhaha over the Hallmark card. The card had a space theme and mentioned black holes. What the NAACP heard was "black whores." Now that's a totally contrived attempt to push companies around and wield what little power they have left. Hallmark removed the card. Well, we don't want to upset the ....... why don't we? Why don't folks just tell these numb skulls they are being foolish and ignore them. After all, a child who gets his own way through the tantrum extortion method will never stop using it to get his own way. It is exactly like saying a parent who disciplines his child is being anti-child to claim that racism is at the root of all criticism of Obama or the NAACP.
orubinsteinJul 14, 2010
The NAACP is using racism to attack organizations whose political views it doesn't like.
This is a new low for the NAACP. Ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf too often.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
"The NAACP is using racism to attack organizations whose political views it doesn't like."
If the shoe fits...
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
"You don't like high taxes, you must be racis!"
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
@thecoolestguy
Thanks for posting that. It's a shame that young people in the black community are raised with such a sense of entitlement, and the blacks vs. whites mentality. It propogates from generation to generation.
Not all hope is lost though. I went to an upper-middle class school north of Dallas and many of the black kids there were actually anti-entitlement and they even tried to seperate themselves from black communities like the one you taught at. Granted the school was 93% white and in an welathy suburban area, but I wish there could be more black people like these.
Dont worry about the diggers digging us down cause we 'racis'
wf80diditJul 14, 2010
@ thecoolestguy
I can partially confirm. My father taught American History at a HS in Baltimore for 30 years. The higher ups at the school started taking out traditional history lessons and replacing them with more culturally appropriate subjects/events/people that had zero impact on the forming of this country. Since when is teaching our country's history a bad thing?
gguillornJul 14, 2010
That link is representative of the most ignorant hood rats. Not of black people. It's like judging whites based on some backwater swamp in Louisiana.
taketheveilJul 15, 2010
Thecoolestguy, I just would like you to know that the reason that those students dont know about how the government (and welfare, as a government program) works is because the current civics programs for students in many of America's schools is utter s**t. Maybe some of that taxpayer money can go into purchasing better supplies and materials as well as training teachers in how to engage kids in the world around them.
Instead of whining about how the kids have no knowledge of the welfare system and government in general (and how they feel 'entitled'), why don't you actually try to catch their interest and express your point of view to them eloquently and rationally, without insulting their intelligence or their beliefs? Kids like that require something more than a textbook, more than a lecture about Supply side economics or Socialism.
It's not just poor, lower class blacks that have 'entitlement issues'- have you been to an upper middle class and above high school recently?
In short: Effective, targeted education is the key here.
Also, please explain how "He just smirked, looked out the window, and sucked air through his teeth. Perhaps this was a regional thing, but the blacks often sucked air through their teeth as a wordless expression of disdain or hostility." is not at all bigoted or racist? Making a generalization about an entire demographic certainly doesn't help your cause. How about "all Jewish people suck air through their teeth. Perhaps this was a regional thing, but the Jews often sucked air through their teeth as a sign of disdain or hostility."? not racist or stereotypical?
sprucecabooseJul 14, 2010
Now I believe the NAACP has outlived it's usefulness, but there are plenty of real race issues in the USA, so don't take the NAACP and their ilk with made up stories to be an indictment of all persistent racism in this country.
chunkenJul 14, 2010
So you're saying tea partiers aren't racist? I'm not trying to claim the whole group is racist but there is a large chunk of the tea party group who joined because they hate that we have a black president. They are saying racist stuff on a daily basis so there is no doubt that SOME of the tea party is racist. The part that bothers me is that the non-racists seem to be totally cool with the racists in the group because it makes their group bigger. The tea party would seem like a more legitimate group if they rejected the racists from their group. Also the name needs to change before people start taking them seriously. The Boston Tea Party was an important event which eventually helped the United States become a country. It's completely offensive to call yourselves the tea party, then march around where part of your group is totally racist, and claim you're all about fiscal responsibility although you didn't say anything when the situation was much worse as Bush burned through trillions of dollars. The tea party has some legitimacy issues they need to work on. Lashing out at the NAACP isn't really going to help their cause.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"The part that bothers me is that the non-racists seem to be totally cool with the racists in the group because it makes their group bigger."
Kinda like the NAACP doesn't say a word about the Black Panthers, and our own government gives them a free pass? Is that what you mean?
I take you've never heard of the Black Tea Party. Most racists haven't.
wf80diditJul 14, 2010
How will they do that? Should they create a Tea Party Committee to go around registering and asking everyone if they are/were racist or ever said something bigoted in their lifetime? This isn't an organized enough group to go around policing itself. Maybe you should just ignore them and stop crying wolf all day long and the problem might just fix itself.
jimintheocJul 14, 2010
QUOTE: "So you're saying tea partiers aren't racist?" Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
QUOTE: "there is a large chunk of the tea party group who joined because they hate that we have a black president." WRONG. They (we) hate what he is doing to this country. Wake up and look at what is happening. The Dems are in danger of losing both the House and the Senate because of what this president is doing; not because of the color of his skin. A recent poll by the far right wing CBS news channel (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/13/opinion/polls/main6675137.shtml ) says only 13% of Americans say Obama has helped them.
You seem to have “racist” ingrained in your brain – perhaps because you see one every day in the mirror.
atomheartmotherJul 14, 2010
".....there is a large chunk of the tea party group who joined because they hate that we have a black president."
You have no basis for saying that. None.
hermitninjaJul 14, 2010
Andrew Brietbart offered 100k to anyone who could provide 1 instance of proof that anything racist was ever said at any tea party rally or march. None have come to collect. I challenge you to provide me with proof of this statement. "They are saying racist stuff on a daily basis so there is no doubt that SOME of the tea party is racist." If you can back that line of BS up you'll be 100k richer. Until then, stop with bulls**t attack on the Tea Party that you can't defend. You are simply spouting lies if you don't back that up. Congratz for being a useful idiot.
mistermysterJul 15, 2010
Brietbart is a lying s**tbag so who cares what he thinks? $100k... lol, yeah right, like he's honest enough to go through that. Same way as Hannity getting waterboarded for charity.
But just for laughs:
http://rugantino.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/teaparty_robertson_spelling_racist_problem.jpgComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hermitninjaJul 15, 2010
nice photoshop pic pal... VIDEO OR AUDIO. Not bulls**t photoshopped pictures.
bobadobalinaJul 14, 2010
Institutionalized racism no longer exists in this country. So the NAACP, Rev's Al and Jackson etc are scrambling for a way to keep themselves in money and power.
Not only do they have to foment faux racism, they also have to keep their socialist president in office. Calling a progressive movement that wants to get the government out of our lives "racist" is the last gasp of a dying movementComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJul 14, 2010
Good point. On another note, that profile pic... dude.
bobadobalinaJul 15, 2010
What do you have against the lord?
ddrskataJul 15, 2010
You only say institutionalized racism doesn't exist in this country because you have never personally experienced it. You also don't know what socialist means. You are the worst kind of idiot. You allow your own ignorance of the reality of those who belong to a different demographic to define your view of the world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJul 15, 2010
The lord is a picture of a dog's bunghole?
ddrskataJul 15, 2010
I'm not defending anyone but myself. Yeah, I have opportunities. Sure. I think a lot of conservatives have this misconception that us black people sit around all day going, "Poor me! Why don't I have all of the same stuff as white people?" while refusing to work. There are opportunities, and I take the ones I can get. And based on those opportunities, I can be successful. That does not mean that there isn't institutional racism.
Cops patrol black neighborhoods more, leading to more black people being caught for nonviolent crime (drug possession, for example) than white people, regardless of the actual rate of use.
Job applicants with "white-sounding" names are fifty percent more likely to get an interview than those with "black-sounding" names, even when qualifications are the same. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
White job applicants with criminal records are more likely to be hired than black applicants with clean records, even if qualifications are the same. http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf
Black men with college degrees are twice as likely to be out of work right now than white men with similar qualifications. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html
Even Chinese-Americans, whose racial stereotypes are generally positive and who, on average, have more education than their white counterparts make less than sixty percent of what their white counterparts make. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112101339.htm
Immigrants with lighter skin make more money. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701257.html
Wells-Fargo targeted black people for high interest subprime loans, referring internally to black people as "mud people" and the loans as "ghetto loans." I even have personal experience with this, as my car loan, which is through Wells-Fargo, is at a far higher interest rate than those of my white peers. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/06/08/systemic-racism-banking-wells-fargo/
People with "black-sounding" names are far less likely to receive a return call or e-mail about rental property. http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=3708
Black people are more likely to be searched after a traffic stop, even though white people are four times more likely to be carrying contraband. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf
In New Orleans, some neighborhoods used political power to keep black people from coming back after Katrina. http://www.theroot.com/views/keeping-st-bernard-parish-white?page=0,0
Even in New York City, black and Hispanic citizens are being randomly stopped and frisked, even though ninety percent of those stopped are released without charge. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2010/05/24/stop-frisk-collect-data/
There are more white drug users in the United States, yet the majority of those admitted to prison are black. http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/05/04/targeting-blacks
And maybe that's because we have cops, even up north, who refer to black people as things like "banana-eating jungle monkeys." http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/30/gates.police.apology/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
I think it'd be hard to enforce the law fairly while referring to black people as "animals," "gentlemen," and, "f**king disgusting." http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/Philly-Cop-Alleged-Racist.html
Even doctors treat black patients differently. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/23/doctors.attitude.race.weight/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Black kids get suspended and expelled from school more, even though there's no significant difference in the rate at which they violate serious rules. http://www.springerlink.com/content/m1u4806148441l8x/
Kids with black-sounding names are given lower expectations by teachers than even their siblings with white-sounding names, resulting in lower performance. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11195
We have been so indoctrinated in this society that even black children are biased toward white people, seeing black people as ugly and inferior. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/13/doll.study/index.html
Institutional racism is real. Being a black man, I know that black people have to work twice as hard as white people to get the same results in virtually every case. I also have the disadvantage of having a Hispanic last name, so I get to deal with the name judgments as well, which is totally awesome. I love being asked when I show up to places if I speak English, even though I'm an American, born and raised, with a clearly NYC fashion sense. I also love, after not getting called back for a job and seeing a white friend with lower qualifications get it, be lectured by other people on how Affirmative Action is totally stealing jobs from white people.
I love being stopped by the cops and searched for no reason after denying permission. I loved going to court and watching two guilty DUI cases be dismissed and a young white girl's felony cocaine and marijuana case be dismissed, only to be sent to jail until I could be bailed out because the courthouse was inexplicably closed when I went to pay my fine. That was awesome. I love being looked at as a freak of nature because I'm intelligent. Being paraded around like the goddamn bearded lady through elementary school because I was a good reader was pretty great. I also loved how when I got picked on in school, the teachers wouldn't do anything about it unless it was to punish me for fighting back. The time two white kids threw me against a fence and started kicking my ass and I got suspended for trying to get them off of me while they completely escaped punishment was so f**king cool! Working as a club promoter, listening to one of the managers and one of the bouncers at a club I promoted talk about how charitable they were to let black people in was great. Their talk of how they were progressive enough to realize that some black people won't cause trouble (but not enough to hire any!) made me feel great.
Just because you have the privilege of being white in this country doesn't mean that there's no racism.
atomheartmotherJul 15, 2010
Good points, DDR. I don't pretend that it's easy for people of color in this country to get ahead, nor am I under the impression that I can fully empathize with the struggles of those who are, though I honestly do strive to try. And in terms of your personal struggles, I'm sincerely sorry that you've had to face the kind of crap you've had to deal with in your life and the assh**es you've run up against.
As I said on another thread yesterday, my views on all this don't really fit into the nice, political containers that people on all sides of the political spectrum seem to find comfortable. I'm conservative, but I really do attempt to listen to others -- particularly those who have life experiences that I'll never know -- to help me form my opinions.
My view is that Blacks have been sold out by both the left and the right.... many of my conservative brethren seem to feel that a Black person growing up in the hood needs to "pull himself up by his own bootstraps." They can't seem to understand that it might not be so easy when your folks are in jail, you're being pressured by a gang or you've worried about a goddamn bullet going through your room in the middle of the night. Their answer? Build a guard gate in around the neighborhood to keep "those people" out.
On the other hand, just sympathizing with and throwing money (whether it be your own or taxpayers') at a group of people because you "care so much" doesn't do s**t either. It simply creates a dependent class who are stripped of dignity and self-worth. And pandering simply for political reasons is just pure evil. Approaches from the left and right just fail. I like the late Jack Kemp's (a true compassionate conservative) approach of using enterprise zones to help blighted areas. It simply encouraged private investment in poor neighborhoods- regardless of the color of their inhabitants- to stimulate their economies.
But the best approach is when private people help their fellow man, which is what I try to do in my small way. Judging people based on skin color just sucks, regardless of if the motivations for doing so are altruistic or malevolent.
Although I'm sure you disagree with most if not all of that. thanks for the thoughtful, intelligent reply. I think I get where you're coming from now.
ddrskataJul 15, 2010
I don't disagree with it, and I'm glad you took the time to give a good reply. I think first, we need to address institutional issues like the things I discussed, and things like the disparity between laws regarding crack and regular cocaine meant to target black people. The government needs to take steps to regulate certain industries, banking for example, that do shady things to harm minorities. There's no way the government could possibly completely level the playing field, but there are steps that can be taken.
As far as private investment in lower-income neighborhoods, I absolutely agree with you. It needs to happen. That would help a lot.
atomheartmotherJul 15, 2010
"...things like the disparity between laws regarding crack and regular cocaine meant to target black people."
I agree. Whether it's racially-motivated or not it sure gives that appearance. I see no reason that there should be separate penalties; it's the same drug, right? Do we make distinctions between types of weed? Some grades are far more potent than others.
When we come together as people to help our fellow man as Dr. King talked about so many years ago these things will become less of an issue, I pray. I was privileged some years ago to work on a biography of former Greek Orthodox Archbishop- Iakovos. When NOT ONE leader of other major faiths would stand with Dr. King, Iakovos marched with him in Selma (at great peril to his own life) and gave instant recognition and authority to the movement.
The images of Iakovos next to King that appeared in Life Magazine -- Iakovos, with his staff, beard, flowing robes and scowl of righteous indignation, looking for all intents and purposes like he stepped right out of the bible to represent the Almighty himself -- simply shamed most opponents into complete silence. They are still very moving to me.
http://www.neovate.com/images/iakovos_mlkjr_marching.JPG
http://media.photobucket.com/image/iakovos%20life/silouan92/Orthodox/Iakovos_Life.jpg
That's some private sector influence right there.
bobadobalinaJul 15, 2010
"Being a black man, I know that black people have to work twice as hard as white people to get the same results in virtually every case."
Bulls**t. In employment blacks get preferential treatment. They get more educational opportunities and more funding to pay for it. There is even a special set of laws with stiffer penalties for assaulting or even just saying certain words to a black
I am going to change my statement and agree with you. There is institutional racism in this country- against white peopleComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJul 15, 2010
Bob, there are no doubt inequities in terms of policy (which I don't agree with) but there are other inequities in the real world which no objective person can deny. Look at upper management in most any corporation and you won't find anywhere close to a representative number of Black people. That's just fact.
ddrskataJul 15, 2010
@BobADobalina: You're out of your mind. That's a myth. If you were black, you'd see this. Or hell, if you read the links I posted, for example the one that discusses how companies are retaining and hiring more white people than black people, even with equal qualifications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html
Affirmative Action is not remotely anywhere close to in the same ballpark of effectiveness that you think it is.
mgraves81Jul 13, 2010
Oh the irony.
A mass convention of one race, roused by a powerful individual of the same race, condemning another group of people and organzing a protest against them in the fall of 2010.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
The NAACP isn't, and never has been, "one race".
heimdallrJul 14, 2010
Nor is the Tea Party (some of whose leaders are black), but that is one of the main contentions levelled against the Tea Party as to why it is racist.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
Did I say that it was? What is the relevance to my comment? Did you click the wrong reply link?
But for the record, the presence of a few minorities (or the promotion of some token minority members to leadership roles) does not preclude the fact that disproportionate number are racist to some degree in relation to the rest of the country's population.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
NAACP's entire focus is one raec.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Smot - Then couldn't the same be said about the NCAAP? Heck,
Just for your perusal, as most of this stuff gets buried by people that don't want you to know the truth, and would prefer you stay with the MSM version of it...
http://digg.com/d31NHpK
http://digg.com/d314oAH
http://digg.com/d31JgyB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
@thecoolest
Wrong. It's entire focus is minorities. Last time I checked, there were more than one race of minorities in the country.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/12/2079442/naacp-has-right-idea-on-immigration.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126363958
http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=78
In other words, any minority that has been historically and/or currently disenfranchised, segregated, persecuted and is still suffering as a result.
@Waiting
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the same" being said. That they have always been more than one race? Perhaps, I'm no expert on the tea party and never did that much research on them. Assuming it is true, it still doesn't change the fact that a much higher proportion of tea-baggers or the GOP seem to be overtly racist and has little bearing on whether the NAACP is racist for pointing it/them out.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallJul 14, 2010
Please point us to where the NCAAP has done anything for Indian or Chinese or Japanese immigrants.
They seem pretty single minded to me.
esteskidJul 14, 2010
@smot
I think this is what he meant by "the same" could be said about the NAACP is that although the NAACP is not an all black organization, it mostly is. Just like the Tea Party is not a racist organization, it mostly is.
xdreJul 14, 2010
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k0GMsSvixQ0J:www.javadc.org/Press%2520Release-8-13-04%2520Tanamachi,%2520Sandra-.doc+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
That took 30 seconds.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
@xdre
Thanks
@superkendall
Why exactly do you want to restrict the debate to immigrants? And why would you expect equal representations minorities that have the lower populations, less familiarity with American culture and the shorter/less sordid histories of past and present discrimination?
I suppose it's understandable to want to jump to conclusions over an organization's name or question their integrity/credibility if they have been proven wrong in the past or seem to stand in the way of your agenda, but that is no excuse to be reactionary and begin shouting accusations without at least some cursory research into the the validity of your claims.
heimdallrJul 15, 2010
"Perhaps, I'm no expert on the tea party and never did that much research on them. Assuming it is true, it still doesn't change the fact that a much higher proportion of tea-baggers or the GOP seem to be overtly racist and has little bearing on whether the NAACP is racist for pointing it/them out."
So you admit that you are not that familiar with the Tea Party, yet you still freely accuse them of being racist. On what basis do you base this claim of racism? Can you point to clear actions of racist intent by the Republican Party and by the Tea Party? If so, I would like to see them.
Also, this:
"Did I say that it was? What is the relevance to my comment? Did you click the wrong reply link?
But for the record, the presence of a few minorities (or the promotion of some token minority members to leadership roles) does not preclude the fact that disproportionate number are racist to some degree in relation to the rest of the country's population."
makes no sense. I stated specifically why I mentioned the race of Tea Partiers (and according to many reports, up to 25% of the Tea Party is minorities, mainly black - hardly a few minorities). And once again, you make an outrageous claim about racism both within the Tea Party and in America in general and expect it to just stand on its own. Your statements are ridiculous on their face and are made even more absurd by your own admission of not knowing much about the Tea Party.
Tell me, does the Democratic Party do all of your thinking for you or are you allowed a few of your own?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smotpokerJul 15, 2010
@heimdallr
"yet you still freely accuse them of being racist."
I don't freely accuse "them" of being racist. I properly qualified everything in that statement. I said a considerably higher proportion of them than other political groups or the population in general SEEM to be overtly racist. That is a far cry from "the parties and/or policies they support ARE racist". Your implication that that is what I have said is inaccurate and perhaps even disingenuous.
"On what basis do you base this claim of racism?"
The numerous signs and statements by GOP and Tea Party members and supporters that I have witnessed (over the course of several years in the case of the former).
"Can you point to clear actions of racist intent by the Republican Party and by the Tea Party?"
No, that is why I called neither party racist - but that hardly proves that such intent is non-existent.
"I stated specifically why I mentioned the race of Tea Partiers"
I can see how it would be relevant to supporting the Tea Party. Neither myself nor the OP was discussing the Tea Party. You chose to use my comment as a soapbox to push your agenda when my comment had very little relation to it.
"Tell me, does the Democratic Party do all of your thinking for you or are you allowed a few of your own?"
Please do not associate me with those right-wing authoritarians.
"Does that mean that using your logic that the Black Congressional Caucus is racist?"
To some degree, yes.
stanssJul 14, 2010
mgraves81, i think you completely missed the point by analyzing the conflict in terms of groups of people, as opposed to what those groups of people stand for.
ikorkyiJul 14, 2010
Is a black student union racist? Is a latino student union racist?
Would a WHITE STUDENT UNION be racist?
Would a NAAWP be racist?
tw3ekJul 14, 2010
White's have been in power since the dawn of America. How much more advancement do you want?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
@Tw3ek: Doesn't f**king matter, answer the question? Would a white student union be racist?
tw3ekJul 14, 2010
The IDEA of a White Student Union is not racist, but just wait and see who joins something like that. People who think the s**t is funny or actual racists. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
As long as a group does not promote racial superiority and welcomes members from other races with open arms, as the NAACP does, I wouldn't consider it racist.
ikorkyiJul 14, 2010
@ Tw3ek
EXACTLY. it goes both ways.
frccJul 13, 2010
The NAACP has an extremely important function but this isn't it. Using it as a weapon to attack political rivals and the largest opposition group to the current administration is despicable.
dailystandardJul 14, 2010
* "had", at best, it was founded by white SOCIALISTS.
ikorkyiJul 14, 2010
what? used by the administration?
rationalcenterJul 15, 2010
The Tea Party may have been energized by opposition to Obama, but they are motivated by far more than that. They hold some pretty bizarre views, many of which will be harmful to the Black community (and Latino community and the poor white community). Should the NAACP keep its mouth shut because it might look like they're supporting the President? That's like saying the Tea Party shouldn't speak up because it's supporting Republicans. The whole point of a group such as the NAACP is to give voice to its members. If that happens to be in tune with the current administration, there is nothing untoward about that, any more that its untoward for the Tea Party to criticize the current administration.
professorpeakJul 13, 2010
The tea party should come up with their own fake and meaningless resolution to condemn the NAACP as a racist organization.
Has it not occoured to anyone of there at the NAACP that this is only further holding them back from equalities. There is a black man in the white house.
It's clear that if you stand against OBAMA, you get called a RACIST.
Bush did it. /s Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
Yeah, the teabaggers aren't racist. They've questioned the birth certificate of every president.
/s
twinklyjesusJul 14, 2010
No, only the ones born and raised outside the US.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
He was born in Hawaii. Are you saying Hawaii is not part of the US?
mweatherJul 14, 2010
But McCain is white.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
twinkly - Since when is Hawaii outside of the US? Did you miss that portion in 2nd grade geography?
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
So questioning something makes you racist? Seriously, you don't even get how partisan you are do you?
Remember when you thought questioning the Government under Bush was a patriotic duty, and shouted down those that told you to shut up and blindly support the President and the government? Remember how you and I used to scream back at them about it being every citizens obligation to question and keep the government in check...
Funny how once "your guy" got in, all that fell out the window..Not surprising I guess since you guys now seem OK with the wars and torture, and foreign renditions, and the Patriot Act, and FISA, and, and, and..... But before it was being done by a white guy right? So it was bad....Nope, nothing racist about your provable actions...
You clearly have a bad case of projectionism..
louiscipher777Jul 14, 2010
but McCain ponied up his documents when first asked instead of trying to hide it
kingmanicJul 14, 2010
@louisCipher/waiting2wake: So did the black guy. The undereducated movement that demanded it then said it wasn't exactly what they needed. It's all just trivially stupid bulls**t. McCain was in another country on an American army base. According to the current legal interpretation had both of McCains parents not been American he would not be american because you do not acquire citizenship by being born on a military installations abroad or U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities. So if McCain is a natural bron citizen due to having an american parent then Obama is just as much because he had one american parent and was born in Hawaii with many records placing his mother there at the time of his birth.
The argument against the voluminous amount of facts that place Obama's birth in Hawaii and the current legal view that natural born means at least one american parent or born in America makes you look stupid.
orlandogeekJul 14, 2010
@WaitingtoAwake - There's a clear difference between questioning the government and the President from a basis of facts, proof & logic and the birther nonsense which has none of those things on it's side.
The litany of attacks from the Right against President Obama have been that he's a Socialist, a Communist, a Marxist, a Muslim, an Atheist, not an American, a friend of terrorists and someone who hates this country.
Not a single one of these arguments has any factual merit behind it. They are just fear-inducing buzzwords tossed out as red meat to an ignorant and rabid minor fringe group on the Right that knows how to scream really loud and accomplish nothing meaningful.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
@WaitingtoAwake "So questioning something makes you racist?" If you question only when the person is black, yes. The birthers are racist. It's a fact. Get over it.
MTHNRD17Jul 15, 2010
"Yeah, the teabaggers aren't racist. They've questioned the birth certificate of every president.
/s"
The Tea Baggers didn't exist during the election of any other president.
"McCain was actually born outside of the U.S, yet none of the teabaggers demanded to see his birth certificate."
Both of John McCain's parents are U.S. citizens, which means he could be born on the moon and still be eligible to be president.
stanssJul 14, 2010
How is calling out a political organization for bigoted standings race baiting? I feel like people throw that around more than people throw around "racist"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
What "bigoted standings". You throw the racism card out at every opportunity, regardless of whether there any factual backing for it.
bobadobalinaJul 14, 2010
Everyone knows only white people can be racist. And they *all* are
orlandogeekJul 14, 2010
I think it should be clear to anyone rational that the TEA Party as a whole isn't a racist group, but that there damned sure are racists in the TEA Party. Of course, given their propensity for race-baiting nonsense like this last stunt, one can't exactly call the NAACP innocent of having racist members either.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
I don't think the NAACP is racist. I understand that black Americans have been discriminated against in our national history.
I think the NAACP is being a f**king Democrat Party tool in trying to condemn the Tea Party ... and that's a shame.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dailystandardJul 14, 2010
MLK had a dream, that one day men would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"It's fun to dream" -- Huey Freeman.
jack416Jul 14, 2010
True, but that dream isn't yet a complete reality. I
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
Unfortunately those who cannot compete on a level field have twisted what MLK said and now have recreated all the racism in the black image.
orp2000Jul 14, 2010
No Doofus, everybody with a brain condemns the Tea Party.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
ANd yet none of them can actually provide evidence to their claims...
tomasiiJul 14, 2010
Oops there it is, the elitist BS answer, "if you disagree with me you don't have a brain." Thank God there are so many brainless people around.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasjogrenJul 14, 2010
the Tea Party is just a Republican party tool, wait I am sorry a Republic party tool. So if you believe that the NAACP is a DemocratIC party tool why do you think it is a shame that they attack a tool of the opposing party?
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
the NAACP is an organization that's focused on RACE and fighting racism. Unless the political positions of the tea party are promoting racism, the NAACP shouldn't condemn them. What, are low taxes and cutting the deficit racism now?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasjogrenJul 14, 2010
We already have low taxes historically. And maybe if Tea-baggers would stop showing up with signs of Obama dressed up as a witch doctor and constantly trying to intimate that he isn't American then you would have a leg to stand on. The "tea party" is just the far right wing of the Republican party that happened to read a chapter or two of Atlas Shrugged. It is like my libertarian friend, who was that way long before it became code for "I am a Bush loving Republican" said Saturday. "Ugh, I don't even call myself libertarian anymore. It used to mean something different, now it just means racist"
thecoolestguyJul 15, 2010
----We already have low taxes historically.----
No we don't. Total tax burder is historically very high right now:
http://www.bullogger.com/blogs/gregmankiw/files/taxes_as_percent_of_gdp.gif
Furthermore, taxes are going to INCREASE significantly, to pay for the massive amounts of money being borrowed now.
--- And maybe if Tea-baggers would stop showing up with signs of Obama dressed up as a witch doctor and constantly trying to intimate that he isn't American then you would have a leg to stand on. ---
99% of the tea party doesn't do this. Maybe if more life long Democrats stopped obsessively defending their party, and calling the opposition "tea baggers", America could have an actual discussion on policies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
They have racism in their name for the "Advancement Of Colored People" <-- that's racism
If it was for the advancement of white people you'd call it racist.
Why do you have to be told this? I'd like to dissect the brain who can't understand this concept.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
Black Americans
You can always count on them to lower the bar, even when you think it can't possibly get any lower.
Here they are proving that Richard J. Herrnstein, Ph.D. Psychology, Harvard University, and Charles Murray, Ph.D. Political Science, M.I.T. are indeed correct in their book "The Bell Curve".
....and unfortunately, low IQs are fertile breeding grounds for marxist ideology.
aka: Frank Marshall Davis, the Black Panthers, Rev Wright...etc, etc, etc. And you can put President Odouche on the list too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
northmassJul 14, 2010
That was one of the most racist statements I have ever read.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
It's not racism....it's reality.
vegetablelambJul 14, 2010
...the blighted reality of a tired racist worldview
therednewtJul 14, 2010
@diggreiver
It would only be reality if you were quoting a respected source. As it is, you are quoting a book that is pretty much universally rejected as of poor merit, if not racist itself. They make assumptions that they simply can't. Know your sources.
turdemJul 14, 2010
@NorthMass - You haven't been paying attention for very long.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
"Never mind the fact that 25% of people who consider themselves part of the "Tea Party Movement" are minorities" Bulls**t
The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html
smaulzJul 14, 2010
Here's one that compares the racial makeup of the tea parties to the racial makeup of the country as a whole:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx#1
Nice try though.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
twinklyjesusJul 14, 2010
what are the other 10% ? invisible?
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
@Smaulz Even according to your source, only 6% are black, which is much less than the percentage of blacks in the the US.
@twinkly Ever heard of Hispanics and Asians?
smaulzJul 14, 2010
6% is MUCH LESS than 11%? Really? Those five percentage points are the basis for your accusations of rampant racism?
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
Even from the source you cited, it's about half. Yes, that much less. And 1% is even less.
therednewtJul 14, 2010
@Smaulz
First of all, what is 5 divided by 11? Let's talk percentages for real here. Don't play dumb.
Second, lack of minorities is not the evidence of racism. The racist supporters are.
turdemJul 14, 2010
What is the racial breakdown of the NAACP?
smaulzJul 14, 2010
lol you two are pathetic. Not one single person has been able to offer proof of widespread racism in the tea parties. Not one. The best you can do is claim the tea parties are racist because the racial makeup is 5% less than the national norm. Don't pay attention to the equal number of other races represented, let's just grab onto that insignificant 5 points.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smaulzJul 15, 2010
I'm assuming by your burying me that you do, in fact, have proof? Dude, if that's true, I hear Breitbart has a $100K check for you. You should definitely look into that.
orp2000Jul 14, 2010
Racist much?
Oh and this "....and unfortunately, low IQs are fertile breeding grounds for leftist/progressive/socialist/marxist ideology."
...Are ya kiddin' me!? Have ya seen the Tea Party? Do you really want to cast aspersions about low IQ?
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Any group will have those that are brighter, and those that aren't... There is no doubt that when you want to find stupid, it is usually easily found.
therednewtJul 14, 2010
@orp2000
The book he is quoting is quite simply tripe. It assumes that intelligence can be measured entirely by a single number and ignores any contributing factors to intelligence that are not genetic. Basically, it's foundations are the same as those that used evolution to "prove" that whites were superior. It's garbage.
orp2000Jul 14, 2010
@TheRedNewt
Oh yes, I'm very familiar with The Bell Curve and its racist underpinnings. You are absolutely correct.
orp2000Jul 14, 2010
@Waiting2awake
You know I think we've finally found something we can agree on.
I still hope that waking up thing works out for you someday ;-)
kasha34Jul 14, 2010
The NAACP doesn't release actual membership numbers. And I bet it's less than the Tea Party. I bet only a small fraction of black Americans are dues-paying members. That's how irrelevant the NAACP has made itself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dailystandardJul 14, 2010
yet not in the eyes of the federal propaganda machine, the "main-stream" media.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Yes, those that brought you Saddam Hussien has WMD - trust us...
therednewtJul 14, 2010
Do you pay your dues to the Tea Party?
Dissimilar groups.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
It was a top story on ABC news tonight. To their credit, they interviewed a black Tea Party leader who kind of put the issue to bed.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
until it is forgotten about next week and the same claims will be started again...
benmiller313Jul 14, 2010
No idea why your being dugg down.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Because he isn't going along with the lemmings that want to still believe in the "Change" promise, so they will bury every comment, every post, every article they can. All the while yelling and screaming that to not think like they do you are a racist... but that label is losing credibility quickly amongst those that have grown beyond the listening to the MSMS - which is funny, seeing as a few years back we all knew we couldn't trust them after they all told us, and assured us about those WMDs Saddam had....
They are like Homer, with the independants/libertarians/classical conservatives/moderate liberals playing the role of bart..in the pork episode of the Simpsons...
[Homer and Bart are chasing the rolling rotisserie pig. It rolls through some bushes]
Homer: It's just a little dirty! It's still good, it's still good!
[the cart falls off the edge of a drainage culvert, and the pig floats down the stream]
Homer: It's just a little slimy! It's still good, it's still good!
[the pig reaches a dam at the end of the stream and plugs the drain hole. The water pressure builds up behind it, until it launches out of the hole into the air]
Homer: It's just a little airborne! It's still good, it's still good!
Bart: It's gone.
Homer: I know.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
You actually have to be actively pro-negro or you're considered a racist.
rthakidnJul 15, 2010
Unfortunately Quirk, the issue hasn't been put to bed, because this is the only strategy they have left and certainly the only strategy they have that is beyond reproach from the main stream media. The MSM doesn't really have anyone that will ask for explanation beside unsubstantiated accusations. As in the case of legislators who were called "racial epithets" during the healthcare debate, despite this being the age of video cell phones, etc. No examples could be provided.
kasjogrenJul 14, 2010
they found the one
ikorkyiJul 14, 2010
one black member? oh yeah, issue is put to bed.
rthakidnJul 15, 2010
have you run out of real strategies? back to racism to promote your cause. That'll work.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
I suppose that was put to bed in the same way that Michael Steele being head of the Rep Party means racism is dead, eh?
ultimisJul 14, 2010
More like it illustrates the blatant racism that exists in the Democratic party.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Michael Steele being head of the RNC shows what racists Democrats are?
ultimisJul 15, 2010
Every time a liberal mouth piece talks about him or other republican minorities you can see it laced in racist comments. I remember the many comments/cartoons made about Condi Rice, and she wasn't even active in politics. Sadly the you keep your blinders up and ignore the vast racism that stirs within your party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadJul 15, 2010
Condi Rice wasn't active in politics? Thats a new one. What are these laced racist comments?
publiclurkerJul 14, 2010
I'm sure if you ask your friends you will be able to find a black member of the KKK also. It means about as much.
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
you can find lots of Democrat voters and some congressmen that were KKK members though
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
the Democrats and their race-baiting allies will never stop accusing their political opponents of being racist. Their entire political machine is based on the charge of racism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasjogrenJul 14, 2010
Actually there entire political strategy is based upon the theory of social justice.
thecoolestguyJul 15, 2010
"Actually there entire political strategy is based upon the theory of social justice."
Which at its base relies on accusing its opponents of racism.
tunetrueJul 15, 2010
But Kasjogren, Affirmative Action (policies used to bring about 'social justice') put other races above one. How is that social justice? If a university is required to accept a certain % of minorities, how is that social justice? A great scholar who is white gets denied acceptance while a minority who is an average scholar gets accepted simply because he is an minority? That's social justice?
burningmanstanJul 14, 2010
Does the fact that Michelle Malkin is a minority right-wing pundit and author mean that racial profiling and internment is not longer a problem. She did write the book "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror" so it's no longer a problem, right? Token minority conservatives, aren't they wonderful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
referring to anyone as "token", shows your racism
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
"referring to anyone as "token", shows your racism"
How does that even make sense? You know the Nazis had some Jews treated very well to parade around in front of the press to show they weren't killing them. How about companies that hire a single minority person?
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
D I S C R I M I N A T I O N !
In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech “I Have A Dream”, in which he declared that America would be in for a rude awakening if it didn't abolish discrimination.
Looks like it only got abolished in one direction and then was recreated all over again in the black image.
kdx200riderJul 14, 2010
OK, so a group who sole purpose is to advance people with a certain skin color (which I would call racist), is calling another group racist. Pot and Kettle.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonJul 14, 2010
Racism is based on hatred. Having a bias does not necessarily imply hatred.
h8f8kesJul 14, 2010
True, but many on the left imply that because the Tea Party movement is biased against big government spending and Obama is black that the Tea Party must be racist.
kdx200riderJul 15, 2010
Being biased because of race is wrong no matter who does it. You cannot condone racism from one race and then condemn it from another.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
So you're saying we can hang "WHITE ONLY" signs in the windows again for bias?
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
It's not racist when blacks focus solely on their own people!
captainnopantsJul 14, 2010
The NAACP is almost as useful as PETA.
smaulzJul 14, 2010
Well, it's a good thing they're not doing that, now isn't it?
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/racist-leftist-infiltrators-driven-from-tea-party-rallies-video/
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisJul 14, 2010
The tea party is not a "group" but more along the lines of organized demonstrations against big government spending. I'm sure there are people who like to eat stinky tofu who show up to the rallies, that doesn't mean the Tea Party is "accepting" or "supporting" the eating of stinky tofu.
bc1358Jul 14, 2010
I'm afraid if he supports this abomination of a bill, he will be nothing but a RINO and thus not worthy of re-election. What's wrong with these people?
dailystandardJul 14, 2010
if this ain't a COMPLETE perversion of the truth, I don't know what is. the "reverends" are the real slave owners, along with the federal propaganda machine (-the "liberal" or as they would like you to think; "main-stream" media).
The ignorant ( federally "educated:) masses follow willing.
George Orwell saw the future wrote "Animal Farm", and we are living it today.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Judging by your grammar, I'm guessing you were home-schooled to avoid that whole ignorant federal education thing.
captaindlucksJul 14, 2010
Really? Animal Farm? You know that's the one about why communism fails and "1984" is the one about living in an authoritarian future. If you're going to post insane, incoherent bulls**t at least get your references right.
5celeryJul 14, 2010
this commenter is exactly what is wrong with America right now
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
hey standard... if Fox News is the most watched outlet in cable news, how exactly are they NOT the main-stream media?
so you're saying you're buying the lie hook line and sinker... or do you just fail to see hypocrisy in your own statement
dailystandardJul 14, 2010
~these are the types of organizations the hussian obama regime uses to divide and destroy America. Angela Davis is in the White House -WAKE UP AMERICA !Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iatethecrayonJul 14, 2010
regime? divide and destroy America? C'mon man, stop being such a f**king nutjob....
vegetablelambJul 14, 2010
you wake up first their buddy, you're talking in your sleep
furiousmoeJul 14, 2010
The only organizations that are dividing and destroying America are the hysterical conspiracy-laden tea partiers who gobble up and regurgitate all the fear inducing rhetoric feed to them by the GOP. and vice versa.
I think that having a black President is bring out latent racism especially in the inherently rich old white political organization of the GOP. I think it makes their blood boil and that's why they have become the party of "No" and "They were for it, before they were against it".
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
You're a f**king uneducated idiot. And I mean that.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
Buried for FoxNews. Submit credible sources.
friday1970Jul 14, 2010
You mean sources like Huffpo and DailyKos? Go back to smoking some pot....
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
"You mean sources like Huffpo and DailyKos?"
Both are considerably more credible than Fox News as they perform considerably less censorship on their users and do not coerce their writers into supporting only one agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39FnpuMRfo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y
"And what part of the article was false?"
I did not say the article was false, I said the source was not credible. Given that fact, and the fact that any traffic they get supports their agenda via ad revenue, I refuse to contribute by visiting just to determine which story out of 100 might be marginally accurate.
"Go back to smoking some pot...."
Who said that I ever stopped?
digg2point0Jul 14, 2010
Neither Huffington Post nor DailyKos claim to be "fair and balanced".
friday1970Jul 14, 2010
So, do you are admitting the article was factually correct and this was from Fox News?
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
@friday
Holy s**t! With deductive reasoning skills like that, I can see why you might be so easily duped by the likes of Fox News and other forms of right-wing/neocon propagandization...
How exactly do you get "the article was factually accurate and from Fox news" from "I refuse to contribute [to Fox News] by visiting"? How exactly would I be able to make a determination? Why should anyone even care about such a determination by me after I JUST SAID I didn't visit the site?
And for the record, some stuff on Fox News comes from other sources. I'd be willing to bet just about anything that isn't obscenely biased and/or inaccurate comes from elsewhere. It is posted on their site just to help get more ad revenue and further fuel their propaganda machine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theinformerJul 14, 2010
So which news source would you consider credible...
MSNBC?
Dailykos?
CBS?
Pravda.ru?
Mediamatters?
ABC?
Moveon.org?
NPR?
NBC?
or the rest of the National Media that basically ignores the Black Panthers case being dropped?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
All of those are about 100x more credible than Fox and I've seen the story mentioned on at least a few.
absurdistJul 14, 2010
The Black Panthers case THAT WAS DROPPED BY THE f**kING BUSH ADMINISTRATION?!?!
Are you really that easily led?
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
@Absurdist - Eric Holder is now part of the Bush Admin? WOW!~
Simply WOW.
absurdistJul 14, 2010
@W2A: The criminal case was dropped by the Bush administration. As illustrated so clearly by smotpoker above.
mycutepetpicsJul 15, 2010
"First, all of those are about 100x more credible than Fox"
ROTFLMAO!!!
leadoffmanJul 14, 2010
A guy calling himself smotpoker wants credible sources.
Face palm.
smotpokerJul 15, 2010
A guy calling himself LeadOffMan decides to "lead off" his end of the debate with appeals to stereotypes and disparaging a request for information from a source isn't tainted with a repeated and proven history of intentional bias and lies.
Generic overused trendy Internet meme.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peanutcheesebarJul 14, 2010
It's funny because even though the term "colored people" is racially offensive to some, the NAACP still won't change their name.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
:-D
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Can't wait to see the complete story on the 'Jesse and Al' portion of the Ed show.
gibbonsbeardJul 14, 2010
Tea Party members are just upset that it is a bad idea admit to being in their racial support group...
the Ku Klux Klan
KingFranklinJul 14, 2010
You're ignorant
werfwerJul 14, 2010
actually, the last name i remember associating with the Klan, was a Dem.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
Teabaggers claim they aren't racist? Ha! Is that why they questioned the birth certificates of every white president? Is that why only 1% of teabaggers are black?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-50 ...
The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.
slvrbullet87Jul 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
or any former presidents for that matter
iignotusJul 14, 2010
I'm waiting for a white person to say "but that's only 90% retart".
repinsJul 14, 2010
you have a selective memory sir, there was a question John McCain as well, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
There were demands to see McCain's birth certificate?
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
So, McCain was born in the canal zone and Obama was born in Hawaii and yet the tea-baggers only make an issue of questioning Obama's legitimacy. Wonder why that is.
KingFranklinJul 14, 2010
@Spinning: At least partially because McCain produced his birth certificate early on. No one could question it.
boredatwork9Jul 14, 2010
Guess who started the Birther movement...Hillary Clinton, during her campaign. Its not just the right wing nutjobs.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20091007152137lill.nb/topstory.html
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
John McCain's birth certificate was chiseled into one of the extra stone tablets from the ten commandments.
repinsJul 14, 2010
@SpinningHead First off it is not the entire Tea Party only a few extreme whack-jobs, but also last time I checked MaCain was not President.
wf80diditJul 14, 2010
People questioned Obama because his father is from another country and his entire life history is/was a mystery to the majority, at the time. People wanted to know who this jr Senator (who spend more time campaigning for pres then being a Senator) was. It's that simple. Can't you see?
McCain comes from a long line of top Military Brass. He also happened to serve his country and unfortunatley was a POW in one of the worst wars ever. That's his birth certificate right there. Do you guys see the distinction?
MTHNRD17Jul 15, 2010
John McCain's parents were Both US citizens, which makes him eligible to be president no matter where he was born.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Pintomp3 - Stop it with your lies again. How many times do we have to go through it. I get it, you are a statist progressive. You hate accountability and responsibility.... however, I'll see your one link with....
I understand the articles get buried because many don't want the truth to come out but...
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Blacks_the_Media ...
Who are the dumb as f**k again?
http://digg.com/people/Comments_from_the_Anti_Tea_ ...
This must be what you mean....ohh wait, it is the opposite.
http://digg.com/comedy/Tea_Party_Violence_Caught_o ...
Ohh you must mean these guys....nope..
http://digg.com/politics/Tea_Partiers_Seek_Teachab ...
The differences between tea parties..
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Tea_partiers_in_two_camps_Palin_vs_Paul_3
NBC questioning a black tea party member
http://digg.com/politics/NBC_questions_black_man_at_Tea_Party_event
Where the racists are coming from
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Crash_The_Tea_Party
What really happens
http://digg.com/politics/What_really_happens_at_Tea_Party_rallies
What this is really about
http://digg.com/politics/Timeline_Anatomy_of_a_Tea_Party_Smear_by_the_Democrat_Media_2
The real make up of the tea party
http://digg.com/politics/40_of_Tea_Partiers_are_Dems_and_Independents_How_Will_Medi
I can go on, but let it just be said that like the WMD, the MSM lies to you, and the sooner you start to form your own opinion of stuff, you will always being conned by them...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
Yeah, the MSM made up these signs!
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamanative.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamaafrican.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamassa.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamonkey.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamanoose.jpg
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Apparently you missed a link
Where the racists are coming from
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Crash_The_Tea_Pa ...
http://www.bermanpost.com/
rjeyJul 14, 2010
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Crash_The_Tea_Party
superkendallJul 14, 2010
The Tea Party is not about Birthers, just as the Democratic party is not about truthers.
As for your use of sexual slang to describe the Tea Party - if they are the Tea Baggers, that makes you the Tea Bagee. Enjoying the view? It would explain why you mumble so.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
natetendo83Jul 15, 2010
Since when does your skin color make you racist? Just because Teabaggers tend to be white doesn't make them racist. Are there some racists in there? I would never doubt it, but seriously do you walk into a room of 30 white guys and 1 black guy and think "wow...what a bunch of racists...there's only one black guy?" Spare me dude.
pintomp3Jul 15, 2010
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamanative.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamaafrican.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamanoose.jpg
Yeah, not racist at all. And Klan rallies aren't racist either. So what if there are a lot of white guys there screaming racist things?
davenp0rtJul 15, 2010
I'm not supporting the whole birther movement, I think it's the most overworked issue in recent history, but I can understand the initial speculation. Obama wasn't the first presidential candidate whose naturalization has come into question, and probably won't be the last. Whether attacking or defending Obama's citizenship, the whole thing was politically motivated. The birthers were scrambling for any reason to discredit a Democratic candidate and the citizenship issue was poignant enough to be taken into consideration. Of course, once a birth certificate was produced then the birthers should have shut up, but the political points were already on the table.
And if you want to read up on other presidents in history that had to deal with their own "birthers":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned
xasitJul 15, 2010
Awesome logic there champ. Any group that is ~80-90% uniracial is clearly racist.
Oh, wait, you're a f**king idiot.
mycutepetpicsJul 15, 2010
Maybe that' because Obama still has a 91%( steady since the election I believe) approval rating within the Black community, even though his numbers have slipped/plunged within EVERY single other race and within every single political party in this country.
Hmmm....I wonder why.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sirdinkusJul 15, 2010
I may be mistaken, but can't any citizen of the United States show the original copy of their birth certificate if questioned? You know the one with your tiny inked baby foot on it and signed by the doctor? What I never understood about Obama is that when questioned about his citizenship and birthplace, why not just do what anyone else would and could do quite easily? Just hold it up and put the issue to bed.
From what I read when the debate was at its peak was that the hospital in Hawaii where Obama was born had lost the original copy of his birth certificate, but had an electronic copy in their databases. A computer file doesn't satisfy me. What bothers me more is that the democratic party was satisfied with a printable version of his proof of citizenship.
The way I see it, they either are handling the whole situation poorly, or its true and he wasn't really born stateside.
greaseddeafguyJul 14, 2010
The NAACP is nothing but a bunch of race baiting racists.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Yeah, we already heard the bigot from the tea party say that.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Kinda like the NAACP is doing?
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
The NAACP didn't call anyone race-baiters.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
Exactly. They are pure racism, that relies solely on accusing others of racism.
professorsymJul 15, 2010
Accusing others of racism?
Sounds like most of the conservatard posters here.
"WAAAAH! BLACKS ARE MEAN AND RACISTS AGAINST WHITES! WAAAAAAAAAH!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Jul 15, 2010
Good response Professor! You really showed him. /s
mycutepetpicsJul 15, 2010
Lmao bob
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
What do you expect from a "professor" who got his seat through affirmative action?
jareddennisJul 14, 2010
/s?
professorsymJul 14, 2010
Go ahead and say it, we all know you want to anyway.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
The tea party is nothing but a group of uneducated redneck racists.
See how that works? Generalization is fun!
voteforthebnpJul 15, 2010
Sounds rather like the anti-white racist Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) here in the UK.
acknotswJul 14, 2010
They are both right, black people would be much better off without the NAACP and the whole f**king would would be better off without racist, dumb as f**k teabaggers. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
You really have to stop letting the MSM tell you what is real and not. Have you ever actually been out to a tea party? Have you even talked to one?
I understand the articles get buried because many don't want the truth to come out but...
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Blacks_the_Media_the_Tea_Parties_By_Lloyd_Marcus
Who are the dumb as f**k again?
http://digg.com/people/Comments_from_the_Anti_Tea_Party_crowd_Feel_the_Love
This must be what you mean....ohh wait, it is the opposite.
http://digg.com/comedy/Tea_Party_Violence_Caught_on_Tape
Ohh you must mean these guys....nope..
http://digg.com/politics/Tea_Partiers_Seek_Teachable_Moment_Not_Teacher_s_Job
I can go on, but let it just be said that like the WMD, the MSM lies to you, and the sooner you start to form your own opinion of stuff, you will always being conned by them
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pintomp3Jul 14, 2010
Yeah, the MSM made up these signs!
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamanative.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamaafrican.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamassa.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamonkey.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamanoose.jpg
absurdistJul 14, 2010
"You really have to stop letting the MSM tell you what is real and not. Have you ever actually been out to a tea party? Have you even talked to one? "
Yes I have. Several. And town hall meetings. And yes, what I met were a bunch of propagandized racists who were absolutely unwilling to listen to a damned thing that conflicted with their preconceived notions and the lies they've been fed by the Fox News/Freedom Works propaganda machine. So on that level the MSM is spot on.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
Great posts mate. The moron editors of Newsweek and Times HATE the tea party, and put story after story out inciting hatred against them, and then the gullible swallow their bulls**t and start hating the tea party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
manlyandyJul 14, 2010
This is anecdotal, but it taught me a lot.
I was at an eye doctor waiting room and eye doctors offices mainly have old people in them, and in this case there were four and all white. I was reading a magazine and they were talking politics, tamely. At one point, one of them kind of got quiet, looked at me, and went back to talking about the oil spill or some BS. I thought nothing of it, and continued waiting.
I was called into a room right around the corner but out of view of these people. They were the only four left in the waiting room, and I could hear everything they were saying. About one minute after I left, these people, who did not know each other previously said the following things:
Obama wasn't born here
"Ya know he is more for them than he is for us" referring to terrorists
The oil spill was caused by terrorists complicit with Obama to stop offshore drilling
They identified with the Tea Party
And the worst of it, from a self identified Vietnam vet, and this is a direct quote about Obama: "I think someone should take him out"
So you know what, yes, there is a racist element to the Tea Party. They know that their racism is not accepted in the mainstream so they hide it for the most part. But the moment they think nobody can hear or see, they show their true colors.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
@Absurdist - Really? Which ones? Did you get film? Are you planning on another? If that is the case, and I have no reason not to believe you, then that is truly sad and disheartening as it does not in any way represent those I know within the party, nor any of the many people who are sympathetic to the movement. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
@Andy - Do you really think it is wise to portray a movement with thousands of members based upon one person?
manlyandyJul 14, 2010
@waiting2awake
Two things.
1) It was 4 people who did not know each other.
2) Do you think it is wise to exonerate a movement of thousands of members based on a few people?
absurdistJul 14, 2010
@W2A: These were in that liberal bastion, Northern California. Tom Campbell's district. And they were some of the most angry, mean-spirited, racist individuals I've ever encountered, and I've been a political activist for years. Had it not been for the heavy police and security presence I would have definitely felt threatened debating them, given their responses. Sorry, no video, but I would presume all you'd have to do would be attend a current rally and see for yourself. But then, if you can look at the existing video of other rallies and honestly claim with a straight face that the Tea Party folks aren't racist, I have to assume you're simply not an honest broker.
mycutepetpicsJul 15, 2010
Don't even sweat the msnbc morons in here cause they purposefully ignore reality and oddly choose to live in make believe land. Only way they can live with themselves in moms basement and cope with their own self-hating issues. It's rather sad really.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
octowussyJul 14, 2010
And who knows what black people need more than teabaggers?
This is just stupid vs. stupid. Buried.
swookJul 14, 2010
Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle---oh.
jtotheoeJul 15, 2010
well... i thought that was witty at least. when did digg become pro-tea partiers? it seems like just yesterday that everyone was having a great laugh about the self-proclaimed "tea-baggers" who were going to take back the country from "socialist barack HUSSEIN obama," the muslim black president that was born god knows where, but it sure as hell wasn't america. and now somehow these same people are being legitimated? i really dont understand people sometimes.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
THE NAACP was just asking the Tea Party to renounce the racist element, not calling the entire movement racist, kind of an important detail.
theinformerJul 14, 2010
Reading the article before commenting on it is not a requirement on Digg.
publiclurkerJul 14, 2010
True, but calling out the worst 99.6% kind of takes the wind out of their sails.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
The NAACP is just looking for an opportunity to call an organization that opposes the policies of "their" president (since they're a racist organization) racist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomasiiJul 14, 2010
I would call on the NAACP to renounce the racist element within their organization.
professorsymJul 15, 2010
Pretty telling that rather than simply denounce the racist element they would accuse the NAACP of racism instead.
mycutepetpicsJul 15, 2010
"they would accuse the NAACP of racism instead"
Maybe because anyone with the slightest amount of integrity knows it's beyond absurd for such a racist/race-baiting org, to even mention the word racist.
But i guess in upside down Liberal/Progressive world, Black on White racism is AOK right?
totalhalibutJul 14, 2010
The Tea Party are experts in the subject of racism so I would trust their opinion on this.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
Wow, you really learn fast from your NAACP handlers.
Lesson 1:
Call them racist.
Lesson 2:
Accuse them of being racist.
Lesson 3:
If they continue to oppose the programs you want, call them racist some more.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
citation needed before you show your stupidity
killermothJul 15, 2010
Any video of tea partiers and their signs in action.
compulsive1Jul 14, 2010
You would think that NAACP would know better than condemning a whole group of people based on deeds of a few members of that group.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Thus the problem with monster slayers... they tend to become monsters themselves....
We have seen that recently from a few groups haven't we?
duchampfitzJul 14, 2010
Are you talking about the Tea Party?
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
@Duchamp - It could happen to them as well. Human nature is human nature - but they haven't slayed their monster yet. If they do manage to get the progressives out of there, and then turn into big government, big spenders - I will be saying the same about them as I am currently saying about the Democrats.... as I said about the Republicans before them....
However, no, I am referring to the Democrats, who after slaying the evil George Bush and Republicans kept all the Bush Doctrines, and their supporters are slowing realizing they have been conned by the mantra of CHANGE...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
realeskimopimpJul 14, 2010
Good thing they didn't do that.
diskohJul 14, 2010
That's the opposite of what they did. Try reading the article, genius.
athosrunJul 14, 2010
Wow two organizations completely void of rationality, if we're lucky they will kill each other.
boozedrinkerJul 14, 2010
The only thing that bothers me is that the NAACP calls the f**king Tea Partiers racist, which there are a few jackasses that make them all look bad, but they don't say s**t about condemning the Black Panther party, after they CLEARLY came out and said horrible things about whites. The NAACP are stupid, hypocritical, irrelevant jackoffs, and I'd argue that they are more racist than anyone - I mean, any f**king group dedicated solely to the advancement of ONE RACE (you know, kinda like the Nazis) are racists.
They need to shut the f**k up.
thetxiJul 14, 2010
Should every group make an effort to publicly condemn every fringe group that they find unfavorable?
boozedrinkerJul 14, 2010
No, but they should at the VERY LEAST call them out and say they don't represent what the NAACP is about. But they don't.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Yeah, the new Black Panther Party (different group from the original BPP which still exists) is such a political force.
boozedrinkerJul 14, 2010
More like, political farce.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Good job missing the point.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
nice attempt at spin instead of addressing the point, very typical of you though.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
The moniker refers to people like you making my head spin. How did I not address the point? I pointed out that this is a tiny tiny group, unlike the tea party. Its like saying all Jews have to denounce the People's Front of Judea. The fact that boozedrinker compared the NAACP to the nazis just shows hes a moron anyway.
chunkenJul 14, 2010
When the non-racist tea partiers call out the racist ones and kick them out of the group then people will maybe take the tea party seriously. Until then they'll be a group partly fueled by racism.
nidstylesJul 14, 2010
See that's the funny thing, they do it all the time, but Liberal's can't see that that. They just see everyone that's not a Progressive Leftist as a racist nutcase Tea-Bagger.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
@NidStyles: [citation needed]
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
They do it all the time when theyre not standing around with people with racist signs or putting up insane billboards?
burningmanstanJul 14, 2010
If you read the article the NAACP is calling for the tea party distance itself from racist members. There is no mention of calling the entire tea party racist. I think it's good advice. The tea party is starting to sound like christians who have a permanent victim mentality. Instead of listening to some good advice they just scream that they are being persecuted and judged.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
"The tea party is starting to sound like christians who have a permanent victim mentality."
Well, that would make sense since I'm pretty confident that makes up the vast majority of their membership anyway.
eezyvilleJul 14, 2010
You really should read the article before you turn your hate on. But then again its from foxnews so its already filled with hate.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
No, I'm pretty sure the majority of the 'baggers are racist.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
CLEARLY the NAACP, affirmative action, and 10,000 or so other BLACK groups in America are discriminatory, bigoted, and racist.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-454921
protodonJul 14, 2010
Seems like the Tea Party is dippin it's tea bag in just about every issue these days. It's kind of annoying, nobody likes naggers. The NAACP can tell you that. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
HatffieldJul 14, 2010
I guess reverse racism is acceptable in this country! Listen, I didn't enslave anyone. Wasn't there and I hold no blame. The only ones who enslave blacks are their own racist agendas who want to continue bringing the "evil white man" slogans. You weren't slaves. You were born in the modern era where you have the opportunity to excel in this country. Break the chains of slavery your own race puts on you and quit looking for someone to blame!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
manlyandyJul 14, 2010
There is no such thing as reverse racism. You stating it just means you don't know what racism means.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
YOu also had a huge advantage because previous generations had more opportunities. It takes many families in the US around 150yrs to make it into the middle/upper middle class. Imagine if nobody in your family was even allowed to get into college until your parents' or grandparents' generation.
publiclurkerJul 14, 2010
Oh, really? My family entered the country a little over 100 years ago when they were forced out of their own for being Catholic. They've been middle class for most of that time. Blaming your situation on something that happened before your were even born is silly and defeatist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadJul 14, 2010
Nice anecdote. So, you were born and raised in the middle class, but know all about what it takes to get out of poverty. Figures. You and I both had great advantages. You, however, think you earned everything you have now.
smotpokerJul 14, 2010
@publiclurker
"Blaming your situation on something that happened before your were even born is silly and defeatist."
Would you agree if it caused you to grow up without one or both parents? Have to move around a lot during youth?
What if some of those same problems are still caused today by grandfathered racism in the police departments and grandfathered public support based on decades of their biased statistics? What if such people influenced others to be discriminatory and fearful which, though no racial hostility might exist, is still technically racism?
I agree that something that ended 100 years ago shouldn't affect people a few generations down the road too much, but that isn't the case. Discrimination still exists on a sizable scale and was only even legally prohibited about 50 years ago. People don't just instantly give it up because they are told to, nor do a few laws magically instantly nullify or repair the material, physical, economic, social or psychological harm caused by racism.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
The advantage comes from being evolved further, lets get real.. Indian workers are taking American jobs because they're f**king smart (despite the poverty in India). Blacks don't even take the hard classes in school, they're too busy throwing spheres and car jacking.
spinningheadJul 15, 2010
Asus3000
You are a racist prick. There are plenty of blacks much smarter than you.
eezyvilleJul 14, 2010
I like how people complain about blacks. We we severely oppressed until about a half a century ago. You think everything is hunky-dory now. "Dude its been fifty years since the oppression! Stop being crybabies becuase you technically have equality. Sure you don't have 100 years of your ancestors establishing themselves so that you can be middle class but you have equal rights."
I really never see anyone complain about the Jews being freed from the holocaust but I guess its because white Americans weren't in the wrong that time.
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
or all the other groups who've been slaves at one time or another
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
f**k off, my family is Jewish. You don't f**king know oppression retard.
eezyvilleJul 15, 2010
Yeah and I'm black. My family were considered sub-human, animals, cheap labor, and the focus of hatred. Its was that way for centuries! Whites justified they're superiority by referencing the bible and making scientific studies to show how sub-human we were. The Jewish experienced that for a couple of decades during the Holocaust. I am in no way downplaying your people's suffering but don't tell me what I do and don't know because you don't know s**t about me. Retard.
bobadobalinaJul 14, 2010
It is NOT "reverse racism." It's racism
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"When you look at the crime and poverty and family breakdown of the African-American community ... you see a half-century of failure by the NAACP"
That sentence is incredibly racist, as if crime and poverty rates are THEIR problems that THEY should have fixed by now, while us whites sit tight and wait patently. It's actually a lot more complicated than that, man! And largely the result of white power structures which require WHITE PEOPLE to take action and change.
Wow. It's shocking that he can get away with saying that.
imallvol7Jul 14, 2010
Because he speaks the truth. I'm tired of politically correct BS. Tell it like it is. The only way to fix a problem is to recognize it first.
In my point of view, for a group of people that complain so much about being minorities and not being treated equally or whatever, why are they so quick to form award shows, political groups, and tv channels that are only for black people? How is that not racist? I have no intention or desire to form a White or Asian or Latino Entertainment Channel.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
Oh, are white people not allowed to be shown on BET? I had no idea.
"I have no intention or desire to form a White or Asian or Latino Entertainment Channel. "
Of course not, you have every other channel and television.
asus3000Jul 15, 2010
Here you go: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-454921
errdayimhustlinJul 14, 2010
You're right. White people should be solving black people's problems. The white man knows what's best for them.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
My parents (well grandparents would be more appropriate) didn't own slaves, and came to America on a boat, and worked in steel mills with other the rest of the poor, the blacks, etc.
I don't owe anyone s**t.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
Who said you "owed" someone?
The point is that we'll be better off AS A COUNTRY if we address these legacy problems of race and ensure we create a truly equal society. That way we're not missing out on the contributions of a large portion of our population because they are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"The point is that we'll be better off AS A COUNTRY if we address these legacy problems of race and ensure we create a truly equal society."
There aren't really any legacy problems with race, unless you are talking to people whom are still racist.
The problems the poor and minorities are facing are ridiculous drug laws, lack of education, and systems that indirectly keep people impoverished.
I had to do a report a few years ago about how education improvements amongst the poor compare to the middle class, and the results weren't good.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Yes you do owe people something. All white people take part in white priviledge. It's impossible to ignore.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
^^^
What? I went to college with a mixture of blacks, whites, arabic, and indians.
Middle class privilege maybe, but "white" privilege, no.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
It's completely true. The NAACP is a complete failure. Blaming every thing on racism hasn't helped the black community. They're worse off now than they were before the Civil Rights Act.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
"They're worse off now than they were before the Civil Rights Act."
This is probably the stupidest thing ever said on Digg.
thecoolestguyJul 15, 2010
I guess you are completely oblivious to the disintegration of black communities since the 1960s. Incarceration rates are 10X higher per capita today than before the Civil Rights Act.
pharoidJul 14, 2010
What is the deal with old people waking up so early? I bring this up because every morning when I login to Digg around 9, I see the usual Angry Old Man links to Drudge and Foxnews. Then, in about an hour most of these stories have been buried as the mainstream Digg users get online and basically point out the BS in the article then bury it for the teabagger sh*t it usually is. I think Granpa needs to lay off the caffeine.
smargJul 14, 2010
Bulls**t. You leftist Diggers can't stand anyone that disagrees with your leftist America-hating rhetoric.
NOVEMBER
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
DECEMBER!
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
You're an idiot.
It's appropriate that you would all-cap November since you guys have spent the last 18 months crying so hard you can barely see what's on your screen through the sweet tears.
You probably couldn't even see that your keyboard was on caps-lock.
"blarg, blarg, blarg...you leftist diggers, blarg, blarg, blarg!"
Go back to your redneck cave. Shouldn't you be on some website that discusses the finer points of incest and pork rinds?
catalysisJul 14, 2010
Just wait until the new more user-friendly digg comes out. It will be like yahoo comments section meets youtube in here.
absurdistJul 14, 2010
f**k you and your ageist bulls**t. There are plenty of us old f**ks who are as leftist as anyone in their 20s.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Sad, would have thought you would have realized that leftists, are just as wrong as rightists.... Neither side has a monopoly on the truth.
Partisans, are just generally people that can't handle their ideals challenging so they have to mock, ridicule and dismiss all that would dare to challenge their ideals..
Was that way with the Neo-con, is that was with the progressives....
That is some CHANGE huh? Hey, what a great mantra that would be../
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikemx7fJul 15, 2010
You do realize you can be leftist (rightist) without blindly supporting everyone who claims to be leftist (rightist), right?
benmiller313Jul 14, 2010
Its probably because they had to get up to go to their job.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
Who has time to spam Digg with bulls**t before work in the morning? I think most of these folks are retired.
superkendallJul 14, 2010
It's because conservatives are up and actually working early, whereas liberals are tired from a night on the XBox or being out drinking.
pharoidJul 14, 2010
Here come the angry old people. "You damn kids and your video games! And stay off my lawn!"
The only people I know who get up at 5 are mowing my lawn.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
Yeah...they are in such a hurry to get to their 'jobs' that they have all day sitting around with nothing better to do than race-bait on Digg.
Must be some really, really important jobs going on there.
Almost like they don't have jobs at all. Hmmmm......
jimbodeenieJul 14, 2010
I think you are confusing "old people" with responsible citizens. The people digging up the stories you dislike are up early because they have jobs, families, pay their taxes, support their families, and look forward to doing their duty as American citizens. As you can see, this responsibility tends to lend itself to ideals that you hate. Sad!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
No responsible citizen would repeat anything they ever heard on Foxnews are read on Drudge.
richmomzJul 14, 2010
Actually it's probably people who *work* that don't have time to post during the day, when they're, you know... working. Be grateful you have Digg all to yourself during business hours from the comfort of mommy's basement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phydeaux70Jul 14, 2010
Pot meet Kettle.
fyberopticJul 14, 2010
Yeah no love for the Tea Party, but they're right about the NAACP. Most of these kinda of people(Sharpton, Jackson) and organizations only seem to cause more trouble than they solve. And I mean let's face it, without racial turbulence, these kinds of people wouldn't have a purpose, so it's only in their favor that it continues anyway.
dayal911Jul 14, 2010
The NAACP is a racist organization, I agree. Conservatives can't claim that there's no inherent racism in a lot of their supporters.
I'm sorry, but the sheer number of people that believed that Obama was a Muslim and that he was born in another country was ridiculous. They saw someone who had a background they were unfamiliar with and because of their racist tendencies, were immediately fearful and suspicious.
That said, the NAACP is totally bigoted. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
"I'm sorry, but the sheer number of people that believed that Obama was a Muslim and that he was born in another country was ridiculous"
IMO, that isn't racism, it is plain dumb. But I suspect that has more to do with political differences than racism. Heck, many though Cheney ate babies blood, had a coffin and Bush hated black people.... No one every called that racist - Dumb seems to only be racist when it is directed at someone other than white.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dayal911Jul 14, 2010
I agree with you that a large population of non-whites are racist.
In my opinion, their fear of Obama's religion and place of birth stems from inherent racism.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Day - Maybe, who knows> I am not in their heads, and maybe it is all because there is a black man in office. I sincerely hope that that isn't the case, but with humanity you never know.
Heck, I was hoping that the progressives were going to Change the wars, the torture, the secret prisons, and,and,and....I am getting used to disappointment.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
I agree on both counts, but also think that to single out the tea party as racist I think is bulls**t. Sure there are racists among the tea party, just as there are in EVERY organization, but the focus of the tea party is the complete deficit disaster.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Wow, glad to see so many fellow Constitutionalists on Digg. I thought everyone was a progressive liberal, atheist, evolutionists. Well God bless everyone!
-DevinComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
We are in the minority, and the progressives do bury every article they can that demonstrates the results of their actions... but like the neo-cons before them, they can only bury the truth for so long, they can only manage the message for so long, there are only so many lies from the MSM that people will buy until they too start to ask questions....
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”
Mark TwainComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hoghugJul 15, 2010
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals”
Mark Twain
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Cool, thanks for the quotes. I have posted a lot of articles that get buried, most of them on Creation. I have been debating evolutionists and atheists under some of the stories I have posted if you interested in joining the debates just check out some of the other stories I have submitted.
God bless,
-Devin ( Devin82m@mail.com )Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Well devin, I have to say I am certainly not a creationist, but I do go by the live and let live attitude. Open debates and discussions can be fun as long as everyone treats each other with respect. Something I have yet to see from many progressives here - although there are a few, to which I highly prize their insights and thoughts.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
@Waitinf2awake
Thanks a lot man for your honesty. That can be rare. I understand what you mean about some people having good insight (even if they don't have enough insight to follow progressive ideals). ;-)
God bless,
-DevinComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
It's true what they say: If fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag, waving the cross, and preaching free markets.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Never had the free markets attached to it.... why do you have to make a good quote, into your own version of it?
But if we are going to paraphrase quotes...
We will lose our liberty and freedom not from some invading army marching over the hills, or ships coming to our shores. No, we will lose our freedom and liberty, one small step at a time. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
"We will lose our liberty and freedom not from some invading army marching over the hills, or ships coming to our shores. No, we will lose our freedom and liberty, one small step at a time. "
Indeed. If these people aren't opposed you'll need your papers just to leave the house.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
MWeather - And they have proposed this? No? Just making s**t up huh?
For five minutes think about the liberties and freedoms Americans have lost since 2001... if you feel really good, think about it since 1985... and you'll understand this isn't partisan - this is your freedom, and the Tea Party is the only thing that is standing between you and a complete oppressive government, and before you think "OK, I like OBama", remember Obama isn't there forever, and after him will be coming another Bush, and you may want to speak out then - but you won't be able too...
Pendulums my man, American politics is just a pendulum.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
"And they have proposed this?"
Proposed and passed in Arizona. Proposed in numerous other states. It's only a matter of time before it's nationwide.
How can you not have heard about this?
"Tea Party is the only thing that is standing between you and a complete oppressive government,"
Lol, you had me going till that. Good troll.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
The Arizona government is a tea party member? No you say, you just think he acts like one? Got cha... That makes perfect sense..for someone that doesn't know what they are talking about..
In related news, Obama bows like the Japanese.... MWeather proclaims Obama from Japan... Makes perfect sense doesn't it..
And you call others trolls... Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
So your claim is that the Tea Party does not support the Arizona law and other like it?
Seriously? That's hilarious.
sniffspamJul 14, 2010
@ MWeather
AZ is trying to fix a problem. In most states its the law to carry id already.. Why would you defend someone who isnt willing to enter the country legally. Don't you think everyone should be paying taxes?
I love the fact that Obama is fighting the AZ law. 70% of America is for it and it well be his downfall.
And normally the person screaming RACISM is the racist.. So you guys keep showing your true colors and I'll keep laughing at you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hoghugJul 15, 2010
The faux grass root, corporate organized, republican backed, racist led, Fox promoted Tea Party is the only thing standing between us and oppression?
Wow, oppression never sounded so good.
And all we hear from the tea parties is that Obama is a (pick your favorite misunderstood political invective here). They claim they're being taxed too much (even though taxes are the lowest they've been in years for everyone but the very wealthiest Americans). They claim Obama wasn't born in the US (which has been debunked to f**king death, to no avail). They fret about imaginary "death panels" and the unbearable horror of eliminating preexisting condition exclusions from insurance policies.
If the Tea Party honestly gave a s**t about civil liberties, taxes or tyranny they would have been storming the white house when Bush was using 7-800 some odd signing statements to circumvent the law, ignored national threats, spied without warrants, tortured innocents and invaded a country for what turned out to be no good god damn reason and which we paid for dearly with American lives and untold 100s of billions of tax payers' dollars.
But no. These fine patriots ignored/justified/supported all that but are NOW working around the clock to save us from some make-pretend sleeper cell Muslim/ black christian separatist, Nigerian, racist, fascist, communist, Marxist, Nazi boogeyman, who's trying to enslave us, steal our healthcare, and put grandma and the handicapped on the firing line.
thecoolestguyJul 14, 2010
A Constitutionalist is not necessarily a creationist. Many Constitutionalists simply believe in the rule of law.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Hey, thats great. No complaint there! :-)
benmiller313Jul 14, 2010
Not really helping your cause by condeming liberals and evolution in the same breath.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
How so? Which cause? No not all progressives are evolutionists... But I would say a majority are because it supports their agendas of Humanism. I mean look at Hitler, Mao, Lennon, Marx, Stalin, and all the others that used the idea of evolution to murder millions and persecute people groups. Evolution loving (yes all throughout their manifestos and policies) have murdered more people than any religious wars have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJul 14, 2010
re: Hitler
Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy: "Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383)"
The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)"
re: the Communists and Marxists you mentioned
Communism rejected evolution in favor of Lamarckism, and more specifically, Lysenkoism. The class struggle of Marxism and Communism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of molding and improving traits shared by both philosophies.
These people were dictators first and foremost, far above any allegiance they might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. They distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking (and thus, as competition to their personality cults). Though their persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (in Stalin's case, causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), they imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Hitler:
Hitler and Evolution
Quotable Quote by Sir Arthur Keith
Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’
Reference
Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.
Hitler’s ‘master race’ children haunted by their past
by Russell Grigg
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Richard Freimark.
Between 1935 and 1945, there were born some 10,000 children in Germany and an estimated 9,000 in Norway as part of a Nazi genetic engineering plan to build up an Aryan ‘master-race’ or super-breed of humanity. This scheme was known as the Lebensborn or ‘Fountain of Life’ program. Special clinics were set up where SS men1 were encouraged to mate with blue-eyed, blonde Nordic girls who had no Jewish ancestry, in order to produce ‘racially pure’ German offspring. The resultant babies were then brought up in the foster care of dedicated Nazi couples or reared in special orphanages.
There were at least ten Lebensborn homes in Germany,2 and nine in Nazi-occupied Norway, where the unmarried pregnant women could give birth in secret away from their homes.3 The babies were christened in a ritual in which an SS dagger was held over them as the mother swore allegiance to Nazi ideology.4 If any of the children born into the program were disabled, they were killed or sent to concentration camps.5
Social Darwinism in action
This was social Darwinism or eugenics in action. Eugenics is the application of Darwinian evolution to produce better offspring by improving the birthrate of the ‘fit’ and reducing the birthrate of the ‘less fit’.6 The Lebensborn homes took care of the former, hurrying natural selection along; the concentration camps dealt with the latter,7 exterminating up to 11 million ‘useless eaters’, as authenticated and documented at the Nuremberg Trials.
The Germany of Hitler’s day was steeped in this social Darwinism. This was principally because:
1.Darwin’s Origin of Species had been translated into German in 1860,8 followed by his Descent of Man in 1875 (which showed that Darwin was himself a social Darwinist!). And their logical sequel, articles on eugenics, by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, had been translated into German by the early 1900s.
2.Ernst Haeckel (Prof. of Zoology at Jena University in Germany from 1865 to 1909) had become ‘Darwin’s chief European apostle proclaiming the gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor, not only to the university intelligentsia but to the common man by popular books and to the working classes by lectures in rented halls.’9
3.The German nation had been subjected for many years to the ‘God-is-dead’ atheism of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). Nietzsche believed that Darwinian evolution would eventually produce the Übermensch, ‘a superman whose distance from the ordinary man is greater than the distance between man and ape’.10 Then a ‘super-race’ of such beings would impose its will on the weak and the worthless.
Consequently, social Darwinism became accepted throughout Germany because it was considered by most Germans (scientists and many church leaders included) to be scientifically true. Bergman sarcastically comments: ‘And what greater authority than science could racists have for their views?’11
Hitler and Darwin
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy Unknown Provenance.
In due course, Hitler became the chief promulgator of Darwinist racist views. In his autobiography, MeinKampf (11 million copies published—the title means ‘My Struggle’), commenting on the news that a ‘Negro’ had become a lawyer, Hitler wrote, ‘… it is an act of criminal insanity to train a being who is only an anthropoid [ape] by birth until the pretence can be made that he has been turned into a lawyer’.12
Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University writes, ‘Since Hitler viewed evolutionary progress as essentially good, he believed that the highest good is to cooperate with the evolutionary process. … If evolution provided the ends, the Darwinian mechanism suggested the means: increase the population of the “most fit” people to displace others in the struggle for existence.’13 This was the rationale for the Lebensborn program.
Evolutionary ideas infest all that is worst in MeinKampf. The book abounds with concepts like struggle, selection, survival of the fittest, extinction of the weak, mixing one’s blood, etc. For example, Hitler wrote, ‘He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.’14
On the idea that pacifism could result in chaos, he wrote that ‘our planet has been moving through the spaces of ether for millions and millions of years, uninhabited by men, and at some future date may easily begin to do so again—if men should forget that wherever they have reached a superior level of existence, it was … by acknowledging and rigorously observing the iron laws of Nature.’15
Hitler justified his racism by appealing to Darwinian science. He wrote, ‘The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.’16 (Emphasis added.)
Hitler continued, ‘If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts,throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.’17 (Emphasis added.)
A cry for acceptance
Instead of becoming part of the new master race, the children procreated in the Lebensborn homes suffered greatly after WWII, with the collapse of Nazi Germany. As illegitimate babies from a Nazi propagation program, many lived out their lives in confusion and ostracism. For others, discovering the truth was equally traumatic.2 In Norway, those born of Norwegian mothers and German soldiers—‘children of the enemy’—faced pitiless discrimination and were often harassed, beaten, and called ‘Nazi swine’.
In November 2006, some 40 of the survivors met in Wernigerode, Germany, (‘where the Harz Lebensborn home contributed over 1,100 babies to the scheme’) for mutual encouragement and to confront their past life of shame and the horror of finding out they had been bred in clinics to be the next generation of Nazi elite.
Those present ‘showed little of the aura of the supermen and women they were created to be. They were racked with the ailments of ordinary aging, some stooped, some portly, many dark-haired, plenty with poor vision and hearing impairments.’18
Lebensborn child Ursula Jaeckel, now 62, told how she was abused by other children and by her foster mother, after the war was lost.18 Gisela Heidenreich, born in a Lebensborn home in Norway, was the daughter of an SS commander and a German secretary. Her childhood was filled with abuse and rage from her foster parents and her fellow school children. ‘We were created to be a super race and we ended up merely asking, “Who am I? How did I get here?”’ she said.19 Helga Kahrau says, ‘Being a Lebensborn child is still a source of shame.’2 This shame is the bitter legacy for those who were produced to rule the world—innocent pawns in the Nazis’ diabolical game.
Relevance for today
The idea that one race, and in particular the white race, and especially the Nordic/Aryan/Teutonic/German sector, is superior to all others is total fallacy. But it was enthusiastically taught in American classrooms by Hunter’s Civic Biology, the textbook at the centre of the Scopes trial in 1925.
The Bible tells us that we are all related because we are all descended from one couple, Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20, Acts 17:26), and then, following the Flood, from one family group, that of Noah (Genesis 7:23; 9:1).
Indeed, if Hitler and his Nazi associates had fully accepted and consistently acted on the belief that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve and so are equal before the Creator God, as taught in the Bible in both the Old Testament and New Testament, neither the Lebensborn program with all of its pain, nor the Holocaust with all of its horrors, would ever have happened.
Further reading
Charles Darwin Questions and Answers
References
1.SS: German: Schutzstaffel, originally Hitler’s ‘Protective Squadron’ bodyguard that grew into one of the most powerful and brutal Nazi organizations. Return to text.
2.Most Lebensborn archives were destroyed by the SS at the end of WWII, but recently some surviving records have been found in Berlin. Hammer, J., Hitler’s children, Newsweek International, 20 March 2000, <www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups164.html>. Return to text.
3.There were also Lebensborn homes in Austria, France, Belgium, Holland, Poland and Luxembourg (ref. 4). In addition, many thousands of children with ‘Aryan’ characteristics were kidnapped from occupied East European countries and removed to Germany. Return to text.
4.‘Himmler was my godfather’, <www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2439127,00.html>, 14 December 2006. Return to text.
5.BBC News, Nazi past haunts ‘Aryan’ children, 13 June 2005, <news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/4080822.stm>. Return to text.
6.The term ‘eugenics’, meaning ‘well-born’, was coined by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1883. See Grigg, R., Eugenics … death of the defenceless, Creation 28(1):18–22, 2005. Return to text.
7.The Lebensborn program and the ‘final solution’ gas chambers program were both supervised by Hitler’s second-in-command, SS Reichsfuehrer (Commander-in-Chief) Heinrich Himmler. Return to text.
8.The 2nd edition of Darwin’s Origin was translated in 1863, the 3rd edition in 1867, the 6th edition in 1876, and a new German translation was published in 1916. Return to text.
9.Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, p. 185, 1984. See also Grigg, R., Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit, Creation 18(2):33–36, 1996, <www.creationon theweb.com/haeckel>. Return to text.
10.Encyclopaedia Britannica 24:938, 15th edition, 1992. Return to text.
11.Bergman, J., Darwinism and the Nazi race holocaust, Journal of Creation 13(2):101–111, 1999. See <creation.com/holocaust>. Return to text.
12.Hitler, A., Mein Kampf, English translation by James Murphy, 1939, Fredonia Classics, New York, p. 401, 2003. Return to text.
13.Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 211 and 215, 2004. See review by Sarfati, J., The Darwinian roots of the Nazi tree, Creation 27(4):39, 2005. Also <creation.com/weikart>. Return to text.
14.Ref. 12, p. 266. Return to text.
15.Ref. 12, p. 265. Return to text.
16.Ref. 12, p. 262. Return to text.
17.Ref. 12, p. 263. Return to text.
18.The Scotsman, ‘Master-race’ children revisit past, 6 November 2006, <news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1640452006>. Return to text.
19.Hall, A., (Daily Mail) Hitler’s children living in torment, Courier-Mail (Brisbane) 7 November 2006, p. 26. Return to text.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Communism and Marx
The Darwinian foundation of communism
by Jerry Bergman
Summary
A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview. Furthermore, Darwinism was critically important in their conversion to communism and to a worldview that led them to a philosophy based on atheism. In addition, the communist core idea that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinistic concepts and conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image Wikipedia.org
Karl Heinrich Marx (1818–1883)
Darwinism as a worldview was a critical factor, not only in influencing the development of Nazism, but also in the rise of communism and the communist holocaust that, by one estimate, took the lives of more than 100 million persons.1 Marx, together with his forebears, associates and successors, was a doctrinaire evolutionist who tried to build his society on evolutionary premises. There is abundant documentation of this assessment and, few would even question it.2
Beate Wilder-Smith suggested that evolution is
‘a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that inbetween links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped” [emphasis in original].’3
Many extremists were active before Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, in 1859, but since religious faith prevailed among both scientists and non-scientists before Darwin, it was very difficult for these radicals to persuade the masses to accept communistic (or other leftist) ideologies. Partly for this reason, Western nations blocked the development of most radical movements for centuries. Darwin, however, opened the door to Marxism by providing what Marx believed was a ‘scientific’ rationale to deny Creation and, by extension, to deny God.4 His denial of God, and his knowledge of Darwin, inspired Marx to develop his new godless worldview now known as communism. And like other Darwinists, Marx stressed that his communistic worldview was ‘scientific’ and, as such, employed a ‘scientific methodology and scientific outlook’.5 Bethell notes that Marx admired Darwin’s book,
‘not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or “beyond” it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades
… .’6
And historian Hofstadter noted that most of the early orthodox Marxists ‘felt quite at home in Darwinian surroundings. On the shelves of the socialist bookstores in Germany the words of Darwin and Marx stood side by side’.7 He adds that communist books ‘that came pouring forth from the Kerr presses in Chicago [the major U.S. publisher of Communist books] were frequently adorned with knowing citations from Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and Haeckel’.7
Karl Marx
Born in 1818, Marx was baptized a Lutheran in 1824, attended a Lutheran elementary school, received praise for his ‘earnest’ essays on moral and religious topics, and was judged by his teachers ‘moderately proficient’ in theology (his first written work was on the ‘love of Christ’)8-10 until the time he encountered the materialistic and atheistic notions then prevalent at the University of Berlin. Marx wrote tirelessly until he died, producing hundreds of books, monographs and articles. Sir Isaiah Berlin even claimed that no thinker ‘in the nineteenth century has had so direct, deliberate and powerful an influence upon mankind as did Karl Marx’.11 Marx saw the living world in terms of a Darwinian ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ struggle, involving the triumph of the strong and the subjugation of the weak.12 Darwin taught that the ‘survival of the fittest’ existed among all forms of life. From this idea Marx believed that the major ‘struggle for existence’ among humans occurred primarily between the social classes. Barzun13 concluded that Marx believed his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s, and that,
‘like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life. … both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or esthetic quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product. Both Darwin and Marx [also] tended to hedge and modify their mechanical absolution in the face of objections.’14
Marx owed a major debt to Darwin for his central ideas. In Marx’s words: ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history. … not only is it [Darwin’s book] a death blow … to “Teleology” in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is empirically explained’.15 Marx first read Darwin’s Origin of Species only a year after its publication, and was so enthusiastic that he reread it two years later.16 He attended a series of lectures by Thomas Huxley on Darwin’s ideas, and spoke of ‘nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries’.17 According to a close associate, Marx was also
‘ … one of the first to grasp the significance of Darwin’s research. Even before 1859, the year of the publication of The Origin of the Species [sic]—and, by a remarkable coincidence, of Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy—Marx realized Darwin’s epoch-making importance. For Darwin … was preparing a revolution similar to the one which Marx himself was working for … . Marx kept up with every new appearance and noted every step forward, especially in the fields of natural sciences … .’18
Berlin states that after he became a communist, Marx detested passionately any ‘belief in supernatural causes’.19 Stein noted that ‘Marx himself viewed Darwin’s work as confirmation by the natural sciences of his own views … ’.20 Hyman included Darwin and Marx among the four men he considered responsible for many of the most significant events of the 20th century.21 According to Heyer, Marx was ‘infatuated’ with Darwin, and Darwin’s ideas clearly had a major influence not only on him and Engels, but also on both Lenin and Stalin. Furthermore, these men’s writings frequently discussed Darwin’s ideas.22 Marx and Engels ‘enthusiastically embraced’ Darwinism, kept up with Darwin’s writings, and often corresponded with each other (and others) about their reactions to Darwin’s conclusions.23,24 The communists recognized the importance of Darwin to their movement and therefore vigorously defended him:
‘The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said, “ … this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view”. … And of all those eminent researchers of the nineteenth century who have left us such a rich heritage of knowledge, we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary, dialectical understanding of nature.’25
Prominent communist Friedrich Lessner concluded that Das Kapital and Darwin’s Origin of Species were the ‘two greatest scientific creations of the century’.26 The importance of Darwinism in the estimated 140 million deaths caused by communism was partly because:
‘Clearly, for Marx man has no “nature”. … For man is his own maker and will consciously become his own maker in complete freedom from morality or from the laws of nature and of nature’s God. … Here we see why Marxism justifies the ruthless sacrifice of men living today, men who, at this stage of history, are only partly human.’27
Halstead adds that the theoretical foundation of communism
‘ … is dialectical materialism which was expounded with great clarity by Frederick Engels in Anti-Dührüng and The Dialectics of Nature. He recognized the great value of the contributions made by geology in establishing that there was constant movement and change in nature and the significance of Darwin’s demonstration that this applied also to the organic world. … The crux of the entire theoretical framework, however, is in the nature of qualitative changes. This is also spelt out by Engels in The Dialectics of Nature, “a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another”. … Here then is the recipe for revolution.’28
Conner adds that communism teaches that by ‘defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of … reactionary outfits, and prepare the way for the transformation of the social order’, i.e. a communist revolution.29
Friedrich Engels
Marx’s co-worker and frequent co-author, Friedrich Engels, was raised by a strict and ‘pietist’ Bible-believing father, but Engels, too, rejected Christianity, evidently partly as a result of his studies at the University of Berlin.30 At Marx’s graveside, Engels declared: ‘Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history …’.31 Himmelfarb concluded, from her study of Darwin, that there was much truth in Engels’ eulogy to Marx:
‘What they both celebrated was the internal rhythm and course of life, the one the life of nature, the other of society, that proceeded by fixed laws, undistracted by the will of God or men. There were no catastrophes in history as there were none in nature. There were no inexplicable acts, no violations of the natural order. God was as powerless as individual men to interfere with the internal, self-adjusting dialectic of change and development.’32
Alexander Herzen
Several others also were critically important in the development of the communist movement. One was Alexander Herzen (1812-1870), the first to articulate the new radicalism in Russia and, being a man who was in full harmony with Marx’s ideas, was a pioneer in calling for a mass revolt to achieve Communist power. His theory was a distinctively Russian version of socialism based on the peasant commune, which furnished the primary ideological basis for much of the revolutionary activity in Russia up to 1917. Herzen also was influenced by evolution:
‘Herzen’s university writings are concerned primarily with the theme of biological becoming … . Herzen displays a good knowledge of the serious scientific literature of the period … especially works which announced the idea of evolution … [including] the writings of Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles and to a point his ideological predecessor… . He was abreast of the debate between the followers of Cuvier, who held to the immutability of species, and Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire, the tranformationist or evolutionist; and of course he took the side of the latter, since the idea of continuous evolution was necessary to illustrate the progressive unfolding of the Absolute. In short, Herzen’s scientific training lay essentially in the raw materials for the biology of the Naturphilosophie.’33
Vladimir Lenin
Lenin also was influenced significantly by Darwinism, and operated in accordance with the philosophy ‘fewer but better’, a restatement of natural selection.34 He was raised by devout Bible-believing parents in a middle-class home.35 Then, in about 1892, he discovered Darwin and Marx’s works, and his life was changed forever.36 A catalyst to Lenin’s adopting Marxism was the fact that the unjust Russian educational system cancelled his father’s tenure with one year’s grace, thus throwing his family into turmoil. Within a year, his father died, leaving Lenin embittered at age 16.37 Lenin greatly admired his father, who was a hard-working, religious and intelligent man. Koster adds:
‘The only piece of art work in Lenin’s office was a kitsch statue of an ape sitting on a heap of books—including Origin of Species—and contemplating a human skull. This … comment in clay on Darwin’s view of man, remained in Lenin’s view as he worked at his desk, approving plans or signing death warrants … . The ape and the skull were a symbol of his faith, the Darwinian faith that man is a brute, the world is a jungle, and individual lives are irrelevant. Lenin was probably not an instinctively vicious man, though he certainly ordered a great many vicious measures. Perhaps the ape and the skull were invoked to remind himComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
The Darwin–Hitler connection
http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link
Communism and Nazism Questions and Answers
How are Communism and Nazism based upon evolutionary thinking?
http://creation.com/communism-and-nazism-questions-and-answersComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJul 14, 2010
Wow, the author of that article really didn't know what he was talking about. He started off completely wrong by conflating eugenics, Social Darwinism, and evolution, which is complete bulls**t.
Lets address what eugenics and Social Darwinism actually are.
For starters, eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution, and many of them are completely arbitrary (blond hair and blue eyes?). The goal of eugenics is to make a homogeneous gene pool of these traits. However, this necessarily means that the gene pool is restricted. Genetically speaking, this is a bad thing - a narrow gene pool is unable to easily adapt to a changing environment, and more prone to genetic problems. If species survival is seen as a goal, then eugenics is actually contrary to that goal.
The source of Social Darwinism, on the other hand, was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition of Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian, not Darwinian. The only real connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is the name. As with eugenics, Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin, so obviously they don't need any input from his work. An actual understanding of evolutionary biology shows that those practices are counterproductive towards species survival.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Hmm... Sounds like you don't have an answer to the majority of what I posted... Also there are quotes and documented history in those articles.
As for eugenics...
Birth control leader Margaret Sanger: Darwinist, racist and eugenicist
by Jerry Bergman
Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes’. One major result of her lifelong work was to support the sexual revolution that has radically changed our society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1916 photograph of Sanger and two of her children, Grant and Stuart. Sanger did not like caring for her children and grossly neglected them. (From Sanger63).
Margaret Sanger (14 Sept. 1879–6 Sept. 1966) was the most prominent leader of the modern birth control and ‘free love’ movements.1 Sanger’s mother was a devout Irish Catholic; her father, Michael Higgins, was an unstable man unable to provide adequately for his large family. Although a skilled stonemason and tombstone carver, Mr Higgins was unable to properly care for his family because he alienated many of his customers with his radical politics.2 He drank heavily when he had the money while his 11 children ‘suffered bitterly from cold, privation, and hunger.’3 He was so anti-Christian that when Margaret was baptized at
St. Mary’s Catholic church on March 23, 1893, the event ‘had to be kept secret, as her father would have been furious.’4
Sanger left her unhappy home as a teen, never to return—except briefly to study nursing at a co-educational boarding school called ‘Claverack College’.5 She was reportedly a poor student, skipped classes and neglected her part-time job. She dropped out of school and, after a brief stay at home to help care for her dying mother, moved in with her older sister and worked as a first grade teacher. She taught the children of immigrants but left after only two terms. This unhappy experience may have contributed to her later enthusiastic embrace of eugenics.
About this time she married William Sanger, an architect and painter, in 1902 and soon had three children. Her husband tried everything within his power to please his wife, but she turned out to be very difficult to satisfy. Margaret was also a distracted mother who did not like caring for children, including her own.6 She detested domestic life and grossly neglected her children to the point that neighbours had to step in to care for them.7 The letters her children wrote to their mother vividly reveal this neglect.
Margaret Sanger’s second husband, oil magnate and founder of the 3-in-1 Oil Company James Noah H. Slee, was also very wealthy.8 She wrote to her secretary, ‘I don’t want to marry anyone, particularly a stodgy churchgoer … Yet … how often am I going to meet a man with nine million dollars?’9 In the first issue of her journal titled The Woman Rebel, she wrote that marriage is ‘a degenerate institution’ and that modesty is an ‘obscene prudery’.
Following her father’s footsteps, Sanger became involved in radical politics. When she was formally introduced to Marxism, anarchism, secular humanism, free love and Darwinism, she found her passion in life. Sanger used her husbands’ wealth to support her activities. Her sexual passion, though, resulted in free-love behaviour that neither of her two husbands could cope with.10
Sanger’s writings
Sanger wrote extensively, leaving ample documentation of her life. She founded Birth Control Review, published from 1917 until the early 1940s, and was either an editor or contributor to this publication during most of its existence. Sanger’s relationship with eugenicists was clearly expressed in the pages of Birth Control Review from its inception. Eugenics also ‘soon became a constant, even a dominant, theme at birth-control conferences’.11
Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians.
Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’.12 She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians.13 When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population.14 Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.15 She won many academics and scientists to her cause, including Harvard University sociologists E. M. East, University of Michigan President Clarence C. Little and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Alfred Meyer.16
Sanger also made her eugenic views clear in her many publications, such as The Pivot of Civilization and Woman Rebel, stressing that birth control was not only ‘important with respect to controlling the numbers of unfit in the population’, but was the ‘only viable means to improve the human race’.17 For example, she wrote: ‘Birth control itself … is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.’18 She boldly proclaimed that birth control was the only viable way to improve the human race.19 And while in her later years Sanger redefined what she meant by the unfit, ‘she increasingly saw feeblemindedness, the bogey of all hereditarians, as antecedent to poverty and social organization in the genesis of social problems.’20
She also opposed charity because it allowed the less fit to survive and propagate more unfit children.21 The influence of Darwin on Sanger’s racism ideas is obvious from her writings. For example she wrote,
The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.—Margaret Sanger
‘The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat, knows no law except nature, which impels him to procreate, whatever the result.’22
Her conversion to eugenics
Early in her career, Sanger became a follower of Thomas Malthus, the same man that inspired Darwin. Malthus’s disciples—then called Malthusians and Neo-Malthusians—taught that ‘if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to somehow be suppressed and isolated—or perhaps even eliminated.’23
As Sanger stressed in a talk given at the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference, the end goal of her movement was to produce a superior race: ‘To-day the average reliance of civilization is based upon iron and steel, bricks and mortar, and we must change this to the construction and evolution of humanity itself 24 ’.
To do this she advocated euthanasia, segregation in work camps, sterilization and abortion.25 She was very successful in achieving this goal—more than half of the American states launched programs that sterilized their ‘unfit … with Virginia, California, and Kansas leading the way’.25 Sanger was also very influenced by Havelock Ellis,
‘ … the influential sociologist, “sexologist,” and eugenicist. Ellis’s position on eugenics is summed up by his own statement that appeared in the “Havelock Ellis Number” of Birth Control Review February 1919 issue: “We desire no parents who are not both competent and willing parents. Only such parents are fit to father and mother a future race worthy to rule the world.”’26
Ellis frequently published articles in Birth Control Review, and Ellis had major influence on Sanger’s ideas. Chesler wrote that Ellis, who ‘always considered himself both a eugenicist and a socialist’, converted Sanger to his views. Furthermore,
‘Ellis made his most important contribution to the eugenics doctrine … when he assigned women to act as its chief enforcers. Women are critical agents of civilization’s progress … because … they alone have the power to produce and nurture … fitter babies. … Increased sex expression and wider use of birth control were thus significant tools in the eugenic program, and accordingly, he condemned eugenicists who refused to endorse birth control.’27
Sanger wrote that her concern was not just that feeble-mindedness leads to criminality but
‘ … there is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that the so-called “borderline cases” are a greater menace than the out-and-out “defective delinquents” who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind. … the mental defective who is glib and plausible, bright looking and attractive, but with a mental vision of seven, eight or nine years, may not merely lower the whole level of intelligence in a school or in a society, but may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates … an entire community. The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult.’28
As early as 1917 Sanger was openly giving ‘public support to the eugenics movement’ and to ‘race betterment’ programs.29 The eugenicists on her board believed that ‘birth control would eliminate disease and deformity as well as empty the jails and orphanages’.8 Sanger ‘supported sterilization for the incarcerated and considered birth control a necessary component of racial improvement’.30 Her eugenics crusade, although toned down later in her life, was to consume her until she died in 1966.5 According to Roche, Sanger’s end goal was the same as Hitler’s: to ‘create a race of thoroughbreds’, a pure and superior race and her journal even ‘eerily’ foretold the ‘horrors of the Nazi “final solution”.’31
Left, the cover of one of Sanger’s openly eugenic books. First published in 1922, it became one of the ‘text books’ of the movement for years and is still in print. Centre, one volume of papers presented at the International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference and published in 1926. The papers published in these proceedings make it clear that Sanger and many of her closest followers were foremost concerned with applying Darwinism to produce a superior race and improve the lot of humankind by eugenics. Right, the cover of one of the many books that Sanger wrote to teach sex-education to young people. This book was written to instruct mothers to teach ‘sex education’ to their young children. It was published in New York by Max N. Maisel, 1916. This set of books openly advocated immoral behaviour such as sex outside of marriage.
Racism and birth control clinics
Margaret Sanger opened her first birth control clinic in 1916 in the impoverished Brownsville section of Brooklyn to help control the problem of ‘over breeding’. The two-room storefront clinic was a great contrast to Margaret’s plush Greenwich Village home, but
‘ … since the clientele she wished to attract—“immigrant Southern Europeans, Slavs, Latins, and Jews”—could only be found “in the coarser neighborhoods and tenements,” she was forced to venture out of her comfortable confines.’32
Sanger once addressed the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and received a ‘dozen invitations to speak to similar groups’.
As her organization grew, Sanger set up more clinics in the communities of other ‘dysgenic races’—such as Blacks and Hispanics. Sanger turned her attention to ‘Negroes’ in 1929 and opened another clinic in Harlem in 1930. Sanger, ‘in alliance with eugenicists, and through initiatives such as the Negro Project … exploited black stereotypes in order to reduce the fertility of African Americans.’33 The all-white staff and the sign identifying the clinic as a ‘research bureau’ raised the suspicions of the black community. They feared that the clinic’s actual goal was to ‘experiment on and sterilize black people’.34 Their fears were not unfounded: Sanger once addressed the women’s branch of the Klu Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and received a ‘dozen invitations to speak to similar groups’.35 Flynn claims that she was on good terms with other racist organizations.36
Sanger believed the ‘Negro district’ was the ‘headquarters for the criminal element’ and concluded that, as the title of a book by a member of her board proclaimed, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was a rise that had to be stemmed.33 To dComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJul 14, 2010
re: the Bergman article
Bergman's assertions about Marx and Engels are easy to dismiss when one notes that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, while Marx's Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 - so unless Marx had a time machine to read Darwin's work at least 11 years in his future, he could not have been so influenced by it as Bergman claims, nor could he have made the non-sequitur leap from biological selection to class struggle (which is itself an idea not supported by anything Darwin wrote, nor anything in biology).
Further, Bergman's assertions about the Nazi's being influenced by Darwin I have already addressed in my comments above, both in explaining how eugenics and social darwinism are actually counterproductive to evolutionary biology when species survival is seen as a goal, and in the actions of the Nazi party in banning books that discuss evolution.
apokalypsenowJul 14, 2010
"Hmm... Sounds like you don't have an answer to the majority of what I posted..."
I destroyed the foundations upon which the arguments were formed, so there was no reason to address the rest - their base assertions were incorrect, so anything derived from them would have to be re-examined before they were even worth considering.
As for this next Bergman article, it too is conflating eugenics and evolutionary biology. I have already addressed this above, and feel no need to repeat myself - eugenics is counter to evolutionary biology if species survival in a changing environment is seen as a goal. Eugenics is not in any way based on a working knowledge of evolutionary biology. Sanger's belief that she understood evolutionary biology was in error - her attempts to justify racism with it are completely unsupported by the science she claimed to follow.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
@Apoka
Acutally you didn't destroy the articles... You provided a couple interesting points and my articles had exstensive information to support the idea that Hitler and Communisms are based on evolutionary ideas. Yes they use the word "Darwinian" but they all got their ideals from:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Thomas Henry Huxley
George John Romanes
Ernst Haeckel
Ernst Mayr
Julian Huxley
The same people who "influenced" Darwin into writing The Origin Of Species. Try re-reading those articles entirely. Also Sanger made sense from a evolutionary point of view. At the time evolutionists thought blacks were "less evolved humans" and also it would make sense to remove the disabled (mentally and other) from society and keep them from breeding (polluting the gene pool). I thought the idea of evolution is for one life-form to adapt in a beneficial way and that life-form eventually becomes something better after multiple generations (which there is no evidence for yet). Also weaker humans waste the resources of more "evolved" humans, I mean after all we are just animals right?!
*Just to make it clear for anyone reading this, I DO NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION OR RACISM. If it sounds like I do I am only using sarcastic humor to challege evolutionists.*Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJul 14, 2010
Nothing you wrote there changes the fact that Marx's ideas were sociological in nature, and completely unsupported by anything in biology, nor does it change the fact that Bergman and Grigg are conflating biological evolution with eugenics, when in fact eugenics is counterproductive to species survival.
Also, Marx could not have been influenced by Haeckel, as he was 12 at the time of the publication of The Communist Manifesto. Ernst Mayr wasn't born until 1904, and Julian Huxley wasn't born until 1887, so they couldn't have been an influence on either Darwin's OR Marx's work. Romanes would not be born for another few months at the time of Marx's publication, and would be 11 when Darwin published, so still a no for him.
That leaves just Hooker and Thomas Huxley as possible influences for both. Prior to 1848, Hooker had only published one collected work: three volumes of "Flora Antarctica: the botany of the Antarctic voyage". By 1846 he had started work on his "Handbook of the New Zealand flora", his "Niger flora", and "The Rhododendrons of Sikkim-Himalaya", but had not published any of them, so I find it doubtful that Marx could have gotten evolutionary ideas from him.
Thomas Huxley first paper, "On the anatomy and the affinities of the family of Medusae" was published in 1849, still to late for him to have been an influence on Marx.
And no, Sanger did not make sense from an evolutionary point of view, as her ideas were still based on eugenics, which as I've already covered, is not supported by evolutionary biology. Further, the whole idea of "less evolved" is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved, as evolution is not a directed process, not a race to a finish line.
"I thought the idea of evolution is for one life-form to adapt in a beneficial way and that life-form eventually becomes something better after multiple generations..."
No. Evolution is simply the adaptation of a population *to its environment* (that's key). The population will become better suited to its environment over multiple generations, which we absolutely have seen, but "better" is environment-specific. An adaptation to one environment might make it poorly suited to another environment, but this is exactly what evolution predicts, and what we have observed time and again. Again, adaptations are environment-specific, they need not conform to your standards of "better", or to some arbitrary value of "better".
"Also weaker humans waste the resources of more 'evolved' humans..."
Once more, there is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved, as again, evolution is not a directed process. There is no finish line.
"...I mean after all we are just animals right?! "
Yes, we are animals - more specifically, we are social animals, meaning we have particular biological and behavioral adaptations towards working and surviving in cooperative groups. Large groups mean a more diverse gene pool, and as we've been over before, a more diverse gene pool is robust, and better able to adapt to changes in the environment.
devin82mJul 14, 2010
@Apoka
But how do you explain that some fancy goo lead to us if humans didn't come from single celled organisms way back when? How are we better suited to our environment? I mean we are more intelligent than other species but our body are riddled with problems and weaknesses. Also look at dog breeds, if they evolved (adapted to their environment which creationists believe also) why do they have so many horrible issues genetically? All the "beneficial mutations" you have listed in previous comments on other stories always have some major disadvantages connected with them... Also the fossils (can't remember what their called) that you mentioned before still show that the organisms is still the same species. E. coli, bacteria, and viruses are still E. coli, bacteria, and viruses. Even one they claimed that one bacteria can exchange genetic material with another they still were bacteria and there was no benefit to their exchange...
Also look at Wikipedia's lists of influances for Darwin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
A friend of mine has this to say about some of your comments:
"If he believes that, then he's never bothered to read Marx, or paid attention to it if he did. Marx is inherently Atheistic in nature, and Atheism must rely upon evolution of some form. If there is no God, then how did the universe come to be? How did the social order come to be? For Marxism to exist, Evolution must exist. If God exists then Marxism is disproven by default. Marx taught that the Borgsiouse middle class capitalism replaced the system of Serfdom that predated it. Communism was then to replace this middle class capitalism in turn, out of an idea of social evolution. Also directed by natural processes, as the worker would arise to take his rightful place to be in charge of his own destiny and overthrow those evil middle class masters that oppressed him and stole his labor.
As for Hitler espousing Christianity, that is laughable if the Left hadn't taught most of the world this lie. Hitler was always hostile to traditional Christianity. Those "Christians" who were willing to sell out their beliefs were then used to promote his ideas. That's how he came up with those ideas that Jesus wasn't Jewish, that the Old Testament was invalid and must be ignored, and that Jesus wasn't really God (as God Himself provides an insurmountable problem for Fascism)."
God bless,
-Devin ( Devin82m@mail.com )Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalypsenowJul 15, 2010
"But how do you explain that some fancy goo lead to us if humans didn't come from single celled organisms way back when?"
We, like all extant life on the planet, are descended from those original single celled organisms (and the simple chemical replicators, the progenitors of our genetic material, that preceded them). This is not a measure of "more" or "less" evolved, it is simply that our ancestors became adapted to various environmental pressures over time, and those changes accumulated. These did not always have to be some major change, and very rarely was it a morphological change.
"How are we better suited to our environment?"
Depends on at what point in our history you are talking about. Do you mean we humans versus our pre-human ancestors? Primates versus other Euarchonta? Eutheria versus other placental mammals? You're going to have to be more specific.
"I mean we are more intelligent than other species but our body are riddled with problems and weaknesses."
Yes, they are, but our advantages out-weighed those disadvantages in that their pressures were not sufficiently large so as to prevent a large number of our ancestors from surviving to reproduce. Remember, these problems and weaknesses are also environment-specific, just as our advantages are (in general).
"Also look at dog breeds, if they evolved (adapted to their environment which creationists believe also) why do they have so many horrible issues genetically?"
Mostly because of human involvement. Many of these issues are due to inbreeding, where problems that are recessive in nature become dominant due to multiple copies of those recessive traits are combined into single individuals. People tend to want particular dog varieties, not mutts, and so-called "pure breeds" are the worst offenders when it comes to genetic problems, because these breeds have seen the most inbreeding.
"All the 'beneficial mutations' you have listed in previous comments on other stories always have some major disadvantages connected with them..."
Yes, like I have said numerous times now, those advantages are specific to the environments in which they arose.
"Also the fossils (can't remember what their called) that you mentioned before still show that the organisms is still the same species."
Foraminifera - and no, they don't. They compose an entire PHYLUM of life, in a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year record, consisting of over 275,000 DISTINCT FOSSIL SPECIES, going back to the mid-Jurassic. The refutation you brought up of them only talked about 2 specific species of planktonic foraminifera, of the 40-50 that exist, and it doesn't cover the abundant other species in that phylum that exist today, and who's fossil lineage is clear.
Just so you are aware of exactly what a phylum is, here's the rundown. A species exists in an Genus. Genera exist in Families. Families exist in Orders. Orders exist in Classes, and Classes exist in Phyla. The next taxonomic level up is Kingdom, such as Animalia and Plantae. The phylum that homo sapiens exist in is Chordata (due to our dorsal nerve cord), and our class is Mammalia (for being placental mammals). So yeah, our knowledge of the fossil lineages of Foraminifera goes back to the same level as our own classification based on having a spines (actually, one step beyond that, because Vertebrata is a sub-phylum of Chordata).
"E. coli, bacteria, and viruses are still E. coli, bacteria, and viruses."
...and they always will be. That's the way taxonomic inheritance and classification works, you will always be a member of whatever group you originated from.
"Also look at Wikipedia's lists of influances[sic] for Darwin..."
Yes. None of these are among those you listed earlier.
"...Atheism must rely upon evolution of some form."
Not it doesn't - you could be a Raelian, or you could simply be apathetic to the matter of origins, or any number of other possibilities.
"If there is no God, then how did the universe come to be?"
Our current best explanation is Big Bang cosmology. We can simulate the conditions that our models predict would have existed fractions of a second after the beginning of the universe using particle accelerators, and the math lines up, although we are still looking for some other components of the basic physical model (such as the Higgs Boson, currently being searched for using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. This is the elementary particle that causes mass, and is sometimes called "The God Particle", which isn't a reference to theology, but to "the goddamn particle", as it is very difficult to find, if it even exists - our model could need revision). If you're looking for a "why", then ask a philosopher, science is interested in "how".
"How did the social order come to be?"
That's a question for a sociologist, and that's not an area I've studied extensively. Beyond the basic evolutionary benefits of having a group that cooperates (the traits of social animals I've discussed previously), individuals desire judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization. The gods were apparitions of observation, judgment and punishment. Now, we rely more on the observation and judgment of others - in a word, fame.
"For Marxism to exist, Evolution must exist."
Only if you presuppose that Marxism is dependent on evolution - again, you might have an alternative, non-theological idea of human origins, or you simply might not care.
Once again, the class struggle of Marxism and Communism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of molding and improving traits shared by both philosophies. This is why both Marxism and Communism rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of Lysenkoism - purely for ideology, not because one was actually more supported by facts than the other.
"Hitler was always hostile to traditional Christianity."
There is much debate as to whether or not Hitler himself subscribed to any Christian ideologies (his writing on the subject contradicts itself many times), but there is no doubt at all that he dressed up Nazism in many of its trappings, language, and mysticism.
Regardless of Hitler's personal beliefs, one thing is clear - he would have used whatever ideology (or misinterpretation of an ideology) that was convenient to achieve his goals. This does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both mythology and biology.
hoghugJul 15, 2010
All that about Marxism being dependent on evolution is nonsense. You're conflating social evolution with biological evolution. Survival of the fittest is a horrible way to run a society. Ideally society should tend to those amongst them that are most in need. (I know, spoken like a die-hard liberal, eh? Or like, say— Jesus? But I digress. )
Biological evolution is completely independent of what sociological principles people derive from it just as the Newtonian gravity theory isn't invalid just because people realized they could push other people off of tall things to kill them.
hoghugJul 15, 2010
Tip of the hat to ApokalypseNow for a rather exhaustive debunking. Though I think you're barking up a willfully ignorant tree, here.
Either way, may His noodly appendages be with you always.
R'amen.
somnambulatorJul 15, 2010
On the topic of Hitler and religion, I came across this recently:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/dove.jpg
Not only was Hitler fanatically religious but it seems he may may have had his own 'second coming' fantasy, with himself as the messiah.
The poster above is apparantly analogous of the christian imagery of a dove descending on christ when he was baptised by John the Baptist.
http://biblelessonsite.org/images/jesu5.jpg
He appears to have been motivated by strong religious conviction, to the point of comparing himself to, or believing that he was, jesus.
ausjpJul 15, 2010
Just one minor, completely indisputable refutation here:
"Even one they claimed that one bacteria can exchange genetic material with another they still were bacteria and there was no benefit to their exchange..."
You can perform in experiment that takes about 20 minutes to prepare (plus 48 hours incubation time) to demonstrate that this is completely incorrect. Use an E. coli strain with nutrient requirements (lactose, galactose, thyamine) and antibiotic sensitivity (streptomycin) and another strain with no extra requirements and streptomycin resistance and perform a conjugation. We can in fact go as far as to determine the order in which the genes for nutrient synthesis and antibiotic resistance on the chromosome. We then provide positive selection for the nutrient synthesis genes by applying the antibiotic to destroy the E. coli that are yet to receive the plasmid.
Devin, I know that you're being polite and think that you're actually arguing reasonably (and using evidence), but anyone with even an elementary understanding of biology can debunk large portions of what you're posting without even having to do a secondary search. I implore that instead of taking creation.com (and similar sites) on face value, you do a little independent research into what they're preaching. Scientists aren't out to rid the world of god -- we're out to make the world a better place. Eroding areas that were previously god's domain is just a side effect of this inquiry. Be skeptical.
spiritusJul 14, 2010
"Constitutionalists"??? the Constitution was written by progressive Liberal Atheists.
what are you talking about?
tomasiiJul 14, 2010
Revisionist history.
hoghugJul 15, 2010
Christians? Check. Atheists, no. Well, probably not, hard to say. Deists who rejected the divinity of Christ? Most certainly. Among them: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine.
But silly facts aren't gonna stop anyone from calling this a Christian-founded nation.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
um... hoghug... if they reject the divinity of christ... the they aren't christians...
ausjpJul 15, 2010
tmonsta:
Which is why he explicitly stated that the constitution was written by Christians _and_ deists (who reject the divinity of Christ).
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
Aus, my point was that you can't lump the deist in with the christians if you're going to label this a christian founded nation
and to boot, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." is right there in the Constitution.
so while christians may have been involved in the founding of the US, it is in no way a christian founded nation. There IS a difference
hoghugJul 15, 2010
Tmonsta, I think you may have glossed over the last sentance of my post where I wrote: "But silly facts aren't gonna stop anyone from calling this a Christian-founded nation."
devin82mJul 14, 2010
:-) Cute
babywookieJul 14, 2010
"I am a God (Jesus) fearing non-denominational Christian. I am a constitutional conservative politically. I am a believe in Creationism and the vast amount of data that supports it."
LOL! Are you for real? How does it feel to be so f**king ignorant?
devin82mJul 14, 2010
Your sad.... I like Wookies though... Why am I ignorant? Because I believe in God? Or because I disagree with you? Maybe we should rename you "BabyBrain" or better yet "BabyTroll" hmmm...
:-) Those were nice names.
God bless and I will add you to my list of people to pray for,
-Devin ( Devin82m@mail.com )Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
babywookieJul 14, 2010
My sad what? Didn't they teach you grammar in jesus school?
I'll give you a pass on believing in your magical sky daddy. Hell, many of the people around me do, and we get along just fine.
You are ignorant, because you believe in creationism (and take pride in that). It's an utterly ridiculous, unsubstantiated and easily disproven hypothesis (far less than a theory). In this day an age, it really take a lot of ignorance, close-mindlessness and/or diminished mental capacity in order to deny evolution, claim that this planet is just over 6,000 years old, believe that there ever was a global flood, etc. You might as well also believe that the Earth if flat and that the Sun moves around it... or even in Santa.
Any way, good luck with that and all the praying.
devin82mJul 15, 2010
And you believe in evolution? Where did the universe come from? How did we evolve from a single celled organisms? Has it been observed that ANY organism evolves (through generations) to a more complex life form. I believe the answer to that one is no. So who believes in a myth and "unsubstantiated and easily dis-proven hypothesis" ?
Also I don't believe in luck. I will continue pray for you.
God bless,
-Devin ( Devin82m@mail.com for any questions)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jungdiggJul 15, 2010
There are mountains of evidence for evolution. Try reading some non-fiction.
ausjpJul 15, 2010
"Has it been observed that ANY organism evolves (through generations) to a more complex life form"
Complexity is often a very ambiguous terms in evolution, as is "beneficial" and "detrimental".
The bottom line is that we have observed more complex organisms arising (I've linked you to papers on a unicellular population becoming a multicellular population when predation - a pressure - was applied), and we've observed _changes_ in populations over time. That's all evolutionary theory postulates. Changes in allele frequency over time. Have we observed this? The answer is, unequivocally, yes we have. I've linked you to half a dozen papers with lab-controlled observations of such a phenomenon in another thread. Now, you can either be ignorant (yes - ignorant) and pretend that these papers don't exist or you can deal with reality. I try and be polite to creationists as much as possible, but you don't even take anything from the discourse (as evidenced by your blatant denial of the aforementioned papers' existence).
hoghugJul 14, 2010
I'm glad to see all the self proclaimed conservative constitutionalists supporting the provision that empowers the electorate to choose their own senators, the progressive federal income tax and American birthright granted to anyone born within the united states.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
professorsymJul 15, 2010
"Glad to see there is an imaginary group of people identifying with the same arbitrary political label that I identify with. It means I'm not alone in this world after all!"
Fixed.
hoghugJul 15, 2010
"Sorry to see you missed the intended irony."
Fixed.
/s
pintomp3Jul 15, 2010
Damn those evolutionists and round-Earthists! Why do conservatives hate science?
ausjpJul 15, 2010
Personally, I'm a gravitist, as I believe in gravity.
dogcatJul 14, 2010
The NAACP is the most racial organization to have ever existed!
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Can you imagine if you had a group that was only for the advancement of white people....
Now there was a time they were needed, like unions, but that time is long past.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
richmomzJul 14, 2010
I don't know, I think AIPAC is a serious contender for that title as well...
speedsteamboatJul 14, 2010
No, I believe that would be the Nazi Party.
cincolatersJul 14, 2010
My reply to a commenter following the article at foxnews.com (b/c it'll never be approved and posted):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear daveineaston:
In response to your comment, "I would like some one on the "left", anyone, to come up with something other than sheer imagination and paranoia, that is: any proof at all that the Tea Party has racist leanings or elements or ideas.."
Please see these photos taken at tea party rallies.
In case you can't read what's on the very last sign, it reads, ""We want our country back. Send Obama back to Africa"
Make your own conclusions as to whether or not this constitutes a racist statement.
Here is the link - or better yet, simply google "offensive tea party signs"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5472612#5472643
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* seriously ... what has happened to us all, collectively as a nation, that we welcome the ingestion of ignorance and embrace the ideology of anti-intellectualism? It's sad.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4
Please, if we are to use the few, to label the many, then what does this say about the democrats?
http://digg.com/d31WOSg
Ohh, and using democraticunderground to prove those on the right are bad, is akin to using Fox to prove those on the left are bad... Pointless, both are far too partisan to be trusted.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cincolatersJul 14, 2010
point taken and respected.
As to using democraticunderground or another source is a moot point, in my opinion. I just wanted to show the picture evidence the poster at fox was asking for. Doesn't make a difference to me the source - as the pictures don't lie.
cajungator3Jul 14, 2010
Didn't he live in Africa and the Kenyans treat him like god?
tunetrueJul 15, 2010
So does seeing pictures of KKK members mean that all white's are racists? Does seeing pictures of Black Panther meetings make all blacks racists?
You're using pictures of a few bad people to paint a picture over a larger group of people. Do you see the problem here?
manlyandyJul 14, 2010
PLEASE, LEARN WHAT RACISM MEANS BEFORE USING IT IN A SENTENCE. Bunch of idiots in the comments.
I held shift down to type that so it's ok.
lemurdaddyJul 14, 2010
Dugg for creative use of CAPS.
bigt383Jul 14, 2010
Even if the Tea Party movement doesn't exactly hate black people, they sure don't seem to fond of Muslims.
frccJul 14, 2010
A lot of that going around. Obama has expanded the wars and increased Pakistan drone bombings 10 fold without so much as a peep from democrats.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
Obama is anti-terrorist. The Tea party is anti-muslim. Big difference.
wemessyJul 14, 2010
frcc- THANK YOU.
sniffspamJul 14, 2010
Actually MWeather...
Obama is a Socialist that wants the government to do everything for you..
and the Tea party is ANTI Large Government and wants to stop being taxed for people who don't want to work.. or are looking for the Government to feed and take care of them.
This Racism stuff is stupid. Obama already has the Black vote and they are using this fake racism claims to try and divide the White vote. Its about time all the dumb White people wake up. Vote out the Socialist that is destroying our Country!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xman8Jul 14, 2010
@MWeather,
That is where you are wrong. Obama likes radical muslims that want to kill us and wants to befriend them while the Tea Party likes muslims that are not trying to kill us. Big difference.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
So you're bats**t insane? Thanks for clearing that up.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Yes - because if someone, or a group of people, disagree with you, clearly the only reasonable explanation is that THEY are insane...
Seriously, you need help.
mweatherJul 14, 2010
If you think the president of the US is a socialist who love terrorists, then yes, you are f**king insane.
No rational being could come to such a conclusion.
superkendallJul 14, 2010
In what way? I have seen no condemnation of muslims. Only of Islamic Extremists (which is not the same thing).
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
muslims are responsible for taxes an runaway growth of govt?
please explain
voteforthebnpJul 15, 2010
No one's too fond of Muslims, not even Muslims are too fond of Muslims.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I do not agree with the Tea party on much of anything. However I do agree that the NAACP has failed people of color.
They've helped keep many black people poor by ingraining that white people owe them and that white people are bad.
And you see these principals being taught to their children at a very early age.
The Chinese were slaves in the 1800's and were treated very badly here in America but almost every asian culture in America thrives and pursues education and all the opportunities that America offers.
The NAACP needs to help change the attitudes of black people in America otherwise they will always play victim to white people.
superkendallJul 14, 2010
So perhaps you should re-think what the Tea Party is, if they are saying something you agree with. Perhaps what you thought the Tea Party was about has been wrong all along.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
What you mean the MSM is lying to people? I would have thought that after them telling everyone about the WMD's in Iraq, would have been enough for the people not to trust them...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
"So perhaps you should re-think what the Tea Party is, if they are saying something you agree with."
I am a progressive who leans fiscally-conservative. I believe the immigration laws that already exist would work if the government punished corporations who hire illegals for cheap labor.
I also believe that healthcare is a human right, and that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of income.
I believe that Bush's tax-cuts for the wealthiest 1% during 2 wars is immoral and wrong.
I also believe that we are in a deep recession and that the only way out is to spend money (even if we dont have it now) because getting our economy going again is more important than trillion dollar wars put on the nations charge card for our grand-children to pay off.
The national debt is an important issue but cannot really be addressed until we get people working and paying taxes again.
mycutepetpicsJul 15, 2010
"I believe that Bush's tax-cuts for the wealthiest 1% during 2 wars is immoral and wrong."
I'm not gonna cite facts( in case you don't take my word) but please research that top 1% myth and see how almost every single ta paying American is soon gonna have their taxes raised and another 40-50 Million poor people will have their subsides/child credit(s) taken away. For years the lying msm and lying politicians have misled people and sadly it's worked against their own well-being. That will be on top of numerous other tax hikes and or health insurance increases that are also set to take effect on or around Jan 1st 2011. Conveniently after election time of course.
sad....
artworkz918Jul 14, 2010
it's true.
Look at illegals for instance. They have it much worse than blacks. They're in the country illegally and can with a year or so, have jobs, houses, 2-3 cars per family and still send money to their families in other countries. If they can do it, there is no reason for any black person not to be able to because of something that ended over a 100yrs ago
pintomp3Jul 15, 2010
"However I do agree that the NAACP has failed people of color." Yeah, that's why they aren't allowed to sit at the front of the bus. Dumb f**k.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pharoidJul 14, 2010
I should have been more specific and said something like "angry, bitter, stay-off-my-lawn old men." Given the average demographic of the Tea Bag party member, I think I'm right on. Sorry happy, liberal, the-more-the-merrier-on-my-lawn old timers. I'm sure you're right there on the front line at 5am digging down the alzheimer's candidates.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
weierstrassJul 14, 2010
Maybe I'm tired of working all day to maintain my property only to have you come along and wreck it.
jonathangaynorJul 14, 2010
In a related story
1. Fox News (in a 'non-opinion' piece) openly calls civil rights group 'bigoted' thereby tacitly supporting Tea Party statement
2. story title gets cached by a news aggregator
3. Fox realizes title is subjective opinion (not 'news'), attempts to stealth change it
4. cannot change URL or pre-aggregated headline
5. irony of situation goes miles above the heads of Diggers
bowens44Jul 14, 2010
baggers are the worst kind of racists. There racism is so deep and so much a part of them that they don't even realize that they are racists. These people are dangerous. They need to be closely monitored.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Maybe you can show examples, other than photoshops placards...
Probably not though... I'll just leave these here for you..
I understand the articles get buried because many don't want the truth to come out but...
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Blacks_the_Media ...
Who are the dumb as f**k again?
http://digg.com/people/Comments_from_the_Anti_Tea_ ...
This must be what you mean....ohh wait, it is the opposite.
http://digg.com/comedy/Tea_Party_Violence_Caught_o ...
Ohh you must mean these guys....nope..
http://digg.com/politics/Tea_Partiers_Seek_Teachab ...
The differences between tea parties..
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Tea_partiers_in_ ...
NBC questioning a black tea party member
http://digg.com/politics/NBC_questions_black_man_a ...
Where the racists are coming from
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Crash_The_Tea_Pa ...
What really happens
http://digg.com/politics/What_really_happens_at_Te ...
What this is really about
http://digg.com/politics/Timeline_Anatomy_of_a_Tea ...
The real make up of the tea party
http://digg.com/politics/40_of_Tea_Partiers_are_De ...
I can go on, but let it just be said that like the WMD, the MSM lies to you, and the sooner you start to form your own opinion of stuff, you will always being conned by them...
irvman21Jul 14, 2010
It's about time somebody called the NAACP what it is. A bunch of racists playing the race card to deflect attention away from their own racism.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Unfortunately, I think the Tea Party showed their cards on this one...as a group of predominantly white folks all-too willing to be professional victims, cry reverse-racism, and act out against imagined oppression.
Not that the NAACP is perfect by any means, but I give them the point on this one.
superkendallJul 14, 2010
You can't help but be predominantly white when that's the demographic of the nation. Go to a Tea Party sometime, there is plenty of representation by people of ALL colors.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
But I live in a predominantly black area, and the Tea Parties are still albino affairs...
pintomp3Jul 15, 2010
"Go to a Tea Party sometime, there is plenty of representation by people of ALL colors." Keep lying your ass off:
The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html
richmomzJul 14, 2010
Right, because the NAA(L)CP doesn't cater to any predominant racial groups or scream racism in response to groups and issues that have nothing to do with race...
/facepalm
furiousmoeJul 14, 2010
Ah! the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. very classy.
richmomzJul 14, 2010
Hey, it's a juvenile defense for a juvenile attack.
professorsymJul 15, 2010
You're right, there's no such thing as racism!
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
WTF?
This is retarded! The Teabaggers have no clue what goes on in black communities, there are no black teabaggers, just a few Uncle Toms
This just underlines my statement in the Happiness thread that American are the most stupid population on the face of the Earth. The Teabaggers are taking the medal but the general US population is not far behind the morons.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Did you just say "a few uncle toms"? Yea that's kinda f**kin racist.
cajungator3Jul 14, 2010
WTF is Uncle Tom supposed to mean? Dude, you are a f**kin racist!
atomheartmotherJul 14, 2010
Earl is not a racist! Don't confuse racism with drooling-dumb.
NoRand2010Jul 14, 2010
The tea party is a highly racist group. This is smoke and mirrors deflection on their part to hide that fact!
richmomzJul 14, 2010
How can anyone argue with logic like that? /s
NoRand2010Jul 14, 2010
Rand and Ron Paul are Tea Party members. More proof of the groups racism! Definitive proof!!
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Holy crap I missed another sockpuppet..
So this brings it up to ?
NoLIbertarians.
NoLibrarians
Noliberty
NoCFL
NoRand
NoPaul
I am sure I am missing some
richmomzJul 14, 2010
He just started a whole new batch in the past week - I think the strategy is to keep creating new ones in case the old ones get banned.
h8f8kesJul 14, 2010
Recommended names for our disturbed stalker: NoLife, NoFriends, NoClue, NoCommonSense, NoDecency, NoLikelyToMate........
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
Ihave always thought NoNeurons would be appropriate, or maybe NoMind,
ofcourse NoClue is nice H8F8kes..
vbullingerJul 14, 2010
NoJob, NoKids, NoGirlfriend, NoOneLikesMe, NoOneWouldCareIfIGotHitByABus...
richmomzJul 14, 2010
NoBrains, NoBalls, NoSex, NoPatriotism.
I've also got a good profile icon for any of the above: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/Oliver_North_mug_shot.jpg
avengingturnipJul 14, 2010
>I am sure I am missing some
Bunches. NoLasagna, NoGoldSurge, NoFedAudit, NoDipsticks, NoCollapse, Statistone, Statisttwo, Cheney2012. The newest is TheLegionofNo. There are probably more.
caferrellJul 14, 2010
There are one or two new ones generated every day
nolasagnaJul 14, 2010
I'm just making an appearance to fulfill my contractual obligations to the New World and AIPAC.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
I'm just making an appearance to fulfill my contractual obligations to the PTB, the MIC and most of all, to our over-lords, the ZOG.
waiting2awakeJul 14, 2010
You guys have to admit it though... at times he is entertaining...He'd probably be a blast to have a beer with, if you could get through it with out hitting him.
Good thing he is a Mensa lawyer, former navy seal, day trader extraordinaire, polic-sci genius....esq....
nolasagnaJul 14, 2010
I'm also the second coming of Christ.
avengingturnipJul 14, 2010
">He'd probably be a blast to have a beer with
He's a perv. No thanks.
richmomzJul 14, 2010
You forgot Economics PhD, former Fortune 500 executive, and hand-to-hand martial arts expert. Oh, and he served with Oliver North.
Right - and last night I was having a three way with Megan Fox and Jessica Alba until Angelina Jolie walked in unexpectedly and caught me cheating again (at least it wasn't with a harem of supermodels this time though).
peppermintpigJul 14, 2010
Don't forget Gas Station Owner.
nolasagnaJul 14, 2010
I'm not a gas station owner. Come on people, I'm a carpenter.
waiting2awakeJul 15, 2010
New Fan of mine... If only I could figure out who it may be...
Lick Out PartyStar Cooter (EatOutPartyStar)
a 86 year-old person from f**k Libertarians who joined Digg on July 15th, 2010
Well PartyStar, it looks like you got a fan there... and it isn't offensive in the least is it? What a tool.
@avengingturnip - So are some of my best friends, but if he brought up that child picture he originally got banned for, he'd wake up several days later. Ex-Marine or not.
richmomzJul 15, 2010
"Lick Out PartyStar Cooter (EatOutPartyStar)"
That's high-class right there! Someone needs to cut that guy's trailer park internet connection...