[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy, stop being a dumbass.

Saying provocative things is not the same thing as being an organized hate group with a mission that has actually done stuff including commit acts of terrorism. Are you going to say that anything the NAACP has done can be compared to acts of terrorism?

Stop being a dumbass? Nice touch besson.

It was not a provocative thing for him to say, it was a destructive thing to say and you're right, there's a difference.

The Tea Party is not a hate group to anyone other than the most mind-numbingly stupid people on the planet. Why the accusation then? Because the zealous left is entirely void of tolerance for dissenting views. If you can show me one person with a track record of moderate, political temperament who has made this claim about the Tea Party, I will reconsider. Otherwise, you're in good company as usual and the problem is your intolerance, not theirs.

Acts of terrorism? Like Bill Ayers-type terrorism or something more right-wingish like opposing deficit spending or an overhaul of a 6th the economy on idealogical whimsy?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I was going to respond myself but this sums it up fairly well. And if my friend ebuddy doesn't think that there is plenty of "incendiary rhetoric" coming out of the Tea Party ranks on the DAILY ... well then he surely hasn't been paying attention.

OAW

Of course you understand what a silly litmus this is. There is plenty of incendiary rhetoric coming from any persons somehow affiliated with any sect of the human race and let your answer to whether or not the OWS movement or the NAACP are hate groups be the gauge of your logic. That's not what we're talking about here as tempting as that might be for conflating the subject matter.

Political opposition is not hate. Ideological differences are not hate. I know it's difficult to see this right now from the defensive posture necessary in warding off one scandal after another, but this is not the stars and planets and GWB aligning against the Obama administration, this is their chickens coming home to roost. What can I say, we simply expect more from the ones seeking to manage our health care.

[ebuddy]

It should be noted that I've been compiling the substantive responses to my complaints. They are as follows;

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Stop being a dumbass? Nice touch besson.

It was not a provocative thing for him to say, it was a destructive thing to say and you're right, there's a difference.

The Tea Party is not a hate group to anyone other than the most mind-numbingly stupid people on the planet. Why the accusation then? Because the zealous left is entirely void of tolerance for dissenting views. If you can show me one person with a track record of moderate, political temperament who has made this claim about the Tea Party, I will reconsider. Otherwise, you're in good company as usual and the problem is your intolerance, not theirs.

Acts of terrorism? Like Bill Ayers-type terrorism or something more right-wingish like opposing deficit spending or an overhaul of a 6th the economy on idealogical whimsy?

I didn't say the Tea Party is a hate group, and I didn't say that you were being a dumbass for anything relating to anything involving the Tea Party, I said you were being a dumbass for your NAACP remark, which you have avoided addressing in your response.

Not helping yourself here, you decide to dig a deeper hole by playing off of references of the KKK terrorism to relating them to ideological arguments about the economy? In what universe are these comparable in any way?

Do yourself a favor and admit that comparing the NAACP to the KKK is not going to make your MacNN highlight reel so we can move on to something else distracting.

[OAW]

Exactly. All of this ....

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Political opposition is not hate. Ideological differences are not hate.

.... is not the issue. That was not even the point being made! The KKK is an organization that goes far above and beyond matters such as "incendiary rhetoric". As has been pointed out repeatedly. The KKK is the #1 domestic terrorism organization in the history of the United States. That is not hyperbole. That is a fact. To even remotely compare the NAACP to the KKK is nonsensical. At best.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I didn't say the Tea Party is a hate group, and I didn't say that you were being a dumbass for anything relating to anything involving the Tea Party, I said you were being a dumbass for your NAACP remark, which you have avoided addressing in your response.

You might have a better idea of where I'm coming from if you were to read some of the responses I've already given, but I respect the fact that it's a lot to ask...

Originally Posted by ebuddy

A. I said the NAACP has been rendered; meaning they've not always been this way. This is what I maintain they've become. When the chairman emeritus of the NAACP cites the Tea Party as the Taliban wing of American politics, he's got to be called out for the quack he is. If there is suggestion that the NAACP does not adhere to such incendiary rhetoric, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, they're in fact no better than any extremist wing of American politics that does not call out the shenanigans of their most profound representation. That's the way it works. Don't like it? Decry the incendiary rhetoric. Until I see some semblance of regard for diversity of opinion out of the NAACP, I'm not going to afford them any respect... in our modern age.

This wasn't some joe sixpack going to meet his buddies from the gun club at a rally, it's Julian Bond; chairman emeritus of the NAACP -- read, the former head of the NAACP. Yes, I believe there is a more pervasive problem in the NAACP and until they speak out against the incendiary rhetoric lodged at folks like Allen West or Clarence Thomas or any number of other vocally conservative African-Americans depicted as house-nxxxxxs for contrarian political views; I've got zero respect for their notion of Advancement and have no problem telling you that, by Julian's own measure, the NAACP is a hate group and an extremist political wing.

Not helping yourself here, you decide to dig a deeper hole by playing off of references of the KKK terrorism to relating them to ideological arguments about the economy? In what universe are these comparable in any way?

In today's universe besson - again, in our modern times.

Do yourself a favor and admit that comparing the NAACP to the KKK is not going to make your MacNN highlight reel so we can move on to something else distracting.

I've got a lot on my plate. If you could have someone with a reel of their own make that request, I'll consider. Thank you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

True, comparing the NAACP with the KKK is going too far.

Useless. Joke. Disgrace. Tools. Shakedown artists. D-Bags. Long ago divorced from anything nobel or good they ever did or stood for.

^ Terms like those will suffice.

[Chongo]

This kind of crap is exactly why we need to enact the Fair Tax and eliminate the IRS all together.

[besson3c]

Ebuddy: I'm having a hard time understanding why you can't seem to see that incendiary rhetoric is a little different than actually commiting terrorism. I don't know what else to say.

Is Al Queda as heinous as the NAACP?

[subego]

ebuddy,

Now is the time to claim you were highlighting the perils of incendiary language by being really incendiary.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... the incendiary rhetoric lodged at folks like Allen West...

Heaven forbid that someone should lob incendiary rhetoric at a war criminal!

[besson3c]

Is Allen West on par with the KKK too?

[lpkmckenna]

The only thing Allen West is on par with is every other officer drummed out of the military for being unfit for service on account of their own illegal behaviour.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Heaven forbid that someone should lob incendiary rhetoric at a war criminal!

Congratulations! You found an excuse to hate him other than the (R) after his name. Notwithstanding the predictable melodrama as only the Daily Kos could serve up for you; replace that (R) with any other, vocal African-American (R) and you'll find the same problem. Allen West was trying to save his unit, not bombing indiscriminately from RC airplanes.

Check your allegiances at the door.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

ebuddy,

Now is the time to claim you were highlighting the perils of incendiary language by being really incendiary.

Or what, you'll be forced to re-read the exchange to find that I already have?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ebuddy: I'm having a hard time understanding why you can't seem to see that incendiary rhetoric is a little different than actually commiting terrorism. I don't know what else to say.

Is Al Queda as heinous as the NAACP?

Modern times... today... in our modern age. You got a recent KKK scare? Something... I dont know, post 1980? The KKK have been rendered a clique of about 6,000 racists scattered haphazardly throughout the US, dressed in silly robes and white conical hats. All they have left is incendiary, raced-based rhetoric. That's it.

I'm sure you're still having a hard time understanding so... is there something in particular you're looking for? I'll see if I can find it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Or what, you'll be forced to re-read the exchange to find that I already have?

I guess that's the other problem with incendiary language innit? People stop paying attention.

You reap what you sow.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Modern times... today... in our modern age. You got a recent KKK scare? Something... I dont know, post 1980? The KKK have been rendered a clique of about 6,000 racists scattered haphazardly throughout the US, dressed in silly robes and white conical hats. All they have left is incendiary, raced-based rhetoric. That's it.

I'm sure you're still having a hard time understanding so... is there something in particular you're looking for? I'll see if I can find it.

~150 of them march through our town each year on Memorial Day, people throw produce and mock them. They're a laughing stock.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Modern times... today... in our modern age. You got a recent KKK scare? Something... I dont know, post 1980? The KKK have been rendered a clique of about 6,000 racists scattered haphazardly throughout the US, dressed in silly robes and white conical hats. All they have left is incendiary, raced-based rhetoric. That's it.

I'm sure you're still having a hard time understanding so... is there something in particular you're looking for? I'll see if I can find it.

The KKK is obsolete these days, but when one thinks of the KKK they think of its legacy when it was relevant, as I did, so perhaps a little care is required here when making these comparisons? I would bet that very few people think or talk of the KKK as they exist today. Some might not even be aware of how they exist today, but they know full well their relevance during their heyday.

Also, if comparisons like this can be made based on what is now rather than what once was, is it fair to drudge up Obama's alleged relationship with Bill Ayers in the 70s, living in Indonesia, eating a dog, going to a madrassa, taking coke, etc.? I'm not saying you do that, but I'm just wondering if you agree that these sorts of things are equally as irrelevant today?

[andi*pandi]

Regardless of what the KKK is today, comparing some group to them is about the same as comparing a group to Nazis.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Regardless of what the KKK is today, comparing some group to them is about the same as comparing a group to Nazis.

Thankfully, we know you mean modern Nazis.

You know, the funny kind.

[Shaddim]

People have to admit, all waffling aside, there's at least a whiff of corruption here. It's far too lopsided and target-specific to wave off as coincidence. Right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Regardless of what the KKK is today, comparing some group to them is about the same as comparing a group to Nazis.

Exactly, and when you compare somebody to a Nazi you think of a WW2 Nazi, not a modern day one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

People have to admit, all waffling aside, there's at least a whiff of corruption here. It's far too lopsided and target-specific to wave off as coincidence. Right?

There is a huge whiff of corruption, I'm just having a hard time seeing the logic and reasoning behind this being some sort of Obama mandate, as some people make it out to be. It seems more like some sort of IRS boss rewarding IRS audit profits somehow, and this not being reported to Obama. From Obama's vantage point there is no political upside to this being an Obama mandate really.

If this ends up being wrong, so be it, I'm not defending Obama, I'm just trying to look at this as objectively as I can with what I know right now.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Regardless of what the KKK is today, comparing some group to them is about the same as comparing a group to Nazis.

Some people see the KKK everywhere. We had a cab driver sue the City of Phoenix because the window accent for terminal 3 and entrance sign for Sky Harbor Int. featured a Hopi basket pattern he said was really a hidden endorsement of the KKK. Rather than jackhammer it off, the city painted the raised concrete pattern.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Regardless of what the KKK is today, comparing some group to them is about the same as comparing a group to Nazis.

Or the Taliban. I agree. You see the reaction I'm getting -- imagine how the Tea Party feels. Regardless of whether or not people agree with them politically, they're certainly comparable in no way, shape, or form to the Taliban. You notice this made little news and not one person here has decried that type of rhetoric, but I'm sure getting a screenful. Groups that exploit political correctness and meritorious underpinnings with this nonsense bother me most. Specifically because they will not be challenged.

[subego]

Consider it decried.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Or the Taliban. I agree. You see the reaction I'm getting -- imagine how the Tea Party feels. Regardless of whether or not people agree with them politically, they're certainly comparable in no way, shape, or form to the Taliban. You notice this made little news and not one person here has decried that type of rhetoric, but I'm sure getting a screenful. Groups that exploit political correctness and meritorious underpinnings with this nonsense bother me most. Specifically because they will not be challenged.

I have no idea who compared the Tea Party to the Taliban and when this was, but I think it is safe to say that not one person here things they are comparable, so I think you're either deflecting or setting up a straw man.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have no idea who compared the Tea Party to the Taliban and when this was, but I think it is safe to say that not one person here things they are comparable, so I think you're either deflecting or setting up a straw man.

Why do I have to own that? We're talking about the profiling and intimidation of some 400+ conservative groups seeking a particular tax status to facilitate their legal, non-profit activities when OAW brought up the fact that the NAACP was allegedly targeted for an audit once during the Bush Administration. We're not even in the same league here. The chairman emeritus of the NAACP supported the IRS' profiling of Tea Party groups comparing them to the Taliban and I merely put his statements in their proper perspective. If there is deflection or straw men going on, it certainly wasn't my doing.

[OAW]

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'll let Mr. Bond speak for himself ....

Julian Bond: Racists Don’t Like Being Called Racists | Politic365

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'll let Mr. Bond speak for himself ....

Julian Bond: Racists Don’t Like Being Called Racists | Politic365

OAW

Does this apply to the Nation of Islam?

[Snow-i]

News Distribution Network - Shared Video

Senator Wyden suggests that if groups do not want to be unfairly treated by the government, they shouldn't seek "privileges" such as tax-exempt status from the government.


How long before we run these guys out of washington with pitchforks?

Make no mistakes my friends, this is corruption and I fear too little is being done about it. Unless everyone who had a hand in this ends up in jail for corruption and treason charges, the precedent is set and this will become business as usual.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does this apply to the Nation of Islam?

You'd have to ask Mr. Bond.

OAW

* - But IMO ... there are certain aspects of the NOI's theology that would qualify as racist.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why do I have to own that? We're talking about the profiling and intimidation of some 400+ conservative groups seeking a particular tax status to facilitate their legal, non-profit activities when OAW brought up the fact that the NAACP was allegedly targeted for an audit once during the Bush Administration. We're not even in the same league here. The chairman emeritus of the NAACP supported the IRS' profiling of Tea Party groups comparing them to the Taliban and I merely put his statements in their proper perspective. If there is deflection or straw men going on, it certainly wasn't my doing.

Allegedly? There was nothing "alleged" about it. The NAACP was in fact audited over the course of two years after its leadership harshly criticized Bush Administration policy. And then the case was quietly closed and the NAACP cleared of any wrongdoing. Again, this goes way above and beyond extra scrutiny during the application process for tax-exempt status. There were GOP elected officials who DEMANDED that the IRS investigate the NAACP, prominent black churches, etc. This too is not "alleged" ... the letters exist. My point was merely to illustrate the irony (and the hypocrisy) of GOP officials criticizing the "politicization" of a federal agency when they themselves are ON RECORD demanding this very thing.

That being said, I'll make a few other points ...

1. "legal, non-profit activities" does NOT necessarily qualify an organization for "tax-exempt status". Especially if it is predominantly political in nature. It is the job of the IRS to ensure that only qualified organizations receive 501(c)(4) status.

2. As I stated before, the number of so-called "social welfare" organizations seeking 501(c)(4) status literally EXPLODED after the Citizens United decision by the SCOTUS. Anyone who thinks that all of a sudden far right groups became more "charitable" and "civic minded" must have fell and bumped their head! Simple logic and common sense dictates that the majority of these were being created to circumvent campaign finance law and funnel unlimited and anonymous money into the 2012 election. Is anyone out here willing to bet their next paycheck that this was NOT the play? Like ... seriously??

3. So-called "Tea Party" and "Patriot" groups made up the overwhelming majority of new organizations filing for 501(c)(4) status. And again, this is only logical given the right's implacable opposition to President Obama and their desire to defeat him in 2012 by any means necessary. So it stands to reason that more conservative groups would receive extra scrutiny than progressive groups. That's just math. Where the IRS bungled things is by specifically targeting groups with "Tea party" or "Patriot" in the name but not doing the same thing for groups with "Progressive" in the name. That's NOT just math. It's essentially "political profiling" as you indicated. Which is wrong anyway you slice it.*

4. Again, the larger "scandal" here is the fundamental threat to democracy that is the Citizen's United decision. And the boneheaded (and self-interested) decision of Congress to even create this 501(c)(4) status to begin with? Rather than continuing the create ever more tax exempt statuses with ever more loopholes that only benefit the lobbyists and the lobbied ... and then tasking the IRS to enforce a law that has a big, gaping "circumvention" hole intentionally placed in the middle of it only to bitch to high heaven when they screw it up .. how about instead we implement simple and fair campaign finance laws which respect the following principle ...

If you can't vote in an election then you can't spend money to influence that election. Period. Across the board.

Exceptions made for official political campaigns and parties naturally. But other than that ... you can't do it. Because the last time I checked no labor union, no corporation, no environmental group, and no chamber of commerce had a right to vote.

OAW

* PS - It would be most refreshing if those who are taking exception to the "political profiling" that seems to have taken place in the IRS could manage to see the same flawed reasoning at play with "racial profiling" (i.e. Stop and Frisk in NYC). Experience teaches me, however, not to hold my breath.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'll let Mr. Bond speak for himself ....

Julian Bond: Racists Don’t Like Being Called Racists | Politic365

OAW

A study by his own organization, anecdotes, and taking a quote out of context.

I thought perhaps Bond engaged in hyperbole. This makes it clear it's slander.

I (no snark) appreciate you giving this to us.

[subego]

What Bond says:

"In 2008, the Washington Post reported that former chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee and present day Congressman Pete Sessions likened the GOP House minority to the Taliban, saying, “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a bit more because of the Taliban.”


What Sessions said:

“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Make no mistakes my friends, this is corruption and I fear too little is being done about it. Unless everyone who had a hand in this ends up in jail for corruption and treason charges, the precedent is set and this will become business as usual.

Treason? Really? The seriousness of what happened with the IRS in this case speaks for itself. Overstating it by bandying about a term that isn't even applicable is hyperbolic at best.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

What Bond says:

"In 2008, the Washington Post reported that former chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee and present day Congressman Pete Sessions likened the GOP House minority to the Taliban, saying, “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a bit more because of the Taliban.”

What Sessions said:

“Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes. And these Taliban — I’m not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that’s not what we’re saying.

Well if you are going to quote it then quote it all ....

Originally Posted by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)

I'm saying an example of how you go about it is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with. If they do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become insurgency of a nature to where we do those things that are necessary to making sure the American public knows what we think the correct answer is. So we either work together, or we’re going to find a way to get our message out.[/B]

The man basically just said that if the House GOP minority didn't get its way then it would become an "insurgency" vis-à-vis the "Taliban". So this is appreciably different than Mr. Bond's comments how exactly?

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Treason? Really? The seriousness of what happened with the IRS in this case speaks for itself.

Looks an awful lot to me like they're trying to sweep it under the rug by calling it "irrelevant" and stating that in essence, the opposition party had it coming to them for daring to apply for tax-exempt status.

Overstating it by bandying about a term that isn't even applicable is hyperbolic at best.

What's over stated about it? It's a flagrant abuse of power intended to stifle free speech of the opposition party - an offense that likely affected the outcome of the last presidential election. That you would downplay it to such a degree is only an indication of how intoxicated you are with your man in office - the constitution be damned.

How is jail time for the perpetrator's flagrant affront to the American people "over-stating it?" I'd really like to hear this. I could use a good laugh.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The man basically just said that if the House GOP minority didn't get its way then it would become an "insurgency" vis-à-vis the "Taliban". So this is appreciably different than Mr. Bond's comments how exactly?

Jeebus, OAW... it's an analogy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Looks an awful lot to me like they're trying to sweep it under the rug by calling it "irrelevant" and stating that in essence, the opposition party had it coming to them for daring to apply for tax-exempt status.

What's over stated about it? It's a flagrant abuse of power intended to stifle free speech of the opposition party - an offense that likely affected the outcome of the last presidential election. That you would downplay it to such a degree is only an indication of how intoxicated you are with your man in office - the constitution be damned.

How is jail time for the perpetrator's flagrant affront to the American people "over-stating it?" I'd really like to hear this. I could use a good laugh.

A flagrant abuse of power is not treason. Look up the definition. Here is one:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

There is no need to overstate this case, I don't think anybody here disagrees that it is a flagrant abuse of power.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The man basically just said that if the House GOP minority didn't get its way then it would become an "insurgency" vis-à-vis the "Taliban". So this is appreciably different than Mr. Bond's comments how exactly?

We learned building highways from the Nazis. Does that make us Nazis?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

A study by his own organization, anecdotes, and taking a quote out of context.

Actually the study is by the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR) ... not the NAACP. The NAACP simply used its platform to publicize the findings. And the President and CEO contributed the foreword:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Todd Jealous - President & CEO - NAACP

We know the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of good will. That is why the NAACP—an organization that has worked to expose and combat racism in all its forms for more than 100 years—is thankful Devin Burghart, Leonard Zeskind and the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights prepared this report that exposes the links between certain Tea Party factions and acknowledged racist hate groups in the United States. These links should give all patriotic Americans pause.

I hope the leadership and members of the Tea Party movement will read this report and take additional steps to distance themselves from those Tea Party leaders who espouse racist ideas, advocate violence, or are formally affiliated with white supremacist organizations. In our effort to strengthen our democracy and ensure rights for all, it is important that we have a reasoned political debate without the use of epithets, the threat of violence, or the resurrection of long discredited racial hierarchies.

This July, delegates to the 101st NAACP National Convention unanimously passed a resolution condemning outspoken racist elements within the Tea Party, and called upon Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use white supremacist language in their signs and speeches, and those Tea Party leaders who would subvert their own movement by spreading racism.

The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of racial slurs and images at Tea Party marches around the country. In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest. Civil rights legend John Lewis was called the "n-word" in the incident while others in the crowd used ugly anti-gay slurs to describe Congressman Barney Frank, a long-time NAACP supporter and the nation's first openly gay member of Congress. Local NAACP members reported similar racially-charged incidents at local Tea Party rallies.

At first, the resolution sparked defensive, misleading public responses from the usual corners. First, Tea Party leaders denied our claims were valid. Then Fox News repeatedly circulated the false claim that we were calling the Tea Party itself racist. Then their commentators and other media personalities said the Tea Party was too loosely configured to police itself.

Local NAACP volunteers and staff members around the country were barraged by angry phone calls and death threats.

Yet, amid the threats and denials, something remarkable began to happen: Tea Party leaders began to quietly take steps toward actively policing explicitly racist activity within their ranks.

Before the end of July, the Tea Party Federation had expelled Mark Williams, then-president of the powerful and politically-connected Tea Party Express for his most-recent racially offensive public statements, a move they had previously refused to make. The move was significant for three reasons: 1) it proved wrong those national leaders and news personalities who said the Tea Party was too loosely configured to insist its leaders act responsibly, 2) it sparked a rift among Tea Party leadership between those who are tolerant of racist rhetoric and those who would stand against it, and 3) it showed our resolution was having an impact. Soon after, Montana conservative Tim Ravndal was fired as head of the Big Sky Tea Party Association after local media published messages posted to his Facebook account that appeared to advocate violence against gays and lesbians.

In the midst of all this, Tea Party leaders moved quickly to take on a communications strategy typical of corporate crisis public relations. A "Uni-Tea" rally to promote Tea Party diversity was hastily organized, while FreedomWorks launched a "Diverse Tea" web initiative to spotlight pictures of nonwhite Tea Partiers. There was a Tea Party leadership "race summit" facilitated by Geraldo Rivera.

In August, Fox News personality and Tea Party icon Glenn Beck instructed his followers to leave all signs at home in the lead-up to his rally on the National Mall to avoid media scrutiny, and has since admonished Tea Partiers across the nation to "dress normally," lest their signs and t-shirts distract from the fiscal message for which he would prefer the Tea Party be recognized. In some areas, the response appears to have spread beyond the Tea Party itself. In September, former Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer made a surprise public apology for the "racist views" among some members of his party.

These are welcome first steps. They promote diversity and acknowledge the inherent perception problem that plagues the Tea Party: that while many of its leaders are motivated by common conservative budget and governance concerns, for too long they have tolerated others who espouse racism and xenophobia and, in some instances, are formally associated with organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens—the direct lineal descendant of the White Citizens Council.

This report, from the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, serves as a cautionary reminder that Mark Williams is not unique within Tea Party leadesrhip circles and that ties between Tea Party factions and acknowledged racist groups endure. It is the most comprehensive research to date into the Tea Party's scope and emergence onto our political landscape. I extend my personal thanks to the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights for this research report.

Tea Party Nationalism is a product of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. Neither the NAACP nor its leadership was involved in its research or authorship.

Tea Party Nationalism

I'd encourage you to read the study for yourself and then decide if you think it warrants an out-of-hand dismissal.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually the study is by the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR) ... not the NAACP. The NAACP simply used its platform to publicize the findings. And the President and CEO contributed the foreword:



Tea Party Nationalism

I'd encourage you to read the study for yourself and then decide if you think it warrants an out-of-hand dismissal.

OAW

You are correct. My bad. My dismissal was based on me misreading the info.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What's over stated about it?

You know I really, really tried not to go here ....

treason - the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government

That's what's over stated about it. I trust I won't have to explain this further?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's a flagrant abuse of power

And where did I disagree with this sentiment? In fact, I recall denouncing it myself. Multiple times.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

That you would downplay it to such a degree is only an indication of how intoxicated you are with your man in office - the constitution be damned.

Just because I made other, valid points does NOT mean that I "downplayed" this one. But feel free to produce a quote where I did so.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

How is jail time for the perpetrator's flagrant affront to the American people "over-stating it?" I'd really like to hear this. I could use a good laugh.

I think jail time might very well be warranted. Any other words you wish to put in my mouth?

OAW

[subego]

Though, reading Bond's introduction, I see some cognitive dissonance between the statements:

"We know the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of good will."

And

"[T]he Taliban wing of American politics".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Jeebus, OAW... it's an analogy.

I understand that. I'm just saying that if Rep. Sessions is allowed to use the analogy then why not Mr. Bond? Granted, I have sense enough to realize that Mr. Bond was also using it as a political dig. I get that. The point he was making though was that Rep. Sessions was the one that opened the door for that kind of dig to go down in the first place.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I understand that. I'm just saying that if Rep. Sessions is allowed to use the analogy then why not Mr. Bond?

They're using different analogies.

One is a blanket statement, one isn't.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Though, reading Bond's introduction, I see some cognitive dissonance between the statements:

"We know the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of good will."

And

"[T]he Taliban wing of American politics".

Come on now subego ... Mr. Bond did NOT write the introduction. He is the Chairman Emeritus. IOW, he retired from his position with the NAACP back in 2010. That introduction was written by Benjamin Todd Jealous ... and he did NOT make that "Taliban wing" comment. No "cognitive dissonance" here.

That being said, I chalk up Mr. Bond's "Taliban" comment to cable news channels and their incessant drive to be "provocative" in order to boost ratings. Fox News does this on the regular. And this is a prime example of MSNBC engaging in the same type of shenanigans IMO. It's why I much prefer listening to P.O.T.U.S. on SiriusXM. No political slants and straight unfiltered audio rather than some pundits characterization of what was said. But I digress.

What I find really interesting is that he went here ....

Originally Posted by Julian Bond

I think it's entirely legitimate to look at the tea party. Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who've tried as best as they can to harm President Obama in every way.

1. Since when is the Tea Party, or even elements within it "admittedly racist"? I mean just look at all the birthers and GOP elected officials who get caught sending racist emails who all swear on a stack of Bibles that they are not "racist". That was nonsensical right out of the gate.

2. Beyond that, it paints the Tea Party (fairly or not) with a really large brush that's impossible to defend in a sound-bite oriented, 24 hour news cycle. It was just a really dumb thing to say.

3. Take that phrase out and one would be hard-pressed to call the man a liar about the rest of his statement.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Come on now subego ... Mr. Bond did NOT write the introduction.

My bad on this again. Read too quick. Sorry.