talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

When I read the "usually wrong" part I was thinking to myself "He's agreeing with Deb??"

but it's cool -- we (you and I) disagree but usually respectfully so, which is the best kind of discussion.

See the first question is hard for me because I am a Christian and I think the world would be a better place if people took after Christ well at least I think so. Christ promoted peace and love and charity those things are all awful right? ha but in response to your question I would have to say I can not really answer. When our country was founded it seemed to do pretty well and they had alot of Christian values but for this day and time I would never force my beliefs on anyone or ask them to believe how I believe. I think or well I know I would not want anyone forcing me to be muslim or have our country have muslim laws.

Your second question I would have to say yes only because the government has no business in peoples personal lives whether you agree with me or not that is my opinion and I have every right to it just as you do. Maybe it women would use some self control that would help and also you can free contraception at any health place so..

I can see your point. Rest assured I am not a racist but I am glad this law was put into place. We can no longer wait on the federal government to do anything. They had the chance and now I think the states need to start helping their own.

I could care less what color someone is they could be green or purple and commit a murder and I would still be just as disgusted with it. The story of that girl is so sad! The white guy is the scum of the earth just like I think that illegal is as well. But I am sure the white guy was sadly an American citizen. There are lots of local stories who never make national media but make local news and I just can not be everywhere. If this story did make national news I am sorry I missed it.

My point was that this mad was killed by the very people he helped. You can not tell me we do not have a problem here in the united states with illegal immigration. I am all for people who want to legally come here! It really is a slap in the face to those people who do things right and come here and then on the other hand we do nothing to businesses or illegals to stop this.

I hope this law helps. I am all for it. I am sorry if people are profiled yeah it sucks but at some point someone has to do something. They do not let the boarder guards do their jobs without throwing them in jail. I am glad Arizona took a step and are doing something. With every law I am sure there are problems that hopefully will be ironed out. Look at the freaking health care bill full of problems but I have no choice but to sit here and endure what will become a disaster.

I also know that alot of illegals are not just mexican or latino i am sure there are people from Europe too that are here illegally but I think the majority and I could be wrong are from Mexico.

So I guess because I consider my self a tea party member that because you already see me in a bad light I should just be disrespectful to you and call you names? That would make me no better than most liberals I encounter.

I will give the respect I am given though so if in this discussion or in any discussion I am treated in a manner other than respectful I will just not reply. I don't buy oh go talk to your people and tell them to calm down no they have every right to be who they want to be this is America.

Same could be again of your peers.. tell the liberals like code pink to stop desecrating marine's place of work. Tell them not to mock our troops who are going off to protect the freedom that allows them to mock them. Sometimes it is best to take our own advice. You will find most republicans or conservatives are not violent and repsect your right to be who you are.

To each their own. I love my savior and would rather teach my boys hope than anything this world has to offer. I do not make fun of your beliefs do not make fun of mine.

I am sorry you think having hope in Jesus Christ is cult indoctrination. I feel sorry for you. One day while I am in Heaven with my family and your in Hell we shall see who was right.

Churches help kids stay off drugs and stay out of trouble and God forbid you know wow helping people stay off drugs wow that is awful right?

Im will not be responding to anymore of your hate so don't waste your time.

Code Pink?? Are they even still around??

And they *were* chastised by Liberals, they *were* called out -- selective memory would be the only reason you would believe otherwise.

So please, let's not use a false comparison to talk about a very real issue that is happening to this day.

And yes, "respectful" discussion not only means respect between us (although it *is* the internet and sometimes emotions rise) --- but you can't fail to disavow the loons AND then question harsh reactions when the loons claim you and you dont disavow them.

Some criticism of code pink, btw -- although again, I wasnt sure they were even still around:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512446,00.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8138744

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/11/18276/131/579/659448

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/10/video-code-pink-removed-from-petraeus-hearing/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/19/npr-presses-pelosi-left-code-pink-criticism

wow some of those were just a joke.. point I was making do not tell me to go talk to my people when you have "loons" yourself. Both parties have them..

They were there to get arrested. You should probably study the history of public protest a little more deeply before you comment on things like this. And teabaggers get hassled by cops? HAA, you're kidding right? Tell me, Vida daahhlink, if an armada of black people showed up to a protest on the Mall in D.C. carrying loaded firearms and waving signs about the Tree of Liberty needing to be Watered with the Blood of Tyrants, how long would they last?

I am sorry if people are profiled yeah it sucks but at some point someone has to do something

I hope that upon some reflection, you can hear just how chilling a statement that is.

Both parties have them

Conceding that point, we're still left with how we respond to them.

I and many of my liberal friends refused to attend anti-war rallies because the anti-war movement refused to exert message control -- they were open ground for Truthers and a hodge-podge of various nuts. I personally refused to stand up and be counted WITH those people even though I oppose the war in Iraq.

If you stand side-by-side with the people at the Tea Parties waving birther signs or saying Obama is going to enacy white slavery and don't confront them, you are giving them your approval by silence. If the Tea Party as a movement does nothing to remove their messages from the rallies then the MOVEMENT is tainted by them.

Clucking about "both parties" doesn't make that go away.

Edited 2010-04-28 13:49 (UTC)

Then I have no problems with you, and if the average Tea Partier truly thinks as you do, no problems with most of the Tea Party. I object mainly to the notion that anyone gets to dictate what I do with my body and how I believe.

I forget, also, that some Christians really do live according to Christ and not to some twisted legalistic interpretation of what Christ espoused. That is a failure of mine.

Point was people HAVE told off Code Pink. Haven't really seen too much of that from the Republicans or the TP.

Both parties have loons, yet I dont see dissent coming from yours.

Why is that??

let me rephrase..

I am sorry if people are profiled. Something does have to be done about immigration but I hope that this law will do more help than damage. Profiling is not always a bad thing. They profile at airports to keep us safe. If they want to stop me to search me or see my proof I am a citizen I am more than willing to do so I have nothing to hide. If they want to search me at an airport I am more than willing to do so to keep my self and my children safe.

I am tired of illegals coming here and taking jobs that hard working Americans could have. I do not buy that oh well the do jobs other people wont.. well whatever I could care less. They are breaking the LAW.. I have zero sympathy for whatever race or color they are. I am not racist just a law abiding citizen =) I expect the same of others.

Maybe because the represent some kind of hope.. I have seen really nothing good come from Obama except well bigger government. No one wants bigger government. Do you really want the government telling you what to do with your money? How to live your life?

The tea party gives the average American a way to express them selves with like minded individuals. I see them as just hope in these dark days. That is what people are looking for is hope.

They dislike Obama the GOP dislikes Obama's policies.. Perhaps that is why they are not coming out and saying anything. Also the majority of the Tea party people have done nothing wrong. The majority are just like I am. Again there will always be nutjobs but you can not stop them from expressing and using the freedoms they have. Just like Bill Ayers is being allowed to spread his hate all because of freedom of speech.

So let me understand this:

You're saying you have NOT told off the racists and loons threatening violence because "they represent some kind of hope"??

Tea Party people sit up there and complain about "it's not fair to label us racists...or violent", but when asked why you dont disavow the loons who are -- you answer "they represent some kind of hope"???????

You *can* publically say "We dont support them". You *can* have the protest organizers say "We need you to leave; You can protest over THERE but not as part of our rally". That **CAN** be done quite easily.

No offense, but I find your answer more of a cop-out than a serious response for why people should be understanding of the TP; In fact, your answer illustrates why people dont particularly like them -- you acknowledge you have loons and racists yet you show no interest in distancing yourself from them.

You've made my point for me...

I am sorry if people are profiled.

That's not enough. Targetting people who are innocent based on a profile is a violation of their rights. How do you have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is illegal outside of very, very limited circumstances? Arizona has millions of citizens and legal immigrants who look exactly like the "typical profile" of an illegal in that state -- unless you limit yourself to demanding papers when the police enter a restaurant and half the bus boys run out of the back door, you are going to sweep up huge numbers of legal immigrants, tourists and citizens this way.

That's an affront.

Edited 2010-04-28 13:48 (UTC)

so be it I guess. I disagree totally with you.

I do not "tell off loons" because I do not encounter them. Again most of us scary tea party people are decent honest people who quietly go to rallys to show our support.

If you do not like my stance or my beliefs well I wont lose any sleep tonight. Like me or hate me I still will always stand up for what I believe in. We have one voice and if we never use that voice we never make a difference.

How do you have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is illegal outside of very, very limited circumstances?

Well, let's look at the legal definitions.

Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as "the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely." Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an "unarticulated hunch." It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion. - source (http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-suspicion)

An objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time

[...]

A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch. - source (http://dictionary.getlegal.com/reasonable-suspicion).

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion". - source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion)

So, as we can see, it requires more than just a hunch, and requires some facts or circumstances to back it up beyond just a whim or guess...

You'll stand up for what you believe in -- but apparently wont disavow the racists on a public forum, or ask your pundits to do the same.

If you truly have "one voice", then you're saying you agree with *everyone* who calls themself a Tea Party member -- including members of the Klan who would come out??

For someone who proclaims you're willing to "take a stand" I sure dont see it against the racists and loons; In fact, you seem to advocate an acceptance of ANY message so long as it backs your position...

and you really dont see the problem with that??

So again -- given that illegals don't look substantively different than tourists, legal aliens and lots of citizens in Arizona, what circumstance, outside of extremely limited and narrow contexts, will give law enforcement "reasonable suspicion" to demand papers?

And how will the provision allowing citizens to SUE if they think police departments aren't doing enough incentivize them?

They only have that anger, indignation and repugnance because those who claim they are wrong are manifestly evil.

wrong.

hs; So, you're in favor of censorship.

No. I've not called for Tea Partiers to be silenced. The fact that I object to something doesn't mean I want to suppress it. I object to hearing the word "nigger" too. That doesn't mean I want anybody who says or writes it as a racial slur should be legally silenced.

I am in favor of people behaving in a responsible manner on their own. The Tea Partiers are bad enough. The influential people in the Republican party, elected officials and pundits, who pander to them are worse.

If you're going to make it legal for people to bring loaded weapons to public rallies, it shouldn't be too much to ask that you not also engage in inflammatory, violent rhetoric.

As citizens we are already asked to produce our ID all of the time...whenever we buy something with a credit card, apply for a new job, rent an apartment, or get stopped by the cops for any reason. When we renew our driver's license. Or make a withdrawal at a bank. When we buy alcohol or cigarettes....or go through security at the airport, etc. I very recently had to produce my passport for my employer so my proof of citizenship could be on file. Are you also offended by all of these things? People are asked for the "papers" to prove who they are every day. How many times have you been asked for your social security number, or your driver's license?

There are many countries which ask that foreigners and tourists carry around their passport or ID, this is really not as unusual and harsh as you're making it sound. If you're not doing anything wrong and are obeying the law, what exactly do you have to fear or hide? In other countries that do have similar laws (such as Japan), it's unlikely you're gonna get pulled over and singled out at random unless you're actually doing something suspicious-- for example, hanging around a shady part of Roppongi late at night, where drug deals are known to go down, smelling like marijuana. Or acting drunk and disorderly on a street corner. Is it really that big of an inconvenience when there's very real drug and gang violence taking place?

If you really want to talk about harsh treatment of foreigners breaking laws across borders, lets talk about Indonesia. Or the middle east. Various countries in Africa, or China-- where bringing drugs across their borders can get you slapped with the death penalty on the spot.

Now, I am personally part native american, and I sometimes do get mistaken for being latina, or half white and something else. I sympathize with the possibility of people getting judge by their looks, I do. I'm not saying this law in Arizona was the best available option... but the federal government has been sitting on it hands doing nothing for long enough, while the situation has continued to get worse, and citizens felt the need to protect themselves. The law does stipulate that a cop would need some kind of reasonable suspicion. That means they can't just walk up to a woman minding her own business and harass her at complete random and with no reason. So yes, the way I read the bill, it sounds like they need to be doing something suspicious other than merely walking around with a different skin color.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 7 of 9

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject