A Study: Tea Parties Not Racist

[Kathianne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html

At least not as portrayed by media:


Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes

By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2010; 6:00 AM

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

Emily Ekins, a graduate student at UCLA, conducted the survey at the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington last month by scouring the crowd, row by row and hour by hour, and taking a picture of every sign she passed.

Ekins photographed about 250 signs, and more than half of those she saw reflected a "limited government ethos," she found - touching on such topics as the role of government, liberty, taxes, spending, deficit and concern about socialism. Examples ranged from the simple message "$top the $pending" scrawled in black-marker block letters to more elaborate drawings of bar charts, stop signs and one poster with the slogan "Socialism is Legal Theft" and a stick-figure socialist pointing a gun at the head of a taxpayer.

There were uglier messages, too - including "Obama Bin Lyin' - Impeach Now" and "Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot." But Ekins's analysis showed that only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president's race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.

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

Surely, there was not the intent to distort perceptions. :laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

That doesn't indicate that this movement does not have some degree of race-oriented undercurrents; it indicates that the majority of its members know they have to be politically correct for PR purposes. A much better analysis is the study that I posted, that you rejected because you apparently distrust regression analysis.

[Kathianne]

That doesn't indicate that this movement does not have some degree of race-oriented undercurrents; it indicates that the majority of its members know they have to be politically correct for PR purposes. A much better analysis is the study that I posted, that you rejected because you apparently distrust regression analysis.

Wow, needed you to restate the conclusion? Not. I got it from the first reading. Get over yourself, junior.

[Agnapostate]

Wow, needed you to restate the conclusion? Not. I got it from the first reading. Get over yourself, junior.

I guess it all depends on whether you support a reputable empirical method, or snapping photos of signs. Get researching it, senior.

[revelarts]

That doesn't indicate that this movement does not have some degree of race-oriented undercurrents; it indicates that the majority of its members know they have to be politically correct for PR purposes. A much better analysis is the study that I posted, that you rejected because you apparently distrust regression analysis.

I missed that thread where is it? ANd regression analysis can be be loaded with assumptions and fishy data choices. I think reading what people Wrote is a great place to start. Unless you think the presumption of guilt is a fair and balanced place to begin Agna?

And for the record I'm not so sure about Obama's or McCain's citizenship qualifications. And wouldn't vote for either one even if there were.

[Agnapostate]

I missed that thread where is it? ANd regression analysis can be be loaded with assumptions and fishy data choices. I think reading what people Wrote is a great place to start. Unless you think the presumption of guilt is a fair and balanced place to begin Agna?

You missed this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%91monitor%92-Tea-Party-%91racists%92&p=440120#post440120)? That interests me, since you certainly thought yourself sufficiently informed to try and contradict my perspective on the topic. Why don't you outline the specific methodological problems with this study?

[revelarts]

Oohhh that was a study? OK, it came across more like a collection of opinions. Never mind. I'm not going to rehash the problems we went over with that , you and I just don't agree on the method, sources or conclusions there, lets just leave it at that.

[Agnapostate]

Oohhh that was a study? OK, it came across more like a collection of opinions. Never mind. I'm not going to rehash the problems we went over with that , you and I just don't agree on the method, sources or conclusions there, lets just leave it at that.

Of course not. That generally comes with the inability to recognize regression analysis as such, rather than "a collection of opinions." If you can't even recognize empirical methodology when you see it, you can hardly be expected to understand it.

[Gaffer]

Of course not. That generally comes with the inability to recognize regression analysis as such, rather than "a collection of opinions." If you can't even recognize empirical methodology when you see it, you can hardly be expected to understand it.

You like that word empirical don't you. You use it like and expletive. Shut the empirical up, where are my empirical keys, who the empirical do you think you are.

The word of the week is empirical, brought to you by the letters R and J and the number 8.

[Trigg]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303634.html

At least not as portrayed by media:



Surely, there was not the intent to distort perceptions. :laugh2:

This girl is going to be on Fox and Friends. I'd be interrested to know, since she's from UCLA, if she went expecting to find racist signs. I'd also be interrested to know what grade she received.

[Kathianne]

This girl is going to be on Fox and Friends. I'd be interrested to know, since she's from UCLA, if she went expecting to find racist signs. I'd also be interrested to know what grade she received.

She was doing an internship with CATO institute, my guess is she is not typical of UCLA.

[Agnapostate]

You like that word empirical don't you. You use it like and expletive. Shut the empirical up, where are my empirical keys, who the empirical do you think you are.

The word of the week is empirical, brought to you by the letters R and J and the number 8.

In its context, Guffer. It doesn't surprise me to see the Stato Institute lining up, btw.

[Missileman]

That doesn't indicate that this movement does not have some degree of race-oriented undercurrents; it indicates that the majority of its members know they have to be politically correct for PR purposes. A much better analysis is the study that I posted, that you rejected because you apparently distrust regression analysis.

Put a percentage on the degree dipshit! Then, prove it's a higher percentage than the general population.

[Agnapostate]

Put a percentage on the degree dipshit! Then, prove it's a higher percentage than the general population.

What, do you not know how to read, Pissilecan?


A recent survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, finds that America is definitely not beyond race. For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

:slap:

[SassyLady]

What, do you not know how to read, Pissilecan?


A recent survey directed by University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, finds that America is definitely not beyond race. For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

:slap:

Wow...I read that 45% of whites interviewed agree with the movement, and of those....yada yada yada......did not read that 45% of the Tea Party Movement believed. Perhaps you need to improve your analytica skills. I did not read that the Tea Party member believe what you posted, but that 45% of the white people interviewed about the Tea Party had those beliefs. Where, in what you posted, does it say those people were "members" of the Tea Party?

[Agnapostate]

Wow...I read that 45% of whites interviewed agree with the movement, and of those....yada yada yada......did not read that 45% of the Tea Party Movement believed. Perhaps you need to improve your analytica skills. I did not read that the Tea Party member believe what you posted, but that 45% of the white people interviewed about the Tea Party had those beliefs. Where, in what you posted, does it say those people were "members" of the Tea Party?

What is a "Tea Party member"? There is no centralized formal organization that represents unity among adherents of this rightist populist movement. I'll try and explain this a bit more simply for the slow-of-mind: 45% of U.S. whites support this movement to some degree. Among self-professed white supporters of this agenda, there were higher proclivities to support these bigoted racist and homophobic attitudes than among white opponents, for example. It didn't involve some random selection of 45% of the poll sample. And yes, ultimately, the conclusion was that "support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment." That is one of the reasons why there is now an entire forum (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f198/) on the white supremacist forum Stormfront dedicated to the Tea Party movement.

[Agnapostate]

Here's a more visually concise depiction:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/S8I8xuDlK8I/AAAAAAAAARs/L3JgsUBTR64/s400/tea+party+racism1.PNG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/S8I94TO50II/AAAAAAAAAR0/tzF5jXgBUBI/s400/tea+party+racism2.PNG

It ought to be kept in mind that "Latinos" are not a race, as I've mentioned, but that the sub-set of the "Latino" ethnic group subject to the most social and economic discrimination are those with higher levels of Indian admixture, so race can still be tied in. Here are some related authoritarian attitudes, though you might not regard them as objectionable:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/S8I-FbYOmfI/AAAAAAAAAR8/_s015W3xP9I/s400/tea+party+racism3.PNG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/S8JBgycxO3I/AAAAAAAAASE/oZxaE88QElo/s400/tea+party+racism4.PNG

[Kathianne]

Wow...I read that 45% of whites interviewed agree with the movement, and of those....yada yada yada......did not read that 45% of the Tea Party Movement believed. Perhaps you need to improve your analytica skills. I did not read that the Tea Party member believe what you posted, but that 45% of the white people interviewed about the Tea Party had those beliefs. Where, in what you posted, does it say those people were "members" of the Tea Party?


Indeed. Think the poster using the study isn't interpreting like the author of such what they wish to see? Notice how often 'appears' is used. Anyhow, one chooses their methodology of study, what makes it reasonable is how it's conducted and able to be replicated. Here's the study, anyone can read the methodology, answers, and conclusions. I think I'll say the more reasonable one is the more direct, less subjective one of the woman from UCLA:

Here's the one Agna cited, without linkage:

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

[Kathianne]

What is a "Tea Party member"? There is no centralized formal organization that represents unity among adherents of this rightist populist movement. I'll try and explain this a bit more simply for the slow-of-mind: 45% of U.S. whites support this movement to some degree. Among self-professed white supporters of this agenda, there were higher proclivities to support these bigoted racist and homophobic attitudes than among white opponents, for example. It didn't involve some random selection of 45% of the poll sample. And yes, ultimately, the conclusion was that "support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment." That is one of the reasons why there is now an entire forum (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f198/) on the white supremacist forum Stormfront dedicated to the Tea Party movement.

Says our resident self-appointed ivory tower professor. :laugh2: Real opportunity to change your mind of anything regarding the tea parties. :2up:

[Missileman]

What, do you not know how to read, Pissilecan?



:slap:

A survey? And not even a survey of the people attending the rallies? LOL

You know that pedophilia runs in internet users whose alias is Agnapostate to some degree. I conducted a survey.

[Missileman]

Says our resident self-appointed ivory tower professor. :laugh2: Real opportunity to change your mind of anything regarding the tea parties. :2up:

A quote from an interview of the person who did "survey":

from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/pollster-responds-to-your-questions.html


One way in which to view these preliminary results is that we should remain cautious, and not jump to firm conclusions. I say this, first, because the sampling frame I use differs from, say, recent polls conducted by Pew, Qunnipiac, the Washington Post, and USA Today/Gallup. Indeed, my results are relevant only to the states in which the survey was conducted, four of which (NV, MO, GA, and NC) voted for the Republican presidential candidate in at least seven of the last ten election cycles. Perhaps this is why my results appear at variance with national polls.

Another reason to proceed with caution is that I don't have an item that directly measures tea party membership. Indeed, support for the tea party isn't the same as accounting for group membership much less group identification, both if which tend to powerfully predict attitudes and behavior. With that in mind, it's entirely possible that I've underestimated the effect of the tea party on political attitudes, and will likely do so in future analysis on its effect on political behavior.

Moreover, I make no claim that the data is representative of the country. Rather, they are representative of the states that were sampled. Appropriate weights, based upon the American Community Survey, have been constructed.

[Kathianne]

and the 'study' was published in May, so the research was done when? Indeed, even the media has had to reevaluate since then. Agna is hoping for a breakdown in society, then the overthrow of all government.

Unlikely to proceed that way.

[Missileman]

and the 'study' was published in May, so the research was done when? Indeed, even the media has had to reevaluate since then. Agna is hoping for a breakdown in society, then the overthrow of all government.

Unlikely to proceed that way.

It's just bullshit accusations thrown out, hard to disprove, because the real message of less taxes and smaller government doesn't sit well with the liberals and they can't realistically offer a counter message of higher taxes and more government intrusion and hope to attain/retain office.

[Kathianne]

It's just bullshit accusations thrown out, hard to disprove, because the real message of less taxes and smaller government doesn't sit well with the liberals and they can't realistically offer a counter message of higher taxes and more government intrusion and hope to attain/retain office.

Indeed. If the government is forced to reduce taxes and begin to pay off deficits, programs will have to be cut. That is what most people want. Less government so they may be left alone.

[Agnapostate]

Indeed. Think the poster using the study isn't interpreting like the author of such what they wish to see? Notice how often 'appears' is used.

Well, if the shoe fits...


The only reason most Indians don't leave the reservation is they are use to the handouts and don't want to give up that life style. Same as the inner city blacks. It's called L A Z Y.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t136080/#post1082789


White Americans have worked their asses off to get this country where it is at, while so many lazy blacks have lived on welfare off our taxpayers, and now they want reparations.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t702189/#post8039516


Just look around at the Indian Casino's being built everywhere in the US. It's white people who are lined up to give them their money.It's way past ridiculous,white people -out of work,living on welfare themselves, who are gambling at Indian casinos,while Indians receive welfare grants from the US government,fee college tuition,free housing on government reservations,free medical clinics and free food stamps.Is it any wonder they have the highest obesity,diabetes and alcohol addiction rates in the country,being cared for from cradle to grave.This is the obvious aim of the Obama administration in the US for all blacks and Hispanics in the coming near future.One big giant welfare/nanny state of nonwhites-supported by white slaves.

:poke:


Anyhow, one chooses their methodology of study, what makes it reasonable is how it's conducted and able to be replicated. Here's the study, anyone can read the methodology, answers, and conclusions. I think I'll say the more reasonable one is the more direct, less subjective one of the woman from UCLA:

Direct and less subjective? She works for an explicitly partisan organization, in contrast to the professor who works at a neutral institution, and her "study" consisted of snapping photos, didn't it? As I said, that only reveals that the majority of participants are smart enough to be politically correct for PR purposes, not their true feelings that can be determined through more in-depth anonymous interviews.


Here's the one Agna cited, without linkage:

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

Without linkage? The link was in post #6.


Says our resident self-appointed ivory tower professor. :laugh2: Real opportunity to change your mind of anything regarding the tea parties. :2up:

Well, on the one hand, you're an actual formal educator. On the other hand, I have little to no respect for the formal education system, dropped out of high school, and never attended university. I'm also not an academic or scholar, but a lowly civil servant that's lucky to bring in four hundred a week when I am called up. And in contrast to the majority of you, I actually live in an urban environment, and have more direct experience with facets of that (such as poverty) than those of you with your little baseless intuitions.

Of course, there's a catch-22 in that I would have been attacked as this "ivory tower professor" that you mention, while I'll now be attacked for lacking some aspects of formal education, I'm sure. :dunno:


A survey? And not even a survey of the people attending the rallies? LOL

Yes, the researchers should have ambled up to random people at political demonstrations and asked them to participate in 45 minute long surveys. With that keen mind, it's a wonder you're not at Harvard already.


You know that pedophilia runs in internet users whose alias is Agnapostate to some degree. I conducted a survey.

Did you now? By all means, cite Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders information and a statement of support from a licensed mental health professional.


A quote from an interview of the person who did "survey":

from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/pollster-responds-to-your-questions.html

You know, I'm actually glad that you put the effort into identifying potential problems with the study at hand, even if it doesn't reflect a general interest in evidence-based analysis on your part. I'm not certain exactly how the issue about the individual states is relevant; are you implying that there is some major difference between tea party supporters in those individual states and those from others? I also don't know, as I mentioned earlier, what a "tea party member" is. There is no formal centralized organization that represents uniformity among "tea party members." The closest is Tea Party Patriots, which has been attacked by other contingencies within the movement.

The point about not jumping to conclusions is more meaningful to me. I would not, however, assert that the study represented a unilateral exposition, or some groundbreaking insight into rightist racial resentment. There are other studies that corroborate my conclusions. Here are a few examples for you:

1. Racism and redistribution in the United States: A solution to the problem of American exceptionalism (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V76-4H80STF-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08/31/2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=813063715e970502b1e81cfb3d267727&searchtype=a): "The two main political parties in the United States in the period 1976–1992 put forth policies on redistribution and on issues pertaining directly to race. We argue that redistributive politics in the US can be fully understood only by taking account of the interconnection between these issues in political competition. We identify two mechanisms through which racism among American voters decreases the degree of redistribution that would otherwise obtain. In common with others, we suggest that voter racism decreases the degree of redistribution due to an anti-solidarity effect: that (some) voters oppose government transfer payments to minorities whom they view as undeserving. We suggest a second effect as well: that some voters who desire redistribution nevertheless vote for the anti-redistributive (Republican) party because its position on the race issue is more consonant with their own, and this, too, decreases the degree of redistribution in political equilibrium. This we name the policy bundle effect. We propose a formal model of multi-dimensional political competition that enables us to estimate the magnitude of these two effects, and estimate the model for the period in question. We compute that voter racism reduced the income tax rate by 11–18% points; the total effect decomposes about equally into the two sub-effects. We also find that the Democratic vote share is 5–38% points lower than it would have been, absent racism. The magnitude of this effect would seem to explain the difference between the sizes of the public sector in the US and northern European countries."

2. Is Immigration a Racial Issue? Anglo Attitudes on Immigration Policies in a Border County (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00633.x/abstract): "Objective. This study assesses the association between Anglo aversion to Latinos, physical proximity to Latinos, and contact with ethnic minorities, with expressed preferences for immigration policies.

Methods. Data were drawn from a telephone survey of San Diego County, California, residents (N=549 Anglos) using random-digit-dial procedures during 2005–2006 that was conducted by closely supervised professional interviewers. Descriptive reports, tau-b correlations, and multivariate logistic regressions were used for analysis.

Results. Aversion to Latinos, as indicated by an adaptation of the Bogardus social distance scale, was related to more restrictionist attitudes about legal and Mexican immigration. Associations increased when respondents were primed to consider Mexican immigration, although aversion to Latinos was not related to attitudes about amnesty for undocumented persons. Contrary to some previous findings, proximity to Latino populations increased opposition to legal immigration and amnesty. Reported minority contact had minimal impact but increased support for amnesty.

Conclusions. Attitudes about immigration may be motivated more by racial resentments than other considerations. Future research should identify racial factors that influence Anglo policy positions beyond the classic Anglo/African division that has dominated this research arena."

3. Effects of Terrorism on Attitudes and Ideological Orientation (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.294/abstract): "A quasi-experimental study on the effects of terrorism on racial prejudice and ideological orientation is presented. Two independent samples were contacted before and after the Islamic terrorist attacks against railways in Madrid (11 March 2004). Anti-Arab and anti-Semite prejudices, authoritarianism and ideological orientations (liberal against conservative) were evaluated. Results showed that those terrorist attacks provoked changes in a reactionary and conservative direction: stronger prejudices not only against the target group (Arabs), but against another uninvolved group (Jewish); an increase in authoritarianism; stronger attachment to traditional conservative values, and a reduction in the attachment to liberal values. The results are interpreted in terms of the System-Justification Theory, the Motivated Social Cognition model of Conservatism and the Right-Wing Authoritarianism."


and the 'study' was published in May, so the research was done when? Indeed, even the media has had to reevaluate since then.

Has there been a massive shift in the rightist populist nature of this political movement and agenda since then? By all means, elaborate.


It's just bullshit accusations thrown out, hard to disprove, because the real message of less taxes and smaller government doesn't sit well with the liberals and they can't realistically offer a counter message of higher taxes and more government intrusion and hope to attain/retain office.

What the hell exactly is this little nonsense of your supposed to prove? How is it distinct from what a white supremacist would say? It seems more or less equivalent to what's said in this thread on Stormfront (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/).


The tea party crowd are comprised of ordinary White Americans, just as White Nationalists are. Culturally and traditionally, they're basically the same as White Nationalists - both rooted in the earlier paleo-conservative value system. The only difference might be that the neo-conservatives seem to think they can manipulate the tea partiers much more easily than they can manipulate White Nationalists. Of course, from the liberal side, the only thing they can throw out is the "race card," so therefore they will keep using the label of "racist" against the tea partiers. "Racist" is really the only rhetorical weapon the liberals have in their arsenal, and since they disingenuously overuse that label as much as they do, even that is starting to lose its power.

Instead of mindlessly throwing around labels like "racist," liberals might actually have to make real, genuine arguments in the future - something they've proven incapable of doing. They've come to rely so much on calling people "racist" to get their way, they use it mostly as a crutch these days.


Basically, the Tea Partiers just want to be left alone by the government, and I don't think they have much more ideology than that. Less Government, Less Taxes, Less Bureacracy, less government Social Engineering, thats the tea partier goal. Because, this is in direct contradiction of the Multicults program, more government to make more social Engineering, enforced by thugs with guns and billy clubs at any expense, the Tea Partiers are on the firing line. However the Multicult can't just come out and say, "you want too much freedom, you want too much liberty" they instead call them Racists. And Academia, supports this by defining Racist as anyone who doesn't want to be socially engineered.

The people on SF who call themselves WN, for the most part, just want to be left alone by the government, they don't want to be social engineered either. However, because social engineering is painful and oppressive, many people are radicallized and pushed into a rage, and basically provoked into being "mean". And then of course the Multicult points to the result while ignoring the cause.


True conservatives believe in a small central government with little taxation and governmental intrusion, self reliance, and the freedom to succeed or fail according to each individuals' abilities. Liberals are just the opposite. They believe in a large government with the power to punish those who succeed through taxation, legislation and the redistribution of wealth in order to achieve "social justice".

The Tea Party is accused of racism simply because they disagree with the policies of President Obama because he is black. The real truth is that President Obama is a socialist and socialism is the direct opposite of conservatism.

Instead of just contradicting me, you'll have to actually refute what's been said in some meaningful way.


That is what most people want. Less government so they may be left alone.

This tea party ideology does not consist of across-the-board anti-government components, nor even of blanket opposition to excessive fiscal expenditure, because it's based on upholding their moral vision of social and political affairs. For example, enactment of draconian immigration policies (massive wall construction and patrol, routine raids, imprisonments, and deportations), would probably be a wasteful expenditure that would cost far more than legalizing or decriminalizing all border crossing and current illegal immigrants and undocumented residents in the U.S., but most adherents of this movement would oppose it because of their insistence on the supremacy of legal fetishism, and concerns of rewarding lawbreakers.

[Missileman]

This tea party ideology does not consist of across-the-board anti-government components, nor even of blanket opposition to excessive fiscal expenditure, because it's based on upholding their moral vision of social and political affairs. For example, enactment of draconian immigration policies (massive wall construction and patrol, routine raids, imprisonments, and deportations), would probably be a wasteful expenditure that would cost far more than legalizing or decriminalizing all border crossing and current illegal immigrants and undocumented residents in the U.S., but most adherents of this movement would oppose it because of their insistence on the supremacy of legal fetishism, and concerns of rewarding lawbreakers.

So your answer to the illegal immigration problem is the dissolution of the U.S.? You really are a fuckin idiot!

[Pagan]

So your answer to the illegal immigration problem is the dissolution of the U.S.? You really are a fuckin idiot!

You just finding that out? :laugh2:

[Missileman]

You just finding that out? :laugh2:

I knew he was an idiot...he just established a previously unattained benchmark.

[Pagan]

I knew he was an idiot...he just established a previously unattained benchmark.

Me, it was when he claimed Anarchy is purely Socialism then tops it off with the Inca Empire was Socialist.

What really is truely amazing is the fool actually believes he's intelligent, but then again most that is a trait of ignorant fools.

Oh well, every community needs their Village Idiot :laugh2: