Tea partiers boycott ox News for being too liberal
- 1Mar 25, '13 by herring_RN GuideThe Tea Party Fire Ants say Fox, widely viewed as conservative, needs to shift more to the right. They want continued coverage of the Benghazi consulate attack and scrutiny of Obama’s birth certificate. ‘We’re not interested in fair and balanced,’ an organizer said. ...
... The activists, who call themselves the Tea Party Fire Ants, say that Fox News has gone soft on some issues, like immigration and the attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. They organized a boycott that lasted from March 21 to March 24, demanding that the station, viewed by many as conservative, turn even harder right. ...
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz2OazZd7FO
- 5Mar 25, '13 by aknottedyarnIt seems quite obvious that the fire ants are not interested in news. These items have been discussed ad nausea. If the birthers and the climate deniers and the Benghazi ferrets wish to continue - go for it. While they are gathering their news I hope they recall that 60 people died in embassy attacks under Bush's watch, the birth certificate is just a foil for their white sheet beliefs, and if they think climate has not changed. That is OK by me. I do hope they all get homes on the coast. Each storm that has done damage they have complained about the money the federal government uses for assistance. If they are up close and personal to the changes it will not bother me a bit.
If they decide to start their own station to contrast with faux I think it would be "swell".
- 3Mar 26, '13 by tewdlesI welcome the establishment of a more conservative news source besides Fox.
One that uses facts and journalism would be nice.
The more the "fire ants" push the republican party to the right the less likely they are to win national elections.
- 4Mar 31, '13 by chareQuote from aknottedyarn… the birthcertificate is just a foil for their white sheet beliefs….
As I find the quoted portion of this post to be insulting and offensive, I previously posted requesting clarification. As I read your post, it appears to me that you are either accusing members of the Republican Party in general, or the Fire Ants in particular, of being members of the Klan.
If that was not your intent, would you please clarify your post?Last edit by chare on Mar 31, '13 : Reason: Corrected formatting.
- 0Mar 31, '13 by tewdlesQuote from chareThings get generalized here all the time. It is never okay for those on the receiving end.As I find the quoted portion of this post to be insulting and offensive, I previously posted requesting clarification. As I read your post, it appears to me that you are either accusing members of the Republican Party in general, or the Fire Ants in particular, of being members of the Klan.
If that was not your intent, would you please clarify your post?
Happens to conservatives and liberals alike...
- 0Mar 31, '13 by herring_RN GuideOn a personal level and without an audience sometimes talking points are replaced with an actual conversation
Tea Party Event On Racial Tolerance Devolves Into Complete Chaos At CPAC
... Seconds after the event ended, a media scrum formed around Terry. A woman wearing a Tea Party Patriots CPAC credential who had shouted down Brown earlier urged him not to give his name to the press.
She wouldn’t give her name either, but I asked her what she thought.
“Look, you know there’s no doubt the white males are getting really beat up right now, it’s unfair,” she said. “I agree with that. My husband’s one of them. But I don’t think there’s a clear understanding about what really is going on. He needs to read Frederick Douglass and I think that question should be asked to everyone in this room who is debating.”
Oddly enough, the unnamed woman ended up talking to Brown afterwards and it actually approached something of a constructive dialogue, even if she kicked it out by complaining about an “entitlement mentality” among liberal African Americans.
She explained that despite appearing outwardly white, she was one quarter Korean and her mother’s side of the family had been called “Japs” in the 1950s. She added she had gotten heat from “white men” who mocked her for going to a university, Berkley, over its large Asian population without knowing she was Asian herself.
Brown asked if her experience made her feel any sympathy for what African Americans experience.
“I feel that there is a certain disadvantage coming out of slavery, they had to make it on their own,” she said. “There are certain endowments handed down to you and on the education, level the black community has not had a fair share.”
“Correct,” Brown replied, segueing into a discussion of generational wealth gaps between races. They were joined by an older white man, George Vermillion, who had come by to make sure Brown knew he wasn’t one of the people who had muttered remarks while she was speaking.
“Race is such a weird issue,” he said. “It’s hard to talk about it.” ...
Read more: CPAC Tea Party Event On Racism Turns Into Chaos - Business Insider
- 3Mar 31, '13 by chareQuote from tewdlesYou might call this a generalization, and that's fine. Howeve, I don't see this as a generalization, I see this as a thinly veiled accusation of racism.Things get generalized here all the time. It is never okay for those on the receiving end.
Happens to conservatives and liberals alike...
If that is not the intent of the post, then the poster needs to clarify.
- 7Mar 31, '13 by tewdlesI agree that it was a reference to racism, one that is sticking to the tea party movement when they are joined by the KKK leadership at their rallies and on paper.
It will be up to the tea party to distance themselves from those people, we are just observers.
This is not much different than making broad general statements about groups such as the Occupy movement.
- 1Mar 31, '13 by herring_RN GuideI found this interesting. I'm not sure i want to spend the time checking for historical accuracy.
... In the beginning, Jews were rejected by Christians because they rejected Jesus. If they converted, underwent baptism, and accepted Jesus, they could become full members of the dominant society. But then, when Jewish conversions were systematically coerced by rulers and prelates, especially in 15th century Iberia, Christians found reason to doubt the sincerity of conversos. Anyone born a Jew was suspect, even after baptism. Birth, not belief, became the issue.
An odd foreshadowing of the Obama-birth affair occurred in 1546 when a converso priest was appointed to a high position at the cathedral in Toledo, Spain. The archbishop, suspecting the man’s Jewish origins, overruled the appointment on the grounds that he had “impure blood.’’ To head off any further such appointments, the archbishop issued the so-called Statute of Toledo, requiring “blood purity’’ — limpieza de sangre — of any candidate for office in the cathedral.
The Inquisition extended such limpieza statutes to other institutions, with the result that persons of Jewish birth or even ancestry — whether baptized or not — were banned from universities, religious orders, guilds, and municipal offices.
The church itself eventually revoked blood purity regulations, but not before they had widely taken root in Europe. The institutionalization of this distinction by blood — by birth — assumes a biological divide of racial superiority and racial inferiority, and stands as a marker in human history. The construction of supremacy. Applied at first to Jews, the birth standard would soon enough (as Europe’s “age of exploration’’ accelerated) be applied to native peoples everywhere, beginning in Africa. ...
Birthers’ shameful racist roots - The Boston Globe
Last edit by herring_RN on Mar 31, '13