Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: Allhallowsday on July 19, 2010, 12:29:27 PM



Title: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Allhallowsday on July 19, 2010, 12:29:27 PM
'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post 

Tea Party Express is also expelled because it refused to rebuke Mark Williams, who was responding to accusations by the NAACP that the conservative movement has racist elements. 

Reporting from Washington —
With racism accusations roiling the conservative movement, the National Tea Party Federation said Sunday that it had ejected commentator Mark Williams over an incendiary blog post in which he wrote a fictitious letter to Abraham Lincoln.

The faux letter was written in the name of Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, in response to an NAACP resolution condemning "racist elements" within the "tea party" movement.

One passage of Williams' "letter" read: "We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!" 

Williams is a spokesman for Tea Party Express, a Sacramento-based political action committee. Tea Party Express was a part of the federation, but it was expelled after refusing to banish Williams... 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tea-party-20100719,0,5302758.story?track=rss (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tea-party-20100719,0,5302758.story?track=rss)   


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: 3mnkids on July 19, 2010, 02:26:22 PM
1 down 10,000 to go.    :teddyr:


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: indianasmith on July 19, 2010, 03:56:32 PM
How come liberal groups never - or at least rarely - censure their members who say nasty, hateful, biased things about conservatives and/or eligious people?


(I'm looking at YOU, Moveon.org!)


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Jim H on July 19, 2010, 04:51:31 PM
How come liberal groups never - or at least rarely - censure their members who say nasty, hateful, biased things about conservatives and/or eligious people?


(I'm looking at YOU, Moveon.org!)

I'd assume the same reasons right wing groups hardly ever do it.  They only do this when they know they've offended sensitive groups with significant political power over them (and if they offend someone they know will never vote for what they want, they don't care), neither side does it because of what was actually said.


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: indianasmith on July 19, 2010, 06:53:11 PM
I can see where you are coming from, but I don't know that I entirely agree.  I mean, Trent Lott said something nice about Strom Thurmond at the old man's 100th birthday party . . . speculating what it might have been like if Thurmond had been elected President in 1948.  Thurmond, of course, was running on a segregationist ticket, with the usual "state's rights" fig leaf sown over it.  I seriously doubt Lott thinks the world would be a better place if a segregationist had beaten Harry Truman . . . but he resigned as majority leader the next week, when the media had a frenzy over his remarks.
   At Robert Byrd's recent funeral, Bill Clinton flat out lied about him having a "brief association" with the Klan!  Byrd was a Klan member for 10 years, held an officer's rank,  and was a segregationist for most of his adult life until he finally reversed his views in the 1980's.  The media, with the exception of talk radio and Fox News, gave Byrd (and Clinton) a complete free pass on this.
  I think that Republicans/conservatives are generally held to a MUCH stricter standard by the media than leftist politicians and commentators are.

   Anyway, all that being said, kudos to the Tea Party for policing its ranks and dispensing with an obvious wing nut.  There are too many of those on both sides as it is.


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Allhallowsday on July 19, 2010, 07:41:20 PM
I can see where you are coming from, but I don't know that I entirely agree.  I mean, Trent Lott said something nice about Strom Thurmond at the old man's 100th birthday party . . . speculating what it might have been like if Thurmond had been elected President in 1948.  Thurmond, of course, was running on a segregationist ticket, with the usual "state's rights" fig leaf sown over it.  I seriously doubt Lott thinks the world would be a better place if a segregationist had beaten Harry Truman . . . but he resigned as majority leader the next week, when the media had a frenzy over his remarks.
   At Robert Byrd's recent funeral, Bill Clinton flat out lied about him having a "brief association" with the Klan!  Byrd was a Klan member for 10 years, held an officer's rank,  and was a segregationist for most of his adult life until he finally reversed his views in the 1980's.  The media, with the exception of talk radio and Fox News, gave Byrd (and Clinton) a complete free pass on this.
  I think that Republicans/conservatives are generally held to a MUCH stricter standard by the media than leftist politicians and commentators are.
   Anyway, all that being said, kudos to the Tea Party for policing its ranks and dispensing with an obvious wing nut.  There are too many of those on both sides as it is.
CLINTON didn't lie.  He suggested that BYRD had spent the rest of his life making up for his grave mistake.  BYRD himself certainly apologized enough, but I remain unimpressed myself by that.  He certainly got elected enough, and started out apologizing in the '50s!  Nonetheless, Indy, me old buddy, you need to reconsider that almost none of this membership are partisan politicians, so get over the branding


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: indianasmith on July 19, 2010, 08:47:49 PM
But I LIKE being branded!!!! :teddyr:

That I referred to as a "lie" was the line "fleeting involvement."  TEN YEARS is not fleeting, and holding the office of Kleagle (recruiter) implies pretty strong involvement.

Yes, Byrd apologized repeatedly for his involvement in the Klan, and I imagine he meant it.

But I do believe the media applies a double standard to hateful speech depending on whether it is uttered by a liberal or conservative.

That was my point.


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Allhallowsday on July 19, 2010, 09:19:03 PM
But I LIKE being branded!!!! :teddyr:

That I referred to as a "lie" was the line "fleeting involvement."  TEN YEARS is not fleeting, and holding the office of Kleagle (recruiter) implies pretty strong involvement.

Yes, Byrd apologized repeatedly for his involvement in the Klan, and I imagine he meant it.

But I do believe the media applies a double standard to hateful speech depending on whether it is uttered by a liberal or conservative.

That was my point.
It's argueable how long BYRD was involved, but it could have been only 3 or 4 years, there appears to be no hard evidence.  But, I imagine that BYRD was disingenuous about his participation, so, who knows?  In the context of 60 or 70 years, "fleeting involvement" (if in fact that is a quote) might be a fair characterization (and perhaps a bit gloss.)  I still think your characterization of a "flat out lie" is expedient, but inaccurate, which brings me back to my point about partisan politics.


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: ulthar on July 19, 2010, 09:47:40 PM

It's argueable how long BYRD was involved, but it could have been only 3 or 4 years, there appears to be no hard evidence.  But, I imagine that BYRD was disingenuous about his participation, so, who knows?  In the context of 60 or 70 years, "fleeting involvement" (if in fact that is a quote) might be a fair characterization (and perhaps a bit gloss.) 


Am I understanding you correctly if I interpret your comment here to mean that 3 or 4 years is an acceptable period of time to have been a violent racist? 

Also, do you assert that if any conservative politician like, I don't know, let's say Jim DeMint, even served 1 year in the KKK that he would NOT be CRUCIFIED in the media?

Are you defending Byrd's history with the KKK, the double standard in the media or both?

I heard the Clinton speech, and the language used was in fact "fleeting involvement."  But, it goes much deeper than just those two words; Clinton's inflection depicts just how strongly he is trying to downplay this part of Byrd's history.  The remark was so egregious that at the time I heard it (before hearing any commentary about it), I was incredulous that even Clinton had the stones to say it...or, that ANYONE would dismiss that history so easily.

Indiana is correct...this is a very good example of the 'free pass' double standard that the media applies.  Both sides do do this, but one side is clearly favored by the media, and THAT is his point (I think...I don't want to speak for him).



Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Jim H on July 19, 2010, 10:16:42 PM
On further reflection, I think my attitude on this is probably colored by my knowledge of the tolerance right winger pundits/mouthpieces get.  Consider the sorts of things Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and others get away with.  They might get yelled at, but at most they give an apology and go right back to saying such things again. 

But, this isn't the same thing as the tolerance of people saying the same sorts of things in positions within a political organization.  And I'm trying to think of some examples of left wingers getting tossed out of a group like that for what they said, but can't think of any.  Then again, I also can't remember a time off the top of my head I thought it was deserved.


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: ulthar on July 19, 2010, 10:40:24 PM

Consider the sorts of things Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and others get away with.


Okay, let's consider them.  Name some specific things Glenn Beck has said for which he has apologized for or should apologize.

Quote

But, this isn't the same thing as the tolerance of people saying the same sorts of things in positions within a political organization.  And I'm trying to think of some examples of left wingers getting tossed out of a group like that for what they said, but can't think of any.  Then again, I also can't remember a time off the top of my head I thought it was deserved.


Since it was a blog posting that got this OP cat into 'trouble,' I think that as Indiana mentioned before, moveon.org is an EXCELLENT example.  I don't hear any screaming to 'silence' that organization, and some of the things they say are down right nasty, and I don't mean in a 'boo hoo, he hurt my feelings' sort of way.  Where's Sierra Club (or any other mostly left leaning group) disavowing the moveon.org crowd to avoid "guilt by association?"


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: 3mnkids on July 19, 2010, 10:49:45 PM
What has anyone in a top position of moveon.org said? What nasty things?

I also dont hear anyone saying "silence the organization".. Hell, I say put a microphone in front of them every chance they get. Let them post on their blogs, facebook, and twitter.  :thumbup:


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: indianasmith on July 19, 2010, 11:19:28 PM
Taking out a full page ad in the New York Times that referred to a highly decorated four star general as "General Betray-us", for starters.  That was atrocious.

And how did Gen. Petraeus "betray us", exactly?

By advocating victory in warfare instead of the shameless retreat and withdrawal that Moveon and everybody else on the left was screaming for.  Remember Harry Reid saying "This war is lost, Mr. President!"???

He was wrong.  The war in Iraq was not only winnable, it was, for all purposes, won by George W. Bush before Obama ever took office.

From the moment our troops went in, groups like Moveon.org found it preferable to lobby for America's defeat rather than to see a conservative President get credit for a victory.

Call me partisan, call me a shill for Bush, call me whatever you like.  I still think that Reid and Moveon were damn close to treason in those utterances.


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Jim H on July 19, 2010, 11:39:30 PM
Quote
Okay, let's consider them.  Name some specific things Glenn Beck has said for which he has apologized for or should apologize.


Glenn Beck has apologized a couple times, if memory serves.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/glenn-beck-apologizes-for-making-fun-of-barack-obamas-daughter-malia/19496426 (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/glenn-beck-apologizes-for-making-fun-of-barack-obamas-daughter-malia/19496426)

I thought he'd done it once before, but I can't find a link for it.  He should apologize to the various people and organizations he has compared to Nazis (something he's done a number of times).  So should moveon.org, for that matter.

And he should apologize to the world for sounding like an idiot about 90% of the time.   :teddyr:


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: Allhallowsday on July 19, 2010, 11:49:17 PM
It's argueable how long BYRD was involved, but it could have been only 3 or 4 years, there appears to be no hard evidence.  But, I imagine that BYRD was disingenuous about his participation, so, who knows?  In the context of 60 or 70 years, "fleeting involvement" (if in fact that is a quote) might be a fair characterization (and perhaps a bit gloss.)
Am I understanding you correctly if I interpret your comment here to mean that 3 or 4 years is an acceptable period of time to have been a violent racist?  
Why would you interpret it that way?  Please read more closely.  I did use the words "might" and "gloss".  

Also, do you assert that if any conservative politician like, I don't know, let's say Jim DeMint, even served 1 year in the KKK that he would NOT be CRUCIFIED in the media?
Are you defending Byrd's history with the KKK, the double standard in the media or both?
Not in the least and I'm not defending BYRD.  However, I might be defending CLINTON's remarks at BYRD's funeral.  And I don't think "fleeting involvement" is accurate, I merely point out that it may be a fair characterization.  Read of that what you will, but read closely.  Let me make it clear: I don't admire BYRD and I never liked the guy.

Taking out a full page ad in the New York Times that referred to a highly decorated four star general as "General Betray-us", for starters.  That was atrocious.
And how did Gen. Petraeus "betray us", exactly?
By advocating victory in warfare instead of the shameless retreat and withdrawal that Moveon and everybody else on the left was screaming for.  Remember Harry Reid saying "This war is lost, Mr. President!"???
He was wrong.  The war in Iraq was not only winnable, it was, for all purposes, won by George W. Bush before Obama ever took office.
From the moment our troops went in, groups like Moveon.org found it preferable to lobby for America's defeat rather than to see a conservative President get credit for a victory.
Call me partisan, call me a shill for Bush, call me whatever you like.  I still think that Reid and Moveon were damn close to treason in those utterances.
When there is no American blood shed on Iraqi soil, I'll give you BUSH's "victory".  


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: wickednick on July 20, 2010, 08:56:58 AM
That was a stupid thing to say though, if he thought it wouldn't be taken as racist and has really just enforced the ideology hat the Tea Party movement is filled with racists. I personally do not feel the Tea Party is racist or that right wingers are racist, both sides have very racist elements in them, but this guy really did not think before he wrote that.
I want to also talk about something else, personally I feel the accusations that the tea party is racist is a bigoted and racist accusation its self. The idea being that just because its a right wing movement there must be racist element within in it because most conservatives are white and if they are white they must not like black people unless of course you are a democrat, even though the democratic party used to be the party of slavery and segregation. And those few black conservatives are insulted for not siding with the heavily black democratic party, because the thought is that if you are black than you must adhere to the group or you are just a pawn of the white man. And if you don't think that is true then just talk to my girl friend, who has been insulted for being black but not adhering to black culture and music.
I feel that race issues are problems in both parties but the Conservatives get it worse because there are more white people in that party, while racist blacks in the democratic party are given much greater freedom to say what they want, because no one wants to call them out on it, for fear of being called a racist them selves.
 


Title: Re: 'Tea party' federation severs ties with commentator over Lincoln blog post
Post by: trekgeezer on July 21, 2010, 10:21:37 AM
I'm not getting into the Iraq thing again.  But as far as Mr. Byrd is concerned, he like almost all the Southern Democratic politicians of his era was a rabid segregationist.

As far as him continuously getting re elected, well he used his position on the appropriations committee to bring home the bacon to West Virginia.  I have no count on how many federal agencies have their headquarters there, and for ages they got the largest portion of federal highway money.


As far as the tea party, they have a lot of idiots in their ranks .    The righties have their Limbaughs  Becks, and Fox News (another organization with few idiots in their ranks).   The lefties have Keith Olberman and MSNBC, and moveon.org.   

Ain't free speech a wonderful thing?