The stupidity of these people is matched only by their fervor

[lawgator1]

Mutually exclusive events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In logic, two mutually exclusive propositions are propositions that logically cannot both be true. Another term for mutually exclusive is "disjoint." To say that more than two propositions are mutually exclusive may, depending on context mean that no two of them can both be true, or only that they cannot all be true. The term pairwise mutually exclusive always means no two of them can both be true.

Right. And my question was "Who says they are mutually exclusive?" meaning that I am implying of course that they are not.

Both can exist together. One is not dependent or a function of the other. Hence my question.

 

[utvolpj]

LG using the age-old tactic of the race card. Sad to see that it is still such a successful maneuver of the left

 

[lawgator1]

I think we are at impasse on this issue.

 

[MG1968]

I think we are at impasse on this issue.

no, we aren't. You're wrong when you make the claim that the TP is motivated by racism.

You simply refuse to accept the fact that Obama is an economic moron and all of his wonderful Keynesian policies are abject failures.

 

[droski]

Right. And my question was "Who says they are mutually exclusive?" meaning that I am implying of course that they are not.

Both can exist together. One is not dependent or a function of the other. Hence my question.

whatever

this goes completely against what you've said in the past. i.e that the tea party wants fiscal responsibility because they are pissed black people are getting stuff from the govt.

 

[sjt18]

You guys are cracking me up.

2) The fact that the TP publicly announces its platfrom as based solely on fiscal conservatism and a handful of social policy items does not mean either that it is their real agenda or that, even if it was, it doesn't go hand in hand with less laudable interests.

So the TP doesn't believe what it publicly advertises... it MUST believe the sinister things you want them to believe in order to demonize them? IOW's, somehow 10's of millions of people have created the world's greatest and leak proof conspiracy to hide their true agenda, right?

What would crack me up if you weren't so serious about it is the lengths you go to give genuine threats like many Muslims and Islamic doctrines the benefit of the doubt but draw conclusions based on suspicion when it comes to the TP.

Indeed, whenever Obama says he has the goal of reducing the deficit, improving the economy, and adding jobs, you are immediately on here saying it is not his real agenda.

Not when he goes out and actually does things that have been historically consistent in working against those goals.

You base your impression of his politics on his other remarks, the unprepared ones, his actions, the overall gestalt of what you think he is.

Yes. What he says when not presenting a line coupled with what he actually does is of far more importance than prepared speeches specifically designed to leave impressions that may or may not be true.

 

[sjt18]

No, mutually exclusive means you cannot have both at the same time. For some TPers it is all about fiscal conservatism. For some its all about either race or irrational fears that he a secret agent. For some its a mix.

Proof please... and I want numbers, not your unfounded conjecture.

 

[lawgator1]

no, we aren't. You're wrong when you make the claim that the TP is motivated by racism.

You simply refuse to accept the fact that Obama is an economic moron and all of his wonderful Keynesian policies are abject failures.

If you have gotten the impression that I am saying the entire TP is motivated by racism, or that those that are motivated by racism are exclusively so, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Some are racists (and by that term I mean frightened by, or dislike, or needlessly worry about Obama based on his being black or having the ethnic background he has).

Many are not.

Of those that are, I don't think that's the only issue they have with him.

And of those that are, I believe most are not racist in the straight up evil sort of way. They are scared of the changing face of the nation, losing power and comfort.

whatever

this goes completely against what you've said in the past. i.e that the tea party wants fiscal responsibility because they are pissed black people are getting stuff from the govt.

I certainly think that is part of it, yes.

 

[droski]

And of those that are, I believe most are not racist in the straight up evil sort of way. They are scared of the changing face of the nation, losing power and comfort.

and the changing face of the nation, according to you, is less white people? yes or no? how is this not calling people racist?

and you don't think they are afraid of the changing state of our nation led by the chief socialist? that scares the living crap out of me.

 

[sjt18]

And of those that are, I believe most are not racist in the straight up evil sort of way. They are scared of the changing face of the nation, losing power and comfort.
.

Just how dense are you?!?!

It isn't the "face"... it is the POLICIES and IDEALS behind the face regardless of the color.

You are talking about people who cheered just as fervently for black or hispanic speakers as they did for white ones.

SHOW YOUR PROOF OR ELSE COME CLEAN AND ADMIT YOU ARE LYING.

 

[droski]

the idiocy here is why did these people all of a sudden start worrying about the country getting less white? hasn't this been happening for 40 years? the turning point just happened to be after the worst republican president in years?

 

[sjt18]

the idiocy here is why did these people all of a sudden start worrying about the country getting less white? hasn't this been happening for 40 years? the turning point just happened to be after the worst republican president in years?

Not to mention a Congress that became what they were elected to destroy.

 

[utvolpj]

has LG ever pointed out there are racists in the current admin? Should at least try and be fair and balanced

 

[MUR73]

You are going to have to go with the second one.

And I just don't believe you.
Now, I am not saying every single member of the TP is racist. I am not even saying that those that are would even necessarily be conscious of it, or articulate it in some traditional manner you would necessarily recognize.

As I have said before here many times, it is not that people sit around saying to each other they can't stand having that "N" word in the White House (although a tiny number probably actually do). Its that they resent someone who is not in the mold they are used to seeing, someone they view as radically different, that they don't like.

You obviously have a right to an opinion but as a man of the law that deals everyday in facts i would think you can school me on the idea of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty). And that the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution. So can you offer a strong factual argument to back up your beliefs.

I know life is not a court room but where is your proof? assumption, feeling, something Comedian John stewart edited and showed you on his program?where is this evil rhetoric or , venom that is coming from the right? Are you really suggesting that subconsciously i am a racist?

I do realize their are people out there that have their prejudices but it would be naive at best to think that you could not find some in every group/walk of line, right and left side. But, in this case, that is a totally seperate argument. I do not Hate BO for any reason,so DO NOT try to change the subject to that crap again. i just disagree with his beliefs and policies and i feel they tread on me and my families values, liberties and moralities, thus i dont like his politics, i have nothing against the man. Your side rushes so fast to play the race card or the crazy gun totting redneck card and it is played outand i believe most people are onto it.

 

[lawgator1]

and the changing face of the nation, according to you, is less white people? yes or no? how is this not calling people racist?

and you don't think they are afraid of the changing state of our nation led by the chief socialist? that scares the living crap out of me.

For the upteenth time, it is possible to both hate his policies and dislike him for his race and ethnic background, unusual history, those sorts of things. I want to emphasize again that this thread was not originally about the TP, but if you watch the video it begins with the absolutism of the people who think he's a Muslim is startling. Even the interviewer seemed really shocked by how many of them believe it and what that translates into.

Just how dense are you?!?!

It isn't the "face"... it is the POLICIES and IDEALS behind the face regardless of the color.

You are talking about people who cheered just as fervently for black or hispanic speakers as they did for white ones.

SHOW YOUR PROOF OR ELSE COME CLEAN AND ADMIT YOU ARE LYING.

See above. Also, I think the black members they have supported are the definition of token.

the idiocy here is why did these people all of a sudden start worrying about the country getting less white? hasn't this been happening for 40 years? the turning point just happened to be after the worst republican president in years?

Oh, it has been brewing for a long time, no doubt about it. Coincidence that the TP emerges as an organized force when a black man is elected president, or that 10 people in a group of about 25 raise their hands and say the POTUS is a secret Muslim?

Nope.

 

[droski]

Coincidence that the TP emerges as an organized force when a black man is elected president, or that 10 people in a group of about 25 raise their hands and say the POTUS is a secret Muslim?

Nope.

this is where you lose it. it's not a coincidence the TP emerges when a president with these policies is elected president. you don't think reagan and his rather large movement was a reaction to carter and his policies? take a look at how easily reagan won the election. obama comes in with very similar ideals and now it's racial? it's a very easy out for people unwilling to discuss obama's ideals and how out of wack with they are with the average american. if they had that card to use for carter they would have used it then too.

 

[sjt18]

For the upteenth time, it is possible to both hate his policies and dislike him for his race and ethnic background, unusual history, those sorts of things.

You have 100% proof without a hint of denial of the disdain for his policies... you have not one once of proof and uniform denial with regard to his being hated for his race, ethnicity, or unusual history. It simply does not exist outside the desperate imaginings of liberals like you who are absolutely terrified by this very real and genuine grass roots movement. This isn't a union thing where guys get paid to protest. This isn't an environmental deal where libs are actually paid professional protesters. This isn't a liberal women's really with 500 attendees and no staying power.

This is 10's of millions of people who want their country returned to its founding and lawful principles.

I want to emphasize again that this thread was not originally about the TP, but if you watch the video it begins with the absolutism of the people who think he's a Muslim is startling. Even the interviewer seemed really shocked by how many of them believe it and what that translates into.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that the UCC is so ecumenical that they would not have the slightest problem with a professing Muslim as a member in good standing. IIRC, the UCC has a pastor who is actually uncertain about the existence of God.

See above. Also, I think the black members they have supported are the definition of token.

Prove it. Again, I want verifiable statistics like this: Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics

Having six percent blacks when the total percentage is 11% is NOT token membership. I mean if you wanted to take a cross sample of American demographics you really couldn't do much better.

They are far.... FAR more demographically representative of the American public than the Dem party.

Oh, it has been brewing for a long time, no doubt about it. Coincidence that the TP emerges as an organized force when a black man is elected president, or that 10 people in a group of about 25 raise their hands and say the POTUS is a secret Muslim?

Nope.

Are you really that determined to be and remain ignorant? The biggest reason the TP exists is that the GOP failed to stay true to the conservative principles they ran on. Obama and his race ARE the coincidental part. If the GOP stays true to principle then interest in the TP will wane regardless of what color the next prez is. If the GOP doesn't then they will emerge as a genuine third party. We will see a political realignment with establishment statists in the GOP like McCain moving to the Dems.

The bad news for Dems is that this will give minorities an option that doesn't have a history of opposing them. A party that offers the "dream" that many of them want to believe America is still about.

 

[sjt18]

Bottom line LG. You fear the TP because you should. You lie to yourself about them because you must. You demonize them because the truth is too much for you to handle... it destroys all of the stereotypes you've built your worldview on.

 

[lawgator1]

Riddle me this: If you fellows are right, and the prime motivation really is excessive government spending as opposed to simple hatred of Obama, why did we not see the phenomenon of the Tea Party in those years where, during the Bush administration, the deficit was mushrooming?

Why is this only happening as soon as Obama becomes a contender/actually wins?

 

[droski]

Riddle me this: If you fellows are right, and the prime motivation really is excessive government spending as opposed to simple hatred of Obama, why did we not see the phenomenon of the Tea Party in those years where, during the Bush administration, the deficit was mushrooming?

Why is this only happening as soon as Obama becomes a contender/actually wins?

last time i checked bush wasn't pushing wealth redistribution and nationalizing healthcare. and bush didn't exactly openly brag about his spending ways.

 

[MG1968]

Riddle me this: If you fellows are right, and the prime motivation really is excessive government spending as opposed to simple hatred of Obama, why did we not see the phenomenon of the Tea Party in those years where, during the Bush administration, the deficit was mushrooming?

Why is this only happening as soon as Obama becomes a contender/actually wins?

because within weeks of Obama being elected, he turned Pelosi and Reid loose on a stimulus package that increased the deficit by over 1 trillion dollars.

Shortly after that, he signed an omnibus spending bill that added 500 billion more. He then lied through his teeth when he said that the bill he signed didn't contain any earmarks.

There was plenty of conservative anger directed at the Bush administration for it's spending. Much of that anger was expressed in these forums. Conservatives were split on TARP and other bailouts, but the anger was building.

None of this is personal against Obama. None of it is because he's black. It's because he's a democrat that thinks the government can solve all problems and he just happened to be elected at a time when both houses of Congress were controlled by other democrats with that same philosophy.

Keep on claiming that this is something other than what it is, I'm sure you lie to yourself about many things.

 

[lawgator1]

last time i checked bush wasn't pushing wealth redistribution and nationalizing healthcare. and bush didn't exactly openly brag about his spending ways.

Hmmmm ... According to the Heritage Foundation, which is a very conservative think tank, Bush raised the deficit by an historical all-time high of $700 billion. While Obama will increase it by a trillion, no one knew that back when Bush was in office. It stands to reason that all these patriots should have been speaking up then. If that is indeed what motivated them.

Bush proposed and had passed a Medicare drug benefit that will cost $800 billion over 10 years. Obama tried to spend less than that, about $634 billion, to set up a reserve fund for Medicare.


There is no logical reason all of the TPers should have suddenly coalesced to oppose Obama's spending when, in percentage and adjusted dollar terms, Bush was certainly at least in the same ballpark as Obama and in many respects outspent him.

 

[MG1968]

There is no logical reason all of the TPers should have suddenly coalesced to oppose Obama's spending when, in percentage and adjusted dollar terms, Bush was certainly at least in the same ballpark as Obama and in many respects outspent him.

sure there is, his name is Rick Santelli, he went on a rant on CNBC one day and said that what America needed a new Tea Party.

You seem to think it started out big. It didn't. From small meetings in people homes, to constituents asking their congressmen hard questions (Arlen Specter anyone). The movement started out small, but became a political force because the politicians REFUSED TO LISTEN to the voters.

 

[lawgator1]

sure there is, his name is Rick Santelli, he went on a rant on CNBC one day and said that what America needed a new Tea Party.

You seem to think it started out big. It didn't. From small meetings in people homes, to constituents asking their congressmen hard questions (Arlen Specter anyone). The movement started out small, but became a political force because the politicians REFUSED TO LISTEN to the voters.

And Bush did when he spent like a drunken sailor? What, everybody suddenly got all tight with the budget on November 8, 2008?

Not buying it. Sure, people *****ed when Bush racked what was then a record deficit. But not nearly as viciously as they have with Obama. Not even close.

The explanation is something you don't want to face, which is that this intense dislike of Obama is personal to him, and is far less about fiscal conservatism than is the public charade currently offered to justify it.

 

[droski]

Hmmmm ... According to the Heritage Foundation, which is a very conservative think tank, Bush raised the deficit by an historical all-time high of $700 billion. While Obama will increase it by a trillion, no one knew that back when Bush was in office. It stands to reason that all these patriots should have been speaking up then. If that is indeed what motivated them.

Bush proposed and had passed a Medicare drug benefit that will cost $800 billion over 10 years. Obama tried to spend less than that, about $634 billion, to set up a reserve fund for Medicare.


There is no logical reason all of the TPers should have suddenly coalesced to oppose Obama's spending when, in percentage and adjusted dollar terms, Bush was certainly at least in the same ballpark as Obama and in many respects outspent him.

shocking republicans have less of a problem with the way republicans spend money. and i don't seem to remember bush telling the country he was about to spend $700 million. turning this into a racial issue is absurd.