Tea party not racist..... riiiiiight.

[Winter wind]

State colleges in California were nearly free! My wife attended a state school in California in the 70's. Her parking fees were more than tuition.

Yes, but federal funding for the school was at it's highest in decades during the 70s. Most of the college grant programs were getting restarted with the Higher Education act of 1965 and were in full force by the 70s.

Also Guarantied Student Loans was enacted in 1965, at least five years before your wife went to school in CA. NASFAA (The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators) was created a year afterwards to administrate these services.
Source:
The History of Student Loans – Financial Aid for Economic Competition | TheHistoryOf.net

The reason costs are going up aren't centered on one particular thing, but what gets the most blame is increased demand vs. supply. Only more and more people enroll in colleges, which are getting bigger and bigger.
"State funding increases still aren't enough to cover rising employee health costs, skyrocketing utilities bills and the need for more buildings to cope with bulging enrollments, which account for continuing cost increases."
Source:
USATODAY.com - Tuition increases moderate

Even that's a simplistic analysis. This paper puts the onus on the internal allocation of funds in colleges and how they don't emphasize efficiency or cost reduction, but rather more spending (a view you would find sympathetic).
Paper:
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0005s.pdf

I think it's a bit unfair to pin this on student loans if not downright false, but if you have evidence that points your way, I'd be happy to have a look. I'm a scientist by nature after all, I live off of data.

Children today seem to think that without federal funds to pay for college fees that they'd not be able to attend college. No so! If we removed free and easy loans schools would have to reduce their fees or go out of biz.

I don't know. Colleges get a lot of their money from alumni, so the success of their students is a factor, but they just might admit more of the wealthier kids who can pay for it and do less finical aid. The applicant pool is large enough for this to be possible (at least now with the echo baby boomers going to college).

I did not say I'd ban all federal regulation, we need some especially when it comes to interstate commerce.

It's good we can find a middle ground.

[Deadeye]

Yes, but federal funding for the school was at it's highest in decades during the 70s. Most of the college grant programs were getting restarted with the Higher Education act of 1965 and were in full force by the 70s.

Also Guarantied Student Loans was enacted in 1965, at least five years before your wife went to school in CA. NASFAA (The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators) was created a year afterwards to administrate these services.
Source:

However in the 60's the underwriting for school loans was different. I went throught the process and reported it in an earlier post.

The reason, IMO that college became so expensive is because the government offered to pay students' fees and the colleges figured out a way to get it. Universities were not encouraged to economize, but how to spend hords of government money.

It is highway robbery to force a student to pay $50,000 a year to attend a good school. It's criminal and nor should I have to forced to pay for it through the tax system.

Simply stated, schools charge what they do because they can, and the government will foot the bill. It's scandalous.

If the government got out of the school loan biz schools would have to charge what students' can pay and no more.

[BobbyO]

[QUOTE]

Only the most stubbornly ignorant people on the planet still stand in front of a microphone and spew blatantly racist rhetoric. Most KNOW it turns the vast majority of Americans off. What the committed racists have discovered is that they can appeal to the fears and insecurities of many middle class Americans using indirect language and provide people who BADLY want to deny their own racist tendencies, be they conscious or subconscious, psychological cover. " I don't fear black people gaining economic power, I just think the government should be color blind" or " I never owned a slave, don't blame me". It all comes down to the same end game.

Ok. So now we are at a point where demanding a color-blind government is proof of racism.

My mother, who believes with all her heart that she is not a racist, is. She would become angry if someone called her a racist, but they would not be wrong. She is afraid of black men solely based on the fact that they are black men.

As a reminder-- Jesse Jackson himself said he is worried when he sees a group of (young) black men.

She hates Obama. She says he is too "arrogant". What she really means is that he is too "uppity".

OK. So an African-American cannot be described as being arrogant without the suspicion of racism being attached.

Those buttons in her can be pushed. And there are some very clever people pushing those buttons for all they are worth. And, since the Tea Party supporters are, demographically, from my mother's generation ( Baby Boomers) who came of age in a time when racism prevailed across most cultural touchstones, those attitudes can be manipulated in those who choose to remain blissfully ignorant of them

OK. Maybe you are the arrogant one here. Can we describe you as "uppity"?

and can be covertly appealed to in those who fully embrace them. None of us with open eyes fail to see it.

Or perhaps closed minds.

[Deadeye]

Colleges get a lot of their money from alumni, so the success of their students is a factor, but they just might admit more of the wealthier kids who can pay for it and do less finical aid. The applicant pool is large enough for this to be possible (at least now with the echo baby boomers going to college).

However, a wealthy student does not a brilliant student make. A good school that relies upon it's reputation wants to attract excellent professors and brilliant students to keep it's pedigree fresh.

Therefore it behoves the alumni to seek out excellent students, some of whom cannot pay the fair and help them with expenses. This is the student who will most likely grow the school's reputation rather than the run of the mill rich kid. So the alumni should offer scholarships to the bright and not so wealthy student, and of course, they do.

In addition the high school education should be of such high quality that non- scholars should be able to do fine with just that level of schooling. It used to be, in my grandfather's day, that it was considered that an elementry education was considered adequate for most citizens.

Today, most high school grads don't know dip about history, government, writing and math. They can, however; put on a condom.

When students enroll in community colleges most have to take "bone head" classes on subjects that they should have learned in high school just to get them up to speed to accept college level work.

[lsbskins1]

Ok. So now we are at a point where demanding a color-blind government is proof of racism.

Yes, it is, because everyone knows who will "gain" and who will "lose" if the government were to stop affirmitive action programs. You really are not fooling anyone with the "color blind" shit.

As a reminder-- Jesse Jackson himself said he is worried when he sees a group of (young) black men.

Whooptie-do! I bet he wasn't afraid when he saw his son's friend who had been to his house at least 100 times.

OK. So an African-American cannot be described as being arrogant without the suspicion of racism being attached.

No, not when you question the person and they say, "Well, he just acts like he has a right to be president or something and he hasn't had as much experience as McCain. " And when you say, " But he is just about as experienced as John Kennedy was and you LOVED him", the person gets mad and huffs out of the room. Neither you or my mother can double speak around it.

OK. Maybe you are the arrogant one here. Can we describe you as "uppity"?

Well, you could, but it would be silly. Sort of like calling an Italian a kike rather than a wop. Or a Mexican a jungle bunny rather than a wetback. I suggest trying bull-dyke on me.

Or perhaps closed minds.

The evidence does not support this assertion.

[Listening]

But, even if I did show some document, you would only claim you "follow no leaders". And it is about the guts of the organization. I don't hold any movement accountable for the nuts who try to associate to give themselves legitimacy. Just as people who bomb in the name of animal rights do not speak for me, I'm sure there are some on the right wing who do not speak for you. But you have spoken volumes for yourself in this thread alone.

How typical....

Don't like the answer....just try to demean the poster.

It is pretty easy to see throug this one.

And how conevenient for you to answer the need to deliver some kind of "proof".

Just like George Carlin making the claim on Bill Mahr that racism is all subconcious. How do you argue with that ? You don't. George had no proof and felt he needed none. But when someone told him that was garbage he was more than willing to call them ignorant and moronic.

Leaders lead groups and groups have nuts. Keeping them separate takes some discipline. But if that discipline works against the leverage you try to apply to gain the upper hand....well.....[cough cough]...it's subliminal.

[Listening]

Has anyone presented anything to show the Tea Party is "racist" ?

Has anyone even gone to the point of saying how they would establish such a label so we can apply it to other groups ?

Not as far as we can see.

But, somehow someone's mother's seemingly biggoted behaviour is making the case ?

Don't think so.

[lsbskins1]

Has anyone presented anything to show the Tea Party is "racist" ?

Has anyone even gone to the point of saying how they would establish such a label so we can apply it to other groups ?

Not as far as we can see.

But, somehow someone's mother's seemingly biggoted behaviour is making the case ?

Don't think so.

Even if the evidence was a cold, wet fish slapping you in the face, you would refuse to accept it. But, for your viewing pleasure, a cold, wet fish slapping your face.

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Colored People 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!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person

This from the man who had spent many days, making the rounds, insisting that anyone who called the Tea Party racist was a damn fool. This screed was so obviously racist that there was no "plausible deniability" and dude had to go.

Here are some pictures: tea party racism - Google Search

Then there is this: Tea Party convention kicks off with racist rant - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - True/Slant

But this is the best evidence that the Tea Party is basically racist and it comes from a survey of tea Party people themselves:

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

When the rate of that kind of belief is more than twice the rate of the general public, you got a problem with racists.

I don't claim, and I don't think that anyone claims, that every single person who identifies with the Tea Party movement is a racist. Nor do we claim that every issue embraced is rooted in racism. What we do claim is that racism is an element behind the animation of the initial movement and that it is more important to the movement to keep the numbers up than it is to reject those who are super-animated by that motivation. You would rather be strong in numbers than strong in morality.

[The American]

What we do claim is that racism is an element behind the animation of the initial movement and that it is more important to the movement to keep the numbers up than it is to reject those who are super-animated by that motivation. You would rather be strong in numbers than strong in morality.

Like.............hmmm.......Affirmative Action?



Trig.

[lsbskins1]

Like.............hmmm.......Affirmative Action?



Trig.

Except that counter-acting entrenched racism was the animation behind the advent of Affirmative Action and there are people alive today who were raised and trained in the racist system of segregation and Jim Crow who are, oh, say, just the age of many of the mid and upper level managers responsible for hiring fairly. I mean, unless you are contending that the 60's are not in the living memory of a large portion of our fellow Americans, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on in this debate. At this point, a "color blind" society would remain an unfairly weighted society. It takes longer that a single generation to remove the effects of multi-generational racism. Are things much better? Yes. Are the effects from when it was terrible still floating around out there? Yet bet your ass. So, Affirmative Action was and remains a moral stance.

And I also don't think that you can argue that being for Affirmative Action wins you many points in today's political climate. Most are indifferent and a sizable minority see it in the way you do. Slick Ricks on the right have sold it as "reverse racism", which again, appeals to the subconscious reasoning of those who are sure that they aren't racist but are and appeals to the overt racist aims of those not stupid enough to parade around in hoods and white robes.

[Deadeye]

Has anyone presented anything to show the Tea Party is "racist" ?

Has anyone even gone to the point of saying how they would establish such a label so we can apply it to other groups ?

Not as far as we can see.

But, somehow someone's mother's seemingly biggoted behaviour is making the case ?

Don't think so.

People who say Teapats are racists usually use that clip that shows Pelodsi and some of the Black caucus walking through the Teapat rally and the people are shouting at them. They say they were being spit upon but there are no pictures of that happening.

While I was not there, the teapats were most likely shouting "Can you hear us now", or "kill the bill". Racism never has been a plank in the Teapat platform.

[BobbyO]

[QUOTE]

Yes, it is, because everyone knows who will "gain" and who will "lose" if the government were to stop affirmitive action programs. You really are not fooling anyone with the "color blind" shit.

Those who favor a color-blind society will gain; those who oppose will lose.

No, not when you question the person and they say, "Well, he just acts like he has a right to be president or something and he hasn't had as much experience as McCain. " And when you say, " But he is just about as experienced as John Kennedy was and you LOVED him", the person gets mad and huffs out of the room. Neither you or my mother can double speak around it.

Oh- so a supporter of JFK (those who are still alive) was/is obligated to back Obama, else be charged with racism. Perhaps such people have developed some wisdom in the past half century.

[lsbskins1]

[QUOTE=BobbyO;724532]

Oh- so a supporter of JFK (those who are still alive) was/is obligated to back Obama, else be charged with racism. Perhaps such people have developed some wisdom in the past half century.

No, a supporter of JFK who did not find it unreasonable that he should aspire to the Presidency with his level of experience but who finds it insulting that a black man with the same level of experience would aspire to the same office is a racist. And if JFK was reincarnated in the same skin and back on earth and running, she would vote for him in a heartbeat, so it isn't that she has developed some new set of ideals. She just does not trust the black man. She holds the black man to a different set of standards than she holds the white man. And there are many like her out there. And my mother is 66 years old. It ain't like all the people her age are dropping like flies at this point.

And less you wonder, my brother-in-law, at the ripe old age of 49 thinks in pretty much the same fashion. 80% of the people I work with think in the same fashion. See, I am a lonely little liberal in a bastion of Conservatism. I talk politics with the people around me just like I talk it here, but I KNOW these people. I know the jokes they tell when black folks ain't in the room. I know what they really think. So, unless this corner of Virginia that "Mr. Macca" and Sarah Palin and John McCain's brother think of as the "real" Virginia and part of the "real" America is vastly different from the rest of "real" America, and unless the dopes I grew up around in South Carolina have become vastly different creatures, I know of what I speak.

Just because you are smart enough to not call a black person a "nigger" to their face does not mean you are not a racist. Just because you aren't an active member of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi group does not mean you are not a racist. Hell, it is only because they know that they would be fired on the spot that half of the people I work with don't openly flout their racist tendencies. They sure as shit don't keep it from me and they know I will jump their shit over it.

[BobbyO]

OK, so proof of racism is found when Tea Party folks think the govenment favors blacks over whites in far greater numbers than the general population. Meanwhile, its also proof of racism to be opposed to the government NOT favoring blacks over whites.

Creating double-binds may score some political points, but it all it really does is inflame and anger those you seek to convert...

[BobbyO]

[QUOTE=lsbskins1;724533][QUOTE=BobbyO;724532]

No, a supporter of JFK who did not find it unreasonable that he should aspire to the Presidency with his level of experience but who finds it insulting that a black man with the same level of experience would aspire to the same office is a racist.

One would think the person of 2008 would have been somewhat different in 1960. JFK's lack of credentials were an issue then, and it has certainly been argued since it accounted for much of the problems his administration faced.

And if JFK was reincarnated in the same skin and back on earth and running, she would vote for him in a heartbeat, so it isn't that she has developed some new set of ideals.

Rather than proof of racism, perhaps its proof of the accuracy of that thread floating around questioning woman's suffrage...

[Nono]

... in 1960. JFK's lack of credentials were an issue then, and it has certainly been argued since it accounted for much of the problems his administration faced.

Mind being a trifle more specific?
JFK may have lacked "credentials" (he could well envy Sarah Palin for example LOL) but he ran against Dick "Pat-in-a-Republican-cloth-coat" Nixon, which is hardly a credentials test.

Also, JFK showed that he could learn on the job, something of which Evil Dick was incapable and which eventually -- along with his overall rottenness -- was his undoing.

And we're fixin' to celebrate the 36th anniversary of that undoing. Yay!

[lsbskins1]

OK, so proof of racism is found when Tea Party folks think the govenment favors blacks over whites in far greater numbers than the general population. Meanwhile, its also proof of racism to be opposed to the government NOT favoring blacks over whites.

Creating double-binds may score some political points, but it all it really does is inflame and anger those you seek to convert...

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Sorry, nobody said the right way was the easy way. It is the double-bind of behaving in a moral fashion.

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Your obligation, under the Judeo/Christian Ethic, is to care for those who are "the least", the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned. You are supposed to give them a "leg up". You are your brother's keeper, from the time of Cain, to the time of Jesus. That is what is expected. I'm sorry if you feel that puts you in a "bind".

I don't even believe Jesus was a God and I believe this teaching is absolutely moral and correct. I abide by it because it is the right way to be, not because I fear hell's fire for not doing it.

[BobbyO]

Your obligation, under the Judeo/Christian Ethic, is to care for those who are "the least", the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned. You are supposed to give them a "leg up". You are your brother's keeper, from the time of Cain, to the time of Jesus. That is what is expected. I'm sorry if you feel that puts you in a "bind".

The bind isn't helping others. The bind is being told that racism is discerned when recognising race and also in not recognising race.

I am curious though if the few liberals in your neck of Virginia see their roles as tending to the flock of black folks, with an almost self-righteous divine calling.

[Deadeye]

[QUOTE=BobbyO;724532]

Those who favor a color-blind society will gain; those who oppose will lose.



Oh- so a supporter of JFK (those who are still alive) was/is obligated to back Obama, else be charged with racism. Perhaps such people have developed some wisdom in the past half century.

In Democrats eyes ALL people who do not support Obama are seen as racists. Democrats see a racist under every rock.

Strange thing is that racism is extremely important to the Democrat cause. It's through shouting racism that they keep their base unified. Without racism the Democrats would be screwed. So they benefit by calling conservatives racists and it's also why they will not stop doing it, racists or no.

If you attend a Republican/conservative meeting you will never hear a single utterance of racism or folks calling others as such. But not in a Democrat/libtard meeting. They scream "Racist" at every turn. It give them meaning, it riles up their base. It is the mud and manure that holds them together.

Conservatives couldn't care less about so called racism. We never even think about it.

[lsbskins1]

In Democrats eyes ALL people who do not support Obama are seen as racists. Democrats see a racist under every rock.

Strange thing is that racism is extremely important to the Democrat cause. It's through shouting racism that they keep their base unified. Without racism the Democrats would be screwed. So they benefit by calling conservatives racists and it's also why they will not stop doing it, racists or no.

If you attend a Republican/conservative meeting you will never hear a single utterance of racism or folks calling others as such. But not in a Democrat/libtard meeting. They scream "Racist" at every turn. It give them meaning, it riles up their base. It is the mud and manure that holds them together.

Conservatives couldn't care less about so called racism. We never even think about it.

Not all Republicans are racists, but just about every racist is a Republican. That is an axiom. And we Liberals just know that to find racists, you need to look under rocks. They reside with the other sunlight fleeing creatures. But there are not racists under every rock. We know that. And if you attend a Republican rally, you will find mostly the beneficiaries of racism, so it is no surprise that they are not greatly concerned about it. It would be like expecting to find people terrified of the wrath of Shiva at a Baptist tent revival. A stray Hindu might wander into the tent unawares, so it would not be impossible, but they wouldn't do much talking, I'm sure.