By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

 

Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

Yes 67 56.78%
 
No 21 17.80%
 
Not a "movement sim... 27 22.88%
 
Total:115
EdHieron on 22 July 2011
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with  little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others.  So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.

Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially when The Republicans manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.

The mass of poor and  greatly uneducated white folks  that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color.  Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any more due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.

Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certianly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives.  No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).

Mmmm. For one thing, the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated. For another, Herman Cain has far lower name ID than Romney, has no political experience, and has still found himself polling in third place at times. Not too shabby all things considered, and hardly indicative of the wild racism you're accusing conservatives of. And I'm not even sure where you were going with that first paragraph. It's okay to call non-leftist women sluts and cunts because they don't agree with you, or am I reading it wrong?

Not that it really matters. I rather enjoy arguing with sapphi, but your overreliance on stereotypes, tropes, and baseless generalizations is simply dull. This entire post is run of the mill Team Red vs. Team Blue stuff that I could get from any cable news channel, and it just makes my eyes glaze over every time you call someone a racist or a fundie as if that's a substantial argument. It isn't, so unless you can do better, I think we're done here.

 

In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college.  It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.

As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.

And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.

It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true.  Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt. 



Around the Network
badgenome on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:

In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college.  It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.

As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.

And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.

It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true.  Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt. 

What those statistics actually show is that the Tea Party is actually remarkably reflective of the country as a whole. The only noticeable discrepancy from the population at large is that there are significantly less Democrats in the Tea Party. Which should surprise no one. And blacks, I suppose, but since they are such a reliably Democratic voting bloc, that's kind of the same thing.

I'm sorry reading is so difficult for you.



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:


Actually, those figures from USA Today very much support my position and are one of the primary sources that I've used for data to come to my conclusion (79% white, 68% are fairly uneducated  49% employed probably quite a few of those are poor whites that are employed at low rent jobs like the fast food industry and that are very much prejudiced due to being brought up on The Bible).  The only thing USA Today failed to do was list the Religious makeup by percentage of the Tea Party.  Maybe it's hard to peg down due to the fact that they're misleading about it much as they won't express the fact that they don't like Obama due to his skin color.  However, I do consider that to be an essential yet missing piece of information here.   My guess though is that far more than 50% of them are either Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians.  Have to go now.  Back later. 


So the fact that they're a good cross section of the American public that earns more on average than the typical American implies to you that they're poor white racists?

Please answer me this question, if the Tea Party supporters are intolerant racists why are there no videos to support this claim? If progressives are so tolerant why are there so man videos of these groups making ignorant and intolerant statements posted on the web? Why do you continue to hold beliefs which are contradicted by facts and why are you so unwilling to question a worldview which has to have been spoonfed to you (probably by MSNBC)?


There actually not a very good cross section of the American public.  A good cross section would be definitely be around 50% in all areas.  The Tea Party leans heavily to the Right (70% of them being Conservatives and probably an equal amount being Evangelical).  There are hardly any moderates in the Tea Party (only 22% with Moderates actually making up 38% of the general public which throws the cross-section theory out the window) uneducated (68% of them don't have college degrees), and almost half of them make less than $50,000 a year -- you know the poor white group that are really only against Obama due to his skin color and that would really start to cause problems in this country if the Conservatives really got bold enough to cut out their medicare and other free healthcare programs, their welfare and their social security. 

On Racist Tea Party videos:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI This one certainly has images of Confederate flags being held by Tea Partiers, the number of signs stating that America is supposed to be a Christian Nation is certainly indicative of a religious bias, and the Tea Party's insistance that Obama has is a Muslem and or is not an American citizen also has definite racially motivated elements.

 

Also it appears that there's at least one truthful Tea Partier in the bunch:  http://wonkette.com/448772/kentucky-tea-party-sells-patriotic-yup-im-a-racist-fourth-of-july-t-shirts

 



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college.  It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.

As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.

And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.

It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true.  Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt. 

What those statistics actually show is that the Tea Party is actually remarkably reflective of the country as a whole. The only noticeable discrepancy from the population at large is that there are significantly less Democrats in the Tea Party. Which should surprise no one. And blacks, I suppose, but since they are such a reliably Democratic voting bloc, that's kind of the same thing.

I'm sorry reading is so difficult for you.


I guess you also couldn't read the fact that 38% of the American general public is Moderate.  Only 22% of Tea Partiers are.  And that the number of Republicans in the Tea Party is 21% higher than in the General population.



osamanobama on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with  little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others.  So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.

Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially when The Republicans manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.

The mass of poor and  greatly uneducated white folks  that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color.  Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any more due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.

Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certianly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives.  No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).

Mmmm. For one thing, the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated. For another, Herman Cain has far lower name ID than Romney, has no political experience, and has still found himself polling in third place at times. Not too shabby all things considered, and hardly indicative of the wild racism you're accusing conservatives of. And I'm not even sure where you were going with that first paragraph. It's okay to call non-leftist women sluts and cunts because they don't agree with you, or am I reading it wrong?

Not that it really matters. I rather enjoy arguing with sapphi, but your overreliance on stereotypes, tropes, and baseless generalizations is simply dull. This entire post is run of the mill Team Red vs. Team Blue stuff that I could get from any cable news channel, and it just makes my eyes glaze over every time you call someone a racist or a fundie as if that's a substantial argument. It isn't, so unless you can do better, I think we're done here.

 

In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college.  It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.

As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.

And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.

It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true.  Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt. 

its seems rather evident that your reading comprehension is low, but. those statistic prove that they are in line with the rest of the population.

and actually they have a higher percentage of black people than the regualr republican party.

and all you are saying is they have a 70% (number pulled out of your ass) Christian up bringing, meaning they are racist, using absolutely

no evidence to back it up. i could say liberals have a 80% non religious up bringing, ingraining racial and prejudious thoughts in them.

 

and you do know Christians give more to Charities than non-religous people do, right (4x more than others)

also conservatives give 30% more to charity, while earning 5% less on average than liberals. 

also consevatives are more likely to give blood, give to food banks, give clothes, water, provisions. while liberals are more likely to give to institutions like art musuems,

so stop shitting lies all over the place



Around the Network
badgenome on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:


I guess you also couldn't read the fact that 38% of the American general public is Moderate.  Only 22% of Tea Partiers are.

It's a group whose big issue is constraining government spending. It's hardly scandalous or surprising that they lean more conservative especially when, as I mentioned, there are far less Democrats per capita in the Tea Party than in the nation at large. Did you miss that? Maybe you were too busy discerning whether or not people you've never met are racist based on a series of questions, none of which were, "Are you a racist?"

Then again, I'm arguing with someone who thinks that a 2% greater college attendance rate and 1% lower rate of college graduation and doing postgraduate work than the general populace (all of which fall within the margin of error) renders a group woefully uneducated. I'd probably better stop.



HappySqurriel on 22 July 2011
sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:

You make it sound as if the left can't be racist, sexist, or homophobic. At least in my country, leftists routinely call any black, gay, Asian, woman, and anyone else they feel belongs to them by rights, every name in the book if they disagree with them politically. Women become sluts and cunts, Asians become gooks, Hispanics become coconuts, blacks become monkeys... all for simply finding left-wing social and economic policies infeasible. And talk about stereotyping... I can't think of anything more racist than to say that all blacks have to be economic illiterates.

So because you don't trust people to hear an irrational argument and not act violently, the government has to act not just against violence, but against speech in the first place? If it's already illegal to incite violence, why isn't that enough? Because political correctness trumps actual correctness every time, hate speech laws invariably end up criminalizing the truth. If someone points out an inconvenient fact, like that every instance of rape in Oslo last year was committed by a Muslim, you might think that's fearmongering and defaming an entire group of people. You may even be correct that those are the intentions of the speaker. But it's also the truth, and truth should be an absolute defense.

Gonna make some comments about your links (also read the original sources):

- "sluts" > he said "talk slut", and mentioned what that meant. He wasn't judging her based on her sexual conduct (which would have been a sexist and misogynistic thing to do);

- "cunts" > the problem with this is? Saying that calling a woman a c**t is sexist is a little overkill, don't you think? It's definately rude, and shows unsophistication, but I don't see why it's sexist;

- "gooks" > this one's valid;

- "coconuts" > He claims he did not know what that this term had that connotation, and he was using it as synonimous to "fruity" or "bananas". Now we'll never know the truth, but it's certainly a valid alternative. This one's questionable;

- "monkeys" > This is just simply taking quotes totally out of context. The article's author was describing how he thinks the black republican candidate is seen by the whites in the same party, and what his role in that party is (considering the ideology, policies etc.). He's criticising the black canditate for degrading himself for the delight of white conservative racists "because it pays so well". I think this is by far the most pathetic example of trying to present liberals as "racists" I've ever seen.

Also, when comparing conservative and liberal ideologies, it's quite clear which one is inherently racist. You're trying to paint liberals as hypocrites, but you'd need to back that up with scientific data, not some random examples (which are quite misleading and quite pathetic attempts by right wing media).

Regarding your second paragraph, I think you're underestimating the variety of speech that can lead to violence. It's enough to say "black people want to rape our women and kill our children" for lynch mobs to pop up. You don't need to add "we must kill them", for the effect to be the same. I do agree that if a particular information is true, it should not be considered hate speech. If all rapes were commited by muslims, then it should be noted (BTW, Norwegian men from Oslo should recieve some sort of medal or something). I think that the news report was very well put together (much more so than it would've been in the US, especially if it were reported by Fox News), and not trying to encourage violence or prejudice. Only people who support PCness and are irrational (or anti-PC activists) would make a big deal about this.

Looks like someone needs to return to tolerance camp

 

"Talk like a slut" is still wrong for the same reason that "Talk like a [racial slur used to refer to a black person]" is wrong ... It demonstrates that you continue to judge people on these terms, and can victimize anyone who over-hears this conversation.

From my understanding, "Cunt" is considered so offensive and sexist because it (supposedly) de-humanizes women reduces them to a mere body-part; and could considered to be worse than making a woman simply a sexual object.



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with  little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others.  So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.

Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially when The Republicans manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.

The mass of poor and  greatly uneducated white folks  that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color.  Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any more due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.

Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certianly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives.  No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).

Mmmm. For one thing, the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated. For another, Herman Cain has far lower name ID than Romney, has no political experience, and has still found himself polling in third place at times. Not too shabby all things considered, and hardly indicative of the wild racism you're accusing conservatives of. And I'm not even sure where you were going with that first paragraph. It's okay to call non-leftist women sluts and cunts because they don't agree with you, or am I reading it wrong?

Not that it really matters. I rather enjoy arguing with sapphi, but your overreliance on stereotypes, tropes, and baseless generalizations is simply dull. This entire post is run of the mill Team Red vs. Team Blue stuff that I could get from any cable news channel, and it just makes my eyes glaze over every time you call someone a racist or a fundie as if that's a substantial argument. It isn't, so unless you can do better, I think we're done here.

 

In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college.  It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.

As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.

And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.

It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true.  Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt. 

its seems rather evident that your reading comprehension is low, but. those statistic prove that they are in line with the rest of the population.

and actually they have a higher percentage of black people than the regualr republican party.

and all you are saying is they have a 70% (number pulled out of your ass) Christian up bringing, meaning they are racist, using absolutely

no evidence to back it up. i could say liberals have a 80% non religious up bringing, ingraining racial and prejudious thoughts in them.

 

and you do know Christians give more to Charities than non-religous people do, right (4x more than others)

also conservatives give 30% more to charity, while earning 5% less on average than liberals. 

so stop shitting lies all over the place


Regarding your first sentence:  What you lack the brains to come up with an original insult, Sherlock?  How weak can you get, badgenome pulled that one first.

 

Also, the 70% isn't pulled out of my rear, Dummy.  It's based on the fact that in the past November elections 70% of the Christian votes went to Tea Party and Republican Candidates, so even though USA Today failed to provide the data on how many Tea Partiers are Evangelicals or Fundamentalists ( note 70% of American Christians fall into these two misguided groups) and due to the Tea Party's oft repeated mantra that they want to put God back in everything:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI (see the number of signs in this video about the Tea Party advocating that the nation return to its false Christian roots (they must be meaning Salem, Massachusetts as the Founding Fathers had other beliefs), then there must be quite a bit of cross-over between the two groups.

 

Also, the charities that Christians mainly give to are their churches (which should not be tax deductable donations) and really shouldn't count as charitable donations seeing how many of those tax free dollars actually go into the upkeep of their churches and into their ministers pockets (which is a real sin that these kooks make far more money than legitimate school teachers)  ather than to any real charitable operations.

 

If you remove the donations that Conservatives make to churches from the number of dollars donated to legitimate charities, then they donate far less than any other group. 



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:


I guess you also couldn't read the fact that 38% of the American general public is Moderate.  Only 22% of Tea Partiers are.

It's a group whose big issue is constraining government spending. It's hardly scandalous or surprising that they lean more conservative especially when, as I mentioned, there are far less Democrats per capita in the Tea Party than in the nation at large. Did you miss that? Maybe you were too busy discerning whether or not people you've never met are racist based on a series of questions, none of which were, "Are you a racist?"

Then again, I'm arguing with someone who thinks that a 2% greater college attendance rate and 1% lower rate of college graduation and doing postgraduate work than the general populace (all of which fall within the margin of error) renders a group woefully uneducated. I'd probably better stop.

Well, the American population itself is quite woefully uneducated.  See the fact that 90% of them actually believe in a God that there's no evidence of the existence for.



HappySqurriel on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:


Actually, those figures from USA Today very much support my position and are one of the primary sources that I've used for data to come to my conclusion (79% white, 68% are fairly uneducated  49% employed probably quite a few of those are poor whites that are employed at low rent jobs like the fast food industry and that are very much prejudiced due to being brought up on The Bible).  The only thing USA Today failed to do was list the Religious makeup by percentage of the Tea Party.  Maybe it's hard to peg down due to the fact that they're misleading about it much as they won't express the fact that they don't like Obama due to his skin color.  However, I do consider that to be an essential yet missing piece of information here.   My guess though is that far more than 50% of them are either Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians.  Have to go now.  Back later. 


So the fact that they're a good cross section of the American public that earns more on average than the typical American implies to you that they're poor white racists?

Please answer me this question, if the Tea Party supporters are intolerant racists why are there no videos to support this claim? If progressives are so tolerant why are there so man videos of these groups making ignorant and intolerant statements posted on the web? Why do you continue to hold beliefs which are contradicted by facts and why are you so unwilling to question a worldview which has to have been spoonfed to you (probably by MSNBC)?


There actually not a very good cross section of the American public.  A good cross section would be definitely be around 50% in all areas.  The Tea Party leans heavily to the Right (70% of them being Conservatives and probably an equal amount being Evangelical).  There are hardly any moderates in the Tea Party (only 22% with Moderates actually making up 38% of the general public which throws the cross-section theory out the window) uneducated (68% of them don't have college degrees), and almost half of them make less than $50,000 a year -- you know the poor white group that are really only against Obama due to his skin color and that would really start to cause problems in this country if the Conservatives really got bold enough to cut out their medicare and other free healthcare programs, their welfare and their social security. 

On Racist Tea Party videos:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI This one certainly has images of Confederate flags being held by Tea Partiers, the number of signs stating that America is supposed to be a Christian Nation is certainly indicative of a religious bias, and the Tea Party's insistance that Obama has is a Muslem and or is not an American citizen also has definite racially motivated elements.

 

Also it appears that there's at least one truthful Tea Partier in the bunch:  http://wonkette.com/448772/kentucky-tea-party-sells-patriotic-yup-im-a-racist-fourth-of-july-t-shirts

 

Why is equating Obama to Hitler, calling him the anti-Christ, claiming he is a terrorist, or countless other forms of rhetoric "Racist" while it was completely acceptable to equate Bush to Hitler, call Bush the anti-Christ, claiming Bush was a terrorist or countless other forms of rhetoric considered entirely acceptable?

Of that list of dozens of supposedly "racist" signs you demonstrated, the vast majority of those signs were almost identical to the signs that were used on Bush, most of the remaining signs could be considered "innappropriately-Racial" rather than racist, and only a couple would be clearly racist.