As if the Teabaggers didn’t have enough trouble with that little issue of racism, one of its biggest leaders came out and said this:
The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
Uh-huh. This would also “make a lot of sense” if you didn’t want poor minorities voting for Democrats.
Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: Judson Phillips, The Tea Party is blatantly racist |
For the Sake of Science 
I think your both foolish. 50 years ago groups were actively involved in intimidating minorities to vote for democrats or not vote at all. 1964 the civil rights act passed with more republican support than democratic support. It is and always has been a myth that the democratic party is the party for minorities.
I don’t mean to say that its a party against them, I’m only saying that both parties are interested in lifting up minorities, they just differ on how to do so.
One comment from someone who is just as likely to be an idiot as everyone else is from time to time does not a scandal make.
He’s also right that property owners have more of a vested stake than non-owners. Why? Because its harder for them to move around, its harder for them to up and leave the country. We are talking about the people with fixed immovable assets.
I search in vain for the area in there where he actually calls for that to be re-instated, only where he says that it makes sense.
Nate…
He’s also right that property owners have more of a vested stake than non-owners. Why? Because its harder for them to move around, its harder for them to up and leave the country. We are talking about the people with fixed immovable assets.
I hope you can understand that when people make assertions like this, it makes them sound elitist.
I have lived for the last 22 years in poor neighborhoods, surrounded by folk who rent. People who love their neighborhoods, their schools, their churches, their neighbors.
I’ve also lived next door to a land-owner who was a slumlord. He owned plenty of property, but he was not invested in the community in the least.
Of course there are renters who are not invested in their neighborhoods, just as there are homeowners who are not invested in their neighborhoods. And renters and homeowners who both are invested in their neighborhoods.
Making blanket statements like this just lend themselves to sounding elitist and anti-poor folk.
Something to consider.
You make a distinction between those who are financially invested an those who are apparently emotionally invested. I don’t care about that. I’m not trying to sound elitist.
What I concerned myself with is the physical fact. If I own property in Maine than I have a great deal vested in what goes on in that government. If I rent, I can always move to New Hampshire, or even Canada with no real appreciable loss to myself.
I don’t care who is invested I care who is bound to a neighborhood. I’m not advocating a return to property owner voting only, as I’m sure neither was he. I’m agreeing with what he said. It makes sense.
Nate is right, this is racism? You had actual parades for racial pride a few decades ago and now you jump on anything that could have racism as a factor and make a firm conclusion that it does. This isn’t a good way to find answers, and you’re opening yourself up for false-positives.
http://www.younghipandconservative.com/2009/07/can-we-stop-calling-it-racial-profiling.html
Perhaps Judson Phillips – someone none of us have ever heard of before – really is a racist. I can’t prove a negative. But you don’t have any evidence that justifies the conclusion you have made.
This misses the point sorely. Currently a big block of Democrat support comes from minorities. By suggesting that only property owners should be voters Phillips is suggesting we disenfranchise a whole slew of black and Hispanic people.
What Republican policy has done anything to lift up minorities in the past 20 years? Why do you think blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat? People vote their interests; Republicans don’t help many black people.
He heads a major Tea Party group; his comments fit perfectly with the sort of signs and comments that get made at Tea Party rallies.
Because it’s easy for poor people to move.
Right, and when FOX Noise writes its hyper-partisan headlines and puts a question mark at the end of them, they aren’t actually saying they agree with what they wrote, they’re just asking a question.
There’s a reason black people don’t attend Tea Party rallies.
And are you kidding me with your post? We’re “post-racist” and we’ve weeded out most racism? That’s blatantly false. Go submit two applications for maybe a dozen different jobs. Make the applications nearly identical except for one crucial factor: change your name. Go by “Michael” on the first, but go by “Tyrone” on the second. See which one of your personalities gets more calls.
1. Certainly a big block of democratic voters are minorities, but that is poor evidence of what party is better or worse for them. People have a knack for acting against their best interests. Philips also didn’t suggest we do anything.
2. Trying to reduce dependence is something bad for them? I’d say that was a good thing. Again, its subjective as to what is good and what is bad. You want everyone to have a fluffy government puppy to go with their government cheese. I don’t. I want people to make their own way in the world, not have the government subsidize poverty.
3. No it isn’t easy for anyone to move. It’s significantly harder to move when you are tied to a piece of land. That is barring high income, which is another reason not to overtax the rich, they have the means to move but you would give them the inclination to do so.
4. Black people do attend tea party rallies, as do hispanics, democrats, independents, hippies, dogs and cats. They certainly have many conservative ideas and aspirations but a lot of messages resonate with people outside the ultra conservative sphere as well.
1) Democratic policies tend to lift up minorities. I’m not even sure how this is a point of contention.
1b) Looks like Phillips was discussing ideas he thought ought to be made: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property. Of course, common sense tells us that he favors votes for property owners anyway, given his language.
2) That’s just code for let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
3) First, you conceded the point, so I’m pretty sure this should actually be over. Second, your argument is bogus. It’s all just a cover-up for giving more power to people with more money. In case you haven’t noticed, those people rarely act in a way that helps the poor.
4) Uh-huh.
http://teapartynationalism.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=135:tea-party-leaders-attack-constitution&Itemid=104
1. If you want to call subsidizing poverty lifting up than more power to you.
1b. You support all kinds of radical things I’m sure. What is your opinion on wage caps??
2. No it isn’t. It’s code for be more like me, I’m not rich, I never will be either, but I stand on my own two feet, and thanks to grandiose government programs my two feet hold up a number of others too. No wonder my legs hurt.
3. I didn’t concede any point.
4. Uh-huh back.
Nate…
You make a distinction between those who are financially invested an those who are apparently emotionally invested. I don’t care about that. I’m not trying to sound elitist.
What I concerned myself with is the physical fact.
Then consider: The FACT is that renters can be and ARE just as PHYSICALLY, ACTUALLY invested in their neighborhoods as owners. They JOIN the PTA, they join community groups, they join community gardening and clean up groups, they watch out for their children and others’ children in the neighborhood. They spend their money at the neighborhood stores (when they exist), sometimes even at greater costs.
Renters are factually, actually invested in their neighborhoods. Not just emotionally, but in physical feet-on-the-ground, cash-on-the-barrel-head sorts of ways.
When that real investment is written off as not “measuring up” to the slumlord or other owners, that is elitist-sounding, if not elitism by definition.
I’m not going to continue on with this. Renters are not invested in the same way.
I’m still not saying that we should return to that way of voting, but it makes sense why at the founding of this country, it was done like that.
I’m spent the last 7 years renting, I actually dread owning property somewhat because of the very real anchor that it is.
I really love the little tags people like to hang on people and opinions. Elitist, bigot, racism, for God sakes, occasionally things are mundane, and don’t need to be classified.
But you won’t get another comment out of me on this one, I’m bored with it.
Nate…
I’m not going to continue on with this. Renters are not invested in the same way.
I’m not laying a tag on anyone. I’m saying when you say things like the above, what is being said comes across as elitist, could reasonably be called elitist (that thing you’re saying, not necessarily you).
You are pronouncing, “THIS IS THE WAY IT IS: RENTERS ARE NOT INVESTED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES THE SAME WAY AS OWNERS! NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY, AS I HAVE PROVIDED THE FINAL WORD! YOU’RE WELCOME.”
I’ve offered direct first hand evidence of some renters who ARE fully invested in their communities every bit as owners and MORESO than some owners (slumlords, for instance). It is not really debatable to say, “renters aren’t invested” and stating it as an proclamation that’s not up for debate is just off-putting to most people.
Just for your own reference, that’s something you might consider.
Nate,
1) You can’t pull yourself up by the bootstraps when you don’t even have any boots.
1b) That is neither here nor there. Phillips wasn’t merely talking about how voting procedure made sense a couple of hundred years ago; he was advocating a return to as much.
2) If we don’t help the poor (and yet inexplicably help the rich, as if trickle-down economics wasn’t debunked over 20 years ago), we never strengthen the middle class. It hurts everyone when we hurt the poor.
3) “No it isn’t easy for anyone to move.”
4) The Tea Party is primarily for middle class whites. I think this has been well established.
There it is all boiled down. Nate has no real argument, just a psychosis which he then projects on the entire world.
hilarious!
Good to see you’ve snapped back from your other personality and resumed posting.
WTF are you talking about psychosis boy? I was in the hospital.