The world is shocked by the killing of 24-year-old reporter Alison Parker and 27-year-old cameraman Adam Ward, of small Virginia station WDBJ (a CBS affiliate), by disgruntled and disturbed ex-co-worker Vester Lee Flanagan II, who is a homosexual and a former prostitute.
The Daily Telegraph has learned that “police reportedly confiscated a gay pride flag” from the apartment of Vester Lee Flanagan (Bryce Williams) Wednesday. In an apparent hate crime, Flanagan is the 41 year-old black journalist who executed two white Virginia reporters on live television Wednesday morning before turning his gun on himself.
In a manifesto faxed to ABC News, Flanagan, an Obama-supporter, claimed that his motive involved a “race war.” Flanagan was black and gay and apparently angered by the fact that he had been a victim of racism and homophobia at the hands of “black men and white women.”
The trio of Flanagan’s intended victims were heterosexual.
The gay pride rainbow flag reportedly found in Flanagan’s apartment is seen by many as a symbol of anti-Christian hate.
After a white racist terrorist, Dylann Roof, in South Carolina murdered nine innocent black churchgoers, photos of the shooter with the Confederate Flag resulted in a media frenzy to ban the flag and remove all Confederate historical symbols.
Like the Confederate flag, the provocative gay pride flag, a symbol of religious oppression, has flown on government property.
The Confederate Flag has since been taken down in South Carolina.
Thus far the media has not reported on the fact that Flanagan owned the LGBT rainbow hate-flag.
Both men wanted a race war. Both men committed murder in an attempt to spark it. But both men’s stories are treated very differently by the media.
But despite these striking similarities, the type of guilt by association drawn by the media is very different in each case:
Police reportedly confiscated a gay pride flag from Flanagan’s apartment on Wednesday, but in an example of hypocrisy, this hasn’t sparked outrage from liberals who wanted to ban the Confederate flag due to its association with Charleston, S.C. church shooter Dylann Roof.
“Libs got the Confederate flag taken down in South Carolina,” blogger Dave Blount pointed out. “They have imposed a de facto ban throughout the country through their control of major retailers like Walmart, Amazon, eBay, Sears, etc.”
“The show The Dukes of Hazard has been taken off the air because it features the flag on the roof of a car.”
Another gay extremist, Floyd Lee Corkins, who researched the SPLC “Hate Map” for anti-gay groups, targeted the pro-family Family Research Council before shooting the security guard in a planned massacre that was thwarted by a security guard.
It started as a mix of libertarian, populist and conservative, and the libertarian elements have been pushed out over time.
The Tea Party started out libertarian. It was actually started by libertarians. This scared the shit out of the establishment, so they infiltrated and coopted the Tea Party, and rendered it to be something that is practically useless, at least from the stand point of being a tool for freedom.
I’ve found the quiz distribution to be pretty accurate also.
You said, “And of course, the WSPQ is more designed to convince people they belong in the L quadrant, than to measure if they actually are.”.
I don’t think that’s true. My only experience with giving WSPQ to large numbers of people was about 1992, to the county fair. The responders centered around a couple notches above the center of the chart, in the L-quadrant. That’s a definitive libertarian response.
I think they are becoming more authoritarian, less libertarian over time. Trump seems to be their guy now. It devolved from Ron Paul to Rand Paul to Rubio and Cruz to now, Trump. A lot of libertarians that were involved in the beginning have left or stopped participating as the social conservatives and warmongers moved in.
Probably. Of course there are plenty there who’ll scream about any cuts to Medicare & Social Security, those who are more populist than even conservative on economic issues, etc. Whether they’re the majority, and where the “average” lies, is a tougher question. Much also depends on which of many different TP organizations and events you’re talking about, they range the gamut from a few genuinely right-libertarian to full-blown Moral Majority.
If anything I think you are scoring them as more libertarian (on average) than they actually are.
I actually did do WSPQ at a couple of tea party events. Granted not everyone talked to me, but it was definitely mostly conservatives; some authoritarians, some libertarians, some centrists. I assumed the ones that tested liberal (yes, some did) were either counter-protesters, passers by unconnected to the event, or maybe there with someone else such as a spouse, date, family member, friend, co-worker, etc.
And of course, the WSPQ is more designed to convince people they belong in the L quadrant, than to measure if they actually are.
Just out of curiosity, I took the WSPQ and punched the answers of an average Tea Party as I’ve seen and known them into it.
Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet. – Agree [some might still grumble about obscenity, but that’s not such a big issue these days]
Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. – Maybe [I’ve heard plenty of them endorse the notion on hawkish militaristic those-darn-kids grounds]
There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. – Disagree [They actually put re-criminalization of sodomy in the TX-GOP platform]
Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. – Disagree
There should be no National ID card. – Maybe [probably no, but usually yes when framed as immigration enforcement]
Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. – Agree
End government barriers to international free trade. – Disagree [definitely more protectionist]
Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. – Agree
Replace government welfare with private charity. – Agree
Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.- Agree [not really when it’s pointed out that means cutting military spending, law enforcement, etc., but giving the benefit of the doubt to how they’d answer the question as posed]
SCORE: P40%, E80% – “Conservative” Quadrant
You can fiddle with those answers, obviously it’s a bit of a judgement call, but there’s no real way to input accurate characterizations of “the Tea Party” as it exists and get a result in the “Libertarian” quadrant of the Nolan Chart.
The great majority of the people that go there are social conservatives and pro-warmongering as well.
And if liberals were for “reducing the size of government… balancing the budget…reducing taxes” (wouldn’t they just be libertarians then?), they still wouldn’t be at home with most of today’s teatards, due to social issues and foreign policy.
No, I don’t go to Tea Party events, BECA– USE I am a libertarian. And I don’t doubt that some people who are attracted to those events are often socially conservative, too. I think that’s a mistake, of course, it is simply predicable as a consequence of the fact that they aren’t libertarian. I am saying, however, that people who call themselves liberals shouldn’t be dissuaded from also attending: They should not resist the idea of reducing the size of government, of balancing the budget, of reducing taxes..
Jim, do you actually go to Tea Party events, or just read wikipedia? I’ve been to their events all over the country, and for the most part Jed is correct.
Frankly, it is disturbing that this a story in the first place. The fact that LGBT needs a flag demonstrates how absolutely F’ed up our society is…
I do not care what flag is outside Jed’s business, if he has what I need at the price that I want, I will be buying from him…. PERIOD. If I develop a relationship with a store across the street who happens to have the same products for the same price, and I have dealt with that business for years, THAT will factor into the decision..
Aside from that, nothing else matters to me, because that is how I process. Mark Axinn relayed the message pretty stellarly if I do say so, and if I were to add anything else to this message, it would be simply a repeat of what he said.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
It isn’t particularly surprising that you can find people who think they’re libertarians, but aren’t. It would be much more interesting if you had given them the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” (Nolan Chart) to see how close they come to being libertarians. (Both of these titles have articles in Wikipedia.)
One area that I think might be tricky, even to libertarians, is the question of whether society should require vaccinations. Is it a violation of the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to remain unvaccinated, and therefore potentially transmit illnesses to others? I’ve never refused a vaccination, and if I had any children or grandchildren I’d recommend vaccination for them as well.
Jim is of course assuming, incorrectly, that the only teabaggers I’ve interacted with were at said meeting. He is right though about one thing: “doesn’t sound like libertarians”
That’s cuz they’re not libertarians!
Jed Ziggler, you said: (I will comment inline)
“The only teabagger meeting I ever attended, all they did was talk about “protecting marriage”.
I am reminded of a (politically INCORRECT) joke I heard 40 years ago: “The only Indian I ever met walked single-file”.
So, you have only attended ONE (!!!!) Tea Party event, and you are ALREADY ready to generalize to all of them.. Pardon me while I laugh!
” I’ve also never met one of these so-called “Tea Party libertarians”.
Since you’ve just now ADMITTED you only attended ONE such meeting, and I feel sure you didn’t question each of the attendees in detail, no wonder you think you’ve “never met one of these so-called “Tea Party libertarians”.
“First off, the correct term is teabagger, not Tea Party.”
And I think the correct term is “anchor baby”. See the problem? Clearly, you intend to insult the Tea Party membership.
” Second, those who call themselves libertarians don’t know what a libertarian is.”
Around here, I’d agree that’s frequently true. I’ve known I am a libertarian since 1975.
“When you question them, to a fault they all support ending gay marriage”
I’ve long believed that government should get out of the marriage business.
” (many are also for outlawing sodomy)”
Doesn’t sound like a libertarian to me.
,” ramping up the drug war,”
Again, doesn’t sound like a libertarian. However, I have to question: These days, rather few people advocate “ramping up the drug war”. But again, you’d admitted you only attended ONE meeting.
“deporting migrants”
As a libertarian, I happen to believe in the possibility of a privately-owned nation where all the property owners agree to exclude foreigners. But what we have isn’t (yet) a libertarian nation.
“, and escalating involvement in foreign wars. In short, they’re idiotic loons.”
Again, it doesn’t sound like libertarians. But then, you may be biased and are not accurately relaying their true beliefs.
Whatever the Tea Party once was, it has since become indistinguishable from the same old regular GOP base (if it ever was anything else). Any vaguely libertarian inclinations were driven out long ago, and weren’t really any stronger than what already existed in the GOP anyway.
The only teabagger meeting I ever attended, all they did was talk about “protecting marriage”. I’ve also never met one of these so-called “Tea Party libertarians”. First off, the correct term is teabagger, not Tea Party. Second, those who call themselves libertarians don’t know what a libertarian is. When you question them, to a fault they all support ending gay marriage (many are also for outlawing sodomy), ramping up the drug war, deporting migrants, and escalating involvement in foreign wars. In short, they’re idiotic loons.
Jed Ziggler, you said: “Teabaggers are extreme social conservatives.”
That’s misleading. As a libertarian, I don’t feel the need to be a Tea Party supporter. (but that doesn’t mean I oppose their goals). And no, as a libertarian I am not an “extreme social conservative”. That doesn’t mean that I oppose the stated goals of the Tea Party. No doubt there are some Tea Party members (I’m assuming they have “members”: Do they call them that? Supporters?) who are “extreme social conservatives”, but as I understand it the Tea Party platform does not require (or perhaps even mention) those positions. In other words, you are merely observing that some Tea Party people are “extreme social conservatives.” The following is the first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on “Tea Party Movement”.
“The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for its conservative positions and its role in the Republican Party. Members of the movement have called for a reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing government spending. In addition, they have also called for lowering taxes.[1][2] The movement opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare[3] and has been described as a mixture of libertarian,[4] populist,[5] and conservative activists.[6] It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009.[7][8][9] Various polls have found that slightly over 10% of Americans identify as members.[10]” [end of quote]
Pay particular attention to the comment that: “has been described as a mixture of libertarian,[4] populist,[5] and conservative activists”. As far as I can see, a centrist or even a liberal (at least, not a free-spending liberal) could quite comfortably support Tea Party goals. The problem is, it’s probably hard to find a non-freespending liberal anymore. If anything, I think that the left’s animus towards the Tea Party is actually a cover: They are deathly afraid of a policy that would dramatically reduce the size and scope of government in America, but they cannot openly state that. So, they find something else (“they are extreme social conservatives!”) to oppose.
Jed, you’re right. I’m sorry. I also apologize for insulting people who use public restrooms, not to mention the underpaid souls who have to keep them clean.
Teabaggers are extreme social conservatives.
langa: You said, “Yes, unfortunately, governments tend to divide everything into two groups: those things which must be mandated, and those things which must be prohibited.”
People like me (libertarians) want to minimize government. Other people, primarily socialists and leftists, want to make government as large as possible, openly advocating tax rates as high as 90%. (Bernie Sanders).. Even conservatives occasionally succumb to allow government to increase in size, such as when the idiot George W Bush started the Iraq war with essentially no justification.
Notice how the left often refers to the Tea Party as being “extremist”. However, my understanding is that Tea Party people merely want to balance the government budget, without an increase in taxes. For some reason, this is called “extremist”. (If just about everyone else wants to increase taxes, I suppose somebody who DOESN’T want to do so becomes “extremist”.)
Most of us on this site understand that is what freedom is about: letting people make choices freely. Unfortunately, our government is opposed to choice and operates on a different mindset.
Yes, unfortunately, governments tend to divide everything into two groups: those things which must be mandated, and those things which must be prohibited.
*sigh*
It belongs on IPR as the AFP is an electorally active political party. Doesn’t mean I agree.
Yes, because the rainbow flag has centuries of history backing it up: a history in which LGBT “haters” took straights as slaves and then— Oh, wait.
This trash belongs on the wall of a public restroom, not on IPR.
Absolutely.
I am a straight man. Let’s say that I believe that gay men have been unnecessarily discriminated against. I might see your flag and purposely choose to patronize you, even if the guy down the block with no flag is cheaper, simply because I want to support your message.
Or the opposite: I might say, I would rather not go to Jed’s store because he is openly gay, so I will buy from his competition instead.
Most of us on this site understand that is what freedom is about: letting people make choices freely. Unfortunately, our government is opposed to choice and operates on a different mindset.
I am a gay man, I fly my flag proudly, and I do not support telling individuals how to run their businesses. Make sense?
Or better yet, no law prohibitting or encouraging private behavior whatsoever.
That means there will be plenty of open-minded business establishments and some which are not.
If I don’t like people who think it’s a good idea to discriminate, I won’t patronize their establishments. Nobody said the couple in question had to buy a cake in only that bakery.
Let’s say I own a business and do not approve of certain behavior. If I don’t want to sell my services to someone (let’s say I bake cakes and don’t want to sell my cakes to someone I find offensive), I should not be placed into forced labor for that person (or persons) who want to use my product in a manner of which I dispprove.
Of course, I may be destroying my own business as I have just discriminated against a portion of the population which might buy lots of my cakes, but that should be my choice to make. Freedom of association necessarily includes freedom of non-association.
Jonny Stryder: You said, “If this story is not intended as satire, it is just plain silly. The essence of the rainbow meme is toleration of different lifestyles and cultures.”
As long as they aren’t religious or conservative.
(Full disclosure: I’m a lifetime libertarian and have never been a “conservative” nor a “libertarian”, nor have I ever been religious in any way.)
How much “toleration” that rainbow flag represents must include consideration of the act of suing that Sandy Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, and subsequently fining them $150,000, all for the “offense” of refusing to sell them a cake that they probably could have bought at hundreds of different locations in Oregon and Southwest Washington. What were the actual damages? As well as suits against a bakery in Colorado, and probably flower shops and photography studios around the country.
As a libertarian, I feel that I should have the right to refuse to deal with any company I choose, for whatever reason I choose. And, correspondingly, I am quite willing to accept the idea that such companies have the right to refuse to deal with me, for any reason they choose.
Also: Even if you believe that it is proper for states to prohibit discrimination against people for reasons of “sexual orientation”, consider: Such bakeries do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If two HETEROsexual men decided to buy such a cake to get married, the bakeries in question would probably refuse. Same if two HETEROsexual women tried that. But if a gay man and a gay woman tried to buy a cake to get married, do you think the bakery would refuse? I think the bakery would gladly accept. In other words, the bakery isn’t refusing on the basis of “sexual orientation”, but in fact they are discriminating based on “participation in a same-sex wedding”. Which, of course, is exactly what they claimed to be doing all along.
In other words, the legislatures who passed those laws simply made an error, which the system today is unwilling to admit: Instead of prohibiting discrimination based on “sexual orientation”, those legislatures should have written their laws differently to cover the situation they were trying to prevent.
If this story is not intended as satire, it is just plain silly. The essence of the rainbow meme is toleration of different lifestyles and cultures.