NAACP Plays Race Card on Tea Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

It’s impressive how you can have so much insight into dynamic American political affairs from way down there in New Zealand. [/quote]

ummm… aren’t you in Japan?[/quote]

Why yes, Captain Obvious.

Which is why I have so little to say on this topic.

Regardless, having spent my first 35 years living in the US; having a parent, 2 sibs, countless cousins, former classmates, teachers, colleagues and friends that I stay in touch with living there; having all of my financial wealth invested there; and making regular trips back home DOES give me a tad of understanding of things American, I suppose.[/quote]

That’s good, I suppose. It just seems strange that you attack him for being abroad when you are abroad is all. (Didn’t he say he has family and friends in the States too?)

183

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So because what people in the past do, dictates what we can do now? So because some people have slaves in the past, now other people in the future can’t disagree with someone politically because he’s part black, but not from a family that were even slaves (since we are going off of bloodlines I guess, or are all light skinned people responsible for all other light skinned people’s actions).[/quote]

Timing is too coincidental. Couple that with the signs we see from these people and yes, part of it is racism. I have no doubt there are people in there with genuine grievances, but the majority only popped up AFTER you elected a black man to the White House.[/quote]

nope - after we elected a man (who pretended to be a centrist) who governs from the very far left. What is it about that you don’t get?

184

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So because what people in the past do, dictates what we can do now? So because some people have slaves in the past, now other people in the future can’t disagree with someone politically because he’s part black, but not from a family that were even slaves (since we are going off of bloodlines I guess, or are all light skinned people responsible for all other light skinned people’s actions).[/quote]

Timing is too coincidental. Couple that with the signs we see from these people and yes, part of it is racism. I have no doubt there are people in there with genuine grievances, but the majority only popped up AFTER you elected a black man to the White House.[/quote]

nope - after we elected a man (who pretended to be a centrist) who governs from the very far left. What is it about that you don’t get? [/quote]

What is it about PART OF IT that you don’t get?

185

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So because what people in the past do, dictates what we can do now? So because some people have slaves in the past, now other people in the future can’t disagree with someone politically because he’s part black, but not from a family that were even slaves (since we are going off of bloodlines I guess, or are all light skinned people responsible for all other light skinned people’s actions).[/quote]

Timing is too coincidental. Couple that with the signs we see from these people and yes, part of it is racism. I have no doubt there are people in there with genuine grievances, but the majority only popped up AFTER you elected a black man to the White House.[/quote]

nope - after we elected a man (who pretended to be a centrist) who governs from the very far left. What is it about that you don’t get? [/quote]

What is it about PART OF IT that you don’t get?[/quote]

Pathetic - yeah, I get it. You’re trying to discredit genuine and deeply felt political disagreement as somehow racist. Those are some very serious charges sir. And you had better have very good evidence for making them. Or STFU.

186

This article is filled with outright lies. The NYT out to be ashamed of itself. Here’s my letter to the author. Feel free to send similar letters to the little fucking prick.

Dear Mr. Bai,

In your July 17 NYT piece (Beneath Divides Seemingly About Race Are Generational Fault Lines), you wrote: “There have been scattered reports around the country of racially charged rhetoric within the movement, most notably just before the vote on the new health care law last March, when Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, the legendary civil rights leader, was showered with hateful epithets outside the Capitol.”

THAT ^ is an outrageous lie - or, you are yet another sloppy NYT journalist who doesn’t bother to check your facts, presumably because you’d rather your story comply with the narrative in your head than with the actual truth.

I was there on the steps of the Rayburn Building that afternoon. There were no “hateful epithets,” sir. That was a fabrication on Mr. Lewis’ part. Sad but true. He made himself look even more ludicrous by going straight to his office and, minutes later, claiming to the press (who dutifully covered it as truth without bothering to check it’s veracity) that one of the protesters had been arrested for shouting racist remarks; and for spitting on him.

Embarrassingly enough, as the Hill police confirmed shortly thereafter, nothing of the sort ever happened; and despite the plethora of cameras and video cameras and mics, no one came forth with any evidence for any of this, despite a generous reward offered by Mr. Breitbart.

Of course, Mr. Breitbart could confidently offer such a reward because he knew - as we all knew who were there - that this was merely an orchestrated and baldfaced attempt to smear the Tea Party as racist by Pelosi et. al. (who marched triumphantly through the crowd, huge smiles on their faces, carrying a laughably large gavel, arm in arm with Mr. Lewis, as if this were some noble civil rights issue, rather than a cynical ploy to arrogate power for themselves, all in attempt to draw out the crowd’s anger, in hopes we’d do something stupid - as you probably know, they could have just as easily proceeded via the underway, which is what they usually do, of course.)

When they didn’t get the reaction they wanted, they simply made it up. The truth is sometimes amazing - it certainly isn’t flattering.

There wasn’t - and isn’t - a shred of evidence for any sort of bigotry or racism that afternoon. I think you probably know this.

Moreover, I have been active in the Tea Party since the start - and I have NEVER seen any evidence of racism at any event. Of course, not being a journalist I actually require evidence.

Either way, it’s shameful that you go ahead and print such rubbish. The Republic and our social order is further divided and weakened every single time you publish lies, whether intentionally or not.

Shame on you sir.

187

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
I really hate when people use the word “socialism” to describe things that have nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism = a system where the means of production (factories, for the most part) are owned by the people who do the production (laborers, or classically the Proletariat).

Regulation of the financial system isn’t socialism. Health insurance reform isn’t socialism. Unemployment insurance, welfare, and any other social programs are not socialism. They are well within the scope of classic liberal democracy. Don’t believe me? Read Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. Progressive taxation, social safety nets… its all there.

PERHAPS one could say that the government-backed settlement between GM and the UAW is socialist. I could buy that.

Socialism is just a scary word that some people use to scare and manipulate other people into doing things.

Also, we should be clear that the Tea Party movement is solely a reaction to the Democratic power in Washington, and throughout the country. When the pendulum swings the other way again (and it will), the Tea Partyers will magically disappear. As long as the government gets more power in a Republican way, these people will shut up.

Also, I don’t want to hear another damn thing about 9-11. I live in NY. People I know died on that day. If you live in friggin Nebraska, 9-11 changed nothing for you. Your life went on as planned, except that you got riled up for a war.

Edit to last statement: Unless you are one of the rare people who actually honor your country by picking up a weapon and serving. As my over-educated, northeast, liberal, Jewish ass has
(hooah!).
[/quote]

Government control in a democracy is as much collective ownership as anything was (probably even more so) in socialist Russia. Money is a means of production. Government control of the financial system, health care welfare est. is socialist policy. Period. It is voter control of means of production.

Second, by your posts its pretty obvious you donâ??t know anything about the movement, your comments on it make you look stupid.

188

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Also, I don’t get what some of this debate is:

The NAACP wants the “leaders” of the movement to say that overt racism is bad.

Rather than saying “of course we don’t want racists in our movement. That’s ridiculous.”, the reaction has been “Look at them playing the race card again”.

It’s fairly obvious that Mrs. Palin (among others) does not want to alienate racists, and by her words (or lack thereof), makes it look like the Tea Party is composed of racists. I would imagine that the vast majority of the people who identify with the Tea Party are not.[/quote]

How many t-parties have you been too? These statements are outright lies. You need to shut your mouth about things you haven’t the first clue.

189

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I saw 1 racist sign in that whole thing. (the brown one)

190

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Also, I don’t want to hear another damn thing about 9-11. I live in NY. People I know died on that day. If you live in friggin Nebraska, 9-11 changed nothing for you. Your life went on as planned, except that you got riled up for a war.

Edit to last statement: Unless you are one of the rare people who actually honor your country by picking up a weapon and serving. As my over-educated, northeast, liberal, Jewish ass has
(hooah!).
[/quote]

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Some of us care about this country beyond those matters that directly affect us. I’d even say those that don’t care about this country beyond matters that effect them are doing this country a disservice.[/quote]

In one part he tells us our Brotherhood under Ol’ Glory is not needed and we are pretenders (because of proximity), and the other tells us he’s in that Brotherhood because he picked up a rifle?

Well, I paid for that rifle, so did a lot of people. Guess what, even if those buildings were in Canada, I would still have been pissed because it fucked up my family financially. Guess what Britain was pissed off as well, they had air support over NY, should we tell them to fuck off because you know they aren’t even part of this country?[/quote]

Me and mine pay taxes as well. It’s absolutely ridiculous when someone points at the northeast and calls them a bunch of whiny liberals, and then uses the tragedy of what happened to the northeast liberals they hate so much to justify a war they aren’t going to have to fight themselves. If you aren’t willing to serve yourself, or send your children to war, shut the hell up about the need for war. Its absolutely amazing how many people are willing to send their countrymen’s children to die.

My real issue with the 9/11 mongering is that the mostly non-New Yorkers who are the first to flag wave over it are also the first to call the views we have here “un-American”. Remember Sarah Palin telling her supporters she liked to be in the “pro-America parts of the country”? I do. She just voiced what all of the red states were thinking.

191

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Also, I don’t get what some of this debate is:

The NAACP wants the “leaders” of the movement to say that overt racism is bad. FACT:NAACP exact statement: â??You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.â??

Rather than saying “of course we don’t want racists in our movement. That’s ridiculous.”, the reaction has been “Look at them playing the race card again”. FACT: Exact quote from Sarah Palin’s Facebook post: "I am saddened by the NAACPâ??s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of Americaâ??s Constitutional rights are somehow â??racists.â??

It’s fairly obvious that Mrs. Palin (among others) does not want to alienate racists, and by her words (or lack thereof), makes it look like the Tea Party is composed of racists. I would imagine that the vast majority of the people who identify with the Tea Party are not.[/quote]

How many t-parties have you been too? These statements are outright lies. You need to shut your mouth about things you haven’t the first clue.[/quote]

First, I have never been to a tea party. I will probably attend the next one around locally, though there aren’t too many around here. I don’t know what I said about the tea party movement that requires me to have been to a tea party, other than the fact that I stated that most tea party members are probably not racist. I guess since I haven’t been to a party and spoken to all the people, they very well could be racist. I just assumed most of them were not reprehensible scum, but rather just people with very different political opinions.

Second, while calling my statements lies is certainly powerful rhetorically, it’s just not true. I have provided facts as above.

Last, today the Tea Party cast out one of their own for writing a letter from Blacks to Abraham Lincln asking for either a return to slavery or more gubment handouts. You’re right about there not being racism in the movement.

I do applaud, of course the move to distance themselves from this scumbag.

192

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Also, I don’t get what some of this debate is:

The NAACP wants the “leaders” of the movement to say that overt racism is bad. FACT:NAACP exact statement: â??You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.â??

Rather than saying “of course we don’t want racists in our movement. That’s ridiculous.”, the reaction has been “Look at them playing the race card again”. FACT: Exact quote from Sarah Palin’s Facebook post: "I am saddened by the NAACPâ??s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of Americaâ??s Constitutional rights are somehow â??racists.â??

It’s fairly obvious that Mrs. Palin (among others) does not want to alienate racists, and by her words (or lack thereof), makes it look like the Tea Party is composed of racists. I would imagine that the vast majority of the people who identify with the Tea Party are not.[/quote]

How many t-parties have you been too? These statements are outright lies. You need to shut your mouth about things you haven’t the first clue.[/quote]

First, I have never been to a tea party. I will probably attend the next one around locally, though there aren’t too many around here. I don’t know what I said about the tea party movement that requires me to have been to a tea party, other than the fact that I stated that most tea party members are probably not racist. I guess since I haven’t been to a party and spoken to all the people, they very well could be racist. I just assumed most of them were not reprehensible scum, but rather just people with very different political opinions.

Second, while calling my statements lies is certainly powerful rhetorically, it’s just not true. I have provided facts as above.

Last, today the Tea Party cast out one of their own for writing a letter from Blacks to Abraham Lincln asking for either a return to slavery or more gubment handouts. You’re right about there not being racism in the movement.

I do applaud, of course the move to distance themselves from this scumbag.
[/quote]

"The NAACP wants the “leaders” of the movement to say that overt racism is bad. FACT:NAACP exact statement: â??You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.â?? " --lie. The official approved statement by the NAACP has not yet been released.

Rather than saying “of course we don’t want racists in our movement. That’s ridiculous.”, the reaction has been “Look at them playing the race card again”. FACT: Exact quote from Sarah Palin’s Facebook post: "I am saddened by the NAACPâ??s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of Americaâ??s Constitutional rights are somehow â??racists.â?? --lie. They have denounced it over and over and over. They’ve done it publicaly and at most of the rallies you haven’t been to. HOWEVER, it would be nice for some of these accusations to be attached to specific events to apologize for.

“It’s fairly obvious that Mrs. Palin (among others) does not want to alienate racists, and by her words (or lack thereof), makes it look like the Tea Party is composed of racists.” --lie. Do I even need to explain how you are reading her mind to know her motives? Isn’t it as likely an explanation that most T-partiers see the race debate as a distraction and want to remain focused on the actual issues?

“Last, today the Tea Party cast out one of their own for writing a letter from Blacks to Abraham Lincln asking for either a return to slavery or more gubment handouts.”

There is nothing inherently racist about that point. I haven’t read the letter though. However, equating social programs to slavery for black america is an entirely valid non-racist point. It would depend on how the letter was written. Is there a copy of it somewhere?

Either way, he got kicked out for it, meaning he isn’t a part of the movement and the letter isn’t a part of the movement.

193

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
I really hate when people use the word “socialism” to describe things that have nothing to do with socialism.

[/quote]

Government control in a democracy is as much collective ownership as anything was (probably even more so) in socialist Russia. Money is a means of production. Government control of the financial system, health care welfare est. is socialist policy. Period. It is voter control of means of production.

Second, by your posts its pretty obvious you donâ??t know anything about the movement, your comments on it make you look stupid.
[/quote]

Our government doesn’t control industry (with possible exception of Military-Industrial Complex). Our government regulates industry. To what extent we feel that regulation is appropriate may differ, but almost no-one believes that corporate power should be completely unchecked. In fact, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, the intestate commerce clause explicitly gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. This isn’t some late amendment. This is in the original Constitution. Does this make our founders Socialist?

Money is not a means of production, with the possible exception of investment banking. Factories and businesses are means of production.

I don’t know how you want the government to be hands-off with the financial system any more than it is. Should we stop issuing currency? Currency policy is essentially controlled by the Federal Reserve, which is non-government entity.

Again, social safety nets like welfare are well within the realm of democratic/capitalist thinking. Or do you think letting people starve is more American?

194

Tired of the quote nonsense.

Source for the NAACP quote: NAACP, Tea Party Volley Over Racism Claims : NPR I was somewhat wrong. The president made the quote I gave and the NAACP passed a resolution supporting that statement.

From NBC.com

Effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership."
Federation spokesman David Webb, interviewed Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” called the blog post “clearly offensive.”
Williams, who said his letter was satirical, started it like this: “Dear Mr. Lincoln, We Coloreds 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!”
“Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for?” he added. “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!”

195

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
I really hate when people use the word “socialism” to describe things that have nothing to do with socialism.

[/quote]

Government control in a democracy is as much collective ownership as anything was (probably even more so) in socialist Russia. Money is a means of production. Government control of the financial system, health care welfare est. is socialist policy. Period. It is voter control of means of production.

Second, by your posts its pretty obvious you don�¢??t know anything about the movement, your comments on it make you look stupid.
[/quote]

Our government doesn’t control industry (with possible exception of Military-Industrial Complex). Our government regulates industry. To what extent we feel that regulation is appropriate may differ, but almost no-one believes that corporate power should be completely unchecked. In fact, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, the intestate commerce clause explicitly gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. This isn’t some late amendment. This is in the original Constitution. Does this make our founders Socialist?

Money is not a means of production, with the possible exception of investment banking. Factories and businesses are means of production.

I don’t know how you want the government to be hands-off with the financial system any more than it is. Should we stop issuing currency? Currency policy is essentially controlled by the Federal Reserve, which is non-government entity.

Again, social safety nets like welfare are well within the realm of democratic/capitalist thinking. Or do you think letting people starve is more American?
[/quote]

HAH. wow, this is quite the rambling straw man. I never argued for or against any policy, so all you, “you want there to be no regulation” is total BS.

Regulation can be control depending on how strong the regulation is. however, much if this goes far beyond regulation. Medicare/Medicate make up a majority of spending in the marketplace. In many areas you have government bodies competing private industry. Hell obama fired the CEO of general motors. And on and on and on.

Money is a means of production because any money can be freely invested. The exchange rate is listed on the stock exchange.

These policies can be accurately described as socialist. There is nothing wrong with labeling them as such. You may not like the negative connotation associated with policies you support, but you are setting about trying to redefine a word because you don’t like the label.

196

“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 coloreds ever get a wide-screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?” he wrote. “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.”

That’s the rest of the letter I got off of foxnews.com

I don’t have the time or energy to make up an Xibit meme, but I’ll point out:

Yo dawg, you got a splinter group in your splinter group

197

[quote]OTS1 wrote:
“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 coloreds ever get a wide-screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn?” he wrote. “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.”

That’s the rest of the letter I got off of foxnews.com

I don’t have the time or energy to make up an Xibit meme, but I’ll point out:

Yo dawg, you got a splinter group in your splinter group[/quote]

Yeah, that’s pretty bad. Satire aside, quite a stupid move. But, has it been condemned enough?

198

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yeah, but Obama is half white. What’s your point?[/quote]

So Obama putting down on his census form that he is African American does that make him a racist toward Caucasians?

199

If the NAACP actually cared about discrimination they’d be too busy sticking up for Asian and White applicants at top universities, that they’d have little time to act as a arm for the Democrat party.

"A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want – or don’t want – on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of “diversity” they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). Data was collected on over 245,000 applicants from three separate application years, and over 9,000 enrolled students filled out extensive questionnaires. Because of confidentiality agreements Espenshade and Radford could not name the institutions but they assure us that their statistical profile shows they fit nicely within the top 50 colleges and universities listed in the U.S. News & World Report ratings.

Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html

200

"When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton, private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing “racial minorities.” Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived. Private institutions, Espenshade and Radford suggest, “intentionally save their scarce financial aid dollars for students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students.” Quoting a study by NYU researcher Mitchell Stevens, they write: “ultimate evaluative preference for members of disadvantaged groups was reserved for applicants who could be counted in the college’s multicultural statistics. This caused some admissions officers no small amount of ethical dismay.”

There are problems, however, with this explanation. While it explains why scarce financial aid dollars might be reserved for minority “twofers,” it cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid. But even if they couldn’t, knowing they did well enough in their high school studies to get accepted to a competitive private college would surely sit well with most of them even if they couldn’t afford the high tuition. Espenshade and Radford do not address this conundrum but the answer is easy to discern. The ugly truth is that most colleges, especially the more competitive private ones, are fiercely concerned with their ratings by rating organizations like U.S. News & World Report. And an important part of those ratings consist of a numerical acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) and a yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll). The lower the acceptance rate and the higher the yield score the more favorably colleges are looked upon. In extending admissions to well-qualified but financially strapped whites who are unlikely to enroll, a college would be driving both its acceptance rate and its yield score in the wrong direction. Academic bureaucrats rarely act against either their own or their organization’s best interests (as they perceive them), and while their treatment of lower-class whites may for some be a source of “no small amount of ethical dismay,” that’s just how it goes. Some of the private colleges Espenshade and Radford describe would do well to come clean with their act and admit the truth: ‘Poor Whites Need Not Apply!’"