NAACP Plays Race Card on Tea Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
The NAACP stands for the advancement of COLORED people, so does that not make them racist. Why not advance all people. As a tea party member I have seen no racism in our group. The pics that were posted by DB dont have any evidence of being from a tea party. I also know for a fact liberals are planting posers to act like idiots in the crowd at tea party events. Glenn Beck wont denounce the “racist” because he is not a leader of the Tea party, no one is, [/quote]

Correct on both points. First off Liberals are going into the Tea Party and acting retarded, this is a tactic they used in the civil rights movement.

And second, the Tea Party has no leaders, now there are a few people they look up to, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, and yes sadly Sarah Palin.

102

Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.

103

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.[/quote]
Please explain a bit further if you would.

104

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.[/quote]
Please explain a bit further if you would.[/quote]

Please do…

105

…“The NAACP stands for the advancement of COLORED people, so does that not make them racist…”…Why not advance all people…"

No.

The organization has historically fought for the injustice done to all people. In fact, its founding members were predominately white and Jewish.

They actually still stand for that.

While I may note that the organization CURRENTLY has little political and/or social influence…historically it has.

Mufasa

106

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

…“The NAACP stands for the advancement of COLORED people, so does that not make them racist…”…Why not advance all people…"

No.

The organization has historically fought for the injustice done to all people. In fact, its founding members were predominately white and Jewish.

They actually still stand for that.

While I may note that the organization CURRENTLY has little political and/or social influence…historically it has.

Mufasa[/quote]

Currently yes, it is racist.

107

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.[/quote]
Please explain a bit further if you would.[/quote]

Please do…[/quote]

Please don’t.

I don’t know if you guys are aware of Alffi’s posting history but they rival the racism spouted by Nominal Prospect. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if they were the same person, although they’re probably just two different racist assholes.

108

[quote]John S. wrote:

You mention Sarah Palin but don’t mention the other side of the tea party Ron Paul. Want to hear the Tea Party talk about anti drugs come listen to us. You don’t understand the movement.[/quote]

I was quite surprised to read this, as I had seen a video some months back where Ron Paul was quite adamant about NOT being a part of the tea party. Has he changed his position since his son began running? I quickly googled “Is Ron Paul a Tea Party Member?” and this was what popped up:

According to this:

[i]speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, Paul first took up for the tea parties as a natural reaction of the people when they are unhappy with government. What they are not, he explained, are entirely adherent to his ideas. Paul suggested that the group only “sometimes” represents his views.

“My message is somewhat different,” he said. “The message gets somewhat diluted” with large movements of this nature.

“Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement,” Paul continued.

His core issues, such as creating transparency at the Federal Reserve, recalling overseas soldiers and ending the drug war, are “not what is generally heard from the Republican party,” he said.

“Sometimes the tea party accepts these ideas, sometimes they don’t.”

109

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

You mention Sarah Palin but don’t mention the other side of the tea party Ron Paul. Want to hear the Tea Party talk about anti drugs come listen to us. You don’t understand the movement.[/quote]

I was quite surprised to read this, as I had seen a video some months back where Ron Paul was quite adamant about NOT being a part of the tea party. Has he changed his position since his son began running? I quickly googled “Is Ron Paul a Tea Party Member?” and this was what popped up:

According to this:

[i]speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, Paul first took up for the tea parties as a natural reaction of the people when they are unhappy with government. What they are not, he explained, are entirely adherent to his ideas. Paul suggested that the group only “sometimes” represents his views.

“My message is somewhat different,” he said. “The message gets somewhat diluted” with large movements of this nature.

“Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement,” Paul continued.

His core issues, such as creating transparency at the Federal Reserve, recalling overseas soldiers and ending the drug war, are “not what is generally heard from the Republican party,” he said.

“Sometimes the tea party accepts these ideas, sometimes they don’t.”[/quote]

Their are many in the Tea Party who look to Ron, I would say almost all support auditing the federal reserve. That is something Ron Paul has been championing since the mid-late 70’s. I would also say that many in the tea party are open to ending the federal drug war.

Having talked with many tea party supporters, wether Ron likes it or not many do look up to him and what he says now does carry a huge influence.(funny how a year and a half changes peoples minds).

110

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…"The NAACP . . . . founding members were predominately white and Jewish.

[/quote]

Yes, and as a reward:

  1. the highest rate of anti-Semitism is among black Americans;

  2. Louis Farakkkan demands reparations from Jewish people for the slave trade (despite the primary slavers being ---- catch this — African muslims);

  3. Jessie Jackson and other self-appointed “black leaders” have repeatedly been caught denegrating Jewish people;

  4. black-on-Jewish person crime is the highest it has ever been in this country; and

  5. black charaties openly support and codle anti-Israeli terrorists, like Hamas. (Indeed, Pres. Obama’s church-of-kill-whitey routinely sponsored PLO terrorists to come and talk.)

That’s a lesson learned.

111

[quote]church-of-kill-whitey
[/quote]

This made me lol.

In keeping with this train of thought, also remember that the republicans fought to free the slaves and championed the civil rights movement while Dems opposed it.

That’s lost on the naacp of today.

112

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s lost on the naacp of today.[/quote]

Nah, they know. They make money off of race grevances. There is a conspiracy “to keep the black man down.”

The conspirators are fellow blacks and the core of the Democrat machine. They know if they can keep the black man on welfare and dependant on other government-give-away programs they can make a fortune skimming off the programs.

LBJ (a terrible racist) was behind the modern welfare state (er, the “Great Society”).

It was created to destroy the black family and to keep them dependant on the government.

Period.

113

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s lost on the naacp of today.[/quote]

Nah, they know. They make money off of race grevances. There is a conspiracy “to keep the black man down.”

The conspirators are fellow blacks and the core of the Democrat machine. They know if they can keep the black man on welfare and dependant on other government-give-away programs they can make a fortune skimming off the programs.

LBJ (a terrible racist) was behind the modern welfare state (er, the “Great Society”).

It was created to destroy the black family and to keep them dependant on the government.

Period.[/quote]

There are a lot of White families dependant on the government also. This part is both ways.

114

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s lost on the naacp of today.[/quote]

Nah, they know. They make money off of race grevances. There is a conspiracy “to keep the black man down.”

The conspirators are fellow blacks and the core of the Democrat machine. They know if they can keep the black man on welfare and dependant on other government-give-away programs they can make a fortune skimming off the programs.

LBJ (a terrible racist) was behind the modern welfare state (er, the “Great Society”).

It was created to destroy the black family and to keep them dependant on the government.

Period.[/quote]

There are a lot of White families dependant on the government also. This part is both ways.[/quote]

An unintended side effect, but no doubt welcome. Witness West Virginias repeated re-election of now-dead Sen KKK Byrd – the second most corrupt man ever in the Senate.

115

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.[/quote]
Please explain a bit further if you would.[/quote]

Please do…[/quote]

Please don’t.

I don’t know if you guys are aware of Alffi’s posting history but they rival the racism spouted by Nominal Prospect. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if they were the same person, although they’re probably just two different racist assholes.
[/quote]
I was trying not to conclude before having the guy clarify a bit. That was one of those posts that appears to have some formal truth there, but I think I’m sensing a rather edgy tone making me hesitant to comment one way or the other.

116

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.[/quote]
Please explain a bit further if you would.[/quote]

Please do…[/quote]

Please don’t.

I don’t know if you guys are aware of Alffi’s posting history but they rival the racism spouted by Nominal Prospect. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if they were the same person, although they’re probably just two different racist assholes.
[/quote]
I was trying not to conclude before having the guy clarify a bit. That was one of those posts that appears to have some formal truth there, but I think I’m sensing a rather edgy tone making me hesitant to comment one way or the other.[/quote]

I personally would like to have Alffi expand. What would it hurt. It is an internet forum is it not?

117

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:
Factions that fight for limited government, such as libertarians, cannot ever advance without being called racist. After all, minorities depend on big government so they will try to paint them as racist.

Just like how they call whites being whites and hanging out with other whites racist and supremacism, because whites don’t need to associate with minorities but minorities’ use appeals to pity, empathy or downright aggression to milk a life out of whites.[/quote]
Please explain a bit further if you would.[/quote]

Please do…[/quote]

Please don’t.

I don’t know if you guys are aware of Alffi’s posting history but they rival the racism spouted by Nominal Prospect. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if they were the same person, although they’re probably just two different racist assholes.
[/quote]
I was trying not to conclude before having the guy clarify a bit. That was one of those posts that appears to have some formal truth there, but I think I’m sensing a rather edgy tone making me hesitant to comment one way or the other.[/quote]

Fair enough. FTR, I agree with his first paragraph but I’m too familiar with his posting history to want to see his explanation of the 2nd paragraph.

118

Well either way guys I suppose. I don’t think I remember any of his other posts, but he did get me a bit curious.

119

Monica Crowley in for O’Reilly with Kevin Jackson, Black Tea Party leader and author of “The Big Black Lie” and Ellis Henican on the NAACP and the charge of tea party racism
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,224.new.html#new

120

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

You mention Sarah Palin but don’t mention the other side of the tea party Ron Paul. Want to hear the Tea Party talk about anti drugs come listen to us. You don’t understand the movement.[/quote]

I was quite surprised to read this, as I had seen a video some months back where Ron Paul was quite adamant about NOT being a part of the tea party. Has he changed his position since his son began running? I quickly googled “Is Ron Paul a Tea Party Member?” and this was what popped up:

According to this:

[i]speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, Paul first took up for the tea parties as a natural reaction of the people when they are unhappy with government. What they are not, he explained, are entirely adherent to his ideas. Paul suggested that the group only “sometimes” represents his views.

“My message is somewhat different,” he said. “The message gets somewhat diluted” with large movements of this nature.

“Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement,” Paul continued.

His core issues, such as creating transparency at the Federal Reserve, recalling overseas soldiers and ending the drug war, are “not what is generally heard from the Republican party,” he said.

“Sometimes the tea party accepts these ideas, sometimes they don’t.”[/quote]

Their are many in the Tea Party who look to Ron, I would say almost all support auditing the federal reserve. That is something Ron Paul has been championing since the mid-late 70’s. I would also say that many in the tea party are open to ending the federal drug war.

Having talked with many tea party supporters, wether Ron likes it or not many do look up to him and what he says now does carry a huge influence.(funny how a year and a half changes peoples minds).[/quote]

They look up to him, sure. But as he claims not to be a member, he certainly isn’t “the other side of the tea party” or “a tea party leader” is he?