Ready. Fire. Aim: NAACP Hypocricy

rickyd · Jul 12, 2004

freddy said:

Two Things,
Lottery, you make good points but you don’t have to go tit for tat with these guys, you won’t win and it doesn’t matter anyway.
Rickyd, your numbers are BS. How many times have you been to “black” club? I don’t get out that much anymore but all the numerous times I went out to black clubs or parties only once do I recall seeing a white person verbally or physically abused to the point they were unwelcome. And that person started it. The majority of times I have been out to “white” bars in Baton Rouge I have not been hassled and I have gone out and had a good time. But more than a handful of times myself and/or my friends have been told things that were very racist in nature. Numerous times I have overhead people using the N-word or referring to use as those people and things of this sort. I used to go out fairly often with a group of friends whom included a few very attractive white females. If we would all go out dancing they would tell me later about some of the comments people asked them referring to the black people, and more specifically the black guys in the group. Some were humorous, quite a number were ignorant, and quite a few more were extremely racist statements. Only 2 times have I had someone say something to my face but this maybe partially due the fact I’m not a small guy, so most people won’t mess with me to my face. Thankfully, I don’t get offended by every idiot who says something stupid. Neither should you rickyd. In fact I think it would be good for you to go out to some bars in Scotlandville. You would make new friends and learn to appreciate different environments. Maybe if more black and white people actually spent time together we wouldn’t have stupid debates like this.
Click to expand...

Well freddy, you actually sound like someone that could hold a civilized conversation about this subject. Like you I tried to relate an experience I had, but the only thing lotery could add to the discussion was something to the effect of (Did they hurt your feelings?) Well if thats how he chooses to have a discourse then I have nothing but disdain for him.

LOTTERY · Jul 12, 2004

You're exactly right Freddy. Freddy said the same thing about your numbers I did, good gracious. Tirk, i think any intermingling of races anywhere is a good thing. Thats why that parade in Baton Rouge was such a great event.

tirk · Jul 12, 2004

LOTTERY said:

You're exactly right Freddy. Freddy said the same thing about your numbers I did, good gracious. Tirk, i think any intermingling of races anywhere is a good thing. Thats why that parade in Baton Rouge was such a great event.
Click to expand...

very true.

JSracing · Jul 13, 2004

LOL just kidding guys :grin:

bayareatiger · Jul 14, 2004

LOTTERY said:

...i think any intermingling of races anywhere is a good thing.
Click to expand...

The most intelligent and rational observation on this thread.

I wholeheartedly concur.

tirk · Jul 14, 2004

bayareatiger said:

The most intelligent and rational observation on this thread.

I wholeheartedly concur.
Click to expand...

minus jews and muslims. wait, you said races.

dallastigers · Jul 27, 2004

This may have been posted before. Everytime I start to post here something or even read posts in the last two or three months I get sidetracked and have to quit before I finish, but I just wanted to post it just in case.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200407260700.asp

The Right Stuff
W. speaks to the Urban League.

By Peter Kirsanow

President Bush's speech last Friday before the National Urban League was the best speech given before a predominately black audience by either a president or major presidential candidate in at least 40 years.

It was the best not because of any soaring rhetorical flourishes, timeless lines, or stirring delivery (although the president — despite a sometimes hurried cadence — was clearly and passionately on his game) but because it was unabashedly conservative and refreshingly devoid of the peculiar mix of paternalism, supplication, and pandering found in almost all speeches by politicians to black crowds.

Yes, the president did make a few appeals specifically tailored to the assemblage. But he did so without deviating from his established principles and policies or reciting a list of government initiatives obsequiously designed to address stereotypically "black" concerns.

Many politicians are overcome by the urge to pander to black audiences by displaying their liberal bona fides, hoping that this will help them transcend any reservations regarding their commitment or sincerity. The president easily could've been tempted to succumb to such an urge. Just consider what he was up against: This was an audience that had been told repeatedly that George W. Bush is the worst president in U.S. history. They've been told that he was somehow responsible for the dragging death of James Byrd. They've been assured that the Republican party is intrinsically racist. They've heard the radio ads claiming that a vote for a Republican is a vote for another black church being burned; for another black man getting lynched. They've been instructed that Bush is going to let the Voting Rights Act expire, preventing blacks from voting.

And they've been told these kinds of things not by fringe political players but by high-profile officials in prominent organizations. For example, NAACP president Kweisi Mfume has declared, "We have a president that's prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance." NAACP Chairman Julian Bond contended that "[President Bush] has appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing. And has chosen Cabinet officials [Powell, Paige, Jackson?] whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection...their idea of reparations is to give the war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon. Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side." It's not surprising, then, that a recent poll shows that 85 percent of blacks believe George Bush "stole" the 2000 election.

Considering the above, many politicians, just to get a fair hearing, probably would've made the traditional concessions to the grievance-victimhood mindset or taken the opportunity to play Santa Claus with the public treasury.

Not George W. Bush. He spoke about the need for more black entrepreneurship and home ownership (in contrast to Senator John Kerry who, while speaking to the same organization the previous day, stressed the need for more Section 8 funding) and outlined his policies designed for greater black participation in the "ownership society." He repudiated high taxes, more government spending, increased regulation, and frivolous lawsuits. He emphasized educational accountability, high standards, school choice, and local control of schools. He defended the culture of life and the institutions of marriage and the family. And he displayed his familiar resolve regarding the war on terror.

President Bush then reminded the crowd that the upper echelons of his administration, the most diverse in history, was an affirmation of meritocracy and a rebuke to the symbolism and tokenism that has previously relegated blacks almost exclusively to departmental ghettoes: Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Secretary of Housing Alphonso Jackson, FCC Chair Michael Powell, General Services Administration head Steve Perry, Office of Personnel Management chief Kay James — superstars all — just to name a few.

There was one point in the speech at which some conservatives might have winced — an opportunity seemingly missed. Near the end, after the president had asked those in attendance for their votes, he acknowledged "I know, I know, the Republican party has a lot of work to do. I understand that." Then, to much laughter, he looked at Jesse Jackson and added, "You didn't need to nod your head that hard, Jesse."

The party of Lincoln does indeed have a lot of work to do. But no doubt many would've liked to have seen the president remind Rev. Jackson that the Republican party isn't the party that worked against the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments; it isn't the party that institutionalized segregation; it didn't establish poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting; it didn't enact Jim Crow laws or fight against anti-lynching legislation; it hasn't resisted helping black kids escape failing schools; and it hasn't claimed that shoveling trillions of dollars into ineffective government programs is the best evidence of a commitment to black advancement.

But it was precisely at this point that the president's speech hit its highest notes. He pointedly asked the crowd whether "the Democrat party take the African-American vote for granted?" He went on to ask whether it's "a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party? How is it possible to gain political leverage if one party is never forced to compete [for the black vote]? Have the traditional solutions of the Democrat party served the African-American community?"

These are questions no previous president or presidential candidate has asked. They deserve answers. The debate leading to the answers will be good for blacks and good for America.

Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Ready. Fire. Aim: NAACP Hypocricy

rickyd Founding Member

LOTTERY Founding Member

tirk im the lyrical jessie james

JSracing Founding Member

bayareatiger If it's too loud YOU'RE TOO OLD

tirk im the lyrical jessie james

dallastigers Founding Member

Share This Page