The Tea Party is Not Racist

[BeAChooser]

You lost me at "Dennis Prager".

Only proving how close minded you are.

 

[BeAChooser]

So they made the accusation of racism before getting the facts?

Yes, there are more facts. Perhaps it's time a few of them were discussed.

How about we discuss the Gladney case and the NAACP clearly favoring SEIU thugs who committed what looks like a racially motivated hate crime?

Or let's discuss Sherrod making a big thing about racial reconcilliation then proceding to attack Bush and republicans as racists in her speech?

Maybe she isn't quite as *reconcilliated* as she wants the public to now think?

Or shall we discuss the fact that congress may investigate Sherrod's hiring at the USDA, immediately after she received the Pigford Farms settlement? Here's representative Steve King (republican, Iowa) who is on the Agriculture Committee) talking about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5gRklaVG6U&feature=player_embedded

The Pigford Farms settlement, that started back in around 1995, the mid-nineties. Dan Glickman was Secretary of Agriculture under Bill Clinton. There were some allegations made that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers and had declined to or refused to provide them the same kind of programs that they may have provided had they been white, … snip … And in this case Dan Glickman stood up and told the world that the USDA had in fact, according to his opinion, discriminated against black farmers. That turned into a class action suit of which there was negotiated settlement and that negotiated settlement included allowing black farmers or those who wanted to be black farmers to file claims. There was a statute of limitations on that consent decree … snip … and around a billion dollars was spent and distributed to help compensate for the allegations of descrimination.

And I have sat with the individual who administered and dealt with most of that and talked to these black farmers, and also I had people from Iowa from my district, whom I know who kept files on this and were deployed down into the southern part of the United States to help settle this consent decree. And they came back and the highest percentage of ... , let's say the lowest percentage of the claims they said were fraud but they had to settle anyway was 75 percent. Some allege that 99% of this is fraud. We know that there were attorneys advocating within the black churches, especially in the South, telling people 'this is your 40 acres and a mule, you'll be compensated for the sins of the fathers of the people that are paying the taxes today'. In other words, compensated by the defendants of slave owners and everybody else for that matter.

And so here's … what this came out to be was and it [was] brought to my attention because on the Judiciary Committee there was a bill forward by Bobby Scott, African American democrat from Virginia, who wanted to and did effectively extend the statute of limitations for the Pickford Farms case, and in doing so open it up again. Now they first were talking about one to two thousand claims, and the number of claims went over 20,000, and even the President of the Black Farmers testified that there were only 18,000 black farmers in all of America, so what we are doing is paying every black farmer out of the borrowed US treasury because of something that one might consider to be I guess white guilt.

So yes, since you folks insist, let's keep talking about the Sherrod Case. Because Sherrod not only was an initiator of the Pigford Farms case, she received the largest award, so far, for her company, New Communities, Inc, which was a bankrupt commune-type land trust held by Sherrod and her husband. She got $13 million. She and her husband personally received $150,000 each to compensate them for “pain and suffering” and there was an unspecified amount paid to her for something called "forgiveness of debt".

Now don't you find it odd that just days after receiving this award she was hired by the Obama adminstration's USDA head, Tom Vilsack, who was even named as a defendant in the Pigford suit? Representative King does and says congress should investigate. Was this a shake down that Obama administration democrat's like Vilsack knowingly aided? And I hope Steve King also investigates the actions of FLAG, which Sherrod belonged to at the time, which appears to be an ACORN like organization to organize farmers. How deep does the corruption run, folks?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, what say you?

I say it's not the acts the organization does something about that make it racist ... it's the racist acts it doesn't. Like the Gladney case.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't think they are necessarily a racist organization, but they certainly have an open door policy for racists.

That is a lie. There are numerous examples of their confronting people that appeared to be racists in their ranks. We've posted numerous links to black members of the Tea Party who've said they've seen that happen. Why do you just ignore that?

But the fact remains that the wing-nuttery of the Left during the Bush administration wasn't nearly as embraced by the mainstream as the wing-nuttery of the Right is now.

Another falsehood. There were top ranked democrats essentially calling Bush Hitler and our soldiers goose stepping Nazi's in Congressional speeches.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My first objection would be the obvious one: No established, high-ranking members of the Democratic party engaged in such behavior, so the analogy falls woefully short. (I'm afraid clumsy attempts at jokes don't qualify.)

As we found out with Williams people don't really discriminate between clumsy jokes and legitimate threats when they're highly inappropriate. Granted Williams' case is quite different for a couple of reasons, the secret service doesn't take such jokes lightly (example linked in the article you read for that). I think the analogy stands, but otherwise you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree

 

[A'isha]

So, BAC, despite your earlier condemnation of Breitbart falsely accusing Sharrod of racism, you're now posting, in your usual oh-my-god-the-text-is-eating-my-eyes style, that maybe she's a racist after all (the ironclad evidence of which is that she apparently thinks the Bush Administration was less than stellar in its civil rights record) and is definitely a corrupt politican who got a settlement for falsely claiming she was discriminated against by the USDA, and therefore should be investigated.

I'm disappointed that your obsession with proving your side "right" at all costs is apparently driving you to now attack the actual victim in the Sharrod case.

And that obsession also made you miss the fact that no one is arguing that Gladney was injured at a Tea Party rally, and that those who injured him were arrested and charged. What's being pointed out to you is that he was not "brutally beaten by racist thugs" to the point where he had to be in a wheelchair afterwards, but instead was in a brawl whose cause apparently had more to do with his Tea Party politics than his race. And that brawl left him with no marks on his face, and while he had an injured elbow, he was perfectly capable of moving around and standing up and declining medical treatment and driving himself to the hospital much later.

In other words, Gladney got in a fight, and exaggerated both what happened and his injuries.

 

[johnny karate]

That is a lie. There are numerous examples of their confronting people that appeared to be racists in their ranks. We've posted numerous links to black members of the Tea Party who've said they've seen that happen. Why do you just ignore that?

No, it's most certainly not a lie. I've posted many examples of high-ranking established members of the the Tea Party who engaged in racist behavior. Granted, in most cases, they were immediately expelled (perhaps out of political expedience more than anything else). But in Mark Williams' case in particular, he's been saying racially inflammatory things for the better part of a year, and has only now been "expelled" from the Tea Party. (I put "expelled" in quotation marks because even though one Tea Party organization expelled him, I'm not aware he has been expelled from the Tea Party organization he actually represents.)

One has to wonder how and why these types of incidents keep cropping up.

And to your second point and question, I tend to ignore anecdotal evidence because it's anecdotal.

Another falsehood. There were top ranked democrats essentially calling Bush Hitler and our soldiers goose stepping Nazi's in Congressional speeches.

You seem to have lapsed in your penchant for heavily sourcing your claims.

 

[johnny karate]

As we found out with Williams people don't really discriminate between clumsy jokes and legitimate threats when they're highly inappropriate. Granted Williams' case is quite different for a couple of reasons, the secret service doesn't take such jokes lightly (example linked in the article you read for that). I think the analogy stands, but otherwise you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree

I won't agree to that.

But seriously, an offhand remark on a racy cable show is analogous to a premeditated racist screed on a blog? Youtube is full of clips of politicians and public figures putting their foots in their mouths. If that's going to be the standard, then the signal to noise ratio will render any discussion of this topic utterly meaningless.

 

[BeAChooser]

So, BAC, despite your earlier condemnation of Breitbart falsely accusing Sharrod of racism

I did not say that. I said that "the videotape excerpt released by Breitbart was out of context and incomplete, and that she was indeed relating a story about racial conciliation by her and it was actually a plea for more racial reconciliation." I said Breitbart needed to issue an apology for that reason … that he posted something knowingly or unknowingly (we still don't know which) out of context. Not because he accused her of racism. We still don't even know if he had the full speech.

As for why I'm now posting about additional statements that were in the speech, I was quite willing to simply drop this matter and move on. But some on your side (like you) insist on trying to use this matter … out of context … for your own political advantage. In that, you are no different than what you accuse Breitbart of doing, assuming he even had access to the full speech at the time he posted his original article like you now do.

What I'm doing now is noting the full context that you appear to want to ignore. That Sherrod doesn't appear to be quite as big a proponent of racial reconcilliation as the excerpts your side now wants to only focus on would suggest. Like I noted, immediately after calling for racial reconciliation, she turned around and accused republicans who are against health care of being racists. How else should we interpret this statement in the speech

I haven't seen such mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried resurfaced. Now we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn't do the stuff these republicans are doing because you have a black President.

but as a racist statement about republicans? And the audience loudly applauds it, proving that they harbor racist sentiments too. It is OUTRIGHT FALSE to accuse republicans with this wide of brush of being against Obamacare because Obama is black. And mind you, this is a government employee doing this. Here job is NOT to foster racist sentiments among black audiences as she appears to have done.

I'm disappointed that your obsession with proving your side "right" at all costs is apparently driving you to now attack the actual victim in the Sharrod case.

LOL! I'm disappointed with your side for not wanting to look at the full context of this issue but instead wanting to win by focusing only on a few of the statements and acts of Sherrod and the NAACP. She is not the victim you make her out to be and is talking about suing Breitbart. I'd actually like to see her do that because I don't think it would turn out quite the way she and your side imagine. Because, like I've pointed out, there is much more to this story.

And that obsession also made you miss the fact that no one is arguing that Gladney was injured at a Tea Party rally

Apparently, you missed what Juniversal wrote:

I have no sympathy for Gladney. He's a mediocre actor at best.

And then he linked an article that states this:

it's readily apparent that Gladney seems completely unhurt.

There are indeed people on your side of this issue claiming Gladney wasn't injured. Not injured at all.

What's being pointed out to you is that he was not "brutally beaten by racist thugs" to the point where he had to be in a wheelchair afterwards

You don't know that for a fact. Do you have access to the hospital records? No. Or the records of Gladney's personal physician? No. You are just spinning excuses now. Do you know the hospital records apparently include a trip to the pharmacy for pain killers? Would they prescribe prescription pain killers if he wasn't injured? Regardless of your answer, I suspect those records are going to be admitted as evidence by the prosecution at the upcoming trial of those SEIU thugs (yes, it is going to happen although your side may succeed in delaying that till after the November election). Bet the testimony of Gladney's wife and family who got to look at the bruises on his ribs and upper torso will be entered into evidence, too.

Bet they also enter into the record the fact that McCowan made public statements that he was there that night of his own accord, because he was an aging father yet was awarded workman's compensation for claimed injuries there. Isn't that against the law … getting workman's compensation for injuries sustained on your own time rather than on the job?

Bet they also enter into the record the fact that official SEIU statements said they sent no staff to the event, yet the SEIU was originally paying the criminal legal expenses for McCowan and Molens. Hmmmmmmmm. Wonder if the NAACP chipped in too.

but instead was in a brawl whose cause apparently had more to do with his Tea Party politics than his race.

If that's true, then why did McCowan immediately bring race into the issue during the initial attack? He admits doing that, although he claims (probably falsely) that he didn't use the N-word we've all come to know as the N-word, but instead just called Gladney a "negro". As for Gladney's politics, he was just a vendor. He was dressed as a vender. And do you know that earlier in the year there are photographs of him out selling Obama buttons? He wasn't political. It wasn't about politics, it was about about his race. It was racial hatred at someone the thugs perceived to be an "Uncle Tom" and traiter to "the cause". Just like the hatred expressed at that NAACP meeting I linked with a video. And if you can't see that, ANTPogo, you also have your head stuck where Juniversal's seems to be.

In other words, Gladney got in a fight, and exaggerated both what happened and his injuries.

Except the video taped evidence, all the witness statements, the police report, and the medical records will prove in court that you are busy spinning nothing but lies. To defend racists. Too bad we can't drag you into court and put you under oath before you say these things.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it's most certainly not a lie. I've posted many examples of high-ranking established members of the the Tea Party who engaged in racist behavior. Granted, in most cases, they were immediately expelled (perhaps out of political expedience more than anything else). But in Mark Williams' case in particular, he's been saying racially inflammatory things for the better part of a year, and has only now been "expelled" from the Tea Party. (I put "expelled" in quotation marks because even though one Tea Party organization expelled him, I'm not aware he has been expelled from the Tea Party organization he actually represents.)

Williams is a talk show host. And he's trying to get up there with Rush Limbaugh in the top listened to shows in the nation. I have to wonder if his history is that surprising at all considering he's certainly given off the impression he'd target just about any topic to cater to his audience and up his career before he considering what he's representing to an entire movement. Perhaps you could argue that this is no better than actually being racist, but I think there's a disconnect between he who tries to get any kind of attention, and the low tier nu bags that actually believe in the racism crusade.

Speaking of which he's resigning precisely because he agrees that his remarks have fueled these kinds of conceptions about the movement. Albeit his quite stubborn when it comes to apologizing for making his remarks.

I won't agree to that.

But seriously, an offhand remark on a racy cable show is analogous to a premeditated racist screed on a blog?

More appropriately people see statements like this out of context and then they assign a whole new meaning to it as a result, instead of focusing on the real issues that are taking place. That's pretty much the foundation of the point I was making.

Also I take the first line of that last one with lulz (in a good way)

 

[BeAChooser]

Granted, in most cases, they were immediately expelled

QED. Thanks for acknowledging exactly what I said.

And to your second point and question, I tend to ignore anecdotal evidence because it's anecdotal.

Show of hands. How many believe that is really jk's reason for ignoring the many statements of black Tea Party members?

You seem to have lapsed in your penchant for heavily sourcing your claims.

Since you insist ...

The late Senator Byrd, in March of 2005 gave a speech on the Senate floor comparing republican efforts to end a democrat filibuster of Bush's court nominees to Hitler's manipulations of the law (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003963.php ). On another occasion he compared the Bush media operation surrounding the Iraq war to that run by Herman Goering. True, these aren't examples of him calling Bush Hitler but they are still rather outrageous statements coming from democrat leadership.

But how about this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ike-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html

Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

And can you name any democrats in congress or the democrat party's leadership who condemned Congressman Ellison's statements?

Or this:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...created-bush-hitler-ads-during-2004-election/

Stunner… Pelosi’s Supporters and Allies Created Bush-Hitler Ads During 2004 Election

And that article notes that Pelosi also compared Tea Party members to Nazis.

Don't think for one minute there's not mountains of nuttery on the left.

 

[Juniversal]

You are correct. My mistake. There are indeed some white NAACP members and there have been since the organization's founding. It's charter does not say *no whites allowed*. But, tell us, what percentage of its' 500,000 plus membership would you say are white or even caucasian? Perhaps we can tell by looking at the Kansas City convention where the Tea Party was condemned? How many of the attendees were white?

There's a picture of the attendees here: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/07/naacp_convention_considers_res.html , listening to Michelle's Obama's address a large audience. There *might* be a white face or two in that group. Here are a whole bunch of other photos from the convention from the NAACP website: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1432467@N24/pool/show/ . Take a look at the photo taken from the back of the room when Michelle was speaking. Hundreds and hundreds of people in the audience and I frankly don't see more than 2 or 3 whites. I'd hazard that well over 99% of the attendees were black.

Now why would an organization that you appear to be implying *welcomes* whites have so few whites in it? Perhaps because it doesn't exactly welcome them? Because I sure don't think that only 1% or less of whites are racists and wouldn't want to join such a fine cause, do you? Whereas the Tea Party quite publically welcomes blacks and would like to see many more join, and even speak at their events. Because the agenda of the Tea Party, in contrast to that of the NAACP, isn't about race. Race is a distraction to the Tea Party, not the core cause. Making it far more likely that a racist would be attracted to an NAACP meeting than to a Tea Party.

Yes most members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are black. Any suprise there? As I said earlier I wouldn't expect an organization created to fight the disenfranchisment of blacks would attract many whites. Simply put white membership is so low because the organizations by design is about blacks. Hmm...I wonder why there's so few young people in the AARP?

And if you want to use pictures you'll see the Tea Party is basically lily white.

No, it is not. As I noted in post #104, a poll by CBS (a very leftist media outlet which wouldn't like to see a lot of blacks at Tea Party events) found that 1 percent of the party was black. Now that might not sound like a lot but it would require participation of about 10% of all blacks. Gallup concluded that "demographically, [Tea Party members] are generally representative of the public at large" because they found that 6% of the membership is black. And a CNN poll found that 2% of people who described themselves as "Tea Party Activists" were black. (And 10% were latino.) This doesn't sound at all unreasonable and would represent a far larger percentage of blacks than the percentage who didn't vote of Obama.

Wow. A whole 1%. *yawn*

Are the huge disparities caused by racism, however? I think not. I suggest that the disparities in income, education, etc, are the consequence of blacks subscribing to the victicrat and dependency mentality promoted by democrat leaders and a long string of racebaiting, black leaders the last 4 or 5 decades? The black community was making huge strides economically before the welfare state came along and made unwed babies and welfare a source of livelihood. I suggest the current situation of blacks is also the result of tolerating drugs and gangs in their neighborhoods, and tolerating those who demean blacks who work hard and excel in school. It's a consequence of blowing the current degree of racism out of proportion, of promoting reverse racism, and playing the race card at every turn (to such a degree that employers may now be leery of hiring black workers due the legal and government-related problems it can cause them). Try firing a black employee for cause without charges of racism being raised. It's a consequence of demeaning anyone in the black community who is not a liberal … of labeling successful conservatives like Larry Elder and even Colin Powell as "Uncle Toms". It's a consequence of betting on socialism rather than capitalism. Sorry, Juniversal, but I think that much of the disparity is now self-induced. And that's not a racist statement, just an observation of what appear to be the facts.

And what exactly prompted this diatribe on "black laziness"? I simply acknowledged there were disparities. I didn't inquire about the cause. Regardless I do believe institutionalized discrimination was the root insitgator of the "urban underclass". Do you honestly think that without welfare all would be well in the black community and the cumlative effects of 100's of years of poverty, economic dislocation and disenfranchisment would suddenly be reversed? Do you honestly think those on Welfare simply don't want to work? Also where's the statistics that show positive trends before welfare? Honestly i'm intrigued.

Most of your post proves how out of touch you are. I don't know the last time i've heard somebody use the term uncle in waking life (if ever). But i'll admitt I can't stand Larry Elder.

And so are the people bringing signs to Tea Party rallies that might be interpreted as racist. But that doesn't make the Tea Party any more racist than the NAACP because of this man. Maybe less so because Tea Party members have shown themselves willing to get in the face of idiots and ask them to leave. I don't see any evidence of NAACP members challenging people who call any successful conservative black or black who does not toe the line with their socialist, leftist agenda an "Uncle Tom" and traitor. Both organizations have idiots. It's just an unavoidable fact of life. So the NAACP has no right pointing fingers. That is totally hypocritical.

Yes most Tea partiers aren't racist. Their simply the epitome of "partisan hacks" who will disappear without a trace the moment a conervative enters office.

Since you appear to want to defend the attackers, let's go over the facts. The following was in the left-leaning Saint Louis Post Dispatch (the article has been scrubbed from their site although they've kept one report of their own reporter getting arrested that evening - http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=5489769 - as if that's more newsworthy) shortly after the incident:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...5420430FDF2036F08625760B00136BBC?OpenDocument

Honestly you just wasted your time creating that wall of text. I never defended anybody. I have no allegience to SEIU or condone any wrong doing. My contention was that Gladney was milking the confrontation and that there was nothing "brutal" or "vicious" about the attack.

The NAACP is a racist, violent, highly-partisan organization because they knowingly support racist, violent SEIU thugs like these two and even allow them to speak at NAACP sponsored events, where NAACP audiences clearly support what is the obvious racism they are displaying.

Since the NAACP is a racist organization, are the whites in these videos also racist? And I fail to see what's racist about a black SEIU member attacking a black conservative. Black on black racism??

As for Gladney walking around after the assault, he was probably in a state of shock at being accosted by men twice his size in the manner described above. His glasses were knocked off. He was hit in the face. He's holding his elbow in pain. Any more serious injuries (like internal ones) likely were only noticed once the adrenaline began to wear off. By the way, the hospital report is going to help convict those SEIU thugs too.

And despite the obvious lies in the SEIU's statement, Tagaris is still the New Media Director for the SEIU? Aren't you the least offended by this, Juniversal? Or do you wish to defend them doing that too?

I don't believe for a second Gladney was injured greatly. Mind you i'm not saying he wasn't injured at all. Bruised a litte? Maybe. But If he was beaten so badly that he needed a wheel chair and heavy sedation I gurantee there would be clear outward signs or at LEAST a limp.

And I supppose you didn't know who was standing next to the NAACP member you identified as an idiot for calling Gladney an Uncle Tom? None other than Elston McCowan. You want to hear him speak at that meeting? Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCAYipcuTAI "Elston McCowan, NAACP, others laugh at calling Kenneth Gladney the N word"

And here is some more video from that event which apparently was set up by the NAACP (since they are all standing behind a NAACP podium to speak) to defend and applaud the two SEIU thugs who attacked Gladney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEAX1dHVeqo&feature=related "Elston McCowan & Perry Molens Press Release 5.5.10 Part 2"

The host name is apparently Zaki Baruti (President of an organization called The Universal African Peoples Organization). From my understanding Zaki isn't even a member of the NAACP but simply served as the emcee. So are Mr. Baruti's words those of the Missouri NAACP? Not exactly.

Also Perry Molens (the second individual involved in the case) is white. Is he racist as well? Was it black and white ON black racism? Is the NAACP racist for supporting him as well? Also i'll ask again. How is a black man apparently attacking another black man racism?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is not that the Tea Party is racist. It's that they are the party of hating Obama. They welcome anyone who hates Obama, no matter why they hate him, whether it's race, conspiracies or "legitimate" reasons. If a thousand people hated Obama because he plays basketball as a hobby, they'd be welcome to the Tea Party.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes most members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are black.

Not just most. Almost all. And since you can't seem to provide a percentage, I guess we'll have to stand by my estimate of less than 1%.

And if you want to use pictures you'll see the Tea Party is basically lily white.

What I see are groups with considerable diversity. Of all colors. If you look between the the snake sign on the left side and the "kiss our astroturf" sign, you can see 3 blacks … in a sample numbering perhaps 40 or 50 people. That's 1-2% of the crowd, just like CBS and CNN said. And 1-2% of the crowd is equivalent to between 10-20% of black population. In the second photo I count at least 3 blacks in the first 35 people from the bottom. That's would be between 8 and 9 percent. That's almost consistent with the country's demographics … just like Gallup said. In fact, that's a greater percentage than Gallup claimed for the Tea Party. Beyond that distance, the race of people gets harder to tell, but you can certainly see many black faces in that crowd. So what's the problem? You don't you believe your own leftist media now, Juniversal? You don't believe the photos that you picked out?

Wow. A whole 1%. *yawn*

That 1% represents almost 10% of total black population. That's not bad considering that 95% of blacks voted for Obama in the last election. Now you really didn't expect the Tea Party to pull in many blacks who voted for Obama, did you? 90% of registered blacks have consistently voted for democrats in elections. So there being 10% (or more) of the black population in the Tea Party crowds is actually VERY impressive.

Quote:
Are the huge disparities caused by racism, however? I think not. I suggest that the disparities in income, education, etc, are the consequence of blacks subscribing to the victicrat and dependency mentality promoted by democrat leaders and a long string of racebaiting, black leaders the last 4 or 5 decades? The black community was making huge strides economically before the welfare state came along and made unwed babies and welfare a source of livelihood. I suggest the current situation of blacks is also the result of tolerating drugs and gangs in their neighborhoods, and tolerating those who demean blacks who work hard and excel in school. It's a consequence of blowing the current degree of racism out of proportion, of promoting reverse racism, and playing the race card at every turn (to such a degree that employers may now be leery of hiring black workers due the legal and government-related problems it can cause them). Try firing a black employee for cause without charges of racism being raised. It's a consequence of demeaning anyone in the black community who is not a liberal … of labeling successful conservatives like Larry Elder and even Colin Powell as "Uncle Toms". It's a consequence of betting on socialism rather than capitalism. Sorry, Juniversal, but I think that much of the disparity is now self-induced. And that's not a racist statement, just an observation of what appear to be the facts.

And what exactly prompted this diatribe on "black laziness"?

I didn't say or even once allude to "black laziness" in the above. I simply noted that on average blacks are the way liberal democrats like you made them over the last 4 to 5 decades. You made them into victims. You made them dependent . You kept them relatively uneducated (how else do you explain black public education failing so badly when democrats basically controlled the education system for the last 4-5 decades?). And you kept them feeling like they're being held down by racism (even now that a black man has been elected President in a mostly white country). So why did that come to your mind right off the bat? Looks to me like maybe YOU are the one with the problem here, Juniversal.

Do you honestly think that without welfare all would be well in the black community

Prior to LBJ's great society and welfare program, as I said, the black community (and whole country) was making big strides economically. The poverty rate for blacks in 1940 was 87% (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 ). The poverty rate for blacks in 1958 was over 58% (http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm ). Still high, but it had dropped nearly 30 percent in less than 2 decades thanks to the wonders of capitalism and improving attitudes about race amongst people in this country. And it was still headed downward. In fact, between 1958 and 1964 when the WOP finally began, the black poverty rate dropped to under 50%, an 8% drop in just 6 years. With no massive government intrusion.

But what happened after the government started throwing trillions of dollars at blacks to make them victims and dependent, and create feelings of being entitled? In the first few years, the *official* poverty rate dropped even faster than before (afterall, people were being taken off welfare with government checks … not because the real poverty of not having a job, education etc had been solved). But soon the rate of decrease began to level off. And finally around 1970, just 6 years after the WOP started with welfare spending climbing ever higher and higher, it stopped falling. It never dropped much below the 30% it was in 1970 through the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, in 2008, despite almost 50 years and over ten trillion dollars in spending, the black poverty rate was still at nearly 25%. It dropped a whole 5 percent in nearly 4 decades of MASSIVE welfare spending. And I think you can rest the blame for that squarely on democrat policies.

The damage has been done by 4 to 5 decades and over ten trillion dollars in welfare assistance and victimhood. It will probably take decades to undo the damage you liberals have done to the black psyche, their self-motivation, and self image. Worst of all, you've turned most of them into socialists. A tragedy.

Also where's the statistics that show positive trends before welfare? Honestly i'm intrigued.

Well then re-read to last several paragraphs and for once try to do what democrats never seem able to do … learn from history.

I don't know the last time i've heard somebody use the term uncle in waking life (if ever).

Well I guess you just haven't been attending NAACP meetings.

Honestly you just wasted your time creating that wall of text. I never defended anybody.

Show of hands, folks. How many think Juniversal wasn't defending "anybody" in attacking Gladney in the manner he did?

Since the NAACP is a racist organization, are the whites in these videos also racist?

Yes. Haven't I made that clear enough? If they are supporting thugs (who were black and white) singling out and attacking a man because he's black, then they are racists.

And I fail to see what's racist about a black SEIU member attacking a black conservative. Black on black racism??

Well first of all, one of the SEIU thugs was white. Second, you don't think black on black racism is possible? You don't think the term "Uncle Tom" has anything to do with race? Third, I've already pointed out that Gladney is not a conservative. Just months before the incident he was out selling pro-Obama buttons.

I don't believe for a second Gladney was injured greatly.

But you don't actually know that. You certainly don't know if the doctors advised him to stay off his feet for a few days due to a pain and possible back injury. I have a suspicion that when the trial of the thugs occurs, the medical records will explain that wheelchair. But irregardless, the video and witnesses clearly prove that Gladney was thrown to the ground and "being whaled on" by the SEIU thugs. The intent to cause grevious bodily harm was certainly there.

The host name is apparently Zaki Baruti (President of an organization called The Universal African Peoples Organization). From my understanding Zaki isn't even a member of the NAACP but simply served as the emcee.

Whether he is an NAACP member or not (do you have a source to prove he isn't), it looks like the NAACP had no problem with Mr Baruti standing behind an NAACP podium saying those words? There were numerous NAACP officials there and not one got up and tried to stop him. And numerous NAACP officials spoke that day and denounced Gladney and supported the thugs, even though facts already known at the time proved the thugs were lying. And Baruti is a liar too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5qZ9emllSA&feature=player_embedded#! . Just so you know, there is no evidence whatsoever that Gladney was selling the buttons Mr Baruti via McCowans/Molens claimed. The just the word of some proven liars. Also, The person who sold the buttons to Gladney for resale has stated that he did not send him any buttons like those Baruti described.

Also Perry Molens (the second individual involved in the case) is white. Is he racist as well?

You don't think he is?

How is a black man apparently attacking another black man racism?

So Gladney being called the N-word at the beginning of the incident is indicative of nothing?

Just keep digging your hole deeper, Juniversal.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.ajc.com/news/sherrod-offered-special-deputy-577877.html

Sherrod offered special deputy director position

… snip …

Sherrod said Saturday that she had yet to decide whether to accept a position as deputy director of the USDA’s Office of Advocacy and Outreach.

… snip …

Vilsack described the role to Sherrod as one that would, among other things, help to end discriminatory practices the department has been accused of concerning the settlement of a 1997 black farmers' discrimination suit.

So Sherrod is being offered a GS-13(perhaps?) position in an office whose stated goal is to "increase access to programs of the Department, and increase the viability and profitability of small farms and ranches, beginning farmers or ranchers, and socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers"? Was it under the auspices of this office that the Pigford suit was settled with her? If you ask me, it sounds like this offer is all the more reason to investigate her and Vilsack, if it's true that 75-99% of the claims paid out in that suit were fraudulant.

And what are her qualifications for such an important job? Just curious. She has a degree in community development but big deal. She failed at farming (a communal … or should we say communist … one). She was a community organizer for many years (belonging to an ACORN like organization) and helped sue the government. What is it that she actually brings to the job … besides working for the government some of her life, believing in "social justice", and apparently harboring some resentment at republicans and whites?

And frankly, I don't see why they can't just give her her old job back if we have to give her any job back. It's not like they've hired anyone for the position yet, have they? Something else is going on here folks. Wonder if she threatened to squeal about something besides Breitbart's mention of her? Why was the Whitehouse so eager originally to get rid of her? Imagine, she said (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_usda_racism_resignation ) she was on the road when the deputy undersecretary for Rural Development called and told her to pull over, and then told her to submit her resignation on her Blackberry because the White House wanted her out immediately? Was there another reason they were so quick to fire her? If you were Obama or Vilsack, would you have reacted so quickly if she was a model and very valuable employee who you'd have liked to keep?

 

[Juniversal]

Not just most. Almost all. And since you can't seem to provide a percentage, I guess we'll have to stand by my estimate of less than 1%.

Why not. 1% it is.

What I see are groups with considerable diversity. Of all colors. If you look between the the snake sign on the left side and the "kiss our astroturf" sign, you can see 3 blacks … in a sample numbering perhaps 40 or 50 people. That's 1-2% of the crowd, just like CBS and CNN said. And 1-2% of the crowd is equivalent to between 10-20% of black population. In the second photo I count at least 3 blacks in the first 35 people from the bottom. That's would be between 8 and 9 percent. That's almost consistent with the country's demographics … just like Gallup said. In fact, that's a greater percentage than Gallup claimed for the Tea Party. Beyond that distance, the race of people gets harder to tell, but you can certainly see many black faces in that crowd. So what's the problem? You don't you believe your own leftist media now, Juniversal? You don't believe the photos that you picked out?

Your idea of "considerable diversity" is laughable. Since when was two black faces considerable?

I didn't say or even once allude to "black laziness" in the above. I simply noted that on average blacks are the way liberal democrats like you made them over the last 4 to 5 decades. You made them into victims. You made them dependent . You kept them relatively uneducated (how else do you explain black public education failing so badly when democrats basically controlled the education system for the last 4-5 decades?). And you kept them feeling like they're being held down by racism (even now that a black man has been elected President in a mostly white country). So why did that come to your mind right off the bat? Looks to me like maybe YOU are the one with the problem here, Juniversal.

Well considering i'm black I can honestly say I did no such thing. Don't let my speaking in the 3rd person fool you. Also It's not "liberals" that create failure in schools. It's unstable homes, lack of ambition and living without a clear goal in life. Not everything is a matter of liberal vs. conservative BAC. And the black public education system has never succeeded. It has never entered the realm of success for any failure to be attributal to any "liberal policies". I'd say the failure is moreso a social and cultural issue than a political one.

Also I don't believe it's any liberal policies or Democrats that cause blacks to feel victimized. It's simply a matter of being ultra sensitive to any hint of discrimination or racism thanks to it being so deeply ingrained into the American psyche and culture. Afterall it did shape our society and social heirachy. I would say having to agressively fight for equal rights in the face of opposition had a larger role in creating the victim status as opposed to Democrats or Liberals making us believe we were vicitms. You better believe if conservatives ruled the roost black folks wouldn't suddenly stop sub-conciously looking for racism.

Prior to LBJ's great society and welfare program, as I said, the black community (and whole country) was making big strides economically. The poverty rate for blacks in 1940 was 87% (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 ). The poverty rate for blacks in 1958 was over 58% (http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm ). Still high, but it had dropped nearly 30 percent in less than 2 decades thanks to the wonders of capitalism and improving attitudes about race amongst people in this country. And it was still headed downward. In fact, between 1958 and 1964 when the WOP finally began, the black poverty rate dropped to under 50%, an 8% drop in just 6 years. With no massive government intrusion.

But what happened after the government started throwing trillions of dollars at blacks to make them victims and dependent, and create feelings of being entitled? In the first few years, the *official* poverty rate dropped even faster than before (afterall, people were being taken off welfare with government checks … not because the real poverty of not having a job, education etc had been solved). But soon the rate of decrease began to level off. And finally around 1970, just 6 years after the WOP started with welfare spending climbing ever higher and higher, it stopped falling. It never dropped much below the 30% it was in 1970 through the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, in 2008, despite almost 50 years and over ten trillion dollars in spending, the black poverty rate was still at nearly 25%. It dropped a whole 5 percent in nearly 4 decades of MASSIVE welfare spending. And I think you can rest the blame for that squarely on democrat policies.

The damage has been done by 4 to 5 decades and over ten trillion dollars in welfare assistance and victimhood. It will probably take decades to undo the damage you liberals have done to the black psyche, their self-motivation, and self image. Worst of all, you've turned most of them into socialists. A tragedy.

I don't know if it's paticularly realistic to believe the poverty rate would have continued to decline at a steady rate if it wasn't for welfare programs. The structural segregation and poverty the black community suffers alone works as a road block to completely overcoming poverty as a whole.

And why do you think lack of self motivation is some fault of liberal politicians? You seem to think black people have no self control or a mind of their own. You act as if liberal politicians created welfare in the hopes of keeping blacks from succeeding.

Yes. Haven't I made that clear enough? If they are supporting thugs (who were black and white) singling out and attacking a man because he's black, then they are racists.

Umm..no. Attacking someone because of their political allegiances doesn't make one racist.

Well first of all, one of the SEIU thugs was white. Second, you don't think black on black racism is possible? You don't think the term "Uncle Tom" has anything to do with race? Third, I've already pointed out that Gladney is not a conservative. Just months before the incident he was out selling pro-Obama buttons.

Yes one can be racist against ones own race. But again attacking someone because of their political allegiances (if Gladneys story is to be believed) is not racism. And Gladney selling Obama buttons is not proof that he's not a conservative. It seems you have some great knowledge none of these conservative blogs have because most label him a "black conservative".

But you don't actually know that. You certainly don't know if the doctors advised him to stay off his feet for a few days due to a pain and possible back injury. I have a suspicion that when the trial of the thugs occurs, the medical records will explain that wheelchair. But irregardless, the video and witnesses clearly prove that Gladney was thrown to the ground and "being whaled on" by the SEIU thugs. The intent to cause grevious bodily harm was certainly there.

Beaten badly enough to be heavily sedated and placed in a wheel chair but didn't have nary a scratch or limp during the confrontation?

Whether he is an NAACP member or not (do you have a source to prove he isn't), it looks like the NAACP had no problem with Mr Baruti standing behind an NAACP podium saying those words? There were numerous NAACP officials there and not one got up and tried to stop him. And numerous NAACP officials spoke that day and denounced Gladney and supported the thugs, even though facts already known at the time proved the thugs were lying. And Baruti is a liar too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5qZ9emllSA&feature=player_embedded#! . Just so you know, there is no evidence whatsoever that Gladney was selling the buttons Mr Baruti via McCowans/Molens claimed. The just the word of some proven liars. Also, The person who sold the buttons to Gladney for resale has stated that he did not send him any buttons like those Baruti described.

This conservative blog actually has a nice dissection of the conference. Pretty sensationlist title though lol.

You don't think he is?

Nope.

So Gladney being called the N-word at the beginning of the incident is indicative of nothing?

He claims he called him a negro.

 

[Neally]

The problem is not that the Tea Party is racist. It's that they are the party of hating Obama.

Wrong. The original protest had nothing to do with Obama. It was about a soda tax in NY. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement. Your claim is the equivalent of saying all the problem with all the anti war protests in the past few years is not that they were anti war, but that they were about hating Bush.

Obama happens to be pushing a lot of policies that they don't like, but so do other politicians on the state and federal level.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wrong. The original protest had nothing to do with Obama.

Right, but today, and for the last year, it has been about hating Obama. This is why they have not denounced the racists, and racist groups that have allied with them, up until now. If it was about taxes, then they would've stopped protesting because most of them had their taxes lowered by Obama last year.

 

[Neally]

Right, but today, and for the last year, it has been about hating Obama. This is why they have not denounced the racists, and racist groups that have allied with them, up until now.

Wrong again. "Most Tea Party activities in 2010 have been focused on opposing the efforts (supported by the Obama Administration) to enact reforms to health insurance and health care delivery, and on recruiting, nominating, and supporting candidates for upcoming state and national elections" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests None of the rallies were organized for the purpose of hating Obama.

The TP has in fact denounced racists and kicked them out of leadership positions. "The National Tea Party Federation sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) denouncing racism and requesting that the CBC supply any evidence of the alleged events at the protest on March 20, 2010"

 

[thaiboxerken]

While the "official" reasons for protesting Obama were about health care, it's pretty obvious that they were really about hating Obama. With the Birthers, and those claiming there will be death panels, it would be intellecutally dishonest to say that the protests were really about health care.

The National Tea Party Federation is only one head of the hydra called the Tea Party. They still have allied with Storm Front and other groups. There is plenty of in-fighting when it comes to racism on this.