Merged Andrew Breitbart has died

[Roadtoad]

Well, I think you are wrong about both those points. Or maybe not, maybe they tried to teach their grandkids.

And got laughed at.

NAACP is just another corrupt, self serving organization today. But it's one BASED on racism.

Yes, that's correct. It's based on WHITE racism, the one that holds that the White Man is superior to all. It's a fallacy, long disproved. That after 400 years in America, the NAACP still has to fight this is sad.

Most organizations are self-serving. The question is, what's the record? I'd be willing to stack the NAACP's record against anyone else.

 

[mhaze]

Considering where they have spent the last 400 years, don't you think there's a reason for such a charter?

Quite honestly, what are you willing to do to fulfill the stated goal of the NAACP, which is racial EQUALITY, and thereby negate the need for them? Personally if I had to guess, I'd think most people would welcome their money being able to go elsewhere, rather than having to fight something we should have gotten straight over two centuries ago.

???

I'm not willing to do anything to help an organization that is blatantly racist such as the NAACP. What you are asking is whether there is a use for a blatantly racist organization to "protect it's own" in a hostile, racist environment.

Those are not the conditions today. NAACP is outdated, outmoded, simply should be disbanded. I suspect it serves today as just a political advocacy thing for it's members. "More stuff for us". But that really wasn't the original charter, was it?

Regardless of that, criticism of them, when and if they get misguided into political advocacy or strident demands not in accordance with reality, can only be helpful. As such, I view Brietbart's attacks on them as good...not bad...

 

[Roadtoad]

???

I'm not willing to do anything to help an organization that is blatantly racist such as the NAACP. What you are asking is whether there is a use for a blatantly racist organization to "protect it's own" in a hostile, racist environment.

Those are not the conditions today. NAACP is outdated, outmoded, simply should be disbanded. I suspect it serves today as just a political advocacy thing for it's members. "More stuff for us". But that really wasn't the original charter, was it?

Regardless of that, criticism of them, when and if they get misguided into political advocacy or strident demands not in accordance with reality, can only be helpful. As such, I view Brietbart's attacks on them as good...not bad...

Are you really that ignorant of the conditions that existed at the time W. E. B. Dubois founded the NAACP? Are you really that ignorant of Plessy V. Ferguson? Are you truly blind to the lynchings that took place across the country in the wake of the Civil War? Are you that blind to the abuses of people of African ancestry, most of which had been in place for at least two centuries before these people said, "Enough," and started fighting back? The riots in Watts, Newark, Detroit, and across the country had long been simmering, and the only people who were surprised by the explosion of violence in the 60's were the racists and abusers who had been trying to keep their foot on these people's necks.

Are you really that blind? The NAACP was one of the most moderating influences during that time, and probably one of the few that managed to help contain things before they got even worse. And they'd been fighting racism far longer than most other organizations.

What next? Are you going to tell us that Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong, too? That they should be shut down?

 

[mhaze]

Are you really that ignorant of the conditions that existed at the time W. E. B. Dubois founded the NAACP? Are you really that ignorant of Plessy V. Ferguson? Are you truly blind to the lynchings that took place across the country in the wake of the Civil War? Are you that blind to the abuses of people of African ancestry, most of which had been in place for at least two centuries before these people said, "Enough," and started fighting back? The riots in Watts, Newark, Detroit, and across the country had long been simmering, and the only people who were surprised by the explosion of violence in the 60's were the racists and abusers who had been trying to keep their foot on these people's necks.

Are you really that blind? The NAACP was one of the most moderating influences during that time, and probably one of the few that managed to help contain things before they got even worse. And they'd been fighting racism far longer than most other organizations.

What next? Are you going to tell us that Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong, too? That they should be shut down?

LOL, I had to go check to be sure.

YEP.

It's 2012. So if NAACP, or you, or Lefty, or anyone, try to act like it's 1956, or 1968, you know, people are going to smirk a bit....

They do not stand on some hallowed ground because of their past history. They are subject to criticism with respect to their actions and attitude today, just like everyone else.

Tell ya what. Let's argue the reverse case. They cannot be criticized because of their past history of combating racism. Fine. Then the Republicans can never be criticized because they have an exemplary history of combating racism. And that's the message. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back, twice as hard.

 

[Mumbles]

Well, I think you are wrong about both those points. Or maybe not, maybe they tried to teach their grandkids.

And got laughed at.

NAACP is just another corrupt, self serving organization today. But it's one BASED on racism.

Uh huh. So why, then, did Breitbart have to repeatedly lie about them? If they're so evil and racist, couldn't he have found actual things that they've done to report on?

 

[Ziggurat]

Uh huh. So why, then, did Breitbart have to repeatedly lie about them?

He didn't. But the NAACP did lie about tea party protesters.

 

[RandFan]

Uh huh. So why, then, did Breitbart have to repeatedly lie about them? If they're so evil and racist, couldn't he have found actual things that they've done to report on?

You would think. Guess you have to work with what you got. Does the truth really matter though?

 

[Mumbles]

He didn't.

I already demonstrated that he did, back in post #373.

But the NAACP did lie about tea party protesters.

This is also false, since the NAACP highlighted specific examples of racism within the Tea Party when they asked the group to repudiate them. And the fact that Tea Party Express spokesman Mark Williams wrote an incredibly racist reply to the NAACP's request doesn't help matters.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is also false, since the NAACP highlighted specific examples of racism within the Tea Party when they asked the group to repudiate them.

They also made specific accusations which were false. And which you are evidently either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.

 

[Roadtoad]

They also made specific accusations which were false. And which you are evidently either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.

I'll confess that I didn't hear of their specific accusations. Can you provide those?

 

[Mumbles]

They also made specific accusations which were false. And which you are evidently either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.

And as I told Mhaze, I am not impressed when people use vague accusations to distract from Breitbart's long history of lying in order to harm innocent people.

 

[dc1971]

They also made specific accusations which were false. And which you are evidently either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.

Mumbles gave an example. Where is yours?

 

[dc1971]

They also made specific accusations which were false. And which you are evidently either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.

Okay, two can play this game... which accusations were false?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll confess that I didn't hear of their specific accusations. Can you provide those?

There was a protest during the Obamacare days where tea party protesters were accused of calling some black congressmen the n-word and spitting on one of them. Here's an example story:
http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/tea-party-protesters-shout-******-and-spit-on-lawmaker
The NAACP stood behind those accusations. The problem is, it never happened. Protesters yelled, but there's no evidence that anyone used that word (and there were plenty of people taking video). And Cleaver, who originally claimed to have been spat upon, later backtracked.

 

[RandFan]

Sherrod still harmed...

...Sherrod resigned under pressure from her job in Georgia at the U.S. Department of Agriculture after Breitbart posted an edited video of her supposedly making racist remarks at an NAACP event. It was later revealed that the speech was about racial reconciliation. As a result of the widespread fallout, Sherrod sued Breitbart, one of his employees and an unnamed defendant for defamation and emotional stress.

Will Breitbart's defenders step up to the plate and admit that what Breitbart did harmed Sherrod?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/injury

source

A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest.

 

[leftysergeant]

Protesters yelled, but there's no evidence that anyone used that word (and there were plenty of people taking video). And Cleaver, who originally claimed to have been spat upon, later backtracked.

He was surrounded by shrieking monkeys whom he could rightly expect might turn physically violent at any minute, and you expect him not to think that his life was in danger?

If I found myself surrounded by a mob of slimeballs like that on my way to a rally, they would be talking to the narrow end of a P 38.

Got any more like that stashed in your undies?

 

[tyr_13]

There's a difference between making criticisms based on information that turns out to be false, and standing by an editing that is made to support a claim one already knows to be false.

There's also more than one report that the NAACP is using of course.

 

[leftysergeant]

They do not stand on some hallowed ground because of their past history. They are subject to criticism with respect to their actions and attitude today, just like everyone else.

Cow cookies. The Ku Klux Krap and the Nazis are still killing peoiple in an effort to suppress the civil rights of non-whites. They are harrassing people on YouTube and organizing and promulgating their filth everywhere.

When the last of those useless critters dies, when all working men and women are treated with the respect they deserve, when we all realize that we have to work together to redress the ecconomic injustices that the greedy have worked on this country we will have no further need for the NAACP.

That slimeballs like Don Black do not hang themselves in shame tells me we still need the NAACP.

Then the Republicans can never be criticized because they have an exemplary history of combating racism. And that's the message. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back, twice as hard.

Horse feathers. Nixon. Southern Strategy.

FAIL.

 

[dc1971]

There was a protest during the Obamacare days where tea party protesters were accused of calling some black congressmen the n-word and spitting on one of them. Here's an example story:
http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/tea-party-protesters-shout-******-and-spit-on-lawmaker
The NAACP stood behind those accusations. The problem is, it never happened. Protesters yelled, but there's no evidence that anyone used that word (and there were plenty of people taking video). And Cleaver, who originally claimed to have been spat upon, later backtracked.

They're not racist, eh? Not a single one of 'em?

Why don't you watch this...



...and stop wasting time here??

 

[Roadtoad]

MHaze, please Google "The Southern Manifesto" and read it. Then get back to us about how "unnecessary" the NAACP is.