• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush and NAACP

Patrick said:


That was a polite lie to avoid saying the truth, viz., that Bush had no intention, and should have no intention of going before a group whose leaders had defamed him and the republican party.
Click to expand...

Patrick says: BUSH LIES

Thank you.
 
So can we include JJ with The Fool on the list of those who heartily approve of racist organizations as long as they are the 'right kind' of racists?
 
crimresearch said:
So can we include JJ with The Fool on the list of those who heartily approve of racist organizations as long as they are the 'right kind' of racists?
Click to expand...

That's entirely false of you, and shows that you are negligient and haven't done your homework, that you're simply lying outright, or that you are ignorant of logic.

If, in fact, Bush lied (or his campaign staff lied, which is something else, really, and more like what I expect lied), then they lied. Either they did or they didn't. It appears that there is at least a weak case to suggest that they may have.

The fact that they may have lied says nothing about the organization they lied to. Your suggestion otherwise can only arise from ignorance, malice, or attempted extortion.

So, which are you, a liar, an extortionist, or ignorant?

You will note that it was Patrick, not I, who stated that the rejection was in fact a lie.

If you are upset by that, why don't you discuss it with Patrick?
 
The only lie here is this one:

"The fact that they may have lied says nothing about the organization they lied to. Your suggestion otherwise can only arise from ignorance, malice, or attempted extortion. "

The fact is, I never said any such thing. So it 'arises' from your pure fabrication of it.
At no time did I say that Bush's untruthful excuse for not going 'said anything' about the NAACP

The idea that the NAACP/BET is a racist organization, which supports racist behavior, is fully supported by the facts I cited earlier, and is not derived from anything to do with the refusal to speak there, and certainly not from the owrding of said refusal.

You are conflating two different issues in order to to forge a suggestion that I never made, and fraudulently claim it as mine.

That reveals all I need to know about your honesty.

And you are still dodging the question as to whether it is OK for the NAACP/BET to promote racist stereotypes against other minorities.

I'll take that tactic as speaking volumes about you as well.
 
The NAACP is a racist organization. AIM is a racist organization. Asian-American student clubs are racist organizations. The KKK is a racist organization. Why?

Because they tend to favor one race over all others. They make policy decisions in terms of race.
 
Originally posted by Lost Angeles:
"The NAACP is a racist organization. AIM is a racist organization. Asian-American student clubs are racist organizations. The KKK is a racist organization. Why?

Because they tend to favor one race over all others. They make policy decisions in terms of race."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sort of ( we'll not quibble over the dictionary definition of racist), but for the purposes of our discussion here, shouldn't it be noted that AIM doesn't put forth mass propaganda ridiculing other races as inferior, while the Klan and BET do?

The actions that I've attended with members of AIM didn't include the sort of rhetoric that I've come to expect from the NAACP leadership.

So if it is a given that no Republican president would meet with a group whom he felt was going to disadvantage him politically, shouldn't we still be taking a look behind the curtain at the people operating the NAACP?
If they were merely benignly opposed to Republicans, that would be one thing, but how do progressive activists claim the moral high ground with baggage like BET and Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP hanging around?
 
crimresearch said:
The only lie here is this one:

"The fact that they may have lied says nothing about the organization they lied to. Your suggestion otherwise can only arise from ignorance, malice, or attempted extortion. "

The fact is, I never said any such thing. So it 'arises' from your pure fabrication of it.
At no time did I say that Bush's untruthful excuse for not going 'said anything' about the NAACP.


You're really confused or troubled or something, aren't you? I replied to Patrick. Patrick said that Bush or his campaign lied to the NAACP. I didn't. Are you Patrick, are you so incompetant as to be so confused, or are you trying to confuse the issue of what I said so that you can be a bully and try to pick a fight?

Please answer clearly and without evasion.

For the record, I quote PATRICK. Not you, but PATRICK as saying the following:

Originally posted by Patrick


That was a polite lie to avoid saying the truth, viz., that Bush had no intention, and should have no intention of going before a group whose leaders had defamed him and the republican party.

---
That quote is clearly in evidence in my first article in this part of the thread.

Your own offense is in the illicit attack that you made on me, in which you accused me of a federal crime, to wit, "heartily approve of racist organizations...", when you have no such evidence at hand. I need not either approve or disapprove of the NAACP in order to note that Patrick said that Bush or his campaign lied to them.

I have taken no position on the NAACP at all, only on the response from the Bush campaign. It is, therefore, completely illicit, misleading and unethical to assume any position whatsoever on my part regarding the NAACP.

No matter what the NAACP is, the question is of Bush or his campaign lying to the NAACP.

You could, for purposes of this discussion, replace the NAACP with a known set of avowed racists like the KKK, and the same comments would hold. You could also replace it with any known beneficent organization, let's say the Shriners, and the argument would still hold.

The question is not regarding the organization lied to, it could be any organization, the point is that they were, according to Patrick, lied to. If you want to dispute that, address your complaints to Patrick.



The idea that the NAACP/BET is a racist organization, which supports racist behavior, is fully supported by the facts I cited earlier, and is not derived from anything to do with the refusal to speak there, and certainly not from the owrding of said refusal.


Whose position are you disputing? If you think that you are disputing this issue, please discuss it with someone who wishes to discuss it. I've taken precisely no position whatsoever on the NAACP, positive, negative, or even indifferent.

Given your bullying demands, I'm not going to take any position on this, simply because you don't deserve one. In my opinion, all that you deserve is to have your unethical, empty rhetoric shown for the weakly established set of extractions from context, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies that it is.


You are conflating two different issues in order to to forge a suggestion that I never made, and fraudulently claim it as mine.


Perhaps you should read what I've written, and to whom, before you make such a serious allegation of misconduct on my part.

I require you to retract your accusation, and to cease and desist with any further accusations.


That reveals all I need to know about your honesty.



Ditto for that false accusation.


And you are still dodging the question as to whether it is OK for the NAACP/BET to promote racist stereotypes against other minorities.


I have taken no position on that. I need no position on that in order to notice the statement that Patrick has made about Bush or his campaign.


I'll take that tactic as speaking volumes about you as well.
Click to expand...
In other words, either I have to argue something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or you'll try to bully me. You're nothing but a weakkneed, jibbering would-be verbal extortionist.

I will not take any position on the NAACP here, simply because you attempt to unethically bully me into doing so. I will not be bullied into any position by your illicit, unethical demands.

If you would bother to research your opponents, you would know the crass, hideous untruth of your accusations, however it's clear from your actions that you are either too negligent or too unethical to bother with even learning the facts, as your confusion above demonstrates.
 
You will note that it was Patrick, not I, who stated that the rejection was in fact a lie.

Although technically a lie is a lie, you are avoiding the fact that there is a huge difference between social lies of the kind told all the time (like when you ask a girl out and she says she's previously engaged, instead of saying you are an ugly slime and she'd rather be dead than be seen with you anywhere) and a lie of a kind that for example represents an attempt to deceive with great negative consequences. EVERYBODY (except maybe you) understands perfectly well why Bush justifiably didn't go, and that his statement was an attempt to uphold the precepts of PC civility, which require that black race-card opportunists be given a free pass in situations where anyone else would be properly told off.
 
crimresearch said:
but how do progressive activists claim the moral high ground with baggage like BET and Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP hanging around?
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask one, instead of trying to bully a middle of the road, slightly libertarian moderate?
 
Here is the entire text of JJ's 'reply to Patrick', which 'wasn't even addressed to me':

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crimresearch
So can we include JJ with The Fool on the list of those who heartily approve of racist organizations as long as they are the 'right kind' of racists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's entirely false of you, and shows that you are negligient and haven't done your homework, that you're simply lying outright, or that you are ignorant of logic.

If, in fact, Bush lied (or his campaign staff lied, which is something else, really, and more like what I expect lied), then they lied. Either they did or they didn't. It appears that there is at least a weak case to suggest that they may have.

The fact that they may have lied says nothing about the organization they lied to. Your suggestion otherwise can only arise from ignorance, malice, or attempted extortion.

So, which are you, a liar, an extortionist, or ignorant?

You will note that it was Patrick, not I, who stated that the rejection was in fact a lie.

If you are upset by that, why don't you discuss it with Patrick?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was addressed to Patrick, and not me, why did you put my name in the quoted section, and then tell me to take it up with Patrick?

edited to add:

Chirp....chirp...chirp...

OK, you and Manifesto have fun with your hatemongering trolling, I've caught you both in enough fabricated material ( and given you both enough rope to either clear or hang yourselves with) to qualify for ignore.
 
crimresearch said:
Here is the entire text of JJ's 'reply to Patrick', which 'wasn't even addressed to me':

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crimresearch
So can we include JJ with The Fool on the list of those who heartily approve of racist organizations as long as they are the 'right kind' of racists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, silly, that's my reply to YOU, who replied to my comment to PATRICK.

The evidence is clear to anyone who scrolls up.

You posted the words that you are quoting as saying, did you not? If not, why are they visible in this thread as coming from you? Are you planning on running back and editing the article now?


If it was addressed to Patrick, and not me, why did you put my name in the quoted section, and then tell me to take it up with Patrick?


Your response is, well, beyond lame. The original post that provolked your completely illicit set of ad-hominem attacks on me is, was, and will remain to be addressed to something Patrick said, not something you said.

You cut in with a completely illicit accusation, got yourself involved in a stunningly ignorant fashion, and now you're objecting that I quoted your infamy while defending myself from your pathetically illicit accusations.

It is simply disingenious of you to go later in the thread, after you have invaded it illicitly with your unwarranted attack on me, to complain that you got yourself involved. Your illicit response, which I quote:
--
So can we include JJ with The Fool on the list of those who heartily approve of racist organizations as long as they are the 'right kind' of racists?
---
Is how you got yourself involved.

That's where you butted in with a completely unsubstantiated, illicit attack. Those are your words, in reply to my comment to Patrick. I did not invite you to participate, you chose of your own volition to type that illicit, false accusation.

So then we got into your unethical conduct on this thread. That is where we are now, and it's entirely due to your illicit, offensive behavior.


Or are you simply unable to deal in truth when derailing a productive thread?
Click to expand...

Well, I have no way of knowing at this point if you're dishonest or simply so incompetent as to see that my original point, the one that you lept upon and accused me of situational ethics and racism over, was addressed just as I have honestly said, to Patrick.

The facts are trivially available for all to view, and your claims are simply at best illicit, and perhaps worse.

Once more, you claimed that I was supporting racist organizations, because I pointed out that Patrick had said that either Bush or his campaign had lied.

Your claim is at best utterly preposterious and ignorant.

Your repeated confusion, or perhaps attempt to create confusion, over who replied to what ,is at best ignorant. I suspect you of attempting to be a bully, but you're so, so bad at it...
 
crimresearch said:
OK, you and Manifesto have fun with your hatemongering trolling, I've caught you both in enough fabricated material ( and given you both enough rope to either clear or hang yourselves with) to qualify for ignore.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are too much of a coward to deal with your own raging ignorance.

You are hiding from me because you know you've made a completely false attack, and then attempted to confuse us all into accepting your inability to properly represent a simple timeline.
 
Sorry JJ, you've been caught lying, and no amount of tap dancing is going to cover that up.
You lied when you accused me of saying things I never said, and then you lied when you tried to claim that you weren't talking to me...now you lie again by pointing to yet another post...bottom line is, you got caught lying.

Consider your 'demands' to be rejected..I have never backed down from a bully or a racist in my life, and I'm not going to start with you. Find yourself another victim.
 
It's nice that you've learnt a new word, crimresearch ('hatemongering'), but perhaps you should look up the definition of the word before you toss it about. You're making a rather large ass of yourself.
 
The same Memphis mayor sent an aide to the Chinese New Years celebration I was attending...I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard her read Hizzoner's proclamation that it was 'well known by all that the Chinese are an industrious and happy people'.

(Shrug) is this really an insult, even if unintentional? Obviously the intent is to make some bland positive statement about the Chinese community, as befits such occassions. He just chose an odd one.
 
crimresearch said:


The idea that the NAACP/BET is a racist organization, which supports racist behavior, is fully supported by the facts I cited earlier, and is not derived from anything to do with the refusal to speak there, and certainly not from the owrding of said refusal.
Click to expand...

BET is owned by Viacom. Which is a big media conglomerate.

Therefore VIACOM is a racist organization. I knew that Sumner Redstone was up to no good! But whod a thunk that jewish guy would be at the head of a black racist organization!
 
Skeptic said:
The same Memphis mayor sent an aide to the Chinese New Years celebration I was attending...I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard her read Hizzoner's proclamation that it was 'well known by all that the Chinese are an industrious and happy people'.

(Shrug) is this really an insult, even if unintentional? Obviously the intent is to make some bland positive statement about the Chinese community, as befits such occassions. He just chose an odd one.
Click to expand...

Would you care to substitute 'blacks' and 'simple and happy'.

How is it *not* racist to make a statement that follows the dictionary defintion of racism? Ignorance is no excuse for modern racism.
 
Tmy said:
BET is owned by Viacom. Which is a big media conglomerate.

Therefore VIACOM is a racist organization. I knew that Sumner Redstone was up to no good! But whod a thunk that jewish guy would be at the head of a black racist organization!
Click to expand...


BET was producing sitcoms with racist stereotypes of minorities BEFORE they were bought by Viacom....and the NAACP knew full well what kind of person Robert Johnson was when they merged.

This doesn't even have the excuse of unconscious racism...surely you are not suggesting that anyone is entitled to a free pass for such behavior and attitudes?
 
Would you care to substitute 'blacks' and 'simple and happy'.

That would be TWO substitutions. If he said that blacks, or jews, or whomever, are "hard working and happy", would that be so awful? It is a stereotype, yes, but not the worst stereotype in the world.

But this point is moot--see below.

How is it *not* racist to make a statement that follows the dictionary defintion of racism?[/B]

Because intent and context matter.

If he said it privately as something he deeply believes, it would show he has stereotypes about Chinese people, although, as I said, a positive stereotype.

In this case, however, the mayor is giving a speech on the Chinese new year. The nature of the event is such that he is EXPECTED to say something about the Chinese community in general, and is EXPECTED to say something "nice", and is EXPECTED to say something simple and bland and not overly complicated. Almost by definition, he has no choice but to describe the Chinese community with some bland, positive-sounding stereotype.

I agree that his choice of words was unfortunate, and that it shows he knows little about the Chinese community--if he knew many people there, he could think of something less cliche-like to say, and would know that the description he chose might offend. But it doesn't necessarily show he has any realy beliefs about the Chinese community; it merely shows he was following the expected script.
 
Yes, it was just a poor choice of words.
It was a poor choice of words from a mayor who 'wasn't available' to meet with the Iraqi delegation, and from a mayor whose city hall human resources office will not allow Hispanics, or Native Amercians, or Asians to be awarded any preference points in employment, reserving those points for African Americans...

Now any single incident could be explained in isolation, but in the totality of the circumstances, it painsts a picture of a poor choice of words from someone whose understanding of diversity would be criticised if displayed by someone else.

So as I asked elsewhere...does anyone in America today deserve a free pass on behavior or words that would be condemend as racist from a different source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom