The Bobcat Nation

Gotta love it.



NAACP chairman compares GOP to Nazis
Bond delivers blistering partisan speech in North Carolina

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 2, 2006
1:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Julian Bond

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.


"We now find ourselves refighting old battles we thought we had already won," he said. "We have to fight discrimination whenever it raises its ugly head."

He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.

The talk so infuriated at least one black family in attendance among the 900 in the auditorium that they got up in walked out in protest.

"He went on and on name calling," said Lee Wilson. "I walked out in the middle of his speech with my wife and three kids"

The harsh partisan rhetoric from Bond should not have surprised anyone who has followed him in recent years.

In July 2001, Bond said, "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

I guess I'm saddened that Bush has confined so many African Americans to concentration camps, and practiced genocide. I'm glad this crackpot brought that to our attention.

I'm going to give a political opinion here. I don't do this often. I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican, but an independent moderate. So here goes...

Mr. Bond has a right to his opinion, but I think that it's really stretching to compare George W. Bush and his cabinet to the Nazis. Hitler was one of the most evil men ever to walk on the face of the earth and he killed millions of people. And he wasn't even the worst dictator of the 20th century: that was Joseph Stalin. The only one that Hitler deserved to kill was the last one he killed: himself. I don't buy Mr. Bond's comparison at all. His opinion is unfounded.

While that statement is way out there, I do see things that would cause his frustration.

OK so according to the Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/ ... v04hi.html

The largest race group living below the poverty level is Blacks at 24.7% and then Hispanics at 21.9%, non hispanic whites at 8.6% and Asians at 9.8%. So I'll say of the 37 Million people living in poverty, the majority at 25% is Blacks.

Personally I see the Bush Administration not having much concern over the lower class. And many of their programs affect those living in poverty.

Outsourcing of jobs (which many people on this board say are just the low-paying jobs) takes away opportunities for those who are less educated or lack as many working skills. A trend that I would imagine one would see in the 37 Million US citizens living in poverty. I'll bet a lot of those people would happily take many of these outsourced jobs. I know many of the jobs require training and/or ability, but I'm speaking in general terms.

No Child Left Behind handcuffs neighborhoods with schools that don't "meet the grade." So if a school looses some funding funding and is put in "NCLB jail" families that can afford to move to a different school district will do so to keep their kids in schools that make the grade. While those that cannot afford to move to different neighborhood will be stuck with a school that has a high teacher turnover, and less funding. I know it's a hypothetical situation before someone jumps on me about it. I think many people would agree that a lot of children that live in poverty lack as many educational opportunities as middle and upper class children.

So these two examples and others show to me that those living in poverty can be "handicapped" by many of the Bush admin's programs. Since 25% of those are Black, I can understand why the NAACP feels that Blacks are getting a raw deal from this administration. Nazis? No not that bad.

Gratuitous references to Hitler and Nazis is one of my biggest political annoyances ... so my opinion on his comments is self-evident.

There are a lot more articulate ways to make a point that might have a chance to garner more public support for your cause. This achieves the opposite.

Now wait for someone on the right (Umm O'Reilly?) to take this and proclaim it as an examples of "liberals" in a generic sense saying something stupid as opposed to "a liberal" saying something stupid. That's the way the game is played.

Why am I not surprised by this article?

Bay Area Cat wrote:Gratuitous references to Hitler and Nazis is one of my biggest political annoyances ... so my opinion on his comments is self-evident.

There are a lot more articulate ways to make a point that might have a chance to garner more public support for your cause. This achieves the opposite.

Now wait for someone on the right (Umm O'Reilly?) to take this and proclaim it as an examples of "liberals" in a generic sense saying something stupid as opposed to "a liberal" saying something stupid. That's the way the game is played.

Exactly. If he has any real point, he lost me when he used the word Nazi.

Re/Max Griz wrote:
Personally I see the Bush Administration not having much concern over the lower class. And many of their programs affect those living in poverty.

What exactly did the Clinton Administration do to fix this problem? Are you suggesting that these numbers were different 7 years ago?

Let's be honest, this issue can not be fixed by one administration. The NAACP could help African Americans in poverty by educating them instead of proclaiming to the world that the political system is unjust. The NAACP has been ineffective since the 1970's and making claims such as these will only render them even more effective in the future.

The NAACP and it's supporters need to quit playing the victim and take responsibility for thier problems. They actually seem to encourage the way of life, poverty, that they profess to want to eradicate. At the same time they vilify successful and powerful blacks such as Condi, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas. Just because they are conservatives and successful they are Uncle Toms. I honestly don't get it.

And I completely disagree that most of those living below the poverty line would "gladly" take the low paying jobs that are leaving the States. Because, if they did, the jobs would not be outsourced in the first place. Business is pretty simple: make stuff that you can sell for higher price than it costs you to make.

Under Clinton, we signed NAFTA. Under Clinton, we made it so welfare had a time limit, and then you couldn't receive aid any longer.

I thought both were a positive thing. I can't think of any rule or policy that Bush has proposed that negatively affected the impoverished.

People who say things like this just end up hurting their own causes. There are some legitimate criticisms that can be made about the Bush presidency, but when you start throwing around references to Hitler, you lose all credibility. It kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter (to take someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum): she might have some fair points to make, but when she starts referring to members of Congress who oppose the war as the "Treason Lobby," I just stop listening.

Grizlaw wrote:People who say things like this just end up hurting their own causes. There are some legitimate criticisms that can be made about the Bush presidency, but when you start throwing around references to Hitler, you lose all credibility. It kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter (to take someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum): she might have some fair points to make, but when she starts referring to members of Congress who oppose the war as the "Treason Lobby," I just stop listening.

I almost wonder if he is only saying that for attention

Hell's Bells wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:People who say things like this just end up hurting their own causes. There are some legitimate criticisms that can be made about the Bush presidency, but when you start throwing around references to Hitler, you lose all credibility. It kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter (to take someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum): she might have some fair points to make, but when she starts referring to members of Congress who oppose the war as the "Treason Lobby," I just stop listening.

I almost wonder if he is only saying that for attention

As is the case every time any activist, pundit, talking head, or politician opens their mouths ... yes, I am sure he was saying it for attention.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Hell's Bells wrote:

Grizlaw wrote:People who say things like this just end up hurting their own causes. There are some legitimate criticisms that can be made about the Bush presidency, but when you start throwing around references to Hitler, you lose all credibility. It kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter (to take someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum): she might have some fair points to make, but when she starts referring to members of Congress who oppose the war as the "Treason Lobby," I just stop listening.

I almost wonder if he is only saying that for attention

As is the case every time any activist, pundit, talking head, or politician opens their mouths ... yes, I am sure he was saying it for attention.

which would mean that he was trying to highlight some alleged wrongdoings of an administration by compairing them to a madman then stating facts...which wont change at all, no matter what president, what policy friendly to poor people or not

We honestly don't have the full text of the speech, so we have no idea what facts he did present and what specific issues he did raise. But based on the quotes pulled from the right-leaning website above, I think most of us heard enough to keep us from taking anything else he had to say seriously. He killed his credibility, and hurt his own cause.

Bay Area Cat wrote:We honestly don't have the full text of the speech, so we have no idea what facts he did present and what specific issues he did raise. But based on the quotes pulled from the right-leaning website above, I think most of us heard enough to keep us from taking anything else he had to say seriously. He killed his credibility, and hurt his own cause.

by attempting to solicit funds/credibility/and ext from the left leaning people of america who belive such garbage *bush is hitler... *

Hell's Bells wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:We honestly don't have the full text of the speech, so we have no idea what facts he did present and what specific issues he did raise. But based on the quotes pulled from the right-leaning website above, I think most of us heard enough to keep us from taking anything else he had to say seriously. He killed his credibility, and hurt his own cause.

by attempting to solicit funds/credibility/and ext from the left leaning people of america who belive such garbage *bush is hitler... *

But again, he hurt his own cause. The very few people who do think that way don't tend to be people who have a lot of money to begin with. If he really wanted to effectively raise money and prestige for his organization, he wouldn't be saying things like that -- he'd be appealing to a more moderate "big tent" group of people.

A mere "left-leaning" person would not embrace this message. Only the most extremist types would be motivated by the rhetoric noted above. And there just aren't many of those out there. We have some of them around here, but they are even a small minority here.

**warning...pirateing of thread**

BAC i can imagion they would be kinda fun to talk with

**end of thread pirate**

my question would be how far would you go to earn some money for the cause you are working for?

Hell's Bells wrote:**warning...pirateing of thread**

BAC i can imagion they would be kinda fun to talk with

**end of thread pirate**

my question would be how far would you go to earn some money for the cause you are working for?

Actually, the extreme left is just about as interesting to talk to as the extreme right. No substance at all, no logic, no desire to understand common goals of groups of people, and a desire to be exposed to only one set of ideas. They aren't much fun to talk to at all. Dealing with close-mindedness on either side of an issue is a waste of time.

Back to the money issue -- in general, going to extremes to raise money is counter-productive as you are turning off more people than you are turning on. You might differentiate yourself amonst the small niche that likes to hear extremist views and thus capture more of that small pot. But in the end, a smaller piece of a very large pot is going to be more than a bigger piece of a very small pot.

well that is what i bet that MR. bond *not to be confused with 007* is doing, and as much as it makes me sick