NAACP compares GOP to Nazis

[grizzh8r]

1) Under Clinton, we signed NAFTA.

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

1) ....which weakened our country even more by making us more reliant on foreign products and goods.

2) ....which (to my knowledge) has never been enforced.

[longhorn_22]

1) Under Clinton, we signed NAFTA.

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

1) ....which weakened our country even more by making us more reliant on foreign products and goods.

2) ....which (to my knowledge) has never been enforced.

You are right. Also, under Clinton, he promised the people responsible for the attacks on the USS Cole would be brought to justice and punished. Never happened.

[Grizlaw]

1) Under Clinton, we signed NAFTA.

1) ....which weakened our country even more by making us more reliant on foreign products and goods.

A conservative who opposes free trade? Interesting...

[BOISE_CAT]

It really is sad that the Left can get away such with outrageous comments--but in the end it only hurts their own credibility, and takes away from having real discussion about real causes and solutions to minority groups that are falling behind.

But, this really isn't just a problem of the Far Left---let's face it the Democratic Party Leadership itself has become all about minority scare tactics (and thus taking the Black vote for granted). Recent Democratic Party Leadership actually encourages such polarizing language.

A couple of the more obvious examples:
1) During a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in Feb 2005, Howard Dean joked: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 ... 3616.shtml

2) Claimes by John Kerry and others that 1 million black voters wre disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7234

The Demotractic party has received 90+% of the Black vote for years----and this is all that they can come up with?????? Sounds more like trying to create distractions from the reality of having no real plan for improvement.

[SonomaCat]

It really is sad that the Left can get away such with outrageous comments--but in the end it only hurts their own credibility, and takes away from having real discussion about real causes and solutions to minority groups that are falling behind.

But, this really isn't just a problem of the Far Left---let's face it the Democratic Party Leadership itself has become all about minority scare tactics (and thus taking the Black vote for granted). Recent Democratic Party Leadership actually encourages such polarizing language.

A couple of the more obvious examples:
1) During a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in Feb 2005, Howard Dean joked: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 ... 3616.shtml

2) Claimes by John Kerry and others that 1 million black voters wre disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7234

The Demotractic party has received 90+% of the Black vote for years----and this is all that they can come up with?????? Sounds more like trying to create distractions from the reality of having no real plan for improvement.

Didn't I say something in an earlier post about people framing this as a comment by the "left" as opposed to a comment made by one person?

[Grizlaw]

It really is sad that the Left can get away such with outrageous comments--but in the end it only hurts their own credibility, and takes away from having real discussion about real causes and solutions to minority groups that are falling behind.

But, this really isn't just a problem of the Far Left---let's face it the Democratic Party Leadership itself has become all about minority scare tactics (and thus taking the Black vote for granted). Recent Democratic Party Leadership actually encourages such polarizing language.

A couple of the more obvious examples:
1) During a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in Feb 2005, Howard Dean joked: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 ... 3616.shtml

2) Claimes by John Kerry and others that 1 million black voters wre disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7234

The Demotractic party has received 90+% of the Black vote for years----and this is all that they can come up with?????? Sounds more like trying to create distractions from the reality of having no real plan for improvement.

Didn't I say something in an earlier post about people framing this as a comment by the "left" as opposed to a comment made by one person?

Yep...and to reiterate (and rephrase) my comment from earlier, I also find it outrageous that "The Right" can get away with referring to all Democratic members of Congress who opposed the war in Iraq as the "Treason Lobby."

--GL (If we're going to criticize the use of hyperbole, let's at least acknowledge that both sides use it, shall we?)

[BOISE_CAT]

It really is sad that the Left can get away such with outrageous comments--but in the end it only hurts their own credibility, and takes away from having real discussion about real causes and solutions to minority groups that are falling behind.

But, this really isn't just a problem of the Far Left---let's face it the Democratic Party Leadership itself has become all about minority scare tactics (and thus taking the Black vote for granted). Recent Democratic Party Leadership actually encourages such polarizing language.

A couple of the more obvious examples:
1) During a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in Feb 2005, Howard Dean joked: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 ... 3616.shtml

2) Claimes by John Kerry and others that 1 million black voters wre disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7234

The Demotractic party has received 90+% of the Black vote for years----and this is all that they can come up with?????? Sounds more like trying to create distractions from the reality of having no real plan for improvement.

Didn't I say something in an earlier post about people framing this as a comment by the "left" as opposed to a comment made by one person?

Yes, you did make the valid point that it was a comment by "one person." However, when that "one person" winds up being someone in a leadership role (or as I pointed out more than one person, and in more than one instance) then it really does hurt the credibility of that entire organization.

When the Chairman of the NAACP speaks, he is supposed to represent the views of more than "one person." Hyperbole does get attention (obviously) but over the long term it doesn't excuse the need to come up with real alternatives.

[SonomaCat]

It really is sad that the Left can get away such with outrageous comments--but in the end it only hurts their own credibility, and takes away from having real discussion about real causes and solutions to minority groups that are falling behind.

But, this really isn't just a problem of the Far Left---let's face it the Democratic Party Leadership itself has become all about minority scare tactics (and thus taking the Black vote for granted). Recent Democratic Party Leadership actually encourages such polarizing language.

A couple of the more obvious examples:
1) During a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus in Feb 2005, Howard Dean joked: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 ... 3616.shtml

2) Claimes by John Kerry and others that 1 million black voters wre disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 presidential election
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7234

The Demotractic party has received 90+% of the Black vote for years----and this is all that they can come up with?????? Sounds more like trying to create distractions from the reality of having no real plan for improvement.

Didn't I say something in an earlier post about people framing this as a comment by the "left" as opposed to a comment made by one person?

Yes, you did make the valid point that it was a comment by "one person." However, when that "one person" winds up being someone in a leadership role (or as I pointed out more than one person, and in more than one instance) then it really does hurt the credibility of that entire organization.

When the Chairman of the NAACP speaks, he is supposed to represent the views of more than "one person." Hyperbole does get attention (obviously) but over the long term it doesn't excuse the need to come up with real alternatives.

I agree that it reflects on the NAACP as he is a part of that organization, but not the "left" in a generic sense.

That would be the same as saying that every time Pat Robertson says something crazy, it is not merely a reflection on him and his for-profit organization, but rather the "right" and the Republicans as a whole.

[Grizlaw]

Yes, you did make the valid point that it was a comment by "one person." However, when that "one person" winds up being someone in a leadership role (or as I pointed out more than one person, and in more than one instance) then it really does hurt the credibility of that entire organization.

The problem with this thinking, in my view, is that political discourse should be about ideas, not about the credibility of one organization vs. another. It's fine to dislike the chairman of an organization like the NAACP because of comments he makes, and if you want to attribute those comments to the entire organization, then I suppose that's fine too. The problem arises, though, when people start using the inflammatory comments of a few people as a basis for dismissing the political ideas for which they stand.

[Hell's Bells]

Yes, you did make the valid point that it was a comment by "one person." However, when that "one person" winds up being someone in a leadership role (or as I pointed out more than one person, and in more than one instance) then it really does hurt the credibility of that entire organization.

The problem with this thinking, in my view, is that political discourse should be about ideas, not about the credibility of one organization vs. another. It's fine to dislike the chairman of an organization like the NAACP because of comments he makes, and if you want to attribute those comments to the entire organization, then I suppose that's fine too. The problem arises, though, when people start using the inflammatory comments of a few people as a basis for dismissing the political ideas for which they stand.

well actually if given time i bet you that boise will discredit liberal political opinion as well as those quotes and anything that was mispoken by them.

[Hell's Bells]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48688

Stung by national criticism of a speech in which he reportedly equated the Republican Party and Nazis, Julian Bond, the chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, denies the comments attributed to him by members of the audience and has lashed out at WND as a "right-wing blog."

Fayetteville State University in North Carolina has issued a careful statement on the speech by Bond and issued a press release including the NAACP leader's denial of the remarks.
I didn't say these things I'm alleged to have said," the university quotes Bond as saying. "There is no one in the audience who can say I said them. The reporter from the Fayetteville newspaper did not report I said them. I have denied I said them and refuse to engage in a back and forth about what I did say. This is an irresponsible attack by a right-wing blog – a partisan blog – and these kinds of attacks should be expected and dismissed for what they are."

However, WND has spoken to and corresponded with members of the audience who do assert Bond made the statements. And the university, despite its efforts to dismiss the matter, refuses to release a recording of the full event or even a transcript of Bond's remarks.

University officials say they reviewed a tape of Bond's speech. But an official statement issued by Jeffrey Womble, director of public relations for the university, was carefully worded to avoid addressing whether Bond actually uttered the words attributed to him in the WND story.

"We received numerous calls and emails from concerned individuals about Mr. Bond's presentation, so we felt compelled to review the tape in an effort to address their concerns," said Womble. "After a close review, we have concluded that the comments attributed to Mr. Bond about the Republican Party, Dr. Rice, and Mr. Colin Powell were not made."

Specifically, he said, nowhere during Bond's speech was reference made to the Nazi Party.

However, the key quotes reported by WND never mentioned the Nazi Party. Instead, Bond was quoted as saying: "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."

That quote and other comments reportedly made by Bond at the speech were relayed by members of the audience who were appalled at the specific charges as well as the overall divisive tone of the address.

Leon Delaine, who describes himself as "African-American," is one of those audience members who contacted WND. He said he and his family walked out on the Bond speech because of the offensive comments.

In addition, Bond has a history of making statements strikingly similar to the one he is alleged to have made at the university event last week.

On July 24, 2004, the Indianapolis Star reported Bond told state lawmakers and business leaders that President Bush and other Republicans appeal to a racist "dark underside of American culture."

"They preach racial equality but practice racial division," he was quoted as saying. "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."

Though he never specifically mentioned "Republicans" at the Indiana event, he referred to leaders who control the White House and Congress. The former Georgia Democratic state legislator then called on his own party to stand up to Bush and other Republicans on issues of civil rights and foreign policy, reported the Star.

[SonomaCat]

Interesting. So this whole discussion could be pointless. I had assumed that the we were merely reading the story from the right-wing blog -- not that the right-wing blog was the only media outlet that even suggested that the words had been said ... and based it upon the recollections of a person who left the speech.

So it is sounding like this whole thing was probably a waste of effort on everyone's part. Good philosophical discussion, but if people are denying that the words were even spoken, and only one person who was there (and left) claims anything similar was said, it's hard to put much faith in it.

[Grizlaw]

well actually if given time i bet you that boise will discredit liberal political opinion as well as those quotes and anything that was mispoken by them.

He may try, although I would argue that "discredit" is a somewhat subjective concept when it comes to purely ideological issues.

My point, though, is that a large percentage of our society doesn't think about issues in this way -- and that's true of people on both sides of the aisle. Our country has become so politically polarized that a lot of people tend to judge a political idea more by who came up with the idea than by its merits (this is why we see, for example, self-proclaimed free-market conservatives who claim that NAFTA was a terrible idea, while hailing Bush's steel tariffs from a few years ago as brilliant economic policy).

[SonomaCat]

well actually if given time i bet you that boise will discredit liberal political opinion as well as those quotes and anything that was mispoken by them.

He may try, although I would argue that "discredit" is a somewhat subjective concept when it comes to purely ideological issues.

My point, though, is that a large percentage of our society doesn't think about issues in this way -- and that's true of people on both sides of the aisles. Our country has become so politically polarized that a lot of people tend to judge a political idea more by who came up with the idea than by its merits (this is why we see, for example, self-proclaimed free-market conservatives who claim that NAFTA was a terrible idea, while in the next breath hailing Bush's steel tariffs from a few years ago as brilliant economic policy).

That is the kind of thing that I really enjoy. Many people (talking heads in particular) are so caught up in identity politics that they can't even remember what their party is supposed to represent anymore. Seeing them contradict themselves in order to push the "my president good, your president bad" theme is great stuff.

[Hell's Bells]

Interesting. So this whole discussion could be pointless. I had assumed that the we were merely reading the story from the right-wing blog -- not that the right-wing blog was the only media outlet that even suggested that the words had been said ... and based it upon the recollections of a person who left the speech.

So it is sounding like this whole thing was probably a waste of effort on everyone's part. Good philosophical discussion, but if people are denying that the words were even spoken, and only one person who was there (and left) claims anything similar was said, it's hard to put much faith in it.

Well then it was brought up by one of those "right winged rags"
although i will say this...i belive this has been up for a day or so...i am amazed i was the first to post it

[grizzh8r]

1) Under Clinton, we signed NAFTA.

1) ....which weakened our country even more by making us more reliant on foreign products and goods.

A conservative who opposes free trade? Interesting...

Yes!

We import too much grain and meat to this country, and as a result, the average age of the american farmer/rancher is 45! Why? Because you can't make a living doing it anymore, at least on smaller scale family operations. Most ag families have at least one other form of income, if not two (like mine). This results directly because the demand for American products has decreased due to cheaper, foreign meats, grains, and vegetables. A large portion of the meat consumers buy comes from Austrailia, Argentina, Mexico, and others.

Another thing: Places like Mexico still use DDT (and other chemicals banned for use in the US) on their crops, yet we still buy thier produce and eat it, and we still eat the cattle that eat the forage that was sprayed with those chemicals. Follow?

Before the embargo was placed on Canadian beef (Mad Cow), cattle prices in the US were hovering just above all-time lows. A few months after, prices were the best seen in a decade. Moral of the story? If we as a nation decrease the consumption of foreign products, it is a win/win situation. Farmers and ranchers will quit selling out to the deveolpers (becasue they can actually make a living again), which in turn keeps the beauty of this country intact. Consumers are assured a quality product free from banned substances.

If we eventually phase out foreign goods, the US can become a little bit more self sufficient. We already rely heavily on foreign oil and foreign-made cars, electronics, and clothing. Pretty soon, we will be so heavily reliant on other countries that we will no longer be a world power, because these countries will control us. All for the sake of helping other countries out? I don't think it is worth it.

[SonomaCat]

1) Under Clinton, we signed NAFTA.

1) ....which weakened our country even more by making us more reliant on foreign products and goods.

A conservative who opposes free trade? Interesting...

Yes!

We import too much grain and meat to this country, and as a result, the average age of the american farmer/rancher is 45! Why? Because you can't make a living doing it anymore, at least on smaller scale family operations. Most ag families have at least one other form of income, if not two (like mine). This results directly because the demand for American products has decreased due to cheaper, foreign meats, grains, and vegetables. A large portion of the meat consumers buy comes from Austrailia, Argentina, Mexico, and others.

Another thing: Places like Mexico still use DDT (and other chemicals banned for use in the US) on their crops, yet we still buy thier produce and eat it, and we still eat the cattle that eat the forage that was sprayed with those chemicals. Follow?

Before the embargo was placed on Canadian beef (Mad Cow), cattle prices in the US were hovering just above all-time lows. A few months after, prices were the best seen in a decade. Moral of the story? If we as a nation decrease the consumption of foreign products, it is a win/win situation. Farmers and ranchers will quit selling out to the deveolpers (becasue they can actually make a living again), which in turn keeps the beauty of this country intact. Consumers are assured a quality product free from banned substances.

If we eventually phase out foreign goods, the US can become a little bit more self sufficient. We already rely heavily on foreign oil and foreign-made cars, electronics, and clothing. Pretty soon, we will be so heavily reliant on other countries that we will no longer be a world power, because these countries will control us. All for the sake of helping other countries out? I don't think it is worth it.

So the point is, you're really not an economic conservative or a "true" Republican at all. Your ideas fall more firmly in line with the protectionist policies espoused by the labor unions and the liberal Democrats and populists.

You in particular definitely should read "What's the Matter with Kansas." It talk a lot about exactly what you mentioned above, and goes into theories about why most rural areas are now Republican areas despite the abundance of people who feel the same way you do about international free trade.

[grizzh8r]

Ok, I'm a democrat as far as that goes, but in other political areas, no way...