Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It would be nice to see if you actually understand why he did what he did instead of just saying people are racist for saying the NAACP was a waste of time for the president. You would get some respect if you could explain your looney ramblings. Even Gadzuux will at least attempt to justify his far left nonsense." beau, give it up. Pushing your buttons has become boring for me. I just don't give a rip about you or any of your crap. Since you brought it up, respect from you is less than last on my list.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By barboy Here's the crux of the NAACP's mission statement: to "ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons" What a farce!! ALL PERSONS--- all Blacks anyway.
Originally Posted By Labuda Racist much, abrboy? Sheesh. Get over it, man. People whose skin is not white still have a darn rough time in this country, and there's nothing at all wrong about the fact that the NAACP exists. If you want to start a NAAWP, go for it. But I don't see there's much need for it, as we caucasian folks have it easier than anyone else in this country.
Originally Posted By xrayvision Here's the crux of the NAACP's mission statement: to "ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons" What a farce!! ALL PERSONS--- all Blacks anyway. The NAACP did have a legitimate purpose when it was created, at a time when people of color did not have equal rights. Their civil actions led to changes in public policy that did positively impact the equality of all people of color living in the U.S. Today, the NAACP's political significance has faded as it's original mission and purpose have been met. It's now more of an ethnic social network than the progressive political civil rights coalition of it's past, with some members ocassionally making radical statements that more reflect their own perspective than that of the socially networked (not necessarily politically networked) membership.
Originally Posted By xrayvision BTW...the Bush quote was not that great nor progressive. CA governor has already taken the public platform on school reform thru charter schools which has already been successful in other states. Vouchers can work. But, running away from a poor performing school is not the answer for a community. Community and possible government intervention for school reform, including options for charter school conversion, are positve solutions to turn around a community's school(s). Flight leaves blight.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^Actually, not all blacks, if you are a Conseritive Black, you are not welcome....(FYI, the author of the article happens to be black).... <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/12/125449.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/articles/2004/7/12/125449.shtml</a> >>That's the question I put to Bond, who simply told me that the NAACP is a non-partisan civil rights organization that just happens to agree with the Democrats on several key issues. Of course, the reality is that the NAACP sold out its non-partisan civil rights mission decades ago. The change occurred on or about 1995. At the time, the NAACP was foundering amidst charges of sexual harassment and economic improprieties. "We were four and a half million dollars in debt. We had scandal in the organization. Our very existence was threatened," said Bond, who responded by engaging the services of a headhunting agency to replace the organization's president and CEO. The firm widdled a pool of 2,000 applicants down to 50. The NAACP's governing board then narrowed the list of applicants to 12. "Kweisi Mfume was the last person we interviewed," says Bond. "When he walked in the room, you could just see people thinking, we've got our man." With characteristic zeal, Mfume promised to reenergize the organization along overtly political lines. "The extreme ultraconservative policies of the far right are Draconian and punitive," he said, while mapping out a new agenda that would energize black voters for the Democratic Party. Within five years, the debt was gone and the NAACP was widely regarded as the most powerful political pressure group in the country. They alone had the ability to galvanize 50 million black votes. Members of the press found it all dazzling. "Mfume not only has righted the ship, he also has set it on a new course," fawned USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickam. Unfortunately, Mfume, who had essentially partnered with the Democratic Party to revitalize the NAACP, concluded that it was in the organization's best inertest to maintain that partnership. Officially this was to uphold civil rights. Actually it was to continue pumping federal money into the NAACP and keep the Democratic Senators on good terms with their black constituents. To justify becoming a partisan, political institution, the NAACP set about alarming the black voting populace. The Republicans are dangerous…a constant threat to our civil rights...We must defend against them. Thus did the politicalization of the NAACP begin. The rhetoric coming out of the NAACP has since become increasingly shrill, even by political standards. << >>To this day, the majority of the civil rights work currently being done by the NAACP has to do with drumming up support of the Democratic party - in the form of voter drives, yes, but also in the form of opposition to school vouchers, faith-based charities, and countless other programs that the black voting populace actually support in public opinion polls. When anyone within the NAACP suggests doing things differently, they are made to pay. During the contentious 2000 election, the NAACP fired its Colorado chapter president because he went public with his support of school vouchers. A couple months later they suspended one of their Virginia representatives for having the audacity to endorse a Republican. Were these NAACP representatives wrong to admit they supported the Republicans on certain issues? I suspect they were just plain naïve, not realizing that the civil rights movement in the United States ended a decade ago. There is no room within the NAACP for intellectual diversity anymore, just loyal servitude to the Democratic Party. This is a crime. This is a shame. This is the sad state of the nation's oldest and most storied civil rights organization.<<
Originally Posted By woody >>The NAACP did have a legitimate purpose when it was created, at a time when people of color did not have equal rights.<< The worse thing is the name of the organization. It is outdated to refer to anyone of a different race as "colored". It is plain insulting especially since blacks are the only ones represented by that organization. They should change the C to AAL (african american liberals).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's something I don't get. Going back 50 years and beyond, it was "colored people". That became negroes, which became black which evolved into African American, which in the last several years has become "people of color". Isn't that really back to colored people, long considered a derogatory phrase? All I know is, I work in an office of 225 people, and around 180 of them prefer to be called black, if we're going to be distinguishing them from anyone else at all.
Originally Posted By barboy Labuda your #24 is so very unfair and here is why: I am married to an Asian woman---she is not just of Asian heritage but truly from Asia. And I have had 3 Asian girlfriends before her. Also, I have had intimate relations with 2 black women(one was for 5 months to a Jamaican tourist) and 1 Latina who came from Guatamala. My first wife was white(7 years). I have had intimate relations with women from 10 countries ---I am hardly one who is a white supremist. In fact of all the traveling I do I have never been to Europe nor do I want to ever go there. By the way I seem to remember that there exists a despicable organization called NAAWP. The NAACP TODAY is just as despicable and it is a farce. They proclaim equality for "all persons" but yet their client list is basically all one ethnicity. They are the true flaming racists and very few are reluctant to call them on it. During the days of lynchings, mutilations, whippings, terror and unjust criminal convictions the NAACP was a very important voice to counter some of the atrocities committed against blacks.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I am married to an Asian woman---she is not just of Asian heritage but truly from Asia. And I have had 3 Asian girlfriends before her. Also, I have had intimate relations with 2 black women(one was for 5 months to a Jamaican tourist) and 1 Latina who came from Guatamala. My first wife was white(7 years). I have had intimate relations with women from 10 countries<< All this proves is that you're into exotic women.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Regarding the original post... My kids go to private school, but many of my neices and nephews don't. Therefore, I care. Anyway, MY opinion is that little can really be done at the Federal level with public education. The problems in my opinion lie at the state, and even more so at the county level.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/26/demonizing_the_gop_at_naacp/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/glo be/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/26/demonizing_the_gop_at_naacp/</a> >>Demonizing the GOP at NAACP AT AN EVENT in North Carolina to mark Black History Month last February, Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, unleashed a blistering attack on the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Among other discourtesies, he compared President George W. Bush's judicial appointees to the Taliban and described former Attorney General John Ashcroft, not for the first time, as ``J. Edgar Ashcroft." ``The Republican Party," Bond was reported as saying, ``would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side." (A slightly different version has Bond saying that the GOP's ``idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side.") Such partisan bigotry from the chairman of a supposedly nonpartisan organization makes it easy to understand why for five years Bush refused to attend the NAACP's annual conventions. More of a mystery is why he changed his mind this year -- and why, rather than attempt to refute Bond's venomous caricature of his party, he seemed to accept it. ``I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party," Bush said . ``I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community. For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party." Republicans often take this rueful tone when talking about their party in the context of race. Democrats, who routinely get 85 percent or more of the black vote, never do. But the Republican rue isn't justified by the facts. Neither is the willingness of black voters to be taken for granted by Democrats. Look around. Black candidates are serious contenders for governor in three states this year, and two of them -- Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio -- are Republicans. The third, Democrat Deval Patrick, is running in Massachusetts, a quintessentially blue state that has managed to elect only one African-American to statewide office in its entire history: former US Senator Edward Brooke -- a Republican. Bush may have given short shrift to the NAACP for several years, but from his first day in office he has surrounded himself with a record number of senior black policy makers. Among them have been the nation's first black secretary of state, Colin Powell -- and its second, Condoleezza Rice. Of course the Republican Party's record on race is not without its blemishes. For example, at a 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond in 2002, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi praised the former Dixiecrat's segregationist campaign for president in 1948. Republicans were scandalized and forced Lott to resign as Senate majority leader. Democrats, by contrast, have never moved to purge Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan who wrote in 1947 that he would never agree to fight ``with a Negro by my side" and would ``rather . . . die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is the only senator to have voted against both of the black justices named to the Supreme Court -- the liberal Thurgood Marshall and the conservative Clarence Thomas. Byrd has said his racism is a thing of the past, but that didn't stop him from using the N-word twice in an interview on national TV in 2001. Remarkably, none of this has harmed Byrd's standing within the Democratic Party, nor the party's standing among black voters. Bond may not share Republican principles or priorities, but for him to cast the GOP as the party of fascism and racism is surreal. After all, it was the Democratic Party that defended slavery, the Democratic Party that supported the Dred Scott decision, and the Democratic Party that opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. It was Democrats who founded the Ku Klux Klan, Democrats who repeatedly blocked anti lynching bills, and Democrats who enacted Jim Crow segregation across the South. Everyone knows that it was a 19th-century Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But how many know that it was a 20th-century Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the federal government, appointed avowed racists to his Cabinet, and endorsed ``The Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith's celluloid celebration of the Klan? Eventually the Democratic Party outgrew Wilson's racism. By 1964 a majority of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act -- as did an even larger majority of congressional Republicans. Today's Democratic Party is nothing like the racist stronghold it used to be; anyone who claimed otherwise would be trafficking in foul demagoguery. Which is just what Bond traffics in when he speaks with equal foulness about today's Republican Party. The NAACP is better than that, and perhaps Bush should have said so.<<
