[OAW]

4. In any event, Mr. Gladney appears at a Tea Party sponsored "protest" a day or so later in a wheelchair. His employer/agent/attorney Mr. Brown and various Tea Party leaders do all the talking. Mr. Gladney's job is just to sit there and be the "victim". Never mind that it is readily apparent that Mr. Gladney was unhurt in the incident ... earning him the local Ass Clown of the Week Award in the face of stiff competition .... little things like facts don't matter to the Tea Party. Gladney is only a means to an end for them. And they then proceed to shamelessly try to portray what was at best a minor scuffle as a some sort of "brutal beating by union thugs and link to to their political opponents in some sort of grand left-wing "conspiracy":

So, just to recap, according to the St. Louis Tea Party/Big Government story, this massive government conspiracy created simply to get a few punches in on a random guy selling merchandise at a town hall in St. Louis, Missouri involves:
the president of SEIU, the president of the AFL-CIO, the President of the United States, Congressman Russ Carnahan, Carnahan’s spokesperson Sara Howard, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former OFA Missouri Coordinator Buffy Wicks, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Field Director of Health Care for America Now Margarida Jorge, Prosecutor Bob McCullough, St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Reddington, County Executive Charlie Dooley, the NAACP, the ACLU, the head of the St. Louis County Dept. of Health, and even the local animal control department. Now that's quite a conspiracy theory!

In reality, however, to call this a "conspiracy theory," is probably far too generous. I'm fairly confident that many of the primary people pushing these stories don't think for a second that all or any of these people played a meaningful role in the August 6 incident. Rather, the tea party and their patron Andrew Breitbart see this simply as a political weapon they can use against the people they hate. In fact, with as much as I've written in this post, I haven't even touched on the other way they milk this incident: by using it to deflect and dismiss all of the evidence of racist elements in the tea party. Whenever some incident is reported of racist behavior in the tea party, you can bet that Dana Loesch will be on Fox News the next day saying, "it's Democrats who beat up black men in parking lots."

Elston McCowan, Perry Molens, and Kenneth Gladney all have lives and families that will potentially be forever changed by this incident. Yet to the St. Louis Tea Party leadership and Big Government, they are nothing more than an excuse to take cheap shots at unions, Democratic politicians, and anyone else who stands in the way of their right-wing vision for the country. After all, this is a "war" for them, and the people who are harmed along the way can easily be written off as "collateral damage."

5. So then some local "conservative African-American social-networking organization" called Move-On-Up.org which boasts of a membership of 400 people nationwide (that ought to be a massive hint right there ) decides to get involved. It was founded by a guy named Chris Arps, a former staffer for former Sen. Jim Talent (R) of Missouri. A guy who runs around the state with Ward Connerly trying to outlaw affirmative action, lecturing African-Africans and playing to overwhelmingly white conservative crowds about "personal responsibility", all the while he's on probation until 2011 for non-payment of child support. Yeah. That guy. So he holds this "protest" ... where hardly anyone showed except for a few reporters ... outside of the offices of the St. Louis City office of the NAACP and he criticized them for not taking action following the incident. Never mind that the incident occurred in Mehlville, MO ... a suburb of St. Louis ... so the appropriate place to go would have been the St. Louis County office of the NAACP. But it gets all the more "interesting" seeing as how the Mr. Gladney and Mr. Arps weren't on the same page about the issue:

Gladney is not connected to Move-On-Up.org. Gladney's attorney, David Brown, said Gladney does not have a problem with the way the NAACP has handled the situation.

Oh and it gets worse!

He [Gladney] also said he had no opinion when he was asked if the beating was politically motivated.

And then to cap it all off .....

A representative from the NAACP stepped outside and gave out a written statement following the news conference.

It said: "The St. Louis Branch of the NAACP will and does accept and investigate all written complaints filed with us, regardless of the complainants ideology.

We regret that a group has decided to protest outside of our office, before contacting us or filing such a complaint.

This is particularly unfortunate because it is well known that our office is closed during this time out of respect for the passing of one of our most renowned leaders, Margaret Bush Wilson."

... continued ...

OAW

[OAW]

6. So after all of this "hullaballoo", six people were charged with misdemeanor ordinance violations for this "vicious, brutal beatdown":

County Counselor Patricia Redington insisted it had nothing to do with politics or anyone's influence.

Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman, 30, of University City, was charged with interfering with a police officer. The charges allege that he failed to obey repeated commands "to leave the site of an ongoing disturbance."

Elston McCowan, 47, of St. Louis, and Perry Molens, 50, of De Soto, each were charged with assaulting a person and interfering with police. They are accused of scuffling with and injuring Kenneth Gladney in a clash of opinions over the Democrats' universal health care proposals.

Javonne Spitz, 51, of O'Fallon, Mo., and Brian Matthews, 34, of Glendale, also were charged with interfering with an officer. Cheryl Johner, 55, of Arnold, was charged with assaulting a person and destruction of property, for allegedly pushing another woman and breaking her cell phone.

Ordinance violation charges are usually filed within four to six weeks of an incident, Reddington said, but this case involved interviews with dozens of witnesses and review of many videos posted on the Internet.

Post-Dispatch Editor Arnie Robbins issued a statement Wednesday that said, "Jake was covering a newsworthy incident. He was not in the way or interfering with the police. His press credentials were fully displayed. The charge is unfounded and will be challenged in court."

Molens said Wednesday, "These charges are ridiculous. All I was doing was coming to the help of a friend. I don't know what evidence they're basing this on."

Molens said McCowan, who could not be reached for comment, was defending himself and he was defending McCowan.

"I'll plead not guilty," Molens said. "I didn't do anything."

Said Spitz, another defendant, "I'm surprised. ... And right before Thanksgiving, real nice."

Gladney, 39, of St. Louis, said, "I'm shocked it took this long" and complained that the attack on him should have been prosecuted as a felony. "I'm mad as I-don't-know-what about this," he said. "It seems like average people can't get justice."

The trial is pending.

7. As I mentioned earlier, Elston McCowan is a local Baptist minister in St. Louis. Anyone who knows the history of the Civil Rights Movement in general knows that most of the leadership comes out of the clergy. So of course, Rev. McCowan has connections with the local NAACP and they held a press conference supporting what they felt were unfounded charges against him. It is there where the Fox News crowd gets it wrong AGAIN and claims "NAACP Leader says "Kenneth Gladney not black enough to protect!" all over the wingnut blogosphere. But the problem with that is that the video and the facts tell a different story:

A. The speaker, Zaki Baruti (aka Lavoy Reed), is NOT an "NAACP Leader". He is local community activist, former candidate for Governor of Missouri, and is the founder and president of the Universal African People's Organization (UAPO). The leadership of the St. Louis NAACP is here and you will not see his name listed anywhere. He was one speaker of many at a press conference held by the NAACP.

B. At no point in the video does Mr. Baruti ever say that Mr. Gladney was "not black enough" or anything of the sort. Yet that's the headline being consistently and falsely trumpeted all over the right-wing blogosphere! Yet another wingnut lie! Now what he did say was this ...

Originally Posted by Zaki Baruti

This guy, which we call a "Negro" .... and we call him a "Negro" in the fact that he works not for our people but against our people. In the old days they'd call him an Uncle Tom.

Now was that insulting? Most definitely ... though I imagine he meant it to be. Was it inaccurate? I suppose it depends on how you view Mr. Gladney's behavior. An innocent victim? Or some guy trying to milk his 15 minutes of fame by willingly allowing himself to be pimped out by the Tea Party? Personally, I wouldn't have gone there on the man. As I said that particular label should be reserved for the most egregious offenders and I don't think Mr. Gladney's behavior rises to that level. IMO it would have been better and more appropriate to show one's support for Mr. McCowan and Mr. Molens without trashing Mr. Gladney. Obviously, Mr. Baruti who's known to be more of a "firebrand" than the typical "NAACP leader" disagrees. In any event, to characterize one black person calling another black person an Uncle Tom as being "racist" is beyond stupid. Clearly Mr. Baruti took issue with Mr. Gladney's behavior ... not the fact that he was black. One can legitimately criticize his use of that type of demeaning language ... but one can't logically construe it as "racism".

Bottom line? This entire situation is just yet another example of the wingnut crowd mischaracterizing a situation and blowing it way out of proportion to suit their political agenda. Just like the Shirley Sherrod case.

... continued ...

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Further, where was the NAACP when Harry Reid gushed about Obama being 'light skinned' with no 'Negro dialect'? Wait, let's guess- DEMOCRAT= FREE PASS!

The African-American community greeted this with a collective yawn. What he actually said ...

"He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say.

.... didn't make any waves with the overwhelming majority of African-Americans because it was undeniably true. It's a known fact that lighter skinned blacks have certain advantages in US society and are more likely to penetrate the "glass ceiling" (be it corporate, military, political, etc.) than their darker skinned brothers and sisters. Common sense should also tell you that if Obama's speaking style was always in the cadence and tone of the black church (e.g. Jesse Jackson and to a lesser degree Al Sharpton) his appeal in the white community would have been greatly diminished. Anyone who's followed Obama's speeches and actually paid attention can easily tell that his speaking style changes a bit depending upon whether his audience is predominantly white or not. It's something most black people who work in corporate America or other predominantly white settings do instinctively.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Where where they when Joe Biden called Obama the first black candidate who was articulate, bright and clean? Let me guess- DEMOCRAT= FREE PASS!

First of all if the average black person who speaks standard English had a dollar for every time some white person (of all political stripes) made some silly comment about them being "so articulate" we'd all be rich and retired. Do trust and believe that. Furthermore, it's not that he's a Democrat. It's that he supports the positions that the NAACP supports:

The Georgia GOP committee wasted no time when it got word that Obama picked Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. It bluntly said that by picking him, Obama had effectively killed any chance he had of winning the South.

This is not inflated political hyperbole. For the past four decades, liberalism and civil rights have been tightly interlocked in the South. This election is no different. Obama and Biden know there's mortal political danger in putting too strong an emphasis on civil rights and race. They gingerly step around the issue, however, that won't make it disappear.

The issue for the committee is Biden’s liberal record. He was ranked as the third most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal. The most liberal senators were Obama and Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehorse. The single biggest thing that earned Biden his high liberal rating is his civil rights record.

On the issues of busing, affirmative action, expanded hate crimes legislation, government set-asides for minority business, a Rosa Parks commemorative stamp, and fair housing legislation, Biden has been a dream for civil rights leaders. The NAACP gave him a perfect 100 rating in his stance backing affirmative action.

NAACP = Civil Rights organization
Joe Biden = Staunch supporter of Civil Rights

So let me break out the stick figures for you. When a person who has a long history of staunchly supporting civil rights makes a racial gaffe ... they are in a much better position to be given a "pass" by a civil rights organization than someone who doesn't. Because actions speak louder than words.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Where were they when Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson were calling Jews, 'Diamond merchants' and (in Sharpton's case) causing race riots over FAKED incidents that actually got people killed? I'm sure both of these people have been shunned by the NAACP ever since, right?

Oh wow. Now you're really reaching.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Any denouncing of Jeremiah Wright? Another free pass?

Jeremiah Wright has a long history as a pastor and is well-respected around the world. If I bet my next paycheck that you haven't read or heard anything from the man other than that little clip that got played on Fox News ad infinitum ... I'm quite sure my money would be safe. Imagine if we applied the same standard to Billy Graham?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

How about Louis Farrakhan? His record of racist rants against Jews and whites is long and sordid- so has he been denounced by the NAACP? OF COURSE NOT! He's a frequent speaker at NAACP conferences, here, declaring WAR ON NEGROES that disagree with him! But of course, that's cool because FREE PASS!

As usual you can't get your facts straight. First of all that was an African American Leadership Conference. NOT an NAACP conference. A gathering of various organizations of different ideologies of which the NAACP was but one participant. As for the "war on negroes" comment .... sort of like that "destroy the left in America" comment I posted above? That seems to be what St. Louis Tea Party wants to do to those that they disagree with ... n'est-ce pas? Of course, you don't take issue with that right? It definitely wasn't something like this ...

Originally Posted by Sharon Angle - Nevada Senate Tea Party Candidate

And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

... advocating violence against Sen. Harry Reid and an "out of control Congress" and the "tyrannical government" that she seems to eager to join.

As for Min. Farrakhan, there was a time when the NAACP wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole. And he regularly lambasted the NAACP and other civil rights and integration oriented organizations as "handkerchief head Negroes" and all sorts of other colorful denigrations. But the fact of the matter is that he has mellowed with age and toned down his rhetoric considerably over the last 15 years or so. Consequently, the NAACP in recent years has been willing to work with him in areas of mutual interest. It certainly doesn't mean that they agree with everything the man says.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Now keep pretending OAW, that no one can present blatant examples of NAACP hypocrisy and shamelessly playing the race card.

I never said you couldn't. Especially given your rather "interesting" view on what "playing the race card" looks like. But if you insist on that game I guarantee I'll cite 10 legitimate examples for every 1 bogus example like the Shirley Sherrod case you can.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

By the way, I noticed that your little transcript of Shirley Sherrod's speech conveniently left out the parts where she goes on to play the race card herself- even after claiming 'it's not about race'! She goes on to equate opposition to Health Care and bailouts and Obama's agenda to racism- which OF COURSE is the type of crap that plays to that audience. You're still even trying to wax over the fact that her initial story about 'not helping someone as much as she could because he was white' was met with approval by the audience BEFORE she'd given the 'moral' to the story- in other words, discrimination against non-blacks by a government official PLAYS favorably to an NAACP audience, the point that Breitbart was making in the first place, and that you're trying to sweep under the table.

Well that's because you and Mr. Breitbart apparently have reading comprehension issues and/or difficulties telling the truth:

Originally Posted by Shirley Sherrod

When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But, you know, God will show you things and He'll put things in your path so that -- that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

So Mr. Breitbart's so-called "point" is complete and utter BS to anyone who has seen the ENTIRE video or read the ENTIRE transcript and can see that this statement above was made BEFORE the "white farmer" was ever even mentioned.

But of course, the standard wingnut mentality on this is .... "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And it's just a delicious irony that Obama kneejerked over the whole incident, and in typical fashion of his, reacted without knowing all the facts and did the TYPICAL PC-disease autopilot reaction: FIRED the person, rather than make any attempt to actually UNDERSTAND what the F she was saying.

Agreed. Congratulations! That's about the only sensible thing you've said in this entire thread.

But I will say this. The reason why the Obama Administration "kneejerked" on this is because the key players know that in order to get re-elected it has to maintain a certain percentage of the white vote. The wingnut crowd is never going to support Obama ... that's a given. Doesn't really matter why ... it is what it is. The issue is what is the independent white voter going to do. Debating the economy is only going to go so far for the GOP. After all, it's too easy for the Democrats to legitimately point out that it was GOP Congress and Bush Administration policies that created this mess in the first place. So the best the GOP can hope for on that front is a [i]"blame the incumbent"[/b] mood in the electorate on that front. To supplement this the GOP/Tea Party crowd and its conservative media allies at Fox News and in the right-wing blogosphere have engaged upon a calculated political strategy to diminish Obama's support among independent white voters. The tactic employed is to do a constant drumbeat on this bogus "The Obama Administration favors blacks" theme. Minor and largely irrelevant things like the New Black Panther case, the Kenneth Gladney case, and now the Shirley Sherrod case are intentionally overhyped, mischaracterized, and covered [b]incessantly[b] by the right-wing media to play upon white fears for political gain. This is straight out of the GOP handbook. It damned sure isn't anything new.

So while I agree with my friend ebuddy that racism is NOT endemic to conservatism as an ideology ... it's certainly sad to see that in 2010 the GOP/Tea Party is still quick to engage in racial politics in the pursuit of political power. It was one thing when the standard GOP line was to deny the obvious when it came to things like this. The Shirley Sherrod affair ... with blatant lies and misrepresentation being used to try to "flip the script" on the critics of this kind of politics is quite another.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, not like this at all. In order for the instances to be equitable, this should be viewed as the Democratic party being hostile to blacks. This should be used to paint the entire party as racist. You seem to be calling South Carolina into question, it seems reasonable to paint with a broader brush right?

Moving the goalposts a bit aren't we? Come on my friend ... you said the NAACP didn't criticize Sen. Hollings for his remark and I proved that they did. Simple as that. It's really beneath someone of your intellect to not acknowledge the obvious and try to change the subject. I mean I expect that from Crash.

And yes, there does seem to be an inordinate amount of South Carolina politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who seem to want to go there. No this is not calling the entire state of South Carolina into question. I'm just saying some of the most egregious stuff that's been said lately, especially regarding the Obamas, have come out of the mouths of South Carolina politicians. They certainly aren't the only ones. It's not always GOP politicians. It's just an anecdotal observation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It wasn't the only time Rice had been criticized using racially-charged rhetoric. I've posted the pictures which I thought were proof of a concerted racist element.

You've lost me. I don't see any pictures you've posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Powell was responsible for bringing the Bush Administration to the International community against their original desire. Powell wasn't turned out to pasture. Powell had active disputes with John Bolton, Rumsfeld, and several others. Powell was no wall flower, afraid of asserting himself to the white "slave-owners". Harry "Day-O" was simply trying to remain relevant by championing stupidity.

Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly about Powell. Keep in mind I like Powell. In all likelihood I would have supported him if he had run for President on the GOP ticket. But he didn't because his wife was worried about him being killed ... which is quite telling in and of itself. In any event, I never said Powell was any of those things. I also disagreed with Belafonte's characterization of him in that manner. Sounds like you won't take "Yes" for an answer!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It suggests that black Republicans are not successful on their own merits, but must be merely tokens for an old-white regime. This is reprehensible. The notion that blacks can only think, vote, or represent one line of thought. It is because they are black and the Democrats want the country to continue believing that they have the monopoly on minority representation.

It appears you have misunderstood my point. No one said that "black Republicans are not successful on their own merits". Not I nor did Donna Brazile. The point is that "tokenism" is NOT necessarily a reflection on the black Republican .... it's a reflection on how the Republican party leadership USES the black Republican. Case in point was the 2008 GOP Convention. Blacks represented 2% of convention delegates yet ....

The Republican National Convention showcased a Native American color guard, a black preacher and video footage of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, all part of its effort to present the GOP as a picture of diversity. What it hasn't offered is many minorities speaking from the podium in prime time, or sitting among the delegates.

The convention has a decidedly homogenous look to it, coming hard on the heels of a Democratic gathering where minorities were prominent on the podium and in the crowds, and the spotlight focused squarely on Barack Obama's historic racial breakthrough.

Not that Republicans have been deliberately denying broad exposure to prominent party members from minority groups - there just aren't that many.

The Raw Story | Few minorities on GOP podium or sitting among delegates

So the "tokenism" is the GOP attempting to "showcase" a diversity that is virtually non-existent. This is not to say that Colin Powell and Condi Rice and J.C. Watts and Michael Steele aren't highly qualified individuals. That would be crazy talk! What it does say is that the GOP leadership uses the positions these very prominent individuals have to deflect criticism away from the historical evidence of the GOP playing upon the racial fears of whites to gain political power. Come on my friend .... we have had several GOP chairmen publicly admit that the Republican party has done this. I have to bug out now and get home so I don't have a link handy. I've posted it previously in other threads where we've discussed this. I trust you will recall. If not, surely you know by now that I wouldn't make a statement like that if I couldn't back it up?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We've certainly discussed this before, ad nauseam... and my mind hasn't changed. Your notion of what policies are and are not hostile to blacks misses the point of where those policies have gotten blacks in this country. In your mind conservative policy is racist a priori while liberal policy is good for the black community. I disagreed then, citing examples of why in our discussions and I disagree today. The fact that they get no love is more about party than policy. This is my complaint about the NAACP, "Day-O", and countless others that perpetuate race to rekindle their waning relevance.

Now see there you go pulling a Crash move. I haven't said conservative policy is racist a priori. I've specifically said to you on various occasions that conservatism as an ideology is not racist. I've specifically said to you in other threads that on policy there are several areas where many in the black community agree with "conservative" positions. The problem is that GOP has for decades pursued political power by exploiting the racial fears of whites. And that is why the overwhelming majority of the black community feels that it is hostile to their interests. I'll give you a quick example because I really have to go ...

As quiet as its kept most African-Americans weren't all that keen on the welfare system. Hard working black people trying to make a living everyday and paying taxes didn't appreciate people sitting on their ass milking the system just like a lot of other people. We didn't have an issue with time limits for aid and all that. We didn't support "welfare as a lifestyle" or all that other nonsense that many on the right espoused. You see the "conservative" ideological position is a "tax and spending" issue. And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem was how the GOP chose to frame the debate. The problem was that it became readily apparent by media portrayals, blog postings, letters to the editors, , thinly veiled GOP political ads and speeches, etc. that the issue for a huge cross section of the white voters who happened to hold "conservative" positions wasn't ....

I don't like my tax dollars being wasted on welfare.

The issue was ....

I don't like my tax dollars being wasted on black people on welfare.

The vitriol and condemnation was typically reserved for the "welfare queens in the inner cities" ... when the vast majority of welfare recipients were white women in rural America. But that's certainly not how it was portrayed in the media. Black women were made the face of welfare. Don't even get me started on the "school busing" issue! The point is that the GOP has a history of coming at "conservative" issues in this manner ... and that is why the vast majority of the African-American community looks at the Republican party as being "hostile" to them. Despite the fact that many actually agree with the conservative position on the issue itself.

You may not like what I'm saying. You may not want to hear it. You are certainly entitled to hold a different opinion. But you definitely can't show where I've been factually incorrect about anything I've said in this post.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

All I can saw OAW, is you're a person absolutely mentally enslaved by race. Like the same blockheads who go apeshit over yelling racism at greeting cards and movies and talk show hosts and ANY disagreement, and -who even knows what else- there's simply no having a rational debate with you on the subject.

It will be a welcome day when people with such backward attitudes about race (on either side of it- racists, or in your case- mentally warped and held back by race and the NEED to play the CONSTANT victim and find racism in everything- for a completely imaginary political gain*) go the way of the dinosaur. That day can't come soon enough, but it's a shame you probably will never be part of it. You're the poster child of the need to "Free your mind and your ass will follow."

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

All I can saw OAW blah blah blah:

All I can say is while you tell yourself I'm "mentally warped and held back by race" the reality is that I could probably buy and sell you twice over. Dude please. I've been in the 90+ percentile of everything I've ever done in life academically or financially. So tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself. Like I said earlier ... your "opinion" of me or my motivations are of no consequence to me. What does matter is that once again you show that you don't let little things like facts get in the way of your opinion. You apparently don't know what a "rational debate" would look like if it walked up to you and smacked you in the face. As is your usual M.O. ... when I drop intellectual bombs on you ... backed up with documented facts .... you have no response! You duck and dodge ... as you are clearly doing now as well as in that earlier thread where you did the exact same thing ... apparently foolish enough to bring that topic back up with me of all people. Well we see how that worked out for you.

Seriously Crash ... over the years on this board you've shown yourself to be utterly incapable of actually addressing the specific points I make to you. I mean seriously dude ... it's so obvious! Your ability to ... how did Sarah Palin put it? ... "refudiate" what I say is virtually nil. But hey ... let's stick to the topic at hand. And don't take my word for it ...

Anybody reading this thread ... don't take my word for it.

Unlike you I'm not just up here yakking. Just look at the video for yourself. Read the entire transcript for yourself. And see if it jives with how Crash and the wingnut crowd have portrayed the Kenneth Gladney situation for the last year. See if how the entire video of the Shirley Sherrod situation jives with how the wingnut crowd has portrayed it here recently. Like I said earlier ... this is a debate forum. What matters is whether or not you can support your position with facts and/or a logical argument. Clearly you are coming up short with both. On the regular. So you really ought to keep that in mind the next time you decide to step to me unequipped.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Moving the goalposts a bit aren't we? Come on my friend ... you said the NAACP didn't criticize Sen. Hollings for his remark and I proved that they did. Simple as that. It's really beneath someone of your intellect to not acknowledge the obvious and try to change the subject. I mean I expect that from Crash.

Of course I concede the example you were able to refute, but the reason I posted several examples was to illustrate a more pervasive issue. While I'm encouraged the NAACP challenged a figure on the left, would you agree they are decidedly more silent with regards to figures on the left in general? I mean, they'll jump on the potential racist sentiment of a greeting card you agreed was a bit kneejerk, but some of the more egregious examples I presented were met with silence. It merely follows that the NAACP would be more protective of the party their demographic supports overwhelmingly. I'm surprised you've taken me up on this line of thought quite frankly.

And yes, there does seem to be an inordinate amount of South Carolina politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who seem to want to go there. No this is not calling the entire state of South Carolina into question. I'm just saying some of the most egregious stuff that's been said lately, especially regarding the Obamas, have come out of the mouths of South Carolina politicians. They certainly aren't the only ones. It's not always GOP politicians. It's just an anecdotal observation.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's not always GOP politicians. To me, the next most logical conclusion is that it is not a GOP problem in terms of ownership. At times it seems you're posing a sort of catch-22 for Republicans. They're damned if they mitigate racism and doomed if they acknowledge it.

You've lost me. I don't see any pictures you've posted in this thread.

I apologize. I thought sure we'd had this discussion before. Hi, I'm ebuddy.

Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly about Powell. Keep in mind I like Powell. In all likelihood I would have supported him if he had run for President on the GOP ticket. But he didn't because his wife was worried about him being killed ... which is quite telling in and of itself. In any event, I never said Powell was any of those things. I also disagreed with Belafonte's characterization of him in that manner. Sounds like you won't take "Yes" for an answer!

Now I'm confused. If you agree with me, explain which Belafonte must be in this scenario;
a. woefully uninformed?
b. race baiting?
c. another shill struggling for relevance?

IMO, all the above.

It appears you have misunderstood my point. No one said that "black Republicans are not successful on their own merits". Not I nor did Donna Brazile. The point is that "tokenism" is NOT necessarily a reflection on the black Republican .... it's a reflection on how the Republican party leadership USES the black Republican. Case in point was the 2008 GOP Convention. Blacks represented 2% of convention delegates yet ....

The Raw Story | Few minorities on GOP podium or sitting among delegates

This is the catch-22 of being a Republican. If minorities are featured among your party (a partnership with some of the most visible, influential posts available) you are regarded by the non-racist left as exploiting USEFUL tokens, but if you fail at any point to feature an acceptable, yet undefined number of them at any given event you're guilty of insincerity, neglect, or worse... racism. The only way to win is not to play.

So the "tokenism" is the GOP attempting to "showcase" a diversity that is virtually non-existent. This is not to say that Colin Powell and Condi Rice and J.C. Watts and Michael Steele aren't highly qualified individuals. That would be crazy talk! What it does say is that the GOP leadership uses the positions these very prominent individuals have to deflect criticism away from the historical evidence of the GOP playing upon the racial fears of whites to gain political power. Come on my friend .... we have had several GOP chairmen publicly admit that the Republican party has done this. I have to bug out now and get home so I don't have a link handy. I've posted it previously in other threads where we've discussed this. I trust you will recall. If not, surely you know by now that I wouldn't make a statement like that if I couldn't back it up?

In terms of championing minorities, this has always been a limitation of those hostile to Republicans IMO. First, you pound the above while indicting Republicans of USING race when it suits them yet, no reading at all on the irony-meter. There's so much focus on trying to explain the intention of statements that marginalize the accomplishments of minorities who happen to hold a contrarian view (or party) that you fail to realize the collateral damage of the message you're defending; a peculiar disregard for minority accomplishment. I think the word is "sensitivity" right? Do their statements appear sensitive to you? I certainly don't think so and I think you'll find that most others don't either.

Now see there you go pulling a Crash move. I haven't said conservative policy is racist a priori. I've specifically said to you on various occasions that conservatism as an ideology is not racist. I've specifically said to you in other threads that on policy there are several areas where many in the black community agree with "conservative" positions. The problem is that GOP has for decades pursued political power by exploiting the racial fears of whites. And that is why the overwhelming majority of the black community feels that it is hostile to their interests. I'll give you a quick example because I really have to go ...

Which MacNN poster shall I use to illustrate your stylings, hyteckit? I can't recall any statements of yours on "race" that didn't somehow involve conservatives or the GOP. I mean, as long as anecdotal evidence is admissible. Is this where I pretend I don't know you OAW?

As quiet as its kept most African-Americans weren't all that keen on the welfare system. Hard working black people trying to make a living everyday and paying taxes didn't appreciate people sitting on their ass milking the system just like a lot of other people. We didn't have an issue with time limits for aid and all that. We didn't support "welfare as a lifestyle" or all that other nonsense that many on the right espoused. You see the "conservative" ideological position is a "tax and spending" issue. And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem was how the GOP chose to frame the debate. The problem was that it became readily apparent by media portrayals, blog postings, letters to the editors, , thinly veiled GOP political ads and speeches, etc. that the issue for a huge cross section of the white voters who happened to hold "conservative" positions wasn't ....

That's surprising to me OAW. Blacks don't buy the "welfare as a lifestyle" argument? The blacks that I associate with (and myself btw) are keenly aware of the cycle of poverty and how entitlements perpetuate dependency which fuels the cycle.

I don't like my tax dollars being wasted on welfare.
The issue was ....
I don't like my tax dollars being wasted on black people on welfare.

To your point, of course this is not a black or white phenomena in that there are more whites on the dole than blacks. That's precisely why your caricature of the message makes no sense. Anyone viewing messages through a prism of race can and will find racism. While I know you well enough to know that you might post-bomb a thread with links, I can't always trust your judgement on their importance or relevance and I'll simply reply with a wealth of my own examples illustrating the exact same problem.

The vitriol and condemnation was typically reserved for the "welfare queens in the inner cities" ... when the vast majority of welfare recipients were white women in rural America. But that's certainly not how it was portrayed in the media. Black women were made the face of welfare. Don't even get me started on the "school busing" issue! The point is that the GOP has a history of coming issues in this manner ... and that is why the vast majority of African-American community look at the Republican party as being "hostile" to them. Despite the fact that many actually agree with the conservative position on the issue itself.

It's certainly not productive to argue against your perception and I know you're not alone. All I can say is give it time.

You may not like what I'm saying. You may not want to hear it. But you certainly can't show where I've lied about anything I've said in this post.

I wouldn't suggest you're lying. I'm simply challenging you on what you're defending. I would suggest that a wave starts with a ripple. There are those who see what the ripple represents and their reaction lacks discipline; not nearly as much about championing diversity as thrusting an agenda and are exploiting race in just as reprehensible a manner as anyone else. Their rhetoric is as destructive to minorities as their ideology IMO.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I concede the example you were able to refute, but the reason I posted several examples was to illustrate a more pervasive issue. While I'm encouraged the NAACP challenged a figure on the left, would you agree they are decidedly more silent with regards to figures on the left in general? I mean, they'll jump on the potential racist sentiment of a greeting card you agreed was a bit kneejerk, but some of the more egregious examples I presented were met with silence. It merely follows that the NAACP would be more protective of the party their demographic supports overwhelmingly. I'm surprised you've taken me up on this line of thought quite frankly.

Why are you so surprised? In this very thread I explained why Joe Biden got a "pass". Why Harry Ried got a "pass". Clearly I didn't duck the point that was made. It's not that the NAACP is "protective" of the party that their demographic supports. It's that that NAACP is more "protective" of the party that supports their constituency. At least a lot more than the other party does. Believe you me ... the African-American community views the Democratic party as the "lesser of two evils". Which is why it comes off as so insulting when conservatives try to lecture us on the Democrats. As if we are too stupid enough to recognize their BS on our own. The thing is, quite frankly, the GOP has a long way to go before they are in a position to talk.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's not always GOP politicians. To me, the next most logical conclusion is that it is not a GOP problem in terms of ownership. At times it seems you're posing a sort of catch-22 for Republicans. They're damned if they mitigate racism and doomed if they acknowledge it.

Well I've always said that. It's not just a GOP problem. Didn't I just say earlier in this very thread that the KKK was the "terrorist wing of the southern Democratic Party"? Haven't I before spoken of the Dixiecrats? They certainly weren't Republicans. Haven't I spoken on various occasions how the African-American community was solidly Republican (the "party of Lincoln" version that is) until the Civil Rights Movement era? The historical record in the US clearly indicates that this isn't a party problem. It goes much deeper than that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now I'm confused. If you agree with me, explain which Belafonte must be in this scenario;
a. woefully uninformed?
b. race baiting?
c. another shill struggling for relevance?

IMO, all the above.

Well I told you my view on what Belafonte said earlier. Did I not make myself clear?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is the catch-22 of being a Republican. If minorities are featured among your party (a partnership with some of the most visible, influential posts available) you are regarded by the non-racist left as exploiting USEFUL tokens, but if you fail at any point to feature an acceptable, yet undefined number of them at any given event you're guilty of insincerity, neglect, or worse... racism. The only way to win is not to play.

I hear what you are saying my friend. But the fact of the matter is that this is a conundrum of the GOP's own making. No one forced them to pursue the Southern Strategy with abandon for decades. They got political mileage out of it for a long time so they milked it for all that it was worth. Now as the country is developing a "majority minority" demographic ... it's coming back to bite them in their ass. Karma.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In terms of championing minorities, this has always been a limitation of those hostile to Republicans IMO. First, you pound the above while indicting Republicans of USING race when it suits them yet, no reading at all on the irony-meter. There's so much focus on trying to explain the intention of statements that marginalize the accomplishments of minorities who happen to hold a contrarian view (or party) that you fail to realize the collateral damage of the message you're defending; a peculiar disregard for minority accomplishment. I think the word is "sensitivity" right? Do their statements appear sensitive to you? I certainly don't think so and I think you'll find that most others don't either.

Ok. It's late and and I'm tired but I'm still too wired to hit the sack just yet. Honesty you lost me on this one. Whose statements?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Which MacNN poster shall I use to illustrate your stylings, hyteckit? I can't recall any statements of yours on "race" that didn't somehow involve conservatives or the GOP. I mean, as long as anecdotal evidence is admissible. Is this where I pretend I don't know you OAW?

Well that's just because it's so prevalent on that side of the spectrum. Well perhaps I shouldn't say more "prevalent". More "blatant" would be a more accurate characterization. Typically white liberal racism manifests in more subtle and "paternalistic" ways. I just go hard on conservatives because a lot of you guys make it so easy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's surprising to me OAW. Blacks don't buy the "welfare as a lifestyle" argument? The blacks that I associate with (and myself btw) are keenly aware of the cycle of poverty and how entitlements perpetuate dependency which fuels the cycle.

Again .. why are you arguing a point that's not in dispute?

And for the record, the "cycle of poverty" goes waaaaaayyy deeper than welfare. But that's a topic for another thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your point, of course this is not a black or white phenomena in that there are more whites on the dole than blacks. That's precisely why your caricature of the message makes no sense. Anyone viewing messages through a prism of race can and will find racism. While I know you well enough to know that you might post-bomb a thread with links, I can't always trust your judgement on their importance or relevance and I'll simply reply with a wealth of my own examples illustrating the exact same problem.

"Post-bomb a thread with links". Now that's funny. All I will say is that what I said about this is not a "caricature". One didn't have to go looking for it. It was readily apparent. On the contrary my friend ... the greater effort is in convincing oneself that you don't see what's right there in your face. To argue that the welfare reform debate wasn't tinged with racial undertones is to be willfully blind to the obvious. Unless of course people were just imagining all those "lazy n*ggers on welfare" comments routinely posted on the internet by right-wingers during that time?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's certainly not productive to argue against your perception and I know you're not alone. All I can say is give it time.

Actually G. Dub made great strides with his appointment of Powell and Rice to their respective positions. He appointed not one but two highly qualified African-Americans to top notch Cabinet positions. Quite unlike Reagan who made a "token" appointment of Samuel Pierce to HUD. Not that the man wasn't qualified. But he was the only Cabinet member to serve throughout both of Reagan's terms but the Gipper infamously revealed that he didn't even know who he was during a US Conference of Mayors when he said to him "Hello Mr. Mayor." But to be fair, Democrats have been known to make "token" appointments too. But I digress. The problem is that "time" is going to be a while. The GOP base is hot under the collar right now. Between the racial invective directed at Obama and this illegal immigration debate ... well suffice it to that some of the antics of Tea Party have unquestionably rolled back the strides that have been made in recent years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wouldn't suggest you're lying. I'm simply challenging you on what you're defending. I would suggest that a wave starts with a ripple. There are those who see what the ripple represents and their reaction lacks discipline; not nearly as much about championing diversity as thrusting an agenda and are exploiting race in just as reprehensible a manner as anyone else. Their rhetoric is as destructive to minorities as their ideology IMO.

Apparently you started to reply to this before I finished editing my post. After reading it I felt that using the word "lied" was too harsh for the point I was trying to convey. Which is why I changed it to "factually incorrect". In any event, I can see where you are coming from. As always it's good to converse with you my friend.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

All I can say is while you tell yourself I'm "mentally warped and held back by race" the reality is that I could probably buy and sell you twice over. Dude please. I've been in the 90+ percentile of everything I've ever done in life academically or financially. So tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself.

Like, really dude? Like, you're like, so cool, dude.

You sound a bit like a stereotypical idiot, but that's neither here nor there. Your tactic is simply to throw up a lot of smoke, but you haven't refuted much of anything- you've merely done your usual sweep under the table any facts that counter your race-based warped drivel, and then tossed out a lot of false accusations and garbage. Bolding text as you have a habit of blatantly overdoing doesn't really stand in for actual substance. Like, really dude.

You duck and dodge ... as you are clearly doing now as well as in that earlier thread where you did the exact same thing ... apparently foolish enough to bring that topic back up with me of all people. Well we see how that worked out for you.

Haha, whatever you have to tell yourself to feel better about yourself, have at it. You made a total ass of yourself in that thread, you just don't have the intellect to know it.
Some of your more laughable crap from that thread:

And what makes a holiday a "real holiday"? Those designated by Europeans as most "traditional" holidays were? And what about the "Hallmark holidays" also designated by whites? Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Grandparents Day, Secretary's Day, etc.? Interesting how such things don't rile up our friends on the right like Kwanzaa does. I wonder why?

Answer: as said, because they're not CRAZY and race-obsessed like you are. Like, really Dude.

The fact that they were "invented" by Caucasians perhaps?

Ironic to the max that a year later the NAACP is throwing a press conference to try and shake down Hallmark over a freakin' greeting card! You can keep sweeping it under the rug, but I'll keep rubbing your nose in it- because it's indicative of the kind of absolute CRAP that people with your warped race-based mindset get caught up in. You wouldn't know a real incident of racism if it jumped up and bit you, because you're too busy worried about BULLSHIT like 'white-designated' holidays, talk radio hosts, the shade of paint on school murals, movies, blogs, and any number of completely POWERLESS and harmless things! It's a truly SAD thing to watch, but you can take comfort in the fact that you're not alone- you're like a total stereotype of the permanent 'victim' that constantly annoys people by using race as an excuse and a crutch.

It's weak, and maybe one day you'll realize it's all actually a sad slap in the face to previous generations that actually DID experience tons of REAL cultural racism that didn't include BEYOND LAME manufactured bullcrap like blogs and the shade of paint on murals.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

ike, really dude? Like, you're like, so cool, dude.

You sound a bit like a stereotypical idiot, but that's neither here nor there.

So now you are resorting to personal attacks. That speaks volumes in and of itself.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your tactic is simply to throw up a lot of smoke, but you haven't refuted much of anything- you've merely done your usual sweep under the table any facts that counter your race-based warped drivel, and then tossed out a lot of false accusations and garbage. Bolding text as you have a habit of blatantly overdoing doesn't really stand in for actual substance. Like, really dude.

Swept it under the table huh? I'm not going to restate my entire argument for you because it's most apparent that you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious. But I will drive a final nail in your coffin for this foolishness right here. As you'll recall you said ...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Where was the NAACP when a black tea party protestor was beaten up by white and black SEIU thugs?

Did the NAACP denounce anyone? OF COURSE! The victim! Along with calling him a uncle tom and 'not black enough'. Now quick- try and sweep that under the rug!

These are your assertions ... and I specifically addressed them with a rebuttal. So do tell how that constitutes "sweeping it under the table" on the planet you live on?

Kenneth Gladney was NOT a "black tea party protestor". The guy who denounced him was NOT NAACP. And the guy who denounced him NEVER SAID anything whatsoever about "not black enough". You were factually incorrect on these points. I didn't just respond to your assertion with my OPINION ... I PROVED these things with documented facts.

But go ahead ... call it "throwing up smoke" or "false accusations and garbage" without actually addressing my direct response to your claims. Talk about my bolding text. Because we both know that you simply can't produce a legitimate rebuttal of the point. Just follow your typical M.O. ... change the subject and make some other bogus claim. Like this ....

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Haha, whatever you have to tell yourself to feel better about yourself, have at it. You made a total ass of yourself in that thread, you just don't have the intellect to know it.
Some of your more laughable crap from that thread:

Answer: as said, because they're not CRAZY and race-obsessed like you are. Like, really Dude.

I already told you Crash ... I'm not going to rehash that debate with you. I already wiped the floor with you in that thread and clearly demonstrated the UTTER HYPOCRISY of your "race baiting coalition" accusations. Your repeated refusal to address the comment that was made that I was directly responding to is quite telling. Your intellectual dishonesty on that particular topic is readily apparent. If you are so eager to re-open that debate then the appropriate thing to do would be to say whatever you have to say about that particular topic in that thread. N'est-ce pas?

Now having said that the thing that's the most pathetic about this ... outside of your continued reliance upon snippets with no context to mischaracterize what someone has said ... is that you've spent more time, energy, and bandwidth trying to argue with me about a topic from another thread than you have spent addressing the points I made regarding the topic at hand. And again ... it's quite telling. If anything is "weak" that certainly is.

You see a logical debate involves these little things called argument and rebuttal. Point and counterpoint. Backing up assertions with facts. Clearly this is out of your league. So let's just leave it at that.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Why are you so surprised? In this very thread I explained why Joe Biden got a "pass". Why Harry Ried got a "pass". Clearly I didn't duck the point that was made. It's not that the NAACP is "protective" of the party that their demographic supports. It's that that NAACP is more "protective" of the party that supports their constituency. At least a lot more than the other party does. Believe you me ... the African-American community views the Democratic party as the "lesser of two evils". Which is why it comes off as so insulting when conservatives try to lecture us on the Democrats. As if we are too stupid enough to recognize their BS on our own. The thing is, quite frankly, the GOP has a long way to go before they are in a position to talk.

Of course I understand the mutually beneficial relationship between organizations such as the NAACP and the Democratic party OAW, my argument is that the strength of this relationship allows for the unidirectional indictment of racism and racism itself. Much like NOW that will not champion the accomplishments of republican (conservative) women or step up to defend them when they are clearly being marginalized; they damage their credibility and people begin to see through them like saran wrap. I believe there are elements on the left exposing their "true" colors to the American collective, but I don't kid myself thinking there will be massive gains for Republicans in the black community within my lifetime. Republicans will continue to struggle as long as their world views differ from this Administration and/or party for now, but I think the relationship between the government and the black community is going to grow increasingly tepid. Make no mistake, the government is Democratic right now and there will be fresh voices to work with come November. I can see a growing camaraderie between the black community and anti-incumbancy which can lead to some pretty strange bedfellows my friend. The ripple. I believe there is a tipping-point of sorts where if the Republicans can pull enough of the black vote, the balance will shift wildly for them and they will be viewed as amicable partners for real change. Then, maybe not. I'll keep reaching out.

You say "when conservatives lecture us on the Democrats" as if blacks and conservatives are two different races. Black conservatives will lecture you like your own father. It's insulting to be told you're racist when you're not and there's everything to suggest the person lodging the insult is. (to be clear, I'm not suggesting you called me racist, but indicting conservatives and republicans of it has become a past time of the racist left. Jimmy Carter for example.)

Well I've always said that. It's not just a GOP problem. Didn't I just say earlier in this very thread that the KKK was the "terrorist wing of the southern Democratic Party"? Haven't I before spoken of the Dixiecrats? They certainly weren't Republicans. Haven't I spoken on various occasions how the African-American community was solidly Republican (the "party of Lincoln" version that is) until the Civil Rights Movement era? The historical record in the US clearly indicates that this isn't a party problem. It goes much deeper than that.

Right and historically this discussion morphs from "Republican" to "Conservative"
- ignoring the fact that the dixiecrat attempt to hijack the Republican party ultimately failed returning them to the Democratic party where they were accepted by the party's left-wing and heirs of the "pass".

Issues like States' Rights are invoked
- ignoring the fact that not having them led to the mandated return of southern "property" seeking asylum and freedom in the north for example.

And

I hear what you are saying my friend. But the fact of the matter is that this is a conundrum of the GOP's own making. No one forced them to pursue the Southern Strategy with abandon for decades. They got political mileage out of it for a long time so they milked it for all that it was worth. Now as the country is developing a "majority minority" demographic ... it's coming back to bite them in their ass. Karma.

The Southern Strategy; an antiquated and misunderstood phenomena. First of all, there have been studies showing the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

Again, bolstered by the fact that the racist dixiecrats were unsuccessful in hijacking the Republican party. Interesting to me that your wiki link on the Southern Strategy attempts to cite Reagan's speech using the term "States' Rights" as a throw-back to its roots when this is something I argued you a while back; Reagan was vying against Jimmy Carter for the Presidency OAW. Carter barely squeaked out a victory in Mississippi in 1976 and that State was among the most hotly contested at that point in 1980. The Reagan campaign found this particular venue attractive from a June 1980 National Geographic magazine article titled “Mississippi’s Grand Reunion at the Neshoba County Fair” and thought this would be a good and captive audience. The very next day Reagan hopped a plane from Mississippi to Manhattan to address the Urban League. This never made the wiki link either, I've got some work to do.

Ok. It's late and and I'm tired but I'm still too wired to hit the sack just yet. Honesty you lost me on this one. Whose statements?

The statements of those hostile to conservative blacks that I posted in this thread. Did they strike you as "sensitive" or even constructive?

Well that's just because it's so prevalent on that side of the spectrum.

IMO this is not only inaccurate, but an intellectual copout illustrating my complaint better than I could've hoped.

Well perhaps I shouldn't say more "prevalent". More "blatant" would be a more accurate characterization. Typically white liberal racism manifests in more subtle and "paternalistic" ways. I just go hard on conservatives because a lot of you guys make it so easy.

OAW taketh away, then he giveth.

Again .. why are you arguing a point that's not in dispute?

Originally Posted by OAW

We didn't support "welfare as a lifestyle" or all that other nonsense that many on the right espoused.

Welfare becomes a lifestyle, by definition a cycle. That seemed to be in dispute.

And for the record, the "cycle of poverty" goes waaaaaayyy deeper than welfare. But that's a topic for another thread.

Of course, but I suspect we'd have some different perspectives there as well.

"Post-bomb a thread with links". Now that's funny. All I will say is that what I said about this is not a "caricature". One didn't have to go looking for it. It was readily apparent. On the contrary my friend ... the greater effort is in convincing oneself that you don't see what's right there in your face. To argue that the welfare reform debate wasn't tinged with racial undertones is to be willfully blind to the obvious. Unless of course people were just imagining all those "lazy n*ggers on welfare" comments routinely posted on the internet by right-wingers during that time?

Like I've told you in the past, I'm not certain I trust your definition of "tinged with racial undertones" and you go on to show me why by bringing up "lazy n*ggers on welfare" as if you can't find disparaging statements on "rich crackers" and whities.

The GOP base is hot under the collar right now. Between the racial invective directed at Obama and this illegal immigration debate ... well suffice it to that some of the antics of Tea Party have unquestionably rolled back the strides that have been made in recent years.

A. I don't think the demonization of the Tea Party has caught on quite as much as you seem to imply and...
B. You assume there's some important degree of opposition to SB1070 in the black community. First of all, there is no real solidarity between the black and hispanic communities. Second of all, the shameless attempts to shine SB1070 under the light of Jim Crow marginalizes the plights of blacks that were dragged into this country.

Then, there's the incredible job losses among legal minorities and some folks will begin to hear a different argument. Mine.

As always it's good to converse with you my friend.

Likewise OAW.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course I understand the mutually beneficial relationship between organizations such as the NAACP and the Democratic party OAW, my argument is that the strength of this relationship allows for the unidirectional indictment of racism and racism itself.

I see where you are coming from but I suppose the disagreement is the result of differences in perspective. More on this later.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Much like NOW that will not champion the accomplishments of republican (conservative) women or step up to defend them when they are clearly being marginalized; they damage their credibility and people begin to see through them like saran wrap. I believe there are elements on the left exposing their "true" colors to the American collective, but I don't kid myself thinking there will be massive gains for Republicans in the black community within my lifetime. Republicans will continue to struggle as long as their world views differ from this Administration and/or party for now, but I think the relationship between the government and the black community is going to grow increasingly tepid. Make no mistake, the government is Democratic right now and there will be fresh voices to work with come November. I can see a growing camaraderie between the black community and anti-incumbancy which can lead to some pretty strange bedfellows my friend. The ripple. I believe there is a tipping-point of sorts where if the Republicans can pull enough of the black vote, the balance will shift wildly for them and they will be viewed as amicable partners for real change. Then, maybe not. I'll keep reaching out.

But that relationship between the black community and government has always been tepid. It's not that African-Americans are fans of "big government". (Which has become such a buzzword who knows what that even means anymore? A good thread topic perhaps?) It's that most of us see government as an admittedly flawed bulwark against the excesses that can arise in the private sector. The entity that will ostensibly compel those who would otherwise do wrong to do right. The entity that is supposed to enforce a level playing field. And in that role it undoubtedly comes up short at times. So it's more about checks and balances IMO. Because if either King Kong or Godzilla runs amok in the city a whole lot of stuff is going to get messed up. At least if they are tussling with each other then perhaps the people can slip under the radar and go about their business.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You say "when conservatives lecture us on the Democrats" as if blacks and conservatives are two different races. Black conservatives will lecture you like your own father.

No I don't mean it like that my friend. But as we both know, black conservatives are few and far between. At best. So generally speaking when such "lecturing" is being done it is typically coming from a white Republican. That's all I'm saying.

On a side note, we often get so caught up in this "liberal/progressive" vs. "conservative" dichotomy that we lose sight of the fact that most people the US electorate are actually pretty "moderate". (Myself included on a whole host of issues as quiet as its kept. Even voted GOP on occasion. ) You might be surprised to hear that a LOT (if not the majority) of African-Americans actually agreed with Bill Cosby's criticisms of the black community. The man wasn't speaking to sold-out auditoriums filled with black people for nothing. He does have his critics who point out that he can paint with an overly broad brush at times. That his words are often used to bolster the argument of some within the conservative community who hold the delusional position that institutionalized racism is a thing of the past ... despite documented evidence to the contrary. And I agree that those are valid criticisms. But I also agree with the gist of what Cosby was saying and I think that on balance what he did was positive for the black community. In any event ... I digress.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's insulting to be told you're racist when you're not and there's everything to suggest the person lodging the insult is. (to be clear, I'm not suggesting you called me racist, but indicting conservatives and republicans of it has become a past time of the racist left. Jimmy Carter for example.)

Oh I agree. Just like it's insulting to be treated like a criminal when you're not. So to pick up on that "differences in perspectives" comment I made earlier, just as an example ...

As that link indicates Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested. Now one could legitimately argue that this is clear cut evidence of racial profiling. But we also know that once that is said many of our good friends on the right would claim that it is "racist" to even suggest that. That right there would make us a full-fledged member of the "race-bait coalition". Facts be damned.

And as it relates to the topic at hand .....

The Council of Conservative Citizens of St. Louis ... group that says "black people are not equipped to participate in democracy." ... is telling people to "Join the Tea Party, we're active in it, we have great influence" (Exhibit A, B, and C). But when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said that the resolution that was passed during their convention in Missouri was out of concern for this along with the blatantly racist signs, blog postings, etc. at Tea Party events ... for many of our good friends on the right what prompted the resolution in the first place was fit for summary dismissal or outright denial. It was the NAACP that was "playing the race card". Facts be damned.

A black Tea Party leader, David Webb, is put out front to deflect the criticism about racist elements with the Tea Party .... and he accuses the NAACP of "selective condemnation of racism" because in his view the organization didn't condemn some nutjob for his "kill some cracker babies" rant. To which Benjamin Jealous responded ....

The reality here is that the New Black Panther Party is like 12 people, 13 people. They don't say these things at the NAACP. If they did, we would take them on. I said three times on a show with you last week so hear me this time. You know, bigots come in all colors. We absolutely denounce the New Black Panther Party.

Yet that accusation remains a standard talking point within the conservative media. Facts be damned.

And then when he follows that with the crusher ....

But they aren't in our group. These folks are in your groups.

Mr. Webb - ::::::::::::: crickets :::::::::::::: Facts be damned.

Tea Party leaders consistently deny racism within the Tea Party. Yet Mark Williams would STILL be the leader of the Tea Party Express, one of the largest and most high profile Tea Party groups, if it weren't for this recent controversy caused by the NAACP resolution which apparently led him to demonstrate his propensity to hurl racial invective one time too many. The much larger Tea Party Express would STILL be part of the Tea Party Federation. There was over a year's worth of conspicuous silence and/or staunch support of him by other prominent Tea Party leaders despite his long list of racist and inflammatory statements. But if one dares to look at that sideways and say that the Tea Party seems to be willfully oblivious to racism within its ranks .... the Fox News crowd routinely twists that into a much broader accusation of "The Tea Party is racist". Facts be damned.

And from what I gather from your words it is that much broader accusation that you object to. And rightly so. But that simply isn't what the NAACP said. It certainly isn't what I said my friend.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Southern Strategy; an antiquated and misunderstood phenomena. First of all, there have been studies showing the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

Again, bolstered by the fact that the racist dixiecrats were unsuccessful in hijacking the Republican party. Interesting to me that your wiki link on the Southern Strategy attempts to cite Reagan's speech using the term "States' Rights" as a throw-back to its roots when this is something I argued you a while back; Reagan was vying against Jimmy Carter for the Presidency OAW. Carter barely squeaked out a victory in Mississippi in 1976 and that State was among the most hotly contested at that point in 1980. The Reagan campaign found this particular venue attractive from a June 1980 National Geographic magazine article titled “Mississippi’s Grand Reunion at the Neshoba County Fair” and thought this would be a good and captive audience. The very next day Reagan hopped a plane from Mississippi to Manhattan to address the Urban League. This never made the wiki link either, I've got some work to do.

More on that "differences in perspective" ....

I agree with you that economic changes in the South contributed to its switch to the GOP. Where I surmise where we will disagree is whether or not that was the ONLY reason. You talk a lot about Reagan and Carter campaigns for the 1980 Presidential Election with respect to the Southern Strategy. And that's fine ... but it's not really my point. What I'm talking about is this ....

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Believe you me people saw this go down. For decades. Especially within the African-American community. So this is fundamental reason why the African-American community largely views the GOP as being hostile to its interests. It's not because we have some sort of ingrained predisposition against conservative ideological principles like lower taxes or smaller government. But you can't have a history of playing "dirty pool" against a group of people in order to win elections and then look at them like they are crazy for not wanting to join your team ... regardless of the merits of your political ideas.

But if you still have doubts about this my friend, the question then becomes ....

Why have multiple Republican National Committee Chairmen apologized for something that doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The statements of those hostile to conservative blacks that I posted in this thread. Did they strike you as "sensitive" or even constructive?

OIC. Well I relayed my view on that earlier. I disagreed with Belafonte's comments on Powell. I knew what he was trying to say ... but I don't think he should have gone there. As for Spike Lee's comments on Clarence Thomas I will just say this ...

As I've said before that is not just a common opinion of the man in the African-American community, it is nearly universal. I'm sure one could dig up some of his black supporters among his family and those relative handfuls of blacks at the far right of the political spectrum. So one can then raise certain salient questions ....

Has 95+% of the collective African-American community fallen and bumped its collective head? Is Clarence Thomas just misunderstood? Or is their some justification for this view of him?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO this is not only inaccurate, but an intellectual copout illustrating my complaint better than I could've hoped.

OAW taketh away, then he giveth.

Well to that I will say this. You know those blatantly racist signs that were being displayed at Tea Party rallies? I've never saw anything remotely like that at an Obama rally against John McCain demeaning his race or ethnicity. Have you? Certainly at some rallies there were Bush as Hitler or the Joker signs as there was with Obama. But I for one have never said those were "racist". So my point was simply that one typically doesn't see such things coming out of the ranks of the left. Those that will go there so blatantly in this day and age are few and far between ... across the political spectrum. But of those that do, I don't think I would be an unsupportable position to say that you will find more of them the further to the extreme right you go.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Welfare becomes a lifestyle, by definition a cycle. That seemed to be in dispute.

Oh no ... that was definitely not in dispute. I might quibble here or there about the "lifetime welfare queen" stereotype being overhyped more than the actual statistics would warrant ... but on the cycle aspect in general you get no argument from me. That's why I was saying that as quiet as it's kept most working black people didn't take issue with welfare reform and ending the cycle of dependency. We took issue with the GOP using it as a racial wedge issue to get elected.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Like I've told you in the past, I'm not certain I trust your definition of "tinged with racial undertones" and you go on to show me why by bringing up "lazy n*ggers on welfare" as if you can't find disparaging statements on "rich crackers" and whities.

Well don't take my word for it. Ask the RNC Chairmen who have apologized for the GOP doing this very thing. The "tinged with racial undertones" part that is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A. I don't think the demonization of the Tea Party has caught on quite as much as you seem to imply and...

Well I certainly take exception to your characterization of it as "demonization". But in any event, have you been watching the news this last week?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

B. You assume there's some important degree of opposition to SB1070 in the black community. First of all, there is no real solidarity between the black and hispanic communities. Second of all, the shameless attempts to shine SB1070 under the light of Jim Crow marginalizes the plights of blacks that were dragged into this country.

Then, there's the incredible job losses among legal minorities and some folks will begin to hear a different argument. Mine.

You are correct in the sense that the black and hispanic communities are politically lukewarm to each other at best. Having said that, there is a certain common ground with both communities being minorities in the US with all that that entails. But I think you have missed my point. My mentioning of the illegal immigration thing firing up the Tea Party crowd was most definitely not meant to shine it "under the light of Jim Crow" let alone slavery. That would be crazy talk! It's viewed more as a "racial profiling" issue ... something which the African-American community has experienced firsthand. So there is some natural sympathy for Hispanics being subjected to similar treatment. That's all I was saying.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Likewise OAW.

Agree or disagree ... a well-reasoned argument is always appreciated on this end.

OAW