the NAACP strikes again

topher5150

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
3,600
Reaction score
6
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan
The NAACP has officially blackballed Rep. Joe Wilson as being a racesist. Why??? Because he called a black man a liar, he didn't use the "N" word, he didn't make any derogatory comments about black people, he didn't crack any black jokes, nor did he beat a minority. Now the NAACP has set an economic boycott on the state of South Carolina because of his disrespectful and "racist" remarks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-join-boycott-south-carolina/?test=latestnews
 
As long as the NAACP and Jessie Jackson are around, there will always be trouble. We have as a country made huge improvements in the racism area, but as soon as we are on the right path to Dr. King's dream, here comes some idiot from the NAACP or Jessie, saying we'll boycott you for (insert any reason here) because that is racist. However if you give a buttload of money to the NAACP or the PUSH Coalition, we'll forget the whole thing ever happened. These fools don't give a flying rat's ass about black people, just themselves. It's truly pitiful.
 
I am not defnding the NAACP, I cant stand them, but I think them boycotting him had something to do with him voting against a bill the increased penalties for jobs the descriminated against minorities, and he worked for strom thurmond, He also voted against making crimes against gay people a hate crime. I don't think he is racist, I just think he is stuck in the pre-King era.
 
I am not defnding the NAACP, I cant stand them, but I think them boycotting him had something to do with him voting against a bill the increased penalties for jobs the descriminated against minorities, and he worked for strom thurmond, He also voted against making crimes against gay people a hate crime. I don't think he is racist, I just think he is stuck in the pre-King era.

It would be interesting to see if the bill he apparently voted against actually increased penalties for businesses that descriminate or if it did something else under those auspices.

As to the hate crime thing; hate crimes are unconstitutional and totalitarian in nature (an attempt at "thought control").
 
I dont know how the actual bill was worded, the bill passed. Is he a racist? Only he knows. I only know that he dissrespected*the POTUS, now his name is out there, I then saw he was retired from the Army, that hurt me, but then I read he was a reservist (weekend warrior), it made me feel better.
 
I dont know how the actual bill was worded, the bill passed. Is he a racist? Only he knows. I only know that he dissrespected*the POTUS, now his name is out there, I then saw he was retired from the Army, that hurt me, but then I read he was a reservist (weekend warrior), it made me feel better.

Damn weekend warriors. Trying to act like they were in the real military. :rolleyes:

Republicans are so frustrated right now because they are useless in blocking the stupid and illegal activity of the lefties.
 
Damn weekend warriors. Trying to act like they were in the real military. :rolleyes:

Republicans are so frustrated right now because they are useless in blocking the stupid and illegal activity of the lefties.

Frustrated or not, you must still respect the title!
 
Don't get me started on the title. I had to prove my citizenship to join the military.
 
Ok, so he was out of order....big deal. You have to understand, that the only way the NAACP can get ahead is to yell racism. Personally, I don't give a rats ass. If they don't want to go to South Carolina, so be it. Don't go. It is a free country. If you don't like it, go back to where you or your ancestors came from. People all over the world have been slaves at one time or another. It is human history. Don't forget, it was the blacks who sold the blacks to the ship owners. I con't care if someone from the south wants to fly the confederate flag. It's there history.
 
The confederate flag stands often times gets related to slavery, but in recent history it is more related to the southern thing....see the southern thing by the drive by truckers for more info. Most in the south are not concerned with what happened in the past, I think that most of us have gotten over it. It's the folks north of the Mason Dixon that keep stirring it up for us, namely Jackson and Farrakkan (that's my closest guess on spelling). If Jackson and NAACP would disappear from the face of the earth, we'd all get along a whole lot better.
 
Ok, so he was out of order....big deal. You have to understand, that the only way the NAACP can get ahead is to yell racism. Personally, I don't give a rats ass. If they don't want to go to South Carolina, so be it. Don't go. It is a free country. If you don't like it, go back to where you or your ancestors came from. People all over the world have been slaves at one time or another. It is human history. Don't forget, it was the blacks who sold the blacks to the ship owners. I con't care if someone from the south wants to fly the confederate flag. It's there history.
Actually it is a big deal, if america would start respecting titles or ranks, we would be a lot better off! I wish everyone would be forced to join the military for atleast 2 years, the U.S would be a much better place. Who brought up slavery?
 
Actually it is a big deal, if america would start respecting titles or ranks, we would be a lot better off! I wish everyone would be forced to join the military for atleast 2 years, the U.S would be a much better place. Who brought up slavery?


The NAACP did. They always do! No where did Mr Wilson disrespect the office of President. He simply spoke out of turn. He apologized. Done! It is the NAACP, who of course has to ad there racism/slavery BS. Even tho it doesn't exist. Remember, if this wasn't a caucasion/negro interacial president, they wouldn't have said anything.

You are right on one point. If you want to better racial relations, the first thing to do is get rid of the NAACP.
 
Remember, if this wasn't a caucasion/negro interacial president, they wouldn't have said anything.

Rush was playing clips of G W's speeches where the crowd would boo him...I'm sure none of them felt obliged to apologize
 
Remember, if this wasn't a caucasion/negro interacial president, they wouldn't have said anything.

Rush was playing clips of G W's speeches where the crowd would boo him...I'm sure none of them felt obliged to apologize

they boo'ed obama also, but they never called him a liar on national television, he let his emotions get in the way, you cant do that when you hold a public office.
 
..you cant do that when you hold a public office.

You probably shouldn't, but he even apologized to the President for the lack of decorum. But that's not a race issue, merely one of manners. What's the NAACP doing in this?

Exploiting it, interjecting race, and being divisive and opportunistic.
 
one politician calling another a liar, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
 
You probably shouldn't, but he even apologized to the President for the lack of decorum. But that's not a race issue, merely one of manners. What's the NAACP doing in this?

Exploiting it, interjecting race, and being divisive and opportunistic.

I have never defended the naacp, I hate Jesse Jackson personally. I just dont see how people entrust their lives in the hand of a male who is so emotional.
 
I have never defended the naacp, I hate Jesse Jackson personally.

Hey! something we can agree on. I know NAACP lawyers got a murderer off here in my town, so for that alone I have no love for those low-lifes. And Jackson is simply a parasite on society.

I just dont see how people entrust their lives in the hand of a male who is so emotional.

Emotional or passionate? Depending on how you define emotional there can be a huge difference.

As far as decorum goes, is it considered "uncivil" to lie and mislead the American people? What about Wilson's actions specifically, in your view, makes this uncivil?
 
they boo'ed obama also, but they never called him a liar on national television, he let his emotions get in the way, you cant do that when you hold a public office.

from this article:
How quickly they forget the instances when Bush was booed by the liberal side of the aisle when addressing the Congress in that same "hallowed" hall. Let's also recall an interview in December 2004 on Meet the Press in which the moderator, Tim Russert, asked Democrat Senator Harry Reid, "When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country. Is that rhetoric appropriate?"

Senator Reid's response was, "I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt." The Senate Majority Leader went on to say," People may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit." In another interview, just as the president was beginning a five-day good will European tour in May of 2005, Reid referred to Bush as a loser. How's that for protocol? That remark violated the restraint that the opposition party customarily exercises when a president is abroad, but it was an example of the bitter acrimony that was regularly being spewed by those who are now pretending to be mortified by one comment from one congressman, who, (until last week) was unknown to the rest of the country. Even during the last months of the Bush presidency, Nancy Pelosi, in a CNN interview last year said, "Bush has been a total failure in everything, from the economy, to the war, to energy policy."...

...Rep. Wilson violated protocol with his outburst during the president's speech, but the reaction by the Democrats, in view of their incendiary style of politics, is so profoundly hypocritical, that it's pathetic. As an example of their feigned outrage, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's webpage has a header that reads: "Hold the GOP accountable; stand against Rep. Joe Wilson's unacceptable outburst. Calling the President of the United States a liar in front of the nation is a new low even for House Republicans and it deserves the strongest response we can give." Okay, let's recap: If the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House appear on national television and call the president a liar, a loser, and a total failure in front of the nation and the world, even when he's representing our country on foreign soil, it's acceptable. However, if an obscure lawmaker from South Carolina does it, he should be destroyed. It appears that Democrats have a bifurcated view of political rhetoric; only they should be able to use it.​
 
Hey! something we can agree on. I know NAACP lawyers got a murderer off here in my town, so for that alone I have no love for those low-lifes. And Jackson is simply a parasite on society.



Emotional or passionate? Depending on how you define emotional there can be a huge difference.

As far as decorum goes, is it considered "uncivil" to lie and mislead the American people? What about Wilson's actions specifically, in your view, makes this uncivil?

When you are passionate about something you still follow rules, when emotions take over you loose control, just as Joe Wilson did.
 
from this article:
How quickly they forget the instances when Bush was booed by the liberal side of the aisle when addressing the Congress in that same "hallowed" hall. Let's also recall an interview in December 2004 on Meet the Press in which the moderator, Tim Russert, asked Democrat Senator Harry Reid, "When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country. Is that rhetoric appropriate?"

Senator Reid's response was, "I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt." The Senate Majority Leader went on to say," People may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit." In another interview, just as the president was beginning a five-day good will European tour in May of 2005, Reid referred to Bush as a loser. How's that for protocol? That remark violated the restraint that the opposition party customarily exercises when a president is abroad, but it was an example of the bitter acrimony that was regularly being spewed by those who are now pretending to be mortified by one comment from one congressman, who, (until last week) was unknown to the rest of the country. Even during the last months of the Bush presidency, Nancy Pelosi, in a CNN interview last year said, "Bush has been a total failure in everything, from the economy, to the war, to energy policy."...

...Rep. Wilson violated protocol with his outburst during the president's speech, but the reaction by the Democrats, in view of their incendiary style of politics, is so profoundly hypocritical, that it's pathetic. As an example of their feigned outrage, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's webpage has a header that reads: "Hold the GOP accountable; stand against Rep. Joe Wilson's unacceptable outburst. Calling the President of the United States a liar in front of the nation is a new low even for House Republicans and it deserves the strongest response we can give." Okay, let's recap: If the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House appear on national television and call the president a liar, a loser, and a total failure in front of the nation and the world, even when he's representing our country on foreign soil, it's acceptable. However, if an obscure lawmaker from South Carolina does it, he should be destroyed. It appears that Democrats have a bifurcated view of political rhetoric; only they should be able to use it.​

I see where you are coming from, but these are two different situations. You have heard me talk bad about Bush, but in his presence, i would never say anything bad about him, i have respect for him as the president of the united states. there is a saying in the military "you don't have to respect me, but you will respect my rank"
 
When you are passionate about something you still follow rules, when emotions take over you loose control, just as Joe Wilson did.

There were no "rules", simply good faith and civility. Does civility extend to the point of ignoring someone lying to you and the American people?

Personally, I would say that Obama already threw civility out the window when he started lying/deceiving the American people in that speech and smearing his opponents.

Remember, Nixon was all but impeached for deceiving the American people...
 
I see where you are coming from, but these are two different situations. You have heard me talk bad about Bush, but in his presence, i would never say anything bad about him, i have respect for him as the president of the united states. there is a saying in the military "you don't have to respect me, but you will respect my rank"

They are in certain ways different. But in each case, a customary and traditional standard of decency and decorum was violated by the left. Now, when a standard of decency that had already been violated by the left before (hasting a president during an address to a joint session of Congress), it all of a sudden becomes a sin.

That is a blatant double standard here.

As to respecting the rank, what do you do when the person in question "disrespects" the rank? Because, by actively deceiving the American people in that speech and engaging in petty and dishonest partisan propagandizing, that is what he was doing.
 

Members online

Back
Top