Pot Planning to Call Kettle Black

I would say this was more on the ball:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=66856

People in debates like this will always deflect attention away from the super-rich on the premise that they earned it and should be "free", but regardless, they are making hundreds of times more than they did generations ago, and many of them are proably also mixed in with the world economy. A lot of money is taken out of the country, and they don't even have to pay taxes on it (more than making up for whatever "high taxes" they pay here). So wealth is being "redstributed"; but not where you think. I guess the problem is, that an upward flow is seen as natural, where the liberals try to curb this unnaturally through taxing and programs. So one side favors the natural redistribution, and opposes the unatural redistribution. However, it is still redistribution, and money is not limitless.

So the conservatives will tell their followers it is all taxes, and then the focus usually ends up shifted to single minority mothers, and all of these "fat poor in the ghetto with a car and electronics who don't want to work"; etc. and now, the Mexican immigrants. Particularly under the premise of accusing the liberals of trying to keep them enslaved, or garner votes. Then, statistics are brought in; the denial of race suddenly stops, and we are told "see; that's the facts!"
Regardless of all of this; the end result is that the focus is constantly being shifted to those groups. The Appalachians might eventually be brought up in defense, and then you never hear about the govt. waste that benefits others, such as the $400 screwdrivers, and many other ridiculous contracts and projects. The liberals are always being condemned for "social programs" more than anything else (even abortion and gay rights I don't hear as much on anymore, like we just gave up on that stuff).
This is why complaining of taxes gets suspected of being racist. It is taken as "code language"; right or wrong. Some today might not mean it that way, but the rhetoric never really made a clear distance from the past where many did appear to be basing it on race. It sounds like the same thing.

On the other side; it is true that many liberals and groups like the NAACP, Jackson, etc. are still pointing their followers to race, or suggesting the more direct forms of redistribution.
So then this further keeps the conservatives fixated on that stuff, and the battle goes on. Meanwhile, the problems also go on, as both sides are just blaming each other. Conservatives don't seem to be happy with much of anybody anymore, regarding even most Republicans as sold out to liberal Democrat "big govt".

If the entire political system across both parties has gone so off track and unconstitutional, no matter how much people scream and protest, then it looks like something bigger than us, and something definitely bigger than some measley social programs.

 

So, if I were to put on a Hitler costume and walk into a Baptist church, would that mean that Baptists are Nazis?

 

Do you have any evidence that that is the case in those pictures? For one thing, if someone were to do that, wouldn't the people in the Church quickly confront him, so that to anyone taking a picture, it would be obvious that he was not apart of the Church?

The growth of the government may be one problem; but it is just that - one problem. And not likely the main problem. Just a distraction among some.
Yes, the liberals might throw up race, but then so do the conservatives. Look at how race was infused into this class discussion, again, under the premise of a criticism of the liberals' motives http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1570400&postcount=6 This seems to be what looms the largest on people's minds when it comes to "government waste". They have to prove that it is really harmful to minorities. Again, what about all the other waste?

Of course, the main thing stoking the anger on your side now, being the health care bill, which is also said over there to be some luxury people think they are entitled to.

What I'm saying is that it's time to stop focusing on that, as if that's really where all your money is going.

Just funny, even as I write, a story on this hedge fund that will drive up chocolate prices.

http://thecynicaleconomist.com/?p=15476
original source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e50feefc-9120-11df-b297-00144feab49a.html

I recently debated with someone elsewhere who claimed prices only rise (and quality/quantity drop) because of taxes and unions. Those factors have nothing to do with this.

 

I thought the point of the OP was just to relay a current event and relate it as an example of them using race. So then, it's really just an occasion to take a shot at the organization for a general accusation, and thus it doesn't make a difference if the accusation might not be totally accurate this time; it is still "no excuse" for all the supposed other times.

BTW, this morning, ABC's This Week covered the issue in their "Round Table".
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/roundtable-tea-party-vs-naacp.html


George Will made the point of there being no recording of the supposed verbal attack against a congressman. They did not deny the pictures, however. And if the pictures are true (at least one of them even having the N word), then it's not hard to believe that someone, somewhere probably did say that to the congressman. The pictures should be enough.

Biden was on earlier, making the point of it being elements in the party (which need to be confronted), not an accusation of the whole party.

The point is not to make "excuses" for one side. I believe both sides have a political agenda, and a fault on either side, as well as truth on either side, does not make one side all right, and the other all wrong. (The clarifying of which makes it look like one is "defending" the side being made all wrong and attacking the one made all right).

 

So you're actually admitting the alternative to the wrong thought; that it was just an occasion to take a shot at the organization? Whatever...

The NAACP acknowledged "racist elements" in the party just like Biden.

Here are a couple more articles sheddling light on the basis of the controversy:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/13/naacp-vs-the-tea-party-is-this-fight-necessary/

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/18/tea-party-not-a-racist-organization-biden-says/

 

Enough for what? To prove that, out of millions of TP participants or sympathizers, that an idiot has been spotted? It is laughable to compare the NAA-A-A-P's actions with the Tea Party's.

The former has statements from its leaders to its formally gathered members making false claims--claims that are racially motivated. The latter--at best--shows (possible) footage of an idiot with racist views. (Keep in mind, we don't know if it's even authentic. And also keep in mind, the "verbal attack" on the Congressman & his aides has not been corroborated--even though dozens of cameras were at the event).

So....systemic, public statements from leaders, versus possible stupid statements from a face in the crowd. Sorry...but in your attempt to be "even-handed," you're ignoring facts.

Funny how Biden never seems to find the time to address the over-the-top statements from his side of the aisel. Of course, if folks want to believe conservatives are raid

I will agree that both sides need to speak the truth.

But in no way can I go along with, "they're both equally to blame."

The NAA-A-A-P's behavior in recent days has been more egregious and more systemic than the Tea Party's. Leadership for the NAACP versus individual rank and file of the Tea Party.

 

Now this is the best example of what this whole discussion is about:

SOURCE
SOURCE2

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democratic race-baiter with a propensity to make profoundly stupid remarks, addressed the NAACP. Here's her words:

And what reaction does she get from this tripe?

Well...enthusiastic support. So much for "color blind."

The line about about folks spitting on members of congress prior to the health care vote? Absolute lie. $100,000 rewards are available for anyone who can prove these allegations are true: those rewards remain unclaimed.

So enough with the "tea party and NAACP are just alike, just on opposite political sides."

No, they're not. Not even close.


Just for fun, here are some other brilliant statements by Ms. Lee (Jackson-Lee? How do you refer to hyphenated women? Oh well, it doesn't matter...if I do it wrong, it's because I'm a racist anyway. She'll probably sue me for a civil rights violation):

• Lee "educated" Congress on the current levels of cooperation between "North and South Vietnam." And no...it isn't a mis-statement. The whole speech is about how the two countries are working together.
• On a visit to the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 2005, Rep. Lee made embarrassing news by asking if the Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong.
• She has also urged better relations between the U.S. and Venezuela, which she describes as a friendly nation. She said the U.S. should reconsider its ban on selling F-16 fighter jets and spare parts to that country.

How can someone that stupid, and that racist, possibly be elected to a national office?

Of course, to oppose her would be...(join with me in saying)....racist.

 

NAACP Speech: Black official withheld help from white famer; bragged about it at convention.

SOURCE

To their credit, the NAA-A-A-P condemned her actions...but you wouldn't know it by listening to their reactions to her speech.

Disgusting. Also, check out her advice to the delegates:

 

I didn't say "both are equally to blame". I said a fault on either side... does not make one side all right, and the other all wrong". The point was, and what the picture was "enough" to show, is that there are racist elements in the organization, and thus a cause for likely concern, which people seemed to be denying altogether; as if it was all being entirely made up.

I didn't really say "they were exactly alike", either.
The difference is that one is established, and fighting for relevancy, which you all will gleefully point out. The other is newer and more reactive, with fresh passion, and the concern is, just as that quote suggests, that racists have gotten involved in it.

They did not all drop off of the face of the earth, or give up.
Of course, if the NAACP is the most racist organization now, then I guess the Klan and the Neo-Nazi's did just disappear. But of course they didn't. Many simply changed their tactics, and made more of an effort to blend in more with the general conservative movement.
To me, part of their modern tactic is to keep casting blame (directly or indirectly) on minorities for the nation's financial problems, by focusing on "taxes spent on social programs", and speech about "vast hordes of lazy grasshoppers" (sometimes cast as some class of "well-fed poor") to the exclusion of all other government waste, and other destinations of "wealth redistribution".

This touches upon many average taxpayer's concerns, and if they don't pay attention to the real issues, they might be none the wiser of the intentions, and then be shocked when someone points it out.

So the defense seems to be to totally cast the other side as totally off the wall, and one's own side as totally innocent, or then admit "a few kooks" when it can't be denied.
I think both sides need to refocus. I'm not saying anything about "equal" or "blame"; both sides of the issue have been led to blame each other, and I believe it is a distraction, as nothing ever gets better this way.

Well, she sounds like the Palin of the Left.
And your side keeps mocking that way, but I don't actually see anyone saying that to oppose any of these people in instances like this would be racist. I do see the other side saying that any opposition to them is the "true" racism, or socialism, or anti-America, and a host of other pejoratives.

 

Given the number of minorities involved in the Tea Parties, including those in leadership positions and those who are popular speakers, and given the principles the Tea Parties are based on, do you have any evidence that it isn't?

A still photo captures a milisecond. Do you have any evidence that the people with those signs were not confronted but just not photographed?

 

1) Remember, no one is saying the entire organization is racist. We're talking about individuals blending in.

2) There were no reports of the people in the photos being confronted. (The people not carrying such signs don't look like they're about to turn and oppose those next to them that are, or thaty they just haven't noticed yet). In some cases, it looks like that would entail breaking up the whole crowd, and if the TP had to confront or isolate a whole rally like that, we definitely would have heard about that.

 

Given that opponents of the Tea Party previously said that they would infiltrate Tea Party rallies carring offensive signs with the intent to discredit the Tea Party...

How is one now supposed to believe that is not what is happening here?

 

Eric, you left out one possibility:

That the number of racists has decreased. Maybe the reason there isn't the Klan influence nowadays is because there are fewer white racists.

My point is this: the NAACP is a recognized organization that is more and more embracing racist positions and ideologies.

IMO, no such "white" equivalent exists.

Are there white bigots/racists? You bet.

As many as 40 years ago? Nowhere near.

 

Who said that?

I would think the people holding actual cards with racial references written on them were the ones "playing the race card".

There may be fewer of them, and the organizations were basically ostracized in society (largely by the same "political correctness" people complain about), but there are apparently enough of them still around to say that those who point them out are not totally making things up.And that's my only point.

"Longwinded"? It is your side that tries to build your arguments based on these comments of what the NAACP is trying to do, or what I'm making of them; so when I refute those things, then I'm "picking apart every minute detail"? Yeah; if I don't, then you will think your outlandish sweeping premise is automatically proven. Stop saying all this stuff, then.

I've admitted that the NAACP is struggling to maintain relevence, and often jumps on the wrong issues, and is politically motivated. I've never seen any of you EVER admit any flaws about the things you defend. No; it's all "poor us; we're so good and innocent and they're all out to get us".
But you're the one who has made it perfectly clear that it is you who demands wholehearted allegiance, or the other person is an "enemy", "one of those rotten bad guys", "longwinded", or this, or that, or the other.
So this constant projection of your own behavior has gotten very tiring.