A Breitbart Video of NAACP Bigotry In Their Ranks

[rockmom]

How does a bright lady like you completely overlook the two main premises of my post (that you linked) where I thought I made clear, but will endeavor to do so here...

 

1.) Whether she is or is not guilty of being a racial bigot... past or present is not the issue.

 

2.) The fact that she may have reformed her "ethnic racist" thoughts, feelings or practices (Hallaleujah... good for her... I'm genuinely serious... yay!) is not trumped by the fact that she STILL clearly espouses "economic" bigotry between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

 

Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. We do not need government servants doling out benefits or witholding the full scope of possible benefits "as they see fit" or according to their particular belief system. Their job is to fulfill the law equally to one-and-all regardless of their particulars... unless those particulars are clearly defined and excluded under their department laws or guidelines.

 

From watching the full video of her statements in context, it appears to me that although she may be a reformed "racial bigot" (Hurray... I really mean it...) this woman clearly was applying her personal "internal filters" with regard to the level and amount of assistance offered to different applicants. How is this remotely something to be overlooked or rewarded?

 

I thought I was singing out of your friggin' hymnal with the whole "justice for all" premise... what am I missing Mom?

 

Never mind....I'm done with this.

[True blue (and gold)]

Wasn't she fired before Fox repoted the first word on the story?

 

I could certainly be wrong, but I thought that Breibart sold the videos to FoxNews and that is how they were released?

[cammando]

I could certainly be wrong, but I thought that Breibart sold the videos to FoxNews and that is how they were released?

Yep... You're wrong...

[mcpapa]

So, I'm trying to understand.

 

I thought that the purpose of the thread was to show racial (emphasis mine) bigotry among the ranks of the NAACP with the 2-minute video snippet.

 

Now I'm to believe that never was the issue at all. It is and always was about something called "economic bigotry".

 

Sorry, my gullet isn't big snough to swallow that one.

[Fastbreak]

Never mind....I'm done with this.

So... does that mean you approve of "economic" bigotry between the "haves" and the "have-nots", and that it's okay for our government servants to excercise their own internal judgments aside from the rules?

 

Or is it that you see my point, but simply can't stand the thought of agreeing with me?

 

Something tells me you'll stew over this dilemma and issue a response in between the two, or trying to convince me I cannot understand what the woman actually said...

 

...or, you'll just ignore the rest of my posts on this subject. :lol:

[Fastbreak]

So, I'm trying to understand.

 

I thought that the purpose of the thread was to show racial (emphasis mine) bigotry among the ranks of the NAACP with the 2-minute video snippet.

 

Now I'm to believe that never was the issue at all. It is and always was about something called "economic bigotry".

 

Sorry, my gullet isn't big snough to swallow that one.

I didn't start this thread. If I had, you'd have a solid point.

 

As it is, I happen to see the issue differently based upon the entire video of the entire speech by the woman in question.

 

Since the full set of facts and details have evolved over the time since this thread was started, I thought it might be appropriate and acceptable to comment on the latest facts, not remain mired in the partial and slanted information. :thumb:

[rockmom]

So... does that mean you approve of "economic" bigotry between the "haves" and the "have-nots", and that it's okay for our government servants to excercise their own internal judgments aside from the rules?

 

Or is it that you see my point, but simply can't stand the thought of agreeing with me?

 

Something tells me you'll stew over this dilemma and issue a response in between the two, or trying to convince me I cannot understand what the woman actually said...

 

...or, you'll just ignore the rest of my posts on this subject. :lol:

 

Wow. That's a pretty acrimonious response. It was a simple, I'm done with this. I'll continue to read everyone's posts. That's because I'm truly interested in what they have to say, whether I agree with them or not. I've simply said my piece. I doubt anyone questions where I stand on this particular issue. What more is there to say?

[History]

You can choose to like or hate Olbermann, but show us where he has done something as deceitful as this ...

 

Are you kidding? He makes fun of people and their character nightly without so much as a wink. Like Don Rickells, bu he is not kidding.

[History]

So, I'm trying to understand.

 

I thought that the purpose of the thread was to show racial (emphasis mine) bigotry among the ranks of the NAACP with the 2-minute video snippet.

 

Now I'm to believe that never was the issue at all. It is and always was about something called "economic bigotry".

 

Sorry, my gullet isn't big snough to swallow that one.

 

mcpapa-I still contend the NAACP is by its very nature bigoted. They are for the advancement of colored people-the CP in NAACP, and by doing so they are not for all others that are not CP-that is bigotry. For one group-against another-is it not?

[Fastbreak]

Wow. That's a pretty acrimonious response. It was a simple, I'm done with this. I'll continue to read everyone's posts. That's because I'm truly interested in what they have to say, whether I agree with them or not. I've simply said my piece. I doubt anyone questions where I stand on this particular issue. What more is there to say?

You should know better than anyone on this site that it's virtually impossible to judge the full intent of a vast majority of posts that are not clear rules violations.

 

I sincerely believe that if you and I were to speak in person, face-to-face, you would not be so sensitive to my words alone. I accept that you may still disagree, but you would better understand the genuine intent, sincere curiosity and gentle emotional force with which they are issued. Shoot, you might even find yourself resisting the urge to genuinely "like" me. :lol:

 

There is no acrimony intended in my previous posts. I was simply stating what I believed would happen. Although I didn't specifically spell it out, you did not surprise me by yet again slipping my direct questions and turning this around on me being acrimonious.

 

I have asked you what I am missing in my evaluation of "economic bigotry" being present and unacceptable.

 

I asked if you approve of "economic" bigotry between the "haves" and the "have-nots", and if it's okay for our government servants to excercise their own internal judgments aside from the rules?

 

You have twice refused to answer two direct questions, not intended to entrap and hammer you, but to possibly better understand a POV I do not have.

 

Silly me, I thought that was what this particular forum was all about. :idunno:

[westsider]

Are you kidding? He makes fun of people and their character nightly without so much as a wink. Like Don Rickells, bu he is not kidding.

That doesn't mean he's done anything deceitful ...

[westsider]

mcpapa-I still contend the NAACP is by its very nature bigoted. They are for the advancement of colored people-the CP in NAACP, and by doing so they are not for all others that are not CP-that is bigotry. For one group-against another-is it not?

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how biased it may be ...

 

Just because the NAACP or any other organization advocates for one group doesn't mean it's against others. But if it fits your political agenda, go right ahead and make the claim.

[cammando]

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how biased it may be ...

 

Just because the NAACP or any other organization advocates for one group doesn't mean it's against others. But if it fits your political agenda, go right ahead and make the claim.

Kind of like how the left wants to portray the TEA Party... It fits their political agenda... No matter how biased...

[History]

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how biased it may be ...

 

Just because the NAACP or any other organization advocates for one group doesn't mean it's against others. But if it fits your political agenda, go right ahead and make the claim.

 

Westsider that is EXACTLY what the Nazi's did in Germany prior to WWII. If you promote one group because of ethnicity, religion, etc, then you are naturally against the others. The Democrats are not for the Republicans (except Joe Lieberman previously), and the Republicans are not for the Democrats. It's just the way it is. If you are a member of the NRA, you are not for gun control.

[Run To State]

Now that Breitbart and the video have been totally discredited, what about the claim that the NAACP is ripe with racism and bigotry?

I think people on here, including myself, were saying that there's as much racism in the NAACP as there is in the Tea Party. In other words, both have racist members but that doesn't make the organization as a whole racist. Oddly enough, I don't see you defending the Tea Party in the same light. :idunno: