WHY IS THE NAACP VERY ANGRY ? Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » The Attic (1999-2002) » Soapbox » Archive through July 25, 2003 » WHY IS THE NAACP VERY ANGRY ? « Previous Next »

  Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page          

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

zoe
Citizen
Username: Zoe

Post Number: 261
Registered: 7-2002
Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 10:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The NAACP is upset. It seems that several Democratic presidential candidates have elected not to show up at the NAACP’s candidate’s forum on Monday. Oh come on now. These candidates know that no matter what they do, about 95% of blacks are going to vote Democratic in the 2004 presidential election. Why should they waste their time campaigning to a captive audience?

Now if the role was a Republican not showing up, well...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bklyntonj
Citizen
Username: Bklyntonj

Post Number: 20
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 11:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point Zoe. African-Americans have been exploited by the democratic party since the years of the industrial revolution. I wonder if many african-americans know that the first black senators, congressman and even Abraham Lincoln were republicans. A few protests and broken promises later and look what you have. Talk about unconditional love, putting all your eggs in one basket... And african-americans wonder why republicans don't seem to have campaign format that addresses their issues. What do you think MOLers?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite

Post Number: 83
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 6:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

top black Republicans: Powell, Rice
top black Democrats: Jackson, Sharpton

enough said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock

Post Number: 222
Registered: 9-2002


Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't disagree with what's being said, particularly the "all your eggs in one basket" thing. Personally, I don't think anyone should vote based on their color, religion, union affiliation, etc. You're saying you're not an individual - that you're just one fo the crowd, and that your vote can be bought by candidates from your leaders. This goes just as well for always voting along party lines of affiliations.

However... the Republican party of Lincoln was not quite the same as the Republican party of today (with the exception of Ronald Reagan). Just as is it no longer the party of Joseph McCarthy.

Oh, and Bush was too busy to attend the NAACP conference.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost

Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 9:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very Well Put, Insite.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ml1
Citizen
Username: Ml1

Post Number: 1110
Registered: 5-2002


Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

it's only well put if you think "top" is synonymous with "never elected to any office."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost

Post Number: 8
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 7:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point Insite was trying to make is that the black republicans are people of distinct, clear achievement.
By contrast, Jesse Jackson has become a huckster and racial extortionist of the worst sort, while Sharpton is the African Elmer Gantry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave

Post Number: 4874
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 7:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can someone clue me in as to where Thurgood Marshall, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and W.E.B. Dubois fit in this? To my knowledge, none of them lied to the nation about going to war or flacked for a faceless corporate entity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd

Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 1:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If only 95% of Blacks in the United States were going to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. What you meant was 95% of THOSE WHO VOTE will vote for the Democrat. Given how narrow the margins were in the last election, one might think the Democratic Party would at last wake up and see that they ought to go whole hog for appealing to Black voters and hoping to improve Black turnout. Reality is, they fear this will put off middle-class whites. But in fact, they ought to see that most whites and blacks of middle and working-class have a lot in common: i.e. getting screwed royally by two rounds of Bush's libertarian tax cuts for the rich, leaving our grandchildren with deficits that would have embarrased even that shameless fool, Reagan. The Democrats ought to fight the class war the Republicans have started, but are too gutless and clueless to do it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bklyntonj
Citizen
Username: Bklyntonj

Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey its John D again. I agree with you and I also think its the gutless, clueless democrats that allow themselves to be screwed that perpetuate the treatment they receive from their trusted leaders.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite

Post Number: 88
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 4:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"A federal judge threw out the NAACP's case against the gun industry Monday, despite finding that the manufacturers have put the public at risk with careless marketing practices. Affirming a jury verdict in favor of the gun makers, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein ruled that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People failed to show, as required by law, that its members were uniquely harmed. "

the old saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready

Post Number: 163
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 9:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's funny, isn't it? Someone who makes the choice to smoke his/her entire life can sue the tobacco companies claiming they weren't aware how dangerous the product is (and win), but someone who's a victim of gun violence can't sue the manufacturer of the device that caused the harm.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Redsox
Citizen
Username: Redsox

Post Number: 289
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 12:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

John D,

you've been too long in academia.....

give it up and come join the real working class heroes.

don't worry about the long term debt.

we'll pull a sc*mbag third world move -

renege on debt payment & de-value the currency
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler

Post Number: 20
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Insite, Judge Weinstein said a good many things in his thoughtful and scholarly 189-page opinion. He did not, however, say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." He held that the NAACP could not bring a private cause of action because it could not show that either it or its members were harmed in any special way over and above the way in which all New Yorkers were harmed by the defendants' conduct. Ironically, the suit failed because the defendants' conduct harmed too many people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite

Post Number: 91
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 2:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

pierce butler,

You pretty much added nothing new. Just repeated what I wrote.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock

Post Number: 260
Registered: 9-2002


Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 2:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Insite,

Don't you mean, interpretted what you copied (without any attribution so we could read the entire story)?
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead

Post Number: 341
Registered: 3-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 2:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I predicted it. Now with Straw gone we are arguing semantics. Oh and you spelled "interpreted" incorrectly!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite

Post Number: 92
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Woodstock..Did you graduate High School? You spell just like a 4th grader.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler

Post Number: 21
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Insite, it seemed from your cryptic "the old saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people" as if you might have been under the impression that the suit failed because Judge Weinstein adopted that worn out and meaningless platitude; or it might have been that you were mocking that platitude yourself. I couldn't tell. It would help if you wrote in complete sentences.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite

Post Number: 93
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

pierce/ willis;

Different name, same foolishness
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ml1
Citizen
Username: Ml1

Post Number: 1130
Registered: 5-2002


Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lumpyhead,
"semantics" are pretty important. Words should mean something, especially if you're making an argument.

and if you miss the Straw man, maybe we can all start calling people who disagree with us "weak, worthless, pathetic, losers." That'll really raise the level of discourse here...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead

Post Number: 342
Registered: 3-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ml1: From Dictionary.com

se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock

Post Number: 261
Registered: 9-2002


Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Insite/Lumpy - forgive my typing. And Lumpy, there is a big difference between repeating and interpreting (see, I can learn).

Insite - from one typo, you claim I spell like a 4th grader? Amazing. It's a good thing you don't jump to conclusions on thin evidence. Shall I scan you posts for any typos throughout your posting history? Would one error make your spelling similarly equivalent to a 4th grader?

Meanwhile, back to the subject, I believe Pierce's point was not the validity of the claim against the gun makers, but that so many people have legitimate claims that NAACP members are not special in that regard. I wonder what would happen if they expanded the class to include all US citizens.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero

Post Number: 1836
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In fact, the judge found that the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument was not enough to protect gun manufacturers from blame. Judge Weinstein found that the firearms industry could, but has decided not to, protect innocent people from the criminal use of guns. The industry has the tools necessary to identify dealers who sell guns which wind up used in a crime:
"The defendants, viewed in the broadest sense, are less culpable than some other elements of society, but their culpability nevertheless cannot be ignored. In the twenty year period between 1979 and 1998, there were just under 300,000 firearm homicides in the United States; handguns were involved in countless more non-fatal injuries and other criminal activity. In the years between 1990 and 2000, on average 662,000 incidents of violent crime were committed nationally with handguns each year. While defendants are justified in disclaiming liability for all these violent crimes and the resulting injuries and deaths, that is hardly a justification for failure to take elementary steps that the evidence demonstrated would have saved the lives of many people unnecessarily lost to handgun violence, and could save the lives of a myriad more. The power of the gun industry to reduce deaths from their products is estimated to run into the thousands in any decade."
(Emphasis added) NAACP v. Acusport, Inc,. et al.,Pages 25-26.

But, as the judge noted:
"The fact that the NAACP and the rest of the community can and would be better protected against handgun violence by relatively cheap and simple responsible policies of manufacturers and distributors of handguns is not decisive. Ironically, the demonstration that all New Yorkers would gain from this method of reducing a dangerous public nuisance prevents the NAACP from obtaining relief under New York law on the ground that it suffers a special kind of harm from irresponsible handgun marketing."
Id. at page 24.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

zoe
Citizen
Username: Zoe

Post Number: 265
Registered: 7-2002
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 6:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To answer Dave's question, as to where Thurgood Marshall, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and W.E.B. Dubois fit in this?

They're all deceased.

It is obvious to many how the black population could benefit from a leader with charisma and character, such as those you mentioned. Unfortunately, the NAACP has none that I can see.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

zoe
Citizen
Username: Zoe

Post Number: 269
Registered: 7-2002
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How can anyone seriously believe that (Julian Bond, Al Sharpton, Kwefe Mfume, Jesse Jackson, in fact place the name of any authorized Black Leader you wish here) is interested in working to implement constructive policies that will help advance opportunity for minorities and promote racial harmony in America?

If any one ofthese people had their way, they would use the issue of race to rip this country apart at the seams. Oh, I guess maybe that's the leadership style best taught by their predominately Democratic leadership.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave

Post Number: 4900
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 6:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can only see one person using race here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr. Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 275
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 4:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Zoe, no one here has professed believe that Sharpton and his ilk stand for anything good. You are spitting into the wind. Sharpton is a charlatan, and enough people know it.

Tom Reingold


Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration