Bush is a representative of all citizens, including those who criticise him. No matter how personally hurt Bush may be from the ad, he has a responsibility to listen to the voice of the people. The NAACP represents one of our largest minorities (a substantial number of citizens) and as such should be able to express thier opinions to our Chief Executive. Its would be reasonable if the Administration had not put the NAACP at the top of the list, but to ignore them completely is unacceptable. We know you party, TheFreak, so stop your denials...
So I guess any person who called Clinton a rapist shouldn't have expected Clinton ever listen to his concerns.
I never saw it either, but a quick search on Google shows that he is indeed characterizing it correctly. It is a sickening ad from what I've read. The Willie Horton ad of that election. Still don't think he shouldn't meet with them, though. Like HayesStreet said, he's supposed to be representative of all the citizens, not just the minority who voted for him.
So Hayes, I guess your answer to "Can they publicly call his mother a w**** and still expect a meeting?" would be....Yes? Sure. He'd meet with them if the price was right. Probably let them sleep over as well.
That sums it up perfectly. RM95, what do you think the key difference between the Willie Horton ad and the James Byrd ad was...?
There is a key difference in that you could argue that Dukakis was more responsible for Horton being released that Bush was for Byrd's death. I don't think it was Dukakis' fault that Horton was released, and I <B>definitely</B> don't think that Bush's refusal to sign hate crimes legislation means that he was anyway responsible for Byrd's death, or that the family should've felt that way. Also, if I remember correctly, Bush distanced himself from that ad, which was not done by a group that should be above such things like the NAACP. It's a despicable ad.
Ok, you're pissed because I told about your partying, right? If the Chief Executive refused to acknowledge every group that accused him/her of wrongdoing they wouldn't even talk to half their own party. Can't imagine a situation where they'd call Barbara Bush a 'w****' (I mean, c'mon, you know what she looks like) but it would be irrelevant and irresponsible for the President to ignore ANYONE for particular comments they didn't like. We are not talking about Joe at the Barber Shop calling Bush a name and then not getting in to see the President. Joe at the Barber Shop would not get in anyway. The NAACP represents too many people for ANY elected official to continuously ignore. It is antithetical to democracy for an ELECTED official to ignore the people's voice. And what is the problem with the ad again? Byrd was killed in a 'hate crime.' Bush opposes legislation to tackle 'hate crime.' For a group to then propose that Bush is metaphysically re-killing Byrd by denying the need for the legislative remedy is legitimate. That it is shocking makes it no less legitimate. And maybe the point is that you should be MORE shocked and offended than you are that the PRESIDENT won't support efforts to end 'hate crime.'
I really don't care if you are disappointed in my opinion, and yes it was my opinion (an easy way to tell is to look to the left of the post, where the poster's name is displayed). I said that the NAACP advocates only for a minority, and was called naive. I asked for some evidence to the contrary (advocation of something that is done for another group, in particular white men) and you are disappointed. Boo freakin' hoo. I could care less if the NAACP does anything for me. I do for myself and others. I suggest others do the same. I am certainly not trying to defend white people from the NAACP. I would also say that the evil radical blacks are not the ones who just want to be treated equally. I did not equate them with anyone. Maybe you missed my post to timing that covered this. It should be above somewhere. I only vote Republican because I think that that is the only party with a legitimate chance of beating the Democrats. If there were a strong candidate that more closely supported my beliefs I would vote for them. I think that the GOP is getting too much into a big government mode, just like the Dems, but too a lesser extent. So I am not really trying to defend my party. I would not say that the NAACP is the most important lobby of this century, but I feel that is a matter of opinion, and you are welcome to yours. I am defending the presidents choice to meet with whomsoever he chooses. If he does not feel that the items the NAACP wants to talk to him about are pressing issues, or that they would not be for the most benefit for the most people (the president does need to serve everyone), then he can tell them to try again. There are plenty of bad people who vote Democrat, and I doubt that anything the NAACP ever does will make that old man not a racist. I happen to believe different things than you do. If you think that makes me a bad person, or evil, or whatever, that is up to you. I think that the laws in our country apply equally to everyone. The NAACP is the group that is trying to make racist legislation. Why is it worse for a white person to kill a black person, than it is for a black person to kill a black person. The person still ends up dead. That is why I don't agree with hate crime laws. Murder is already illegal, what do you want them to do, execute people twice. I also disagree with legislation that tells people who to hire, fire, promote, etc. There should be no laws about hiring practices outside of government positions. Hopefully, most people will not discriminate based on color, sex, or anything else (I happen to think discriminating based on ability is critical to success though, what do you want to do, draw names out of a hat). Those that do discriminate based on color, for example, will lose out on a portion of the available applicants and could lose the best applicant. The market would then punish them accordingly. It is there money though, and if someone wants to have an all black, all white, all people from Trinidad, or whatever company, it is their money and they should be legally allowed to do what they want to do. It just isn't very smart. I come from a single parent household. That should put me at a disadvantage. I grew up without a father. I, however, do not use this as an excuse, or a crutch, or to try to get advantages. I did not apply for a single parent scholorship. I worked as hard as I could, I made good grades, I got into college, I got on the Dean's Honor Roll, I got quality internships, and I have put myself into a situation to succeed. Maybe others should follow this blueprint, instead of complaining about the raw deal they got to begin with.
Originally posted by Hydra Timing seems like a reasonably intelligent poster that gets very worked up every ti,me race is discussed on this board. Sometimes when he twists people's words it makes him look like an ass. Hitler was a tremendous ass, quite a bit more of an ass than Timing. He murdered 6 million Jews. WTF? Are you on drugs? Mentioning two people or groups in the same post does not mean that I equate them. I think that the NAACP is inflammatory and devisive. I think that the NBPP for Self-Defense is much more inflammatory and devisive than the NAACP, although they do share a goal in the advancement of colored people (taken from the name of the first and the stated purpose of the second). BTW, I said New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, which is not in any way affiliated with the Black Panther Party, despite the name. I guess what I meant to say Hydra is this. I think the Republican Party is inflammatory and devisive. I think the Aryan Nation is much more inflammatory and devisive than the Republican Party, although they do share a goal in maintaining the status quo with regard to racism. You said that I was naive when I claimed that they are working only for minorities. Please enlighten me. What is the NAACP doing specifically for me, an average white American. This is pretty funny that you would compare the economic, political, educational, and social situations of whites with that of minorities. The NAACP should just drop right now and help white people increase the wealth gap even more. Is that your claim here? How dare they ONLY try to help minorities. The nerve... maybe we can get Goodwill to make a donation to the River Oaks Country Club too. It's really damn unfair that only needy people get free stuff. For your information, I presented quite a bit of data a while back on this board regarding the economic disparities between whites and other races. That disparity today is about the same as it was 30 years ago so spare yourself some head in the sand utopian ideal that constitutes no need for groups like the NAACP and LULAC. Please do not reply with anything along the lines of "Advancing minorities is good for everyone." I am not talking about positive side effects or social ripples. I want to know what scholorships I can get, or where they will find me a job, etc. What country do you live in? Do you really think minorities have the same opportunities that whites do? I also presented quite a bit of info here regarding the racial make up of the best college campuses in the country. I wasn't surprised with what it showed but sounds like you would be. BTW, all you have to do to be eligible for the United Negro College Fund is to be black, possibly be a descendant of slaves, be dispraportionately poor, deal with racism throughout your life, etc. No biggie!
Nice that you consider calling someone a racist and partly responsible for a lynching merely "accusing him/her of wrongdoing". You're right, we're not talking about Joe at the Barber Shop. We are talking about, in the words of Batman Jones, supposedly "the most respected civil rights advocacy group in our country's history", running an ad on national television accusing an elected official of indirectly participating in a lynching. But because they're the NAACP, that somehow makes it okay. What WOULDN'T be okay for the NAACP to do that would justify being "ignored" by Bush? It's funny how they're still so respected around here after that, but not Bush for refusing to meet with them. I would think merely not granting a meeting is a better treatment than suing them for slander, which would not be unwarranted. Are you joking? So opposing the making of new laws for crimes that already have sufficient punishments is refusing to "tackle hate crime"? Won't support efforts to end hate crime? Wait, I thought Texas was the execution capital? Does Bush support executing only criminals who don't kill blacks? So the ONLY way to discourage hate crime is to make a new law? If you don't agree, you helped kill James Byrd? I see. The fact that you think that ad is legitimate means we have nothing more to talk about. Unless you want to discuss the new Poison album...
Originally posted by Timing WTF? Are you on drugs? No, if you follow my posting, you know I am against drugs. I guess what I meant to say Hydra is this. I think the Republican Party is inflammatory and devisive. I think the Aryan Nation is much more inflammatory and devisive than the Republican Party, although they do share a goal in maintaining the status quo with regard to racism. I disagree. The Republican Party platform says nothing in support of racism. There are racist republicans and racist democrats, but I would not say either party supports racism This is pretty funny that you would compare the economic, political, educational, and social situations of whites with that of minorities. The NAACP should just drop right now and help white people increase the wealth gap even more. Is that your claim here? How dare they ONLY try to help minorities. The nerve... maybe we can get Goodwill to make a donation to the River Oaks Country Club too. It's really damn unfair that only needy people get free stuff. Nowhere did I compare the economic, political, educational, and social situations of whites with that of minorities. Nor did I ask for help from the NAACP. I think I covered all of this stuff in my response to Batman. For your information, I presented quite a bit of data a while back on this board regarding the economic disparities between whites and other races. That disparity today is about the same as it was 30 years ago so spare yourself some head in the sand utopian ideal that constitutes no need for groups like the NAACP and LULAC. I dont understand the relevence of this to anything I have posted. What country do you live in? Do you really think minorities have the same opportunities that whites do? I also presented quite a bit of info here regarding the racial make up of the best college campuses in the country. I wasn't surprised with what it showed but sounds like you would be. BTW, all you have to do to be eligible for the United Negro College Fund is to be black, possibly be a descendant of slaves, be dispraportionately poor, deal with racism throughout your life, etc. No biggie! I live in America, but you probably knew that. I think that nothing in the law prevents minorities from having the same opportunities as whites. I also recognise that since there are more poor minorities (proportionally) they have fewer opportunities. I do not agree that we should create laws to help minority America catch up to white America. There are no laws holding them back. It is hard to go from being poor to being not poor, no matter what color your skin is. If you apply yourself though, it is certainly possible. Also, no one is stopping private citizens and charities from helping the less fortunate of any skin color. I just think the law should be colorblind. I would have nothing against holding some judges accountable when harsher penalties are routinely givin to defendants of color.
Originally posted by Hydra I disagree. The Republican Party platform says nothing in support of racism. There are racist republicans and racist democrats, but I would not say either party supports racism. The Republican party doesn't even acknowledge that racism is a serious problem and the fact that they ignore the NAACP is quite indicative of that. The White House's policy on racism is much like that of global warming. We think it might be happening and we just have to get used to living with it. Nowhere did I compare the economic, political, educational, and social situations of whites with that of minorities. Nor did I ask for help from the NAACP. I think I covered all of this stuff in my response to Batman. You don't understand how a civil rights organization like the NAACP is seen as ok and minorites don't understand how elected officials can ignore large segments of the population. You want to know what the NAACP is doing for you as an average white American? Does this not imply that you, as an average white American require the voice of a civil rights organization? You advocate inclusiveness with your silly advancement for all people comment yet the party you support certainly does not. It's the epitome of irony that you decry the existence of the NAACP when your party of choice ignores the causes of minorities and poor people. I dont understand the relevence of this to anything I have posted. This simply illustrates why organizations like the NAACP are necessary. I live in America, but you probably knew that. I think that nothing in the law prevents minorities from having the same opportunities as whites. I also recognise that since there are more poor minorities (proportionally) they have fewer opportunities. I do not agree that we should create laws to help minority America catch up to white America. There are no laws holding them back. It is hard to go from being poor to being not poor, no matter what color your skin is. If you apply yourself though, it is certainly possible. Also, no one is stopping private citizens and charities from helping the less fortunate of any skin color. I just think the law should be colorblind. I would have nothing against holding some judges accountable when harsher penalties are routinely givin to defendants of color. You can't be serious. Let me get this right, so laws created to hold minorities down throughout American history have no impact on American society today? The fact that minorities have been intimidated, segregated, and denied basic rights has no impact on today? All laws are now color blind, you can all move about your business. The fact that white America effectively held down minorites for decades is no longer relevant and has now been washed away by the sands of time.
The Chief Executive cannot ignore a segment of the population because they say something he does not like. PERIOD. Your position that he SHOULD ignore groups that say things he doesn't like is ludicrous. Where would YOU draw the line? Can he ignore those who say he is stupid? Can he ignore those that say he is a warmonger? Your standard is so subjective that any President could ignore any critic. That is NOT his perogative. He MUST be responsive to the people. He doesn't have to agree with them or even to follow their wishes. But to IGNORE them is wrong. Many people feel a 'hate crime' is particularly heinous. Society understands and supports the idea of severe punishment for murder, true. But 'crimes of passion' or murder for money are crimes that happen with a motive we can understand. Randomly picking someone for their race and killing them is not. It is over the top evil and an extra effort and statement about that heinousness is not going to HURT anyone. Saying that 'the current legislation is enough to stop hate crime,' is wrong first of all. Byrd proved that. It is legitimate to criticise a political figure. Where is the problem? Equating those who refuse to take additional steps with those that commit the atrocity is legitimate. If you stand by and watch genocide aren't you on some level responsible? Have we learned nothing from standing aside with the Jews in the 30s/early 40s, from standing aside in Rwanda and Bosnia? Failure to act is philosophically comparable to getting in on the action. OK, I think I would conceed this whole discussion rather than listen to the new Poison album so I could talk about it. I know when I'm beat.
The Republican party doesn't even acknowledge that racism is a serious problem and the fact that they ignore the NAACP is quite indicative of that. The White House's policy on racism is much like that of global warming. We think it might be happening and we just have to get used to living with it. I don't know about all of the elected officials of the Republican party (I would think that at least one has mentioned racism as a problem, but I don't liten to every speach, session of congress, etc), but I am positive that many who vote for the Republican party do so acknowledge the problem of racism. If you have not seen it, allow me to be the first. Racism is a problem in the United States. It exists in every racial and socio-economic group and it is wrong. You don't understand how a civil rights organization like the NAACP is seen as ok and minorites don't understand how elected officials can ignore large segments of the population. I don't believe that elected officials are ignoring large segments of the population, to which segment are you referring specifically. You want to know what the NAACP is doing for you as an average white American? Does this not imply that you, as an average white American require the voice of a civil rights organization? No, it does not. I was merely asking you to clarify why my view that the NAACP only helps minorities is naive. You advocate inclusiveness with your silly advancement for all people comment ... How silly of me to want all people treated equally. yet the party you support certainly does not. It's the epitome of irony that you decry the existence of the NAACP when your party of choice ignores the causes of minorities and poor people. I do not decry the existance of the NAACP. When I posted, "no one is stopping private citizens and charities from helping the less fortunate of any skin color," that meant that I have no problem with the existance of any such organization. This simply illustrates why organizations like the NAACP are necessary. Agreed. You can't be serious. Let me get this right, so laws created to hold minorities down throughout American history have no impact on American society today? The fact that minorities have been intimidated, segregated, and denied basic rights has no impact on today? All laws are now color blind, you can all move about your business. The fact that white America effectively held down minorites for decades is no longer relevant and has now been washed away by the sands of time. Should the sins of the father become the sins of the son? I am quite serious. I do not see how making laws that descriminate against whites is the best idea in light of the fact that there used to be laws that discriminated against blacks. I did not elect anyone who passed Jim Crow laws. I did not own slaves. I did not segregate schools. Do you think that I should now be punished for what was done before I was born? If so, should only the previous discrimination against blacks be addressed? What about the Italian and Irish immigrants who were mistreated? What about when the Moors came out of Africa and attacked the Europeans? I can only have an effect on what happens now. I do not think further discrimination is the answer. I am sorry that you disagree.
I understand this sentiment, but how much of learning comes from home and how much from school? All learning prior to shcool obviously comes from the home, and from then on the learning is definitely augmented by what children learn at home. If African Americans were denied equal learning or allowed no learning at all for 400 years, all of a sudden they are supposed to be able to provide an educated environment for their children on the same level as whites who were had the opportunities all along? I don't think trying to escalate the race for equality, and having measures to make up for past dificiencies discriminates or hurts anyone. I think it only helps all of us.
I think it would have been funny if you were willing to buy the chips for the ignorrant man and looked him in the eyes and said "I don't believe in blowing up people, or stealing from them at all and I don't believe this gentelman behind the counter does either.I do believe in America though."
