Gov tells naacp to kiss his butt!

[waggy]

They're all that stands in the way of you having the slaves you want.

LOL fuck it's amazing at some of the shit you say.

 

[pcgeek11]

You're an idiot.

A group with a history of White supremacy is NOT the same as a group of citizens with a history of discrimination against their group organizing for its political representation.

And it's not a 'special interest group' like the term is usually used, where one group, usually powerful, is out to push interests over the public's, like a polluting industry.

Ban them? You are not worthy to be a US citizen with that statement.

And, you are disgustingly ignorant and immoral to not show any awareness of the history of wrongs against blacks, the ongoing discrimination, and legacy effects.

You're like a guy who equates Little Big Horn - the killing of a military force there to kill families - and the slaughter of the Indian families.

Disgusting.

Yes it is the same but opposite ends of the spectrum. They both promote racism. Our issues with race relations wouldn't be nearly what they are if both groups were abolished. The naacp promotes racism more than any other group of people in the USA at this time. I will grant you at one time they were doing good works for the black people, but now all they do is pit themselves at every opportunity against whites. I am not a proponent of either group.

Yes it is a special interest group by definition:

A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with a interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to effect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may meet communicate, meet and organise conferences

I grew up in the south during the 60's and I am fully aware of the discrimination that went on during this time. I don't agree with it but it is in the past. Now the naacp hurts black people more than helps them, by turning everything into a racial problem no matter how innocent it is.

There is nothing to show that the Gov was being racist about his refusal to attend MLK events. Who turned it racial? The naacp.

 

[Craig234]

I concur that I made a huge mistake in responding to your post to "101mpg" and I apologize for that error.

On this issue, I was going to say, 'no apology needed, just an innocent mistake', but some of your comments were enough that I'll say 'apology accepted'.

The remainder of our interaction stands.

It still seems to me you are repeating other errors I addressed you did not read.

I just don't feel like a lot of cut and paste to repeat it, instead of your reading it.

If you want to make one or two of your best points, I'll answer that. Hint: I am not saying the Governor is (or that he is not) a bigot.

I am saying that the phrase that a leader 'has balls' is often used to defend bigots, that it's a very poor 'compliment' that covers up a lot of bad behavior.

Analogy: the President of Iran 'has balls' by standing up to the Holocaust groups.

 

[classy]

so you didn't read the article i see. he did tell them no nicely (he had plans with the family) 2nd time he told htem no because he was going to the funeral of a fallen police officer. then they started raciest BS against him. he responded in kind.

shrug i see nothing wrong with telling them to kiss his ass.

I did the read the article. But the point is you just decline and leave it at that. No excuse for the governor to tell them to kiss his rearend. He could have reiterated his decline for personal reasons no need to sink low, even if they sink low.

 

[Craig234]

Yes it is a special interest group by definition:

A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with a interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to effect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may meet communicate, meet and organise conferences

You are not getting the points I'm making. When I'm making the point that the KKK or a polluting industry, and the NAACP, are *very* different and only technically both 'special interest groups' but quite different, you respond by quoting that technical definition and ignoring the rest.

The "allies" and the "axis" in WWII were the same, because they were both alliances of countries fighting a war. That's the only relevant thing about them. Equally right.

The people who fought to keep segregation and those who fought to end it were the same. Both were 'special interest groups'. Equally right.

There is nothing to show that the Gov was being racist about his refusal to attend MLK events. Who turned it racial? The naacp.

No, it's not about race. First, the point you ignore here is that it's a pattern of refusing all invitations going back to the campaign. A pattern the NAACP is saying now has enough times it's occurred that it appears to them that he is intentionally not meeting with them as a political opposition - and thus showing that he has no interest in the issues they are representing, which happen to be issues for black citizens, but it could just as easily be a non-racial group and the issue would be the same.

They did not say the reason he's avoiding them is that he's racist - you did. They said they are concerned that he's showing that he is not concerned with their issues.

That's a reasonable conclusion to reach, and right or wrong, they have a right to say it's their opinion without being attacked - much less for abusing the 'race card'.

The NAACP can be accused at times of exaggerating race as an issue - this isn't one.
You picked poorly if you want to attack them for that.

Rather, it seems to me that people who just hate the NAACP - some of them for racist reasons - love to jump on a situation like this for attacking them, however wrongly.

And to cheer a leader for 'having the balls' to attack those uppity blacks and not to worry about appearing racist - even if that's not what he was doing.

And in your case, to smear the NAACP with disgusting, false, irrational attacks as 'the same as the KKK'.

 

[pcgeek11]

OK. We disagree. As I said before I feel as the naacp has evolved into a race baiting organisation. No they did not start out as such, and they have done a lot of good in the past.

I am speaking for right now, in this time period. Every day I see crap getting stirred up by this organisation for No Good Reason other than the race card. What does that do? It drags this on and on.

The same can be said for discrimination and " reverse discrimination". There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" It is all the same. If a minority gets a job contract etc Just because they are a minority that is wrong. The same if a non-minority gets refused a job contract etc because they are not a minority that is also wrong.

If a white group stirs up racial trouble they are wrong, the same holds true for blacks, yellows, etc...

 

[Craig234]

OK. We disagree. As I said before I feel as the naacp has evolved into a race baiting organisation. No they did not start out as such, and they have done a lot of good in the past.

I am speaking for right now, in this time period. Every day I see crap getting stirred up by this organisation for No Good Reason other than the race card. What does that do? It drags this on and on.

The same can be said for discrimination and " reverse discrimination". There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" It is all the same. If a minority gets a job contract etc Just because they are a minority that is wrong. The same if a non-minority gets refused a job contract etc because they are not a minority that is also wrong.

If a white group stirs up racial trouble they are wrong, the same holds true for blacks, yellows, etc...

We do disagree. I disagree with the NAACP on some things, and think they can overstep things on the issue of race.

But take the clip someone linked here with Senator Boxer - how much do you want to bet that the NAACP played a very useful role in representing black people's interests with their resolution on the issue, while the black guy who headed the 'black Chamber of Commerce' opposed to Boxer was not representing black interests well at all?

It's like the oil companies who make/sponsor phony environmental groups to try to undermine legitimate ones. Good groups are useful to fight those things.

You have a very simple view I disagree with on affirmative action - one which does not understand at all the history of the effects today of past racist policies.

You are ignoring all the effects that exist in great unfairness and second-class status and lack of opportunity today from past racism, and saying 'let's be color blind'.

Pretty convenient for someone who has the advantage today from all that history as his ancestors had all kinds of advantages compared to blacks today's background.

You show you really could care less about equal opportunity for blacks, beyond 'it'd be nice if it happens, somehow, magically'.

I'm not say you are doing this out of racism, I don't hear that in that post, it's an issue of ignorance IMO about the problems and what works.

The NAACP can be criticized on some issues, but it's hardly nothing more than 'playing the race card for nothing'.

You refer to opposing injustices as 'stirring up race trouble'. That makes you the enemy of justice.

Some injustices are ended in the single act to remove them - like women's right to vote.

Others are far larger.

Isn't it funny that practically every black leader today - I think this includes Obama, Powell, Rice, Thomas and more - had affirmative action at some point?

It's not that all of them are questioned at having earned what they have - Powell, for example - but that the fair opportunity wasn't there, from the effects of past racism.

(I don't include Thomas as a shining example of a Supreme Court Justice, but to be fair, it's not as if he's lacking a number of the *basic* qualifications. His greatest flaws are similar to his right-wing radical peers, more than they're about the basic qualifications to be a justice.)

Generations of discrimination mean that the 'same starting line' today leaves long-term if not indefinite massive inequality in place, with blacks second-class.

We can't do more than right that a tiny bit, but we can do the tiny bit.

You might note that every major US corporation I know of has affirmative action programs as well, apart from what the government might require.

The idea is for them to be a temporary phase moving toward equality, but the longer you block the programs, the longer they're needed.

You should learn the difference between 'affirmative action when large inequalities from past racism' are identified, and 'they're being racist to take from others'.

 

[pcgeek11]

We do disagree. I disagree with the NAACP on some things, and think they can overstep things on the issue of race.

But take the clip someone linked here with Senator Boxer - how much do you want to bet that the NAACP played a very useful role in representing black people's interests with their resolution on the issue, while the black guy who headed the 'black Chamber of Commerce' opposed to Boxer was not representing black interests well at all?

It's like the oil companies who make/sponsor phony environmental groups to try to undermine legitimate ones. Good groups are useful to fight those things.

You have a very simple view I disagree with on affirmative action - one which does not understand at all the history of the effects today of past racist policies.

You are ignoring all the effects that exist in great unfairness and second-class status and lack of opportunity today from past racism, and saying 'let's be color blind'.

Pretty convenient for someone who has the advantage today from all that history as his ancestors had all kinds of advantages compared to blacks today's background.

You show you really could care less about equal opportunity for blacks, beyond 'it'd be nice if it happens, somehow, magically'.

I'm not say you are doing this out of racism, I don't hear that in that post, it's an issue of ignorance IMO about the problems and what works.

The NAACP can be criticized on some issues, but it's hardly nothing more than 'playing the race card for nothing'.

You refer to opposing injustices as 'stirring up race trouble'. That makes you the enemy of justice.

Some injustices are ended in the single act to remove them - like women's right to vote.

Others are far larger.

Isn't it funny that practically every black leader today - I think this includes Obama, Powell, Rice, Thomas and more - had affirmative action at some point?

It's not that all of them are questioned at having earned what they have - Powell, for example - but that the fair opportunity wasn't there, from the effects of past racism.

(I don't include Thomas as a shining example of a Supreme Court Justice, but to be fair, it's not as if he's lacking a number of the *basic* qualifications. His greatest flaws are similar to his right-wing radical peers, more than they're about the basic qualifications to be a justice.)

Generations of discrimination mean that the 'same starting line' today leaves long-term if not indefinite massive inequality in place, with blacks second-class.

We can't do more than right that a tiny bit, but we can do the tiny bit.

You might note that every major US corporation I know of has affirmative action programs as well, apart from what the government might require.

The idea is for them to be a temporary phase moving toward equality, but the longer you block the programs, the longer they're needed.

You should learn the difference between 'affirmative action when large inequalities from past racism' are identified, and 'they're being racist to take from others'.

This is a good post and I agree with most of what you say here. With a few exceptions about the naacp and affirmative action.

I did not grow up advantaged just because I am white however. I grew up in middle Ga. One of four kids and a single mother with no skills. She raised us four kids on 50 dollars a week working in a laundry & dry cleaner. Life was no picnic trust me. I made it out with lots of hard work, my kid never had to live this way.

What holds the blacks back does have some to do with the past racism in the north and south USA. The biggest hurtle for them IMO is their own fixation on their self imposed gangster culture. If a black student is learning and doing well they get beat down by their own people for not being "Black". Whites did not impose this rap gangster culture on them. They do it to themselves. I have heard this from so many successful black people I know personally not counting others such as Bill Cosby ...

 

[Craig234]

This is a good post and I agree with most of what you say here. With a few exceptions about the naacp and affirmative action.

I did not grow up advantaged just because I am white however. I grew up in middle Ga. One of four kids and a single mother with no skills. She raised us four kids on 50 dollars a week working in a laundry & dry cleaner. Life was no picnic trust me. I made it out with lots of hard work, my kid never had to live this way.

What holds the blacks back does have some to do with the past racism in the north and south USA. The biggest hurtle for them IMO is their own fixation on their self imposed gangster culture. If a black student is learning and doing well they get beat down by their own people for not being "Black". Whites did not impose this rap gangster culture on them. They do it to themselves. I have heard this from so many successful black people I know personally not counting others such as Bill Cosby ...

Both are true. The issue is not entirely the past effects of racism nor 'their own fault', both are a part. But what I hear from you is almost entirely only 'their own fault'.

Understand that things like 'gangster culture' can be EFFECTS in large part of other things like discrimination.

To help you fill in some blanks you have about the problems - a few of them - I'd recommend you watch the documentary 'Made in America' by Stacy Peralta. A white guy skater dude who made a movie to answer his own questions about the history of gangs, and why you don't see them with the middle class white kids.

Here's a review on Amazon, where you can watch a download for $3, by a guy you might be able to relate to:

I was skeptical. What does a blonde (now grey) former professional skateboarder (now film maker) from the other side of town know about gang wars in LA? And then there's me: a white guy from the suburbs in Ohio who was raised by a gun collector who is still pretty open about his use of the"N" word. When I hear about gang violence: I just shrug: "It's probably a fight over something stupid." Still, this film remained in my queue and wasn't working its way up very quickly.

I elevated this movie to #1 when Michael Vick was signed by the Eagles. In one week: I heard two accounts from completely different lifestyles: Prissy ESPN sports talk show host Mike Greenberg declared that he had never heard of the subculture known as dog fighting until the Vick case made the news. Vick stated that dog fighting in his childhood neighborhood was so common that police would stop to see a fight and then drive away. Dog fighting was the norm. It was then when I knew I had to check out Peralta's newest movie as I'd loved the Dog Town and Z Boys documentary.

The first 25-30 minutes of the movie covers pre-1970 race riots in LA and other cities. How invisible lines created "hoods" by police who would commonly question straying pedestrians about "why don't you go back to your neighborhood?" Then abruptly, the movie takes a sharp turn when vocal black leaders like MLK, Malcom X and others are thrown in jail or murdered. Suddenly, all the icons were gone. Think of the Living Colour song: Cult of Personality - "When that leader speaks, that leader dies."

For the rest of the movie I was hooked. I couldn't grasp what was happening. The Crips and Bloods seemed to come out of nowhere. Peralta seemed to have skipped something important. But he didn't. I didn't understand how there were suddenly two gangs. I didn't understand why they were divided and bent on killing each other based on territories, red or blue bandanas, or other reasons.

Before the movie ended, I got it. Young black men without fathers, mentors or real leadership took a downward turn. Image, status and bravado became a common theme in neighborhoods where there is no hope. I will admit that I'm a Republican with strong beliefs that everybody should pull their weight and not rely on handouts. In a world where police often respond by use of strong force, there's little reason to NOT question authority. I have no solutions. The oppressed respond to violence, with violence.

Jim Brown has a couple of short appearances (he's not in the film enough in my opinion) and he is quoted by someone in the extras: "If the police have not resolved the problem in 40 years, they never will resolve the problem." It's about oppression, not the gangs themselves. Stacey says the an outtake that he wanted to make this movie because he didn't understand why there is no gang violence in suburban or upscale neighborhoods. Why are people arming themselves and having gun battles with former childhood friends in impoverished communities?

This movie is a must see for anyone even mildly afraid to drive thru certain neighborhoods or better yet, the generation of kids from the suburbs who were raised on hip hop, MTV and anything that glorified the gangsta lifestyle. In the extras, Snoop Dog and Lil Wayne each give a heartfelt, unscripted point of view that really was impressive.

Notice he sounds a bit like you, 'it's their fault', and how the film informed him.

On the issue of advantaged, it's all relative. You can be advantaged even in the situation you describe, for generations of your family's situation compared to blacks.

It's really hard to understand the issue of the effects of generations of discrimination from 'the other side', it's not obvious or simple at all.

 

[createdAmonster]

“They are a special interest - end of story,” he said. “And I’m not going to be held hostage by any special interests.”

HEHEHE OK... We will see down the road how this one pans out!

 

[hal2kilo]

I don't think the NAACP has had really decent leadership since Kweisi Mfume. At the same time since I'm a caucasian, it's really not my call. On the otherside, it's easy for a govenor from Maine to blow off the NAACP since, wow, .8 percent of the population is black in that state.

The fact that he went out of the way to make a statement about it is quite revealing though since he could of just ignored their complaint.

 

[Double Trouble]

I agree 100% with the governor's sentiment that the NAACP is just a special interest group like any other and should be ignored. I don't agree with him telling them to kiss his ass, it's simply not very statesman like. As the governor of a state he should show some dignity. He should have just said "I'm not going to treat them any differently than any other special interest group." That would have been perfect.

NAACP = liberal trash masquerading as a civil rights group.

 

[101mpg]

The problem with any civil rights group is that eventually they will have achieved their objective, but they will never disband, they need to create reasons for their own existence, they become a self-licking ice cream cone. It wouldn't matter if we all lived in a perfect utopia the NAACP would still have to find some injustice, real or imaginary, to validate their purpose. Comparing the NAACP to the KKK is ridiculous but they are quickly becoming comparable to 'la raza' for sure.

 

[Double Trouble]

The problem with any civil rights group is that eventually they will have achieved their objective, but they will never disband, they need to create reasons for their own existence, they become a self-licking ice cream cone. It wouldn't matter if we all lived in a perfect utopia the NAACP would still have to find some injustice, real or imaginary, to validate their purpose. Comparing the NAACP to the KKK is ridiculous but they are quickly becoming comparable to 'la raza' for sure.

Agreed. In that sense, the NAACP is much like unions: they once served a very valuable purpose, and we all reap the benefits of some of their past actions, but in today's world they do more harm than good.

Also, my issue with the NAACP is that nowadays they don't really represent the interests of black people, they represent liberalism.

 

[Sinsear]

Craig's vehement dislike for the governor in question begs the question if he should be a presidential candidate...

 

[pcgeek11]

Craig's vehement dislike for the governor in question begs the question if he should be a presidential candidate...

Your black faced avatar is so wrong here.

 

[Hacp]

Craig is a racist. He doesn't see people for who they are. He sees them by the color of their skin. If you're black, you're automatically labeled as being disadvantaged and you need special privileges no matter who you are or where you came from. You are grouped with a bunch of people who may or may not have anything in common with you other than the color of your skin. Liberal elitistism at its finest. Psychologist and Sociologist scum who think they know what is best for everyone else.

 

[Rastus]

At least he didn't say, "Kiss my lily white ass."

 

[trenchfoot]

HEHEHE OK... We will see down the road how this one pans out!

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. It will be interesting to see how he defines what is, and more importantly, what is not a special interest group in his eyes as he accepts and refuses invitations from various organizations that beg for an audience with him or ask for his participation at certain events, of which I'm sure there will be many.

I'm sure the NAACP will be keeping a sharp eye on that, and will be ready to call him on any of his actions that make him out to be a liar, or worse.

"Any special interest group" is a very wide net to cast. Methinks it will eventually come back around at him, sooner than later.

If anything, he has cornered himself into a very uncomfortable and difficult position to defend.

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm sure the NAACP will be keeping a sharp eye on that, and will be ready to call him on any of his actions that make him out to be a liar, or worse.

An organization with no credibility makes for a very lousy watchdog. No matter what they "call him out" on, who cares? It's the usual worthless drivel coming from an organization with no credibility.

If anything, he has cornered himself into a very uncomfortable and difficult position to defend.

Not at all. His choice of words was poor, but his message is correct.

 

[chucky2]

They're all that stands in the way of you having the slaves you want.

No they aren't, I can have all the Mexican slaves I want, they work harder and you can actually understand them...

You're wrong 95% of the time, the other 5% I can't remember.

Buwahahaha...you are so predictable Craig, I'd ignore list you, but it's too fun reading your drivel... :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

It's the usual worthless drivel coming from an organization with no credibility.

Another irony of the week nominee

I see a lot on the right claiming groups like the NAACP have 'no credibility'.

It's really nothing but a lazy way of making an attack without any substance.

You're looking to add credibility your own drivel that lacks any.

 

[Genx87]

Funny how 'bigot insults people and is clueless' is pretty much always 'has balls' to his idiot followers. Guy is governor trailer trash.

George Will wrote about people like you recently. Always resorting to pulling the bigot\racist card when you dont like what others have to say.

 

[Vic Vega]

They're all that stands in the way of you having the slaves you want.

You have serious mental issues. Please seek help before you hurt yourself or others.

 

[jackstar7]

No they aren't, I can have all the Mexican slaves I want, they work harder and you can actually understand them...

I gotta ask... you can't understand black people?



And it's laughable how many people get stuck on the username and can't laugh when something absurd is posted. Craig's line was funny. Heck, even if he was serious, it only gets funnier.