Maryland NAACP

[peonyu]

Leaders of the Maryland NAACP, worried that a Baltimore mayor's criminal conviction could result in the appointment of a white or Republican leader who may not fully represent the majority black and Democratic city, are asking state lawmakers to strip the governor of authority to permanently fill the office.

The request, made in a resolution adopted at a state meeting of the civil rights group last weekend, marks the first time a mainstream organization has raised questions about succession should Baltimore Mayor Dixon be convicted of any of the nine charges she faces. Dixon has been indicted for theft and perjury and the first of two trials is scheduled for early next month.

"There is that possibility of a conviction, and we want to know those protocols that are in place," said Elbridge James, the political action chairman of the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "If it looks like it is going to rain, I am going to buy an umbrella."

Link



Sounds slightly racist to me. If a majority 'White' city tried to pull the same stunt and make it law that only another white could succeed him [because supposedly, a black man cant fairly represent whites] it would be ALL over the news in seconds. Double standard by the media and the NAACP.

 

[OCGuy]

What else would you expect from an organization that caters to only one race?

Hopefully these racist outfits that promote double standards will go the way of the dinosaur soon enough.

 

[Craig234]

Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

 

[b0mbrman]

Yeah...sorta like Bobby Rush defending (now) Sen. Burris.

Hopefully, more sensible heads prevail.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

Wow. So many ways to call you a racist...

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

I know reading is not your strong suit, but an orginization based on race (Advancement of Colored People) wants to make sure it is a black mayor.

OP didnt bring up race, they did.

You are a tool.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: peonyu
Sounds slightly racist to me. If a majority 'White' city tried to pull the same stunt and make it law that only another white could succeed him [because supposedly, a black man cant fairly represent whites] it would be ALL over the news in seconds. Double standard by the media and the NAACP.

yawn. this isn't an issue for whites because 99.9% of all elected politicians are white. is there a double standard, sure, but not without reason.

white people need to chill.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

You never fail to dissapoint. Perhaps you should request a user I'd change to "partoftheproblem" to aid in newcomers to the site.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: peonyu
Sounds slightly racist to me. If a majority 'White' city tried to pull the same stunt and make it law that only another white could succeed him [because supposedly, a black man cant fairly represent whites] it would be ALL over the news in seconds. Double standard by the media and the NAACP.

yawn. this isn't an issue for whites because 99.9% of all elected politicians are white. is there a double standard, sure, but not without reason.

white people need to chill.

So you are OK with double standards, as long as they apply to white people.


You and Creig can share the short-bus for today.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

If the governor is elected and part of his office is appointment, how is it democracy would be thwarted?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

If the governor is elected and part of his office is appointment, how is it democracy would be thwarted?

Apparently he doesnt believe that governor of MA should be able to appoint Ted Kennedy's succesor.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is an example of why racist organizations like the NAACP have no place in a modern society. They seek the advancement of one single race, at a time when as a society we should be working towards the advancement of all, regardless of race.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

If the governor is elected and part of his office is appointment, how is it democracy would be thwarted?

Apparently he doesnt believe that governor of MA should be able to appoint Ted Kennedy's succesor.

I'm too lazy to do the research, but I know we had a thread around here discussing that very topic... I can't remember what side Craig was on, but given his usual partisan drivel, my guess would be that he had no problem with it in that case.

Anyone have the patience to find out?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Straight up racism. The idea that a white or Irish (American) person could not adequately represent the interest of all the city's citizens is BS. If this is true, there should be no black mayors allowed in predominantly white cities.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Straight up racism. The idea that a white or Irish (American) person could not adequately represent the interest of all the city's citizens is BS. If this is true, there should be no black mayors allowed in predominantly white cities.

That settles it. From now on any candidate that isn't the same race as the majority of it's constituents is not allowed to hold any office, including the presidency.

If that's what the NAACP wants, then let's make it so!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: OCguy
What else would you expect from an organization that caters to only one race?

Hopefully these racist outfits that promote double standards will go the way of the dinosaur soon enough.

:thumbsup: May they soon follow the KKK.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

So let the people choose the mayor in the next election. The NAACP is the one that has brought the race card into the picture.

This is similar to the Mass issue with a replacement for Kerry & Kennedy.
When it is beneficial to them, they want it one way. If that option would harm their political desires, then the other way is what they feel should be done.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

Today.


Regarding the selection of Kennedy's replacement:

There's no deep democratic principle clearly involved here to how the replacement is chosen. It's not free speech or Habeus Corpus or freedom from torture. This is a politician changing the rules in an area the rules can changeto try to get his side in power. Now, if Kennedy in 2004 based his position on a claim to principles he's now violating, then yoiu have a case for hypocrisy. But from the OP, it's about the same as a candidate who wants debates when they'll help him and doesn't when they won't, just politics. The *context* is not hypocritical, insofar as Kennedy viewing a Democrat getting the seat as having moral benefits, as long as he doesn't go too far to violate democracy. Now, speaking of hypocrisy, did you condemn (I'll bet not) or will you condemn, say, the Republican power grab the way the Republicans did an unprecedented between-census change to the districting in Texas in order to get more Republicans in Congress, among schemes they did in several states? While the gerrymandering is always a crass political act, they took it to new levels. Will you condemn *their* actions to grab power too, or only if it involves a democrat? If you want strict hypocrisy, then condemn their rules changes on the judicial nomination process to hurt Clinton - and then reversing the changes to help Bush. What do you give us - consistency or a concert by they Hypocrisy Crickets?

In the first case, the citizens should have the choice. In the second, that concern is curiously lacking.

Interesting.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

I'd be very interested to see Craig's opinion of the Kennedy appointment situation.

Craig? You still there?

 

[OCGuy]

^ Ha ha.

 

[waggy]

lol poor craig. hard to keep stuff straight when you are nothing more then a hack.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234 in reference to the appointment of Mayor Dixon's replacement:

Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

Originally posted by: Craig234 in reference to the appointment of Sen. Kennedy's replacement:

There's no deep democratic principle clearly involved here to how the replacement is chosen. It's not free speech or Habeus Corpus or freedom from torture. This is a politician changing the rules in an area the rules can change to try to get his side in power.

LOL! Craig's partisan macro-bot is amazing!

owned.

 

[bfdd]

rofl @ Craig. Seriously bro seriously? Everyone of your posts I've read is so condescending and I'm pretty much sure you don't think your shit stinks. Just stop buddy, just stop.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

Sounds like defending the principle of democracy - the right of the people to choose their own government rather than have one they don't want forced on them.

And you are pretty despicable for turning the issue of democracy into the race card here.

Today.


Regarding the selection of Kennedy's replacement:

There's no deep democratic principle clearly involved here to how the replacement is chosen. It's not free speech or Habeus Corpus or freedom from torture. This is a politician changing the rules in an area the rules can changeto try to get his side in power. Now, if Kennedy in 2004 based his position on a claim to principles he's now violating, then yoiu have a case for hypocrisy. But from the OP, it's about the same as a candidate who wants debates when they'll help him and doesn't when they won't, just politics. The *context* is not hypocritical, insofar as Kennedy viewing a Democrat getting the seat as having moral benefits, as long as he doesn't go too far to violate democracy. Now, speaking of hypocrisy, did you condemn (I'll bet not) or will you condemn, say, the Republican power grab the way the Republicans did an unprecedented between-census change to the districting in Texas in order to get more Republicans in Congress, among schemes they did in several states? While the gerrymandering is always a crass political act, they took it to new levels. Will you condemn *their* actions to grab power too, or only if it involves a democrat? If you want strict hypocrisy, then condemn their rules changes on the judicial nomination process to hurt Clinton - and then reversing the changes to help Bush. What do you give us - consistency or a concert by they Hypocrisy Crickets?

In the first case, the citizens should have the choice. In the second, that concern is curiously lacking.

Interesting.

LOL, what a hack.

 

[dammitgibs]

Welcome to Post-Racial America!