Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: The Challlenge of Talking about Race
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 07/23/14 11:14 AM
NAACP has their agenda in their name. They serve one group. N A A COLORED PEOPLE. If, they had all US citizens interest, I would not consider them separatist. However, they represent and allow membership to only one group. Same as the NOI. ZERO WHITE OR JEWISH MEMBERS. Hmmm. Back to taxpayers footing their bill to sue the non-black, demand quotas and special privilege. All their employees are paid by all tax payers. Injustice. All their rents, utilities come out of all the taxpayer pockets. Injustice. NAACP has outlived it's usefulness. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is changing its name. But no matter if it's ACORN or COI -- Community Organizations International http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_630596.html#ixzz38IeXOA6J COI, AKA ACORN, uses taxpayer funds to fraud the taxpayer. They are still very much alive and continuing with their subversive actions. and, btw, it makes good sense to research and know what one is talking about when insisting on beating down others the NAACP not only was founded by some white and jewish people, it still has white and jewish members as well as BLACKS<,, they are a non profit and their budget is a mixture of PRIVATE donations, memberships, and grants theree will never be no 'usefulnes' for it, because of how long injustice has been a staple in this society,, removing it, removes the barriers to returning to those times,,

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Thu 07/24/14 04:26 AM
NAACP has their agenda in their name. They serve one group. N A A COLORED PEOPLE. If, they had all US citizens interest, I would not consider them separatist. However, they represent and allow membership to only one group. Same as the NOI. ZERO WHITE OR JEWISH MEMBERS. Hmmm. Back to taxpayers footing their bill to sue the non-black, demand quotas and special privilege. All their employees are paid by all tax payers. Injustice. All their rents, utilities come out of all the taxpayer pockets. Injustice. NAACP has outlived it's usefulness. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is changing its name. But no matter if it's ACORN or COI -- Community Organizations International http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_630596.html#ixzz38IeXOA6J COI, AKA ACORN, uses taxpayer funds to fraud the taxpayer. They are still very much alive and continuing with their subversive actions. and, btw, it makes good sense to research and know what one is talking about when insisting on beating down others the NAACP not only was founded by some white and jewish people, it still has white and jewish members as well as BLACKS<,, they are a non profit and their budget is a mixture of PRIVATE donations, memberships, and grants theree will never be no 'usefulnes' for it, because of how long injustice has been a staple in this society,, removing it, removes the barriers to returning to those times,, What you state as fact, in fact, is not true. The NAACP does not allow conservative blacks to speak. The trillion dollars spent since the "Great Society" started does more to hold blacks down than lift them up. Reverse discrimination exists and is vile and unconstitutional. Your leftist agenda is just that. Facts need not apply.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 07/24/14 04:39 AM
NAACP has their agenda in their name. They serve one group. N A A COLORED PEOPLE. If, they had all US citizens interest, I would not consider them separatist. However, they represent and allow membership to only one group. Same as the NOI. ZERO WHITE OR JEWISH MEMBERS. Hmmm. Back to taxpayers footing their bill to sue the non-black, demand quotas and special privilege. All their employees are paid by all tax payers. Injustice. All their rents, utilities come out of all the taxpayer pockets. Injustice. NAACP has outlived it's usefulness. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is changing its name. But no matter if it's ACORN or COI -- Community Organizations International http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_630596.html#ixzz38IeXOA6J COI, AKA ACORN, uses taxpayer funds to fraud the taxpayer. They are still very much alive and continuing with their subversive actions. and, btw, it makes good sense to research and know what one is talking about when insisting on beating down others the NAACP not only was founded by some white and jewish people, it still has white and jewish members as well as BLACKS<,, they are a non profit and their budget is a mixture of PRIVATE donations, memberships, and grants theree will never be no 'usefulnes' for it, because of how long injustice has been a staple in this society,, removing it, removes the barriers to returning to those times,, What you state as fact, in fact, is not true. The NAACP does not allow conservative blacks to speak. The trillion dollars spent since the "Great Society" started does more to hold blacks down than lift them up. Reverse discrimination exists and is vile and unconstitutional. Your leftist agenda is just that. Facts need not apply. you know how it is,If the only Tool you have is a Hammer,all Problems will look like Nails!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 04:46 AM
NAACP has their agenda in their name. They serve one group. N A A COLORED PEOPLE. If, they had all US citizens interest, I would not consider them separatist. However, they represent and allow membership to only one group. Same as the NOI. ZERO WHITE OR JEWISH MEMBERS. Hmmm. Back to taxpayers footing their bill to sue the non-black, demand quotas and special privilege. All their employees are paid by all tax payers. Injustice. All their rents, utilities come out of all the taxpayer pockets. Injustice. NAACP has outlived it's usefulness. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is changing its name. But no matter if it's ACORN or COI -- Community Organizations International http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_630596.html#ixzz38IeXOA6J COI, AKA ACORN, uses taxpayer funds to fraud the taxpayer. They are still very much alive and continuing with their subversive actions. and, btw, it makes good sense to research and know what one is talking about when insisting on beating down others the NAACP not only was founded by some white and jewish people, it still has white and jewish members as well as BLACKS<,, they are a non profit and their budget is a mixture of PRIVATE donations, memberships, and grants theree will never be no 'usefulnes' for it, because of how long injustice has been a staple in this society,, removing it, removes the barriers to returning to those times,, What you state as fact, in fact, is not true. The NAACP does not allow conservative blacks to speak. The trillion dollars spent since the "Great Society" started does more to hold blacks down than lift them up. Reverse discrimination exists and is vile and unconstitutional. Your leftist agenda is just that. Facts need not apply. smh,, keep swinging the charge was that there was a 'seperatist' agenda and whites were not allowed,, that charge was FALSE I am curious how long you have been a member of NAAACP or how many of their events you have attended to obtain your 'facts', because I have been a member since the teens , get the newsletter, have attended events and EVERYTHING, so imagine how I might actually know some FACTS about who has spoken at events there are black republicans (usually considered 'conservative') who are involved with the NAACP, and black clergy( 'conservative' enough?) who have spoken at events just because some specific individual PUNDITS arent asked to participate, doesnt mean that 'black conservatives' arent welcome,,so that is another false charge reverse discrimination is an interesting complaint just by its name alone,,,,because the NORM of discrimination is not against members of the majority group in power and wealth this comes back to that term 'as a group',, which those continuing to espouse individual exceptions dont seem to understand,,, and speaking of facts, Id love to see the ones which support the notion that money that has been spent to hold blacks BACK down MORE than it lifts them up,,,,

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Thu 07/24/14 07:42 AM
Fishing for Democrat voters. ACLU, NAACP join group’s effort to block immigration petition By Cy Ryan June 18, 2010 Leila Navidi Immigration reform petition filed in Nevada (5-28-10) CARSON CITY – A business group, a Las Vegas gun activist, the NAACP and the ACLU of Nevada have filed suits to block a state assemblyman's initiative petition that mimics the controversial anti-immigration law in Arizona. They are asking Carson City District Judge James Wilson to declare the Nevada Immigration Verification petition invalid and to prevent it from being presented to the 2011 Legislature. A group called “The Nevada Open for Business Coalition” brought the first suit asking for declaratory and injunctive relief. It was followed by legal action from the ACLU of Nevada and on behalf of the NAACP of Nevada and Robert Johnson, president of Gun Owners of Nevada. That group is called “What Happens in Arizona Stops in Arizona.” The suit by the business coalition says the petition is an “election year mashup of an Arizona anti-immigration measure that has cost that state $100 million in lost revenue." It will cost that state even more in boycotts, canceled meetings and conventions, the suit says, adding that it could happen to Nevada if the petition were to become law. Assemblyman Chad Christensen, who was unsuccessful in his run for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, is leading the petition drive and couldn't be reached for comment. Both suits say the anti-immigration petition is invalid because it contains several subjects, ranging from voting laws to illegal immigration arrests to setting up task forces. The business coalition says Christiansen and his backers “rolled up everything they could think of into an anti-immigration fantasy they could muster and stuffed it into this measure.” The suit says the petition violates the single subject rule and the subjects in the petition are not directly tied to the enforcement of immigration laws. Johnson, the gun activist, wrote in a statement, "We don’t want to ruin Nevada’s reputation as a welcoming tourist destination by passing an extreme law that would essentially turn Nevada into a police state and mandate racial profiling. And worse still, the proposed initiative is so long, complicated and confusing, it fails to inform signers and voters of what it really involves – the erosion of our freedoms from many fronts." Maggie McLetchie, a lawyer for the ACLU, said adoption of the initiative “would result in state-sanctioned discrimination and racial profiling.” And the petition is confusing, she said in filing the suit. The business coalition suit was filed by Las Vegas attorney Edward Garcia. Members of the business coalition include Democratic Assemblymen Moises Denis and Ruben Kihuen, both of Las Vegas, and Latin Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Otto Merida, as well as Larry Mason. Christensen has until Nov. 9 to gather 97,002 signatures of registered voters. If he is successful, the issue would go before the 2011 Legislature, which would have 40 days to act. If it rejects the 32-page petition or doesn’t act on it, the issue would go on the 2012 ballot for voters to decide. The Legislature could also present an alternative measure to go on the ballot. Christensen must gather 24,944 signatures in congressional District 1 in Clark County; 34,479 in District 2 in Northern Nevada and 37,561 signatures in District 3 in Clark County. Frank Hawkins Jr., president of the NAACP in Las Vegas, said “African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial profiling and voter disfranchisement. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place on the ballot, in Arizona, Nevada or anywhere.” The ACLU suit says the initiative petition is flawed because it requires increased spending by local law enforcement without providing the revenue to cover these expenses. It says the petition “is deceptive and would intentionally confuse voters and therefore should not be circulated for signatures.” The proposed law would allow a peace officer or officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration designated by the U.S. Attorney General to make an arrest without a warrant when a person is believed to be in the country illegally. The petition says a state or local law enforcement official may determine the immigration status if he or she has “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. An individual who is arrested is not eligible for suspension of a sentence, probation, pardon or commutation of the sentence and is required to pay his or her jail costs, the petition states. Anyone who hires an illegal immigrant now can be charged with a misdemeanor, with a fine of at least $1,000 for illegally moving, concealing or harboring illegal immigrants. The person's vehicle can also be impounded. The petition would make it a felony to conceal or move 10 or more illegal immigrants.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Thu 07/24/14 07:50 AM
And, their efforts were not in vain. Nevada illegal immigration petition dropped July 13, 2010 CARSON CITY – Faced with a number of lawsuits, Las Vegas Assemblyman Chad Christensen has abandoned his initiative petition to enact an immigration law in Nevada similar to one in Arizona. Ron Futrell, a spokesman for Christensen, said he expects the issue will still show up during the 2011 Legislature. He said it is estimated that state and local governments in Nevada spent $700 million in 2005 to educate, imprison and provide medical care for those in the country illegally. A number of groups filed suit to block the Christensen petition and Futrell said that put it on hold, making it impossible to gather 97,002 signatures by Nov. 8. If successful, it would have been submitted to the 2011 Legislature. If the Legislature rejected it, the plan would go on the 2012 ballot for voters to decide. Christensen, an unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate, is officially notifying the Secretary of State to withdraw the petition. Christensen said several thousand signatures had been secured before the decision was made to give up the initiative petition. The proposal was similar to Arizona, where a law enforcement officer stopping a person for another offense could require the person to show proof of citizenship. The Nevada plan would have imposed penalties on employers who knowingly hire people here illegally. Futrell said Christensen raised the issue twice in prior sessions of the Legislature, suggesting that public funds not be spent for educating, providing medical care and imprisoning illegal immigrants. Those bills never got out of committee.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48938	Thu 07/24/14 11:00 AM
Black Conservatives Met With Hostility, Harassed at Annual NAACP Convention

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 11:10 AM
Black Conservatives Met With Hostility, Harassed at Annual NAACP Convention yes, one individual displayed bigotry towards two other individuals agreed.

TBRich Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 8232	Thu 07/24/14 11:39 AM
Wow, they got it covered from A to Xenophobia! Bang that head slowly

Ras427 Joined Wed 08/08/12 Posts: 1516	Thu 07/24/14 11:57 AM
I was gonna post a list from the SPLC of right-wing terrorist acts since McVeigh, however it was apparently too long and extensive to cut and paste and I am too lazy to do much else. In other words, accuse without citing evidence. I need no citing simply because im aware, lack of citing does not prevent one from doing ones own research.

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Thu 07/24/14 03:48 PM
Wow race is is ingrained in your mind set you cant seperate it from anything. This is what keeps the country from moving forward. no, what keeps it from moving forward is those who refuse to even aknowledge the reality of the benefit in being part of the majority that may sometimes cause a disadvantage , underrepresentation, or even exclusion for the minority which , by the way, happens in more countries than america and more races than white,,,or black for instance, hispanics are a part of the 'general' public, and we have SPANISH channels now, but that isnt because its racist, its because its already the 'general' expectation that most other channels will be english speaking,,,they dont need to advertise 'english' in their titles, its ASSUMED as the 'norm' of the 'general' public but when people are stuck up on the 'white' thing only , and refuse to aknowledge any bigger context,, we will continue to have no resolutions if its really offensive that we might have a BET, when for DECADES whites had ABC, CBS, and NBC(before cable),,, if its really offensive that we might have an NAACP, when for DECADES whites had CONGRESS<,,lol than, I guess the discussion is halted for many at a place of situational blindness I guess where any of this becomes offensive is now, Blacks have ABC, CBS, and NBC along with whites, and now they have BET which are exclusive to whites (or any other race). I personally don't find this offensive, but i would find it Hippocratic if blacks got offended if/when whites started their own television network exclusively for whites. Congress is now composed of both and has not been exclusive for a while. So blacks no have congress, along with whites, and NAACP. Again, I am not personally offended by any of this, but I can see where some could be. There is a pattern I have seen. Before one can be segregated, he/she must first be separated. I believe this is the flaw in our system.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 03:56 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,,

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Thu 07/24/14 03:58 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,, I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 04:02 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,, I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive? why do whites NEED a 'wet'? to rub in their place as the majority and their dominance in mainstream media?

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Thu 07/24/14 04:08 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,, I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive? why do whites NEED a 'wet'? to rub in their place as the majority and their dominance in mainstream media? So you wouldn't be offended of a white hip hop radio station WHH since whites are under represented in that area?

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Thu 07/24/14 04:09 PM
Black pride = acceptable White pride = offensive A WET channel would be simply because they could. It's an American right to freedom of expression, no?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 04:12 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,, I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive? why do whites NEED a 'wet'? to rub in their place as the majority and their dominance in mainstream media? So you wouldn't be offended of a white hip hop radio station WHH since whites are under represented in that area? as an artist, I would, because radio stations are about music and not race, I don't know of a music station which is identified by 'race' , but by genre like urban radio, or hip hop radio, or country radio,,,and they include all races of people who play those genres I think music is lessoned by labeling it with race,,,but that's just me

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 04:14 PM
Black pride = acceptable White pride = offensive A WET channel would be simply because they could. It's an American right to freedom of expression, no? yes, being offensive is obviously a right,,,,anyone on mingle should realize that,,,

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Thu 07/24/14 04:15 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,, I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive? why do whites NEED a 'wet'? to rub in their place as the majority and their dominance in mainstream media? So you wouldn't be offended of a white hip hop radio station WHH since whites are under represented in that area? as an artist, I would, because radio stations are about music and not race, I don't know of a music station which is identified by 'race' , but by genre like urban radio, or hip hop radio, or country radio,,,and they include all races of people who play those genres I think music is lessoned by labeling it with race,,,but that's just me How is it different than BET? It is labeled by race yet I say tv is about shows not race. Thus you must be against BET.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/24/14 04:24 PM
there is just a lot of innocent ignorance here, because people are speaking of things they 'assume' and haven't experienced in fact, BET, nor NAACP are exclusive to Blacks because it refers to race in the title, doesn't mean it is exclusive to that race, just tells that race they can go there to see and hear people who are having a similar experience, or interests, etc,, if whites took time to watch BET, they would see just about as many whites, as blacks see when they turn to nbc, cbs, or abc,, so they DO still have both,, just like blacks do,,, which is the reason a 'WET' would be offensive, because all tv UNTIL bet was already WET , just without the obvious reference in the name,,,, I agree with most of what you are saying. But now they are all inclusive, why can't whites have WET, but include blacks? Why, if we are treating all races the same, would it be so much more offensive? why do whites NEED a 'wet'? to rub in their place as the majority and their dominance in mainstream media? So you wouldn't be offended of a white hip hop radio station WHH since whites are under represented in that area? as an artist, I would, because radio stations are about music and not race, I don't know of a music station which is identified by 'race' , but by genre like urban radio, or hip hop radio, or country radio,,,and they include all races of people who play those genres I think music is lessoned by labeling it with race,,,but that's just me How is it different than BET? It is labeled by race yet I say tv is about shows not race. Thus you must be against BET. it is different, because it is in reference to MUSIC music is not a visual , its an auditory,, so the race of who is doing it matters not, just the genre the genre includes anyone of any race who does it,, so a radio station has no need to specify what race, as listeners, I would presume are LISTENING for certain genres TV is a visual MEDIUM, so it is very much about what people are SEEING, which includes race and gender, and lifestyle, and any number of other things so, on TV, for groups that are not the mainstream groups,, ie,, heterosexual, white, male etc,,, they may be able to use station names as a way to recognize where they can go to see groups who are LIKE them in culture , race, experiences, lifestyle so there can be a lesbian and gay station(and there is), because they aren't necessarily going to be able to have an ample amount of gay and lesbian story lines or characters on MAINSTREAM channels so there can be a womens network, because they aren't necessarily going to be able to have an AMPLE amount of programming that addresses womens issues and concerns on MAINSTREAM channels so there can be a Hispanic network, because they aren't necessarily going to be able to have an AMPLE amount of programming that addresses Hispanic speaking characters, issues, or concerns so there can be a food network, because there isn't necessarily going to be an AMPLE amount of programming that addresses food, food preparation,e tc,,, on MAINSTREAM TV so there can be a fishing network, because there isn't going to be an AMPLE amount of programming that addresses fishing on MAINSTREAM TV so there can be a BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TV< because there isn't going to be an AMPLE amount of programming with Black characters, isssues and concerns on MAINSTREAM TV a white entertainment television, doesn't fall in this category because there is and always has been as a standard AMPLE programming with white characters, issues, and concerns on MAINSTREAM TV understanding yet?