Their recent activities are nothing more that attempts to paint conservatives as racist for the November elections. It is all pure politics and nothing more.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pot Planning to Call Kettle Black
- Thread starter Dragoon68
- Start date
Their recent activities are nothing more that attempts to paint conservatives as racist for the November elections. It is all pure politics and nothing more.
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F1PU2O0
That's just one example - google it - you will find plenty more.
It's not a secret and we have discussed it here on the board.
Here you go, Eric...a concession:
The Tea Party doesn't always express my views.
I've seen ignorance from them before.
I've seen statements I wouldn't make, for fear of being construed as bigoted.
I've seen signs & slogans that show an ignorance of how the system works.
But...these have been exceptions. By and large, TP folks have shown more education...more knowledge of the founders' intent...more of a vision of how I wish this country was. Do they bat 1,000? Nope. But they're a heckuva lot closer than most other groups I've seen.
And keep in mind...when something is as grassroots as this (hopefully it will remain so, and not be co-opted by the Republicans or anyone else)...you're going to have crackpots. But the occasional goofball will be ostracized in the theater of ideas.
The NAACP is an established organization, with a formalized policy, structure, and methodology. When racism/bigotry rears its ugly head there, it's not an isolated moron...it's endemic to the organization.
I hope I've made myself clear.
The Tea Party doesn't always express my views.
I've seen ignorance from them before.
I've seen statements I wouldn't make, for fear of being construed as bigoted.
I've seen signs & slogans that show an ignorance of how the system works.
But...these have been exceptions. By and large, TP folks have shown more education...more knowledge of the founders' intent...more of a vision of how I wish this country was. Do they bat 1,000? Nope. But they're a heckuva lot closer than most other groups I've seen.
And keep in mind...when something is as grassroots as this (hopefully it will remain so, and not be co-opted by the Republicans or anyone else)...you're going to have crackpots. But the occasional goofball will be ostracized in the theater of ideas.
The NAACP is an established organization, with a formalized policy, structure, and methodology. When racism/bigotry rears its ugly head there, it's not an isolated moron...it's endemic to the organization.
I hope I've made myself clear.
What are you talking about? If I'm grabbing random dots and conecting them to an illogical path to nowhere, then you basically confess that that is what your responses consist of. Say something of substance, then, instead of just throwing out a lot of accusations and motive judgments.
This "serious sensivitivty" is yet another thing you are projecting. You're the one doing all the defensive reacting (like your whole integrity depends on proving the things you identify with are 100% flawless), to the point you can't even see what someone is actually saying, or not saying.
Last discussion, you even described yourself as "passionate" about this stuff. So right there, you're the one likely to be more blinded by sensitivity.
I'm the one saying that the NAACP has a bunch of flaws, but I can see why they would react to these rallies the way they do.
So what am I even being sensitive about; even in the middle of your barrage of misreadings of my intentions?
And your side just got caught doing it too, and carefully twisting or omitting facts:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/the-sad-tale-of-shirley-sherrod-vilsack-is-the-villain/
OK, that does sound faintly familiar, and I remember trying to go to that movement's website back then, and it was already down. (I heard about it on the news, and hadn't been following the discussions on it here. Then, it quickly passed, and I forgot about it).
I do not think they can be blamed for the current rallies, because this guy's whole plot seemed to collapse on him immediately:
http://www.examiner.com/x-41774-NY-...Crash-the-Tea-Party-Founder-Outwitted-By-Foes
You may have a point if there were only one person or organization doing it.
But there are several - and I think that they are aided by the media.
Like I suggested - google "Tea Party infiltrated" or some similar search and you will find many examples.
You're going wild again!
Again, here's the deal: The NAACP used its usual race card to try to make out the Tea Party to be a racist organization. It didn't work as well as they hoped. People are getting smarter about the NAACP. Let's call it what it is! People are also getting smarter about the effect of big government and that's why the Tea Party is enjoying such popularity. You should get on board!
Last edited by a moderator:
"Going wild"; now! You're the "passionate" one who always starts with these ad-hominems (How I'm reacting wrong, or whatever). Other than that, you just repeat this same statement, despite the evidence I've been posting to the contrary.
OK, three pages of Google, so far, almost all of the articles are confined to April, when that initial attempt arose. A few were even before that.
Only two from this month; the first one, a Tea Party Patriots site that claims to have "overheard" that infiltration groups would try again; and the other is this:
http://spitfirelist.com/news/white-...-movement-for-infiltration-possible-takeover/
This matches what was all I had suggested in the past couple of days as a possible explanation of any "racist elements".
Now, if that's who the NAACP saw out there, then you can't blame them for blowing the whistle on it; and that's the real point of this debate. It would just be unfortunate if the TP simply hadn't caught them yet or whatever. Now, if the NAACP was itself behind this infiltration; then all of this hostility towards them for "race-baiting" would be justified.
But they are not responsible for what these others do (who are actually on the extreme of the other side trying to take the movement over to perpetuate their agenda; rather than liberals trying to destroy it altogether so that Democrats can win elections and make the government bigger!)
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you over-rate your "evidence", my friend! The main point is what's important and that's why repeating it is necessary else all kinds of diversions are introduced. Today we have problems in general with clearly calling something right or wrong. All kinds of excuses are offered. What the NAACP did was attempt to use their usual race card. That's what it was! When you can simply acknowledge that then me repeating won't be necessary any longer.
What you don't understand, is that it's not a race card on their part, if it's the other side that threw the actual [and quite literal] card on the table! Again, if those were really infiltrators, you can't blame those who see it and point it out. (The whole "infiltration" thing was the real diversion and excuse).
And because they may have questionably played a race card at other times does not make them automatically wrong in this instance either.
I do not see how you possibly think one side is 100% good and the other side 100% evil. That's not what biblical "right and wrong" is about, because its standard concludes all men under sin. They all tend to bend truth to their favor. (So you see a mixture of truth and error on both side).
Nope, you're still complicating this issue! The NAACP has a long history of playing the race card - that's what they're about! Their leaders, spokesmen, and supporters use this to play off old fears and wounds to position other totally unrelated issues in a more favorable light. That's what they tried to do this time. The NAACP doesn't like what the Tea Party is about - cutting big government back down to size - because that would run counter to the NAACP's support of the big government programs - like welfare - that they like so much. All you have to do is take a look at their policy statements to see what they support. Since they have no case except race that's the one they try to use. This time it didn't take hold as strongly as it often does. People are catching on to the game. People have to use their eyes, ears, and brains to understand what's going on. It's easy to weave a tale of mixed faults that dilute the main concern - take you away from the points - and lead you into a path of compromise. That's where we start thinking that things you're suggesting. Nope, we need to stay focused on the main issues - the main positions - not who's pushing what agendas - and cull out the rest of the noise. The NAACP has no credibility and no "authority" to comment on the business of the Tea Party. They are not the spokesmen for fairness in all matters concerning race except by their own appointment to that position and our yielding to it. In reality they have a rather racist agenda of their own at the expense of all people who do not belong to the "colored" race whatever that means these days. So, what they have to say about the Tea Party has to be framed in the context of their racist agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have not followed the NAACP, and had hardly been hearing anything about it until this whole latest thing erupted. So you call them "racist" based on this whole "history", and use that to discredit everything they say now, and now claim they do not even have the right to voice their opinion about another movement.
Meanwhile, when addressing questionable Tea Party elements; they've simply been "infiltrated". It's not their fault at all. (Since the latest "infiltrators" have been white supremacists, you have to ask why they would choose that organization as the vehicle of their ideology, and why they are able to blend in so well).
Both movements have had people say or do stupid things at times, and then both organizations make open declarations to oppose anyone within their ranks who makes racist statements, but only the Tea Party is genuine in that. They still have the right to point fingers and criticize others.
I can't find any NAACP "policy statement" that includes "welfare".
At least not here:
http://www.naacp.org/programs/
http://www.naacp.org/programs/entry/economic-opportunity/
So that to me sounds like just another race-based jab from people thinking someone is just trying to "take something away from them" (i.e. "at the expense of all people who do not belong to the 'colored' race"). That is the real "race card"; especially when refusing to address where all this money you say is being "taken" from you is really flowing to.
They probably have opposed efforts to scale down the programs. However, the programs were largely reformed over a decade ago, and I didn't hear any screams from them about that. I don't see anything on their site or public statements saying they want to undo the reforms.
When I came into contact with the organization at its Roy Wilkins center 25 years ago, it came across as a bourgeoise social club with little other purpose. (They seemed to be silent on all the blaming of minorities going on in that age of the Reagan revolution).
However, their message to the youth was squarely responsibility, education and achievement. Even Jackson back then in the days of his campaign had a catch phrase "believe [in yourself], achieve, receive". They were not telling anyone "oh, just go on Welfare, because society owes us". So any social programs they favor would be for those who truly need help. That there may be some who abuse this, is not their fault, nor intention.
So you're overgeneralizing, there. You'd be better off sticking with the other claim, that they are just friends with the Democrats and gain some benefits from them being elected. That might be more believable, though that too at this point seems to be just an assumption.
People aren't "catching on" to any game; this is the same misoriented blaming they have been doing for at least 30 years, while still falling for the real game. (I notice how people dismissed Poncho's global "conspiracy theory propaganda", yet it's OK to frame a conspiracy theory around US movements with far less power than the global powers).
So you seem to think the "main concerns/issues/positions" are that some movement is just trying to take something away from you, and is being the "true" racist in order to justify that, but that is the real dilution of truth, or "nise" that is keeping us divided and diverting us from the real issues.
"Mixed faults" are the reality of human existence (sin). There are no "good guys vs bad guys". There are some who have done worse things than others, but all are equally sinful, and try to make up for this with some sort of sincerity and legitimate causes.
If you think one side is totally in the right, and the other is totally in the wrong, then tell me how you end up on the totally right side all the time.
Meanwhile, when addressing questionable Tea Party elements; they've simply been "infiltrated". It's not their fault at all. (Since the latest "infiltrators" have been white supremacists, you have to ask why they would choose that organization as the vehicle of their ideology, and why they are able to blend in so well).
Both movements have had people say or do stupid things at times, and then both organizations make open declarations to oppose anyone within their ranks who makes racist statements, but only the Tea Party is genuine in that. They still have the right to point fingers and criticize others.
I can't find any NAACP "policy statement" that includes "welfare".
At least not here:
http://www.naacp.org/programs/
http://www.naacp.org/programs/entry/economic-opportunity/
So that to me sounds like just another race-based jab from people thinking someone is just trying to "take something away from them" (i.e. "at the expense of all people who do not belong to the 'colored' race"). That is the real "race card"; especially when refusing to address where all this money you say is being "taken" from you is really flowing to.
They probably have opposed efforts to scale down the programs. However, the programs were largely reformed over a decade ago, and I didn't hear any screams from them about that. I don't see anything on their site or public statements saying they want to undo the reforms.
When I came into contact with the organization at its Roy Wilkins center 25 years ago, it came across as a bourgeoise social club with little other purpose. (They seemed to be silent on all the blaming of minorities going on in that age of the Reagan revolution).
However, their message to the youth was squarely responsibility, education and achievement. Even Jackson back then in the days of his campaign had a catch phrase "believe [in yourself], achieve, receive". They were not telling anyone "oh, just go on Welfare, because society owes us". So any social programs they favor would be for those who truly need help. That there may be some who abuse this, is not their fault, nor intention.
So you're overgeneralizing, there. You'd be better off sticking with the other claim, that they are just friends with the Democrats and gain some benefits from them being elected. That might be more believable, though that too at this point seems to be just an assumption.
People aren't "catching on" to any game; this is the same misoriented blaming they have been doing for at least 30 years, while still falling for the real game. (I notice how people dismissed Poncho's global "conspiracy theory propaganda", yet it's OK to frame a conspiracy theory around US movements with far less power than the global powers).
So you seem to think the "main concerns/issues/positions" are that some movement is just trying to take something away from you, and is being the "true" racist in order to justify that, but that is the real dilution of truth, or "nise" that is keeping us divided and diverting us from the real issues.
"Mixed faults" are the reality of human existence (sin). There are no "good guys vs bad guys". There are some who have done worse things than others, but all are equally sinful, and try to make up for this with some sort of sincerity and legitimate causes.
If you think one side is totally in the right, and the other is totally in the wrong, then tell me how you end up on the totally right side all the time.
The crash the tea party site no longer exists after it was exposed
How are the Progressives going to crash the Tea Party rallies and events across the country?
According to their website, they plan to:
....act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them.
What is the purpose of Crashtheteaparty.org?
WHAT WE WANT: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.
“HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion…We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.
Anyone who reads the message boards within the Crash the Tea Party site will see some very extreme and often frightening conversations going on. There are Tea Party members writing their opinions about the Progressives and some rather wacky comments from a scary bunch of extremists who are running the Crash the Tea Party site.
Found Here
Last edited by a moderator:
The area of lawsuits, from what I have seen over the years, seems to be where I find the most disagreement with them, feeling they are straining at gnats or going overboard, and probably wasting time and effort. I would rather have someone fight on the ideological level and go after popular misconceptions such as minorities getting all the tax money for all these "excessive amount of welfare programs". But yes, many of their lawsuits do seem to just give some credence to the conservative claims.
And I've been meaning to say, that I realize this whole health care bill is what has stoked your side's anger these days. But that is really not about race at all, though many minorities might benefit from it.
I don't think they are "racists" per se, nor viewing their right as exclusive and superior over any other organization, nor taking anything away from anyone else; just locked into this momentum of challenging anything legal that affects blacks.
The issue does come back to "some fault in something else" because this whole topic started with them criticizing someone else, not what they themselves have "always done". You're the one who made it about that. To throw that up is what sounds like making excuses. Like a child saying "but he does it too!" No, you did not say it was infiltrated; that I got from others. But both responses are excuses.
(I didn't hear of NAACP members who were also TP members. It would be interesting to hear their view of things in all this!)
And I've been meaning to say, that I realize this whole health care bill is what has stoked your side's anger these days. But that is really not about race at all, though many minorities might benefit from it.
I don't think they are "racists" per se, nor viewing their right as exclusive and superior over any other organization, nor taking anything away from anyone else; just locked into this momentum of challenging anything legal that affects blacks.
The issue does come back to "some fault in something else" because this whole topic started with them criticizing someone else, not what they themselves have "always done". You're the one who made it about that. To throw that up is what sounds like making excuses. Like a child saying "but he does it too!" No, you did not say it was infiltrated; that I got from others. But both responses are excuses.
(I didn't hear of NAACP members who were also TP members. It would be interesting to hear their view of things in all this!)
More from NAACP's toxic racist associations...
This is from a rally a few years back. Sponsors include Al Sharpton and the NAACP (or, to be politically correct, NAA-A-A-P).
The speaker is the National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz.
The following is a transcript of part of his diatribe....er, speech. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the truly disturbing text:
SOURCE
Now...how exactly is this just like the tea party?
This is from a rally a few years back. Sponsors include Al Sharpton and the NAACP (or, to be politically correct, NAA-A-A-P).
The speaker is the National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz.
The following is a transcript of part of his diatribe....er, speech. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the truly disturbing text:
SOURCE
Now...how exactly is this just like the tea party?
I've been hearing the claims of some NAACP sympathy for the NBPP, but again, I had not been following either movement, and it was a matter of taking the time to research that part of the controversy. What I've seen so far is this site, which seems to lay out the complaint against the NAACP:
http://yesbuthowever.com/naacp-black-panthers-9000068/
I went to the link of the NBPP site, with the scrolling bar they are claiming is a list of supporters. (I don't know where to find the other, pdf file document it mentions).
I see that the SCLC and Rainbow Coalition are in it as well.
It doesn't say that these organizations are all contributors. It looks to me like they may have just listed all of those organizations to make people think they all supported; basically, to give an appearance of "solidarity". I have seen groups like that do stuff like that.
You would think the NAACP would have legal grounds against them for using their logo if they were not contributors. This article says that no one has responded to their inquiry, and that they should not to jump the gun on this story, but will continue to pressure the NAACP until it explains its connection to the conference.
So I wonder if they might be investigating it now. If it was authorized, it could be certan individuals, or perhaps an NAACP member contributed apart from that organization, and the NBPP took it as an "NAACP contribution".
Otherwise, the organization could have just given their endorsement as a sign of "black unity", which would be a foolish, hypocritical move that they really did not think through. For all I know, that could be the case too. I'm not trying to justify the group at any cost, and who knows what different people in it will do.
As for them not coming out to condemn the NBPP:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/18/ftn/main6689716.shtml
Jealous replied that "You know, bigots come in all colors. We absolutely denounce the New Black Panther Party. But they aren't in our group. These folks [the "racist elements" in the tea party] are in your groups."
That may sound like a weak denunciation and an excuse, but then I cannot explain why they have not made stronger denunciations.
Here's a former NAACP leader speaking out against them:
http://www.wyff4.com/video/24344125/index.html
As for the supposed defense of the NBPP in the court case, from what I'm seeing, that seems to be hearsay that the NAACP is denying:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/14/naacp-direct-tie-black-panthers/print/
Here's also another interesting article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072004429.html
http://yesbuthowever.com/naacp-black-panthers-9000068/
I went to the link of the NBPP site, with the scrolling bar they are claiming is a list of supporters. (I don't know where to find the other, pdf file document it mentions).
I see that the SCLC and Rainbow Coalition are in it as well.
It doesn't say that these organizations are all contributors. It looks to me like they may have just listed all of those organizations to make people think they all supported; basically, to give an appearance of "solidarity". I have seen groups like that do stuff like that.
You would think the NAACP would have legal grounds against them for using their logo if they were not contributors. This article says that no one has responded to their inquiry, and that they should not to jump the gun on this story, but will continue to pressure the NAACP until it explains its connection to the conference.
So I wonder if they might be investigating it now. If it was authorized, it could be certan individuals, or perhaps an NAACP member contributed apart from that organization, and the NBPP took it as an "NAACP contribution".
Otherwise, the organization could have just given their endorsement as a sign of "black unity", which would be a foolish, hypocritical move that they really did not think through. For all I know, that could be the case too. I'm not trying to justify the group at any cost, and who knows what different people in it will do.
As for them not coming out to condemn the NBPP:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/18/ftn/main6689716.shtml
Jealous replied that "You know, bigots come in all colors. We absolutely denounce the New Black Panther Party. But they aren't in our group. These folks [the "racist elements" in the tea party] are in your groups."
That may sound like a weak denunciation and an excuse, but then I cannot explain why they have not made stronger denunciations.
Here's a former NAACP leader speaking out against them:
http://www.wyff4.com/video/24344125/index.html
As for the supposed defense of the NBPP in the court case, from what I'm seeing, that seems to be hearsay that the NAACP is denying:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/14/naacp-direct-tie-black-panthers/print/
Here's also another interesting article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072004429.html