Despite the fact that conservative politicians shun it, this is not the case. The NAACP is still very important, particularly in districts with large black populations.
But, please, don’t believe me. I really hope the birthers/teabaggers continue on this course. If the mainstream media ever gets around to actually reporting critically on them, they’ll be toast.
I have not noticed cats and dogs living together in sin, or the grounds opening up to swallow people, or anything, so clearly this isn’t true.
But they’re saying two completely contradictory things. How can they both be right?
I’m a black woman, not that that’s important and I agree with this.
[Reb Tevye]Miller is also right…[/Reb Tevye]
Rand Rover is saying that the NAACP needs to shut the hell up and quit race baiting. As I said, they’re professional offenderati. He says that any organization that is built on advancing a race is not a good thing. I agree. That’s enough of a match to warrant saying “Rand Rover is right.”
Now, let’s turn out attention to the Tea Party and racism. Bricker says that the Tea Party has racists like the Democratic Party has flag burners. The Tea Party, he agrees, needs to say there’s no space for bigots in the Tea Party. I agree with that, too. Thus, “Bricker is right.”
I see nothing “completely contradictory” there. Furthermore, I think that enough Tea Party leaders have condemned the racists that it annoys me when people keep trying to say that black-hate is part of the platform (as much as one can say a platform exists at all). Finally, anyone who calls them “tea baggers” can immediately dismissed as a moron. You don’t see me running around calling them “Democraps”, do you?
The NAACP was founded in 1909. Are you… like… at all familiar with what the country was like at that time and why the Advancement part was needed? Do you think the fact that times have changed has absolutely nothing to do with the NAACP and many many other organizations? Or that because segregation is no longer legislated that there are no longer issues that are of concern primarily to black people and therefore no need for a group?
They had their time and place. I’m not denying that. But those times are gone. Today, they spend 90% of their time getting involved in things that have nothing to do with them. Don Imus? The beer summit? Oh come on. A white person offends a black person and the NAACP thinks it’s time to charge into action.
Do blacks today face a lot of problems? Definitely. Because they’re black? That is, if you waved a wand and made them white, would their problems go away? Not really. The NAACP is a textbook case of idle hands.
Rand Rover is saying that the NAACP serves no purpose and should be disbanded. Bricker is saying that the NAACP is entirely correct in their criticism of the Tea Party. That strikes me as a pretty big contradiction.
Can you show examples of where they’ve done this? The closest I’ve ever observed is some pretty standard, “Of course we’re not racists!” boiler-plate, but I’ve not observed any efforts of behalf of Tea Party leadership to actually silence or exclude the racist element in their party.
Why? It is, after all, the term they originally picked to describe themselves.
As long as there are people like you…
BTW has anyone else noticed that WEB DuBOIS looks a lot like Michael Steele before he sold his soul?
Chessic Sense is correct, then. 
The conservative reactionaries have always been on the wrong side of history and in this country that sort of conservatism has long been associated with racism.
I’m mostly a lurker, but I’ve read quite a few of your posts, and I’ve been meaning to ask you a question. What color is the sky in your world? I hope it’s yellow. I’ve always thought a yellow sky would be pretty. It’s probably more like chartreuse and totally hideous, though.
Holy sh!t, am I about to agree with Bricker again?
I will note that their tolerance of racism in their midst makes me feel like they are all racist to some degree. If you went to a rally against taxes and the Klan showed up to march with you against the blackification of America, would you keep marching next to them? Would you blame me for making some judgements about based on the comapny you keep?
I know these guys are not the Klan and I am exxagerating for effect. Why are they tolerating so much overt racism? Why can’t I judge them by the company they keep?
You beat me to it. I posted a link to that on my FB page yesterday, and people went BALLISTIC. Always a good indication that the information needed to be pointed out.
In American political discourse, “federalism” has meant at least two things with nearly opposite meanings, neither of which has any slightest relevance to the preposterous idea that the Tea Party is somehow a revival of the spirit of 19th-Century slavery-abolitionism.
If you’re a lawyer, I’m the Emperor of China.
We never have been a corporatist society – “corporatism” does not mean what you seem to think it does.
That is the quandary the Republican party finds itself in. My Republican friends thought they could abandon the Republican party by moving towards tea party alternatives until they realized the sort of people the Tea party was attracting. Now they want a mulligan on the last ten years.
They constantly remind me of how the republicans used to be the adults in the room and couild be once again and I constantly remind them that I used to be a Republican and could be once again.
Seriously, if they stopped pandering to the likes of Grover Norquist, Pat Robertson and the Strom Thurmond crowd, there’s not telling what they could accomplish
I think your opinion of lawyers is too high (and I’m a lawyer).