Why is the media wasting so much time on this?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Typhoon

By definition the NAACP is the most racist organization in the country.

The NAACP was born of race riots and lynchings. For a group to seek to advance themselves and overcome racial prejudice isn't racism.

Some argue there's a double standard...well, duh.

That's not to say that the NAACP doesn't at times overstep their bounds...this does happen, and as we progress the line becomes even finer.

Issues like these make we wish we could all walk in others shoes for even just a short while.

-spence

[scottw]

the NAACP was founded by:

William English Walling (1877–1936), a prominent socialist and journalist, was descended from wealthy Kentucky slaveholders.

Mary White Ovington , a suffragette, socialist, unitarian, journalist, and co-founder of the NAACP.

Edward Russell, authors and outspoken socialist and with the pen and voice have contributed materially to the general educational campaign along radical social lines.

Henry Moskowitz (1879–1936), a Romanian Jewish émigré, attended the University Settlement’s boys’ club as a youth. There he met fellow socialist William English Walling, with whom he traveled to Eastern Europe in 1905 to study social and economic conditions.


notice any trend???...weird

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

the NAACP was founded by:

William English Walling (1877–1936), a prominent socialist and journalist, was descended from wealthy Kentucky slaveholders.

Mary White Ovington , a suffragette, socialist, unitarian, journalist, and co-founder of the NAACP.

Edward Russell, authors and outspoken socialist and with the pen and voice have contributed materially to the general educational campaign along radical social lines.

Henry Moskowitz (1879–1936), a Romanian Jewish émigré, attended the University Settlement’s boys’ club as a youth. There he met fellow socialist William English Walling, with whom he traveled to Eastern Europe in 1905 to study social and economic conditions.


notice any trend???...weird

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

socialism is SLAVERY....just a different massa...

[ecduzitgood]

[scottw]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Spence is becoming quite a nasty little socialist... isn't he... kinda like Obama just lashing out and blaming and impuning everyone that he disagrees with or disagrees with him....bad habits

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess it is pretty had for you to comprehend how people born on the tail of SLAVERY might not be huge proponents of an unregulated free market.

eh?

-spence

It's easy to see how those just coming out of the darkness of slavery would have a long way to go in understanding very much at all, including the value of a free market. Regardless of the reason why, the early ignorance of their ancestors is not an excuse for descendants remaining ignorant 150 years later. Besides, slavery was highly regulated, and it was not an absolutely free market. Free markets do not bar opposing entrepeneurs. Slavery was a closed society, very restrictive, and very harsh to those who opposed it. That those whose presumed ancestors were slaves are not now the the most ardent supporters of individual freedom and a free marketplace is an incomprehensible irony to a free thinking mind.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The NAACP was born of race riots and lynchings. For a group to seek to advance themselves and overcome racial prejudice isn't racism.

Advancing as a group at this stage in American history is not only antiquated, it is slower than a snail in molasses. It's about time for Afro/black/Americans to bust out on their own each to find his personal identity APART FROM THE GROUP and fulfill his destiny as an individual. That is the gift he inherits as a citizen of this country. It is pitiful if he chooses to remain in the pack of fear.

Some argue there's a double standard...well, duh.

Are you saying the double standard is OK? Doesn't the double standard actually retard the progression to individualism?

That's not to say that the NAACP doesn't at times overstep their bounds...this does happen, and as we progress the line becomes even finer.

Are you contradicting your own teaser?

Issues like these make we wish we could all walk in others shoes for even just a short while.

-spence

I think we've been walked through "others" shoes by our various media and by our educational and societal institutions nearly ad nauseum. It would be wonderful if the "others" could begin, or at least to begin to take an interest in, walking in the shoes of a free, individual citizen of this great country. So long as the "others" continue to cower in the path of their group, they miss out on the greatest opportunities and experiences that freedom has to offer. And if we keep assisting them to stay there, we may all catch the disease.

[scottw]

Obama doesn't mind shutting things down...and the cheerleader media ignores this one too

July 22, 2010
Race Played Role in Obama Car Dealer Closures
By William Tate

The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general.

Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.
[D]ealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.
But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'" I always picture Obama saying "shared sacrafice" as expensive wine runs from corner of his mouth out onto his plate of lobster and $100 a pound beef
Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him
that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money -- and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.
And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.

The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that
experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...]

Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]
Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."

That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.
Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%.

The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.

As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."

Included among those undisputed facts:

-"[D]ealerships were retained because they were ... minority- or woman-owned dealerships";

-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";

-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.

the MOST RACIAL President