So many wild and sweeping statements so little proof. Is the NAACP the organization that we Whites should go to then to talk to the Blacks? Is that what you are suggesting? Otherwise, what’s the big deal if George Bush avoids going to speak to them. Does the NAACP generally support Republicans or Democrats? Does it even make a pretense of being nonpartisan? Why would I go speak to the Democrats Abroad if I am a Republican politician?
Second, given that Democrats had to have welfare reform crammed down their throats as well as Giuliani’s “Nazi” like police tactics, both of which did more to benefit Black communities than any added funding for failing schools or more money for welfare, I would have to wonder just how you perceive the Democrat party as being good for Blacks.
Please explain to me how the teacher’s unions and civil servant’s unions can be so against vouchers and then explain to me how someone gets ahead in the US (Read: Need a Quality Education) and then tell me what the Democrats are doing about that and why the Republican voucher scheme is a bad idea.
Never said Jesse Jackson was the leader of the NAACP. I referred to him in the general context as some shake down artist. My implication is not that Jesse Jackson is the head of the NAACP but that he is perceived to be the Voice of Blacks as is the NAACP. I would question whether the NAACP is not a shake-down artist as well, hence my reference to Jesse Jackson. I know that this may be a bit complicated for you and will try to dumb down future posts since you are obviously the product of a Democrat education. haha
[quote=“mofangongren”]Oh, and I bet you don’t mind handing over tons of money to companies run by administration cronies while troops in the field are left without proper equipment, food, water, etc. And I bet you don’t mind if presidents spend billions to send troops to invade the completely wrong country – whoops!
You don’t have very high expectations of elected government, do you?[/quote]
Under Clinton, the military fell apart. If you knew anything about how military preparedness had suffered under Clinton, of the hight number of officer resignations/retirements, maybe you’d understand. But I doubt it. It takes years to rebuild after an idiot like Clinton or Carter is in power. And it costs alot of money. I’ve served under both Republicans and Democrats and I’d rather be fighting with a Republican President any day of the week. I was at Ft Bragg when the Desert One fiasco occurred. Great job Jimmy.
And I guess you think Iraq was the wrong country to invade? Fine. I disagree. Too bad our military was cut so bad under Clinton that we couldn’t have taken out Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria at the same time.
And No, I don’t have very high expectations of Democrat controlled government.
Fred, what I am quite simply suggesting is that the United States would be a much better place if the Bush administration would stop politicizing the government departments. Not all of our government institutions should be completely subverted to convenience politics. The GOP has so far put pressure on the EPA to ignore the conclusions of its own scientists and now we get to see the IRS being used as part of a vendetta against the NAACP.
I have higher expectations of government. Frankly, I don’t think anybody should be on the receiving end of greater government scrutiny on the basis of their race, religion, politics or sexual preference. I also respect the right of the NAACP to speak out on issues or policies that they feel are relevant to their members, as does the NRA and as does the AARP.
But you rail on Hallilburton without proof. I said, let it go through the courts and if it is proved to have overcharged, then sue and recover and penalize including jail sentences.
Now, you say without proof that the IRS (most federal workers are Democrats) is unfairly targeting the NAACP, but I am saying again, let it go through the courts. They will determine if the NAACP is wrong. They have targeted churches in the past four years for political involvement so why not the NAACP or are you saying Bush should leave it alone just to prove to people like you that he is not deliberately targeting them. I say again, leave it to the courts, they will decide.
Finally, I still do not see any proof of any of your claims that the NAACP is being unfairly targeted, that Bush has intentionally disenfranchised ONE Black voter or that the Republicans have set out to oppress the Black minority. Why would then when the Democrats are doing such a good job with welfare and education? Think it could get any worse under vouchers? tough crime laws? Why has crime dropped in the US? Because there are more criminals behind bars. This is an example of the Republicans in charge. When the Democrats ran New York, many areas of the city were no go areas, sort of like… Baghdad.
I wouldn’t be too surprised by this and I’m actually shocked you missed that Greenpeace is also being investigated and is in jeapordy of loosing its non-profit status, as it already has been in CANADA.
The NAACP is one black organization and neither speaks for all blacks or necessarily endorses the policies that the majority of black people desire(i.e. school vouchers, NAACP-against, Black people-for).
We must also take into account political donations of time, money and space lent to democratic candidates. Once you start getting involved in politics you start losing your non-profit status and have to answer allegations so as to keep the system fair. You can give political donations and support political candidates, just not under the rules of non-profit corporations with special tax-exempt privileges. Probably the underlying cause of the IRS inquiry in the first place.
Does this explain it clearly enough for you? Let the courts work it out.
You didn’t hear me bitching when Bush went after churches for political involvement that may have threatened their nontaxable status did you? No. So let the system work and shut the hell up haha.
But have you proved that the IRS is being used in such a case? As usual no. So when you have definitive proof that an organization like the NAACP is being targeted then keep quiet. Given that the same IRS has targeted churches in the past four years under Bush, I really doubt that this is true and if it is then so what? Is the NAACP breaking the law? If so, then ultimately what they are doing rather than what any Bush administration official is or is not doing is ultimately the problem. So, without proof, I don’t believe you. With proof, I don’t care. Understand? How can targeting the NAACP be any worse than targeting churches?
Has it been proved? Well, in a word: yes. The NAACP should be able to talk about policies and issues that affect its members without facing an IRS investigation. The IRS has been clear that they are targeting the NAACP for talking about policies and issues that affect its members, only it’s clear that they’re characterizing it as political activity. Political, my ass. Sticking up for the blacks is what the NAACP does.
This fits into a consistent pattern of the Bush Administration doing everything possible to keep down the blacks. The NAACP is right to speak up for its members.
Let’s see a nonprofit organization say like a church is banned from certain kinds of lobbying and mailings and such. The NAACP has engaged in such efforts and like the churches before it was criticized and is being investigated. Hmmm certainly seems like a racial witch hunt to me. I mean who does the IRS think it is investigating BOTH sides of the political fence. They are only supposed to target churches because Christians are stupid and listen to Country Western music and drink beer rather than living amoral lives ala Sex in the City. F***ing hicks.
Since when were we Christians as “bad” as you try to describe? I like beer and country music (preferably together!).
Many of the NAACP members are Christians as well – hence the existence of gospel music, you frickin’ ninny. Since when are NAACP the opposite of Christianity? Unless you somehow think that blacks can’t be “real” Christians… I guess you Republicans are different from us Democrats.
You know exactly which churches I am talking about and why they were targeted by the IRS. They were Bush supporters. That is and was my point but I will take it that you are conceding this argument. You always bring up the side issues to be cute when you know you have lost. Thank you. I think we can put this argument to bed now.