Time for NAACP to man up!

Bonestorm said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Now you're just being insipidly stubborn instead of just conceding a point. Are you truly advocating that person openly support someone who is working against their best interest just for a short term financial gain? Because history has shown that ploy just doesn't work in the long run.
Click to expand...


No, I'm just not equating accepting money from person A with openly supporting person A, particuarly where you can do good things to advance your cause with the money.
Click to expand...

Now you're just in denial because no matter how you slice it, you are indeed condoning that person openly support someone who is working against their best interest just for a short term financial gain! Get real! You "do good" on one end while this joker "does bad" AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE YOU on the other end....and then puts on a public face that he's a "good guy" with YOU as a direct/indirect support. Sorry, but your attitude is just unrealistic. Hell, people said Saddam Hussein was good for his country and I'm sure there were Iraqi who supported him....so long as they weren't on his hit list. Same with Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, etc., etc.
 
Abraxas said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Given his documented history, this is just the latest EXPOSE', as it were. Sorry, but once the cat is out of the bag, AND THE ACCUSED OWNS UP, the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

Sounds suspiciously like the end justifies the means. I wonder where I have heard that before?
Click to expand...

Only for the gold digger he pissed off. For the NAACP, there is NO gain here, but rather a chance to put a major positive cred in the public eye by NOT supporting or taking money from a guy WHO IS ON RECORD with discriminatory actions in his other ventures.
 
Teflon Don said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post

"They no longer represent black people. They represent LIBERAL black people."

WTF are you going on about now? Are you implying that the NAACP was some militant, reactionary bigot organization? Did you know that there have been non-white members of the NAACP for DECADES....and that it's detractors have been calling it a "shake down" group since it's inception?

Silver's statements are NOT the topic here per se.....as we all know it's all about the Benjamins until the bigotry becomes TOO public. I'm just saying that if the NAACP ever had a chance to turn the tide, now's the time!
Click to expand...



Whatever the NAACP was it is not that today. It is another arm of the democrat party. Man up and accept it Nancy
Click to expand...

Are you truly this fucking stupid? I started a thread that CRITICIZES the NAACP, you twit! Comprende?

Are you so bitter about our past exchanges that it has impaired your reading comprehension? Or are you just a mindless teabagger/neocon/liartarian that just the mention of a black organization that has successful fought against institutionalized racism gets these knee jerk babblings from you?

Read carefully and comprehensively before your fingers hit the keys next time....makes you look less foolish.
 
Teflon Don said:
Of course the lefties aren't concerned. This is their mob mentality. The ends justify the means. They don't care if they rip the country apart as long as they secure power. This is new to you?
Click to expand...

Here's how I answered Abraxas:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...me-for-NAACP-to-man-up!&p=1486007#post1486007


So a bigot gets outed and suffers the consequences of his actions BY THE VERY RULES AND ORGANIZATION THAT HE IS A PART OF, and it's the end of the world for bozos like The Teflon Don. Note he has YET to condemn what Sterling said, or even acknowledge Sterling's past actions as wrong. Not surprising.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now you're just in denial because no matter how you slice it, you are indeed condoning that person openly support someone who is working against their best interest just for a short term financial gain! Get real! You "do good" on one end while this joker "does bad" AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE YOU on the other end....and then puts on a public face that he's a "good guy" with YOU as a direct/indirect support. Sorry, but your attitude is just unrealistic. Hell, people said Saddam Hussein was good for his country and I'm sure there were Iraqi who supported him....so long as they weren't on his hit list. Same with Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I know we don't often agree but I agree with you here. I'm not black so I can't speak from a black perspective but my observation from hearing what my black acquaintances have said is the NAACP has lost credibility in the community and is basically all about the money. Dungheap speaks about the money doing 'good'. I think more 'good' would come from the organization working to regain its credibility than accepting Sterling's money.
 
Teflon Don said:
What is wrong with that? If fans don't like an owner then they don't have to purchase his product. I don't have a problem with that.

The reason that Silver moved the way he did was to protect everyone from being hypocrites. You see he had to protect the negroid players from being hypocrites because at the end of the day they were going to play for their million dollar contracts. The fans would keep coming. Now what kind of "picture" would that send to the race hustlers.

Nobody was going to stage a truly long boycott even the negroid players. Money talks, bullshit walks
Click to expand...

Negroid? Careful TD, your sheet is showing!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now you're just in denial because no matter how you slice it, you are indeed condoning that person openly support someone who is working against their best interest just for a short term financial gain! Get real! You "do good" on one end while this joker "does bad" AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE YOU on the other end....and then puts on a public face that he's a "good guy" with YOU as a direct/indirect support. Sorry, but your attitude is just unrealistic. Hell, people said Saddam Hussein was good for his country and I'm sure there were Iraqi who supported him....so long as they weren't on his hit list. Same with Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, etc., etc.
Click to expand...


I don't think accepting a check with no strings attached to it is openly supporting the person writing the check.
 
Truth Detector said:
Yeah, I new race hustling leftists morons like you would call me a coward and racist. It is about as moronic as the many other leftist canards you parrot like an ignorant non-thinking buffoon.

The only cowards in any debate on these forums are race hustling dimwits like you who moronically think that by hurling stupid racism canards, one can shut down those who disagree with your ignorant stupidity.



You act like anyone would give a crap what an ignorant low information twit like you thinks. Speaking of never ending moronic rants; when are you planning to stop?

Yes, you really are THAT ignorant, THAT repugnant and THAT fucking stupid you race hustling dunce.
Click to expand...

No one is impressed with your parroted collection of right wing cliches, toodles....it just goes to show just how proudly ignorant you truly are.

Riddle me this, boy wonder: How exactly did the "race hustlers" get Sterling to say all those things? Or this (hell, even an off-shoot of Fox Noise had to cop to this):

Minority Report: Donald Sterling's Record Not So Sterling On Alleged Racism And Abuse


http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sp...record-not-so-sterling-on-alleged-racism-and/


And if you really didn't care about my opinions or viewpoints or concerns, then you wouldn't follow me around like a bitch in heat humping my leg for attention....instead you'd just IA me. So are you crazy or just pissed that you can't disprove what I put forth?

Carry on, my intellectually impotent "Truth Detector".
 
Truth Detector said:
Yep, as expected from a race hustling ignorant leftist dunce; rights don't matter. Sorry dumbass; but illegally recording someone's private comments for political consumption is an abomination that only leftist dunces stuck on that special brand of stupid can think is okay.

I'd love to see the hypocrisy that would erupt if it were Obummer's private conversations were being recorded and publicly exposed.
Click to expand...

Hey chuckles, I seem to recall you and your like minded compadres creaming their jeans over Clinton's article of impeachment...something derived by an ILLEGALLY recorded phone conversation.

You can't have it both ways, toodles. Difference is now that THIS IS NOT A LEGAL TRIAL, but a DECISION BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

Since you libertarian lunkheads, neocons and teabaggers all genuflect at the altar of free market and private enterprise...then STFU and just deal with how this private organization deals with the situation.

And please spare us O'Reilly's idiotic catch phrase, "race hustlers", because that dope (like you) can't explain how it applies:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...me-for-NAACP-to-man-up!&p=1486438#post1486438

Carry on.
 
cawacko said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Now you're just in denial because no matter how you slice it, you are indeed condoning that person openly support someone who is working against their best interest just for a short term financial gain! Get real! You "do good" on one end while this joker "does bad" AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE YOU on the other end....and then puts on a public face that he's a "good guy" with YOU as a direct/indirect support. Sorry, but your attitude is just unrealistic. Hell, people said Saddam Hussein was good for his country and I'm sure there were Iraqi who supported him....so long as they weren't on his hit list. Same with Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, etc., etc.
Click to expand...


I know we don't often agree but I agree with you here. I'm not black so I can't speak from a black perspective but my observation from hearing what my black acquaintances have said is the NAACP has lost credibility in the community and is basically all about the money. Dungheap speaks about the money doing 'good'. I think more 'good' would come from the organization working to regain its credibility than accepting Sterling's money.
Click to expand...

That's all I'm saying.
 
Bonestorm said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Now you're just in denial because no matter how you slice it, you are indeed condoning that person openly support someone who is working against their best interest just for a short term financial gain! Get real! You "do good" on one end while this joker "does bad" AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE YOU on the other end....and then puts on a public face that he's a "good guy" with YOU as a direct/indirect support. Sorry, but your attitude is just unrealistic. Hell, people said Saddam Hussein was good for his country and I'm sure there were Iraqi who supported him....so long as they weren't on his hit list. Same with Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think accepting a check with no strings attached to it is openly supporting the person writing the check.
Click to expand...

The first 3 words of your sentence says it all...you're just being insipidly stubborn, because your assertion defies logic....but then again a "belief" does not require logic or facts.

Put it this way, let someone kick your loved ones in the ass, and then see if you stand silent while that same person gives another family member money to tell everyone what a nice guy he is....then try and talk this BS of yours to any sane, rational person. Good luck with that.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The first 3 words of your sentence says it all...you're just being insipidly stubborn, because your assertion defies logic....but then again a "belief" does not require logic or facts.

Put it this way, let someone kick your loved ones in the ass, and then see if you stand silent while that same person gives another family member money to tell everyone what a nice guy he is....then try and talk this BS of yours to any sane, rational person. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


I get why you think the NAACP shouldn't accept his money. (In fact, I said that I understand if they tell him to go fuck himself). I just don't think it has an obligation reject it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm sorry - I wasn't aware that we were playing the what if game; because since that's the case, it allows me to then ask what if they didn't.
Click to expand...

My apologies if I am wrong here but I believe you said you do not believe the commissioner should have acted on what was a private conversation. We do know that before the commissioner came out with his decision sponsors had already started pulling their money from the Clippers. There were threats of fans not attending Game 5 in LA. There was talk of the players boycotting. I'm asking what you would have liked to have seen the commissioner do instead. You said you would have called the players bluff. In making that decision you as the commissioner would have also consider the consequences if they weren't bluffing and went ahead with the protest. So I guess it is a what if question but I think it's an appropriate one because it is something you would have thought through and felt the risk was worth taking in believing they were bluffing.
 
cawacko said:
My apologies if I am wrong here but I believe you said you do not believe the commissioner should have acted on what was a private conversation. We do know that before the commissioner came out with his decision sponsors had already started pulling their money from the Clippers. There were threats of fans not attending Game 5 in LA. There was talk of the players boycotting. I'm asking what you would have liked to have seen the commissioner do instead. You said you would have called the players bluff. In making that decision you as the commissioner would have also consider the consequences if they weren't bluffing and went ahead with the protest. So I guess it is a what if question but I think it's an appropriate one because it is something you would have thought through and felt the risk was worth taking in believing they were bluffing.
Click to expand...

And what if they didn't.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And what if they didn't.
Click to expand...

Ok, so no what if's. At the time the owner made the decision he knew that multiple sponsors had already pulled their money from the Clippers. He knew there was a threatened boycott by the fans of Game 5 and he knew there was talk of the players protesting and not playing that night. He felt he could not risk having the league shut down in the middle of the playoffs which would cost them millions of dollars and who knows how much damage to their brand. So he made the decision he did.
 
It now looks like Sterling knew all these conversations were being taped. It looked like he had been f'd when it was thought this gold digger had illegally taped him. What must you be thinking to knowingly make comments like this on tape?
 
cawacko said:
Ok, so no what if's. At the time the owner made the decision he knew that multiple sponsors had already pulled their money from the Clippers. He knew there was a threatened boycott by the fans of Game 5 and he knew there was talk of the players protesting and not playing that night. He felt he could not risk having the league shut down in the middle of the playoffs which would cost them millions of dollars and who knows how much damage to their brand. So he made the decision he did.
Click to expand...

He should have called their bluff.
 
cawacko said:
It now looks like Sterling knew all these conversations were being taped. It looked like he had been f'd when it was thought this gold digger had illegally taped him. What must you be thinking to knowingly make comments like this on tape?
Click to expand...

So she says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top