[Talkhard]

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

This is the same hate-mongering and scare tactics that the Left resorts to all the time, mainly because they have nothing else to say. They are completely bankrupt of ideas and have only hate for Bush and the Republicans. And "Nazi" is their favorite word. They throw it around at anybody and everybody, just the way McCarthy threw around "communist" in the 1950's.

What I want to know is, why is this kind of language allowed when a black civil rights leader does it, but denounced when a white conservative does it?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48635

[Dan]

it's a stupid comment, but the NAACP represents the "left" as much as Pat Robertson represents the right.

[Talkhard]

It's a stupid comment

Just "stupid"? Not hateful, not bigoted, not vicious, not divisive?

The NAACP represents the "left" as much as Pat Robertson represents the right.

Perhaps, but if Pat Robertson had used this kind of language, the media would be all over it. And you'd have people on the Left screaming for his head. But since the speaker in this case is a sacred cow of the Left, the mainstream media will ignore it. It's the classic double standard, in which the so-called aggrieved minority gets to call names all he wants, because he's "earned" the right. And his opinion just happens to be shared by the editors at the New York Times.

[SodaPopinski]

The World Net Daily? Yeah, that's a reputable publication. A quick scan of the page you linked shows the following ads:

1) "Are you ready for a second American Revolution: Taking America Back"

2) Free Newsletter: Show your Support for Persecuted Christians all over the world"

3) Stop an Abortion Today

4) Whatever it Takes: Stomping out Illegal Immigrants

And if you click the link to visit the World Net Daily shop, you see nothing but books about Jesus and Christianity, a book that blames Clinton for 9/11, a book that tells you to have nothing but trust in George Bush (a man with "extraordinary faith and prayer life"), and a book warning America about the "gay agenda" taking over our country.

Are you ****ing serious? Do you maybe think this organization has an agenda that leans a bit to the right?

Holy ****, Talkhard. No wonder. Try visiting a news source without an agenda. You know - one that produces "facts."

-Pop

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Just "stupid"? Not hateful, not bigoted, not vicious, not divisive?


Perhaps, but if Pat Robertson had used this kind of language, the media would be all over it. And you'd have people on the Left screaming for his head. But since the speaker in this case is a sacred cow of the Left, the mainstream media will ignore it. It's the classic double standard, in which the so-called aggrieved minority gets to call names all he wants, because he's "earned" the right. And his opinion just happens to be shared by the editors at the New York Times.

The NAACP isn't the "sacred cow" of the left. I don't remember it being made as big of a deal as it should've been that Robertson said that Ariel Sharone got what he deserves from god.

write to a media guy.

[sa1177]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

The World Net Daily? Yeah, that's a reputable publication. A quick scan of the page you linked shows the following ads:

1) "Are you ready for a second American Revolution: Taking America Back"

2) Free Newsletter: Show your Support for Persecuted Christians all over the world"

3) Stop an Abortion Today

4) Whatever it Takes: Stomping out Illegal Immigrants

And if you click the link to visit the World Net Daily shop, you see nothing but books about Jesus and Christianity, a book that blames Clinton for 9/11, a book that tells you to have nothing but trust in George Bush (a man with "extraordinary faith and prayer life"), and a book warning America about the "gay agenda" taking over our country.

Are you ****ing serious? Do you maybe think this organization has an agenda that leans a bit to the right?

Holy ****, Talkhard. No wonder. Try visiting a news source without an agenda. You know - one that produces "facts."

-Pop

Thanks saved me some time....

[Stepping Razor]

I agree this comment is totally out of line.

The incipient fascism of the modern-day Republican Party is definitely more of the Mussolini/Franco/Pinochet school than the Hitler variant.

Lucky us.

Stepping Razor

[Dan]

I would like to say something else, that I didn't think of saying before.

When anyone calls anyone a "Nazi" or a "KKK" or whatever (be it left or right) it's disturbing to me. It is pathetic, and imho, lazy flat brained thinking. I don't like it when a "left" calls a "right" that, nor do I like it when a "right" calls a "left" that.

to me, it shows a gross lack of understanding and appreciation of history. As dorky as it might sound, it's also kind of embarassing when someone calls someone such an out-landish thing, regardless of their political affiliation. I hope I didn't come off sounding like I was OK with what you said happened (if it did or didn't, isn't the issue).

[Talkhard]

The World Net Daily? Yeah, that's a reputable publication. A quick scan of the page you linked shows the following ads:

1) "Are you ready for a second American Revolution: Taking America Back"

2) Free Newsletter: Show your Support for Persecuted Christians all over the world"

3) Stop an Abortion Today

4) Whatever it Takes: Stomping out Illegal Immigrants

And if you click the link to visit the World Net Daily shop, you see nothing but books about Jesus and Christianity, a book that blames Clinton for 9/11, a book that tells you to have nothing but trust in George Bush (a man with "extraordinary faith and prayer life"), and a book warning America about the "gay agenda" taking over our country.

Are you ****ing serious? Do you maybe think this organization has an agenda that leans a bit to the right?

Holy ****, Talkhard. No wonder. Try visiting a news source without an agenda. You know - one that produces "facts."

-Pop

Ah, a news source without an agenda. You mean like the New York Times? NBC? CBS? God knows Dan Rather didn't have an agenda when he tried to nail Bush for his military record, and then was forced to "retire" when he broadcast a story full of lies. And of course the New York Times doesn't have any agenda when it bashes Bush and the Iraq War day after day. Nah, no agenda there at all!

For the record, I never said my source wasn't conservative. The issue is not the source of this story anyway--it's the story itself. Just because the New York Times didn't publish it doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I have pointed out, the New York Times regularly ignores stories like this because they don't fit with its agenda for painting the Republicans as racists and bigots.

And I notice you didn't challenge the facts as reported--you merely threw mud at the reporter. How clever of you.

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Ah, a news source without an agenda. You mean like the New York Times? NBC? CBS? God knows Dan Rather didn't have an agenda when he tried to nail Bush for his military record, and then was forced to "retire" when he broadcast a story full of lies. And of course the New York Times doesn't have any agenda when it bashes Bush and the Iraq War day after day. Nah, no agenda there at all!

For the record, I never said my source wasn't conservative. The issue is not the source of this story anyway--it's the story itself. Just because the New York Times didn't publish it doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I have pointed out, the New York Times regularly ignores stories like this because they don't fit with its agenda for painting the Republicans as racists and bigots.

And I notice you didn't challenge the facts as reported--you merely threw mud at the reporter. How clever of you.

I'll choose to ignore the story until it pops up elsewhere. So far, I've only seen it in the conservative rag you posted. Which leads me to believe one of the following:

a) The World Net Daily or whatever it's called had the scoop on the story with their crack team of investigative and breaking news reporters.

or

b) The story was completely taken out of context and exaggerated for effect.

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say I believe "a" but your reputation precedes you.

And did you ever think that maybe the media bashes Bush and the Iraq War because that's the bed they made for themselves? Bush constantly shows an inability to handle anything more than a "Choose Your Own Adventure" novel and the Iraq War was started on false pretenses (even your man Bush has said as much) and waged without a plan to achieve long-lasting peace. What is our exit-strategy? Do we have one?

-Pop

[Talkhard]

Here's the Wall Street Journal's take on Bond's statements. They offer a pretty convincing case for why the mainstream media is not reporting the story.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007920

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Here's the Wall Street Journal's take on Bond's statements. They offer a pretty convincing case for why the mainstream media is not reporting the story.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007920

Careful, Talkhard. I wouldn't say that's the "Wall Street Journal's take" on it. That's James Taranto's take on it, and he's a noted uber-conservative who writes his opinions in the Journal's editorial section.

-Pop