Why did the Mainstream Media Ignore This?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48635
from JoeUser Forums

Julian Bond, head of the NAACP recently Spoke at Fayettevill State University.  IN his speech he made the following statements:

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

He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.

characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

Instead, the only reports in the old media, one by the Fayetteville Observer http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=225604  and one by a local TV Station http://rdu.news14.com/content/school_news/?AC=&ArID=79952&SecID=136 merely noted his address without reporting the insane and hateful rhetoric.

One has to wonder why the MSM is either A: Protecting a hate monger, or B: protecting an idiot.

Or is it that his speech did not fit with their bias?

 

6,297 views 59 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most people couldn't give a rat's ass what Julian Bond has to say.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Most people couldn't give a rat's ass what Julian Bond has to say.

As the leader of the NAACP, I think 500,000 people at least would disagree with you.  As well as 900 people in attendance at his latest 'speech'.

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm....Powell and Rice as "tokens", eh?
I wonder how Mr. Bond felt about the "token"-less Clinton administration?
Funny how we never heard from race watchdog groups about things like that during his reign, ain't it?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

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


I wonder where they get the connection between the Republican party and Nazis.

Don't they know that the Republicans just made the US fight a war to remove a Nazi from power, while the Democrats are still eager to inform everyone that the Nazi should have remained in power?

Don't they remember that it was the principles of the Republican party that ended slavery in the United States?

Don't they recall that the Ku-Klux-Klan was allied with the Democratic party and opposed by the Republicans?

And why are they allowed to refer to a black American who made it in politics, even though it was difficult, as a "token"?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm....Powell and Rice as "tokens", eh?
I wonder how Mr. Bond felt about the "token"-less Clinton administration?
Funny how we never heard from race watchdog groups about things like that during his reign, ain't it?


I'm not suggesting anyone, including Rice and Poweel are "tokens", but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't they know that the Republicans just made the US fight a war to remove a Nazi from power, while the Democrats are still eager to inform everyone that the Nazi should have remained in power?


What nazi are you referring to, and what democrats are saying he should still be in power?

And why are they allowed to refer to a black American who made it in politics, even though it was difficult, as a "token"?


Are you suggesting that "they" shouldn't be given freedom of expression as dictated in the first amendment?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

What nazi are you referring to, and what democrats are saying he should still be in power?


Did you miss the Iraq war or did you not know that Saddam was a member of an Arab national-socialist party that was actually founded by a Syrian with connections to Vichy-France?

If that isn't a Nazi, then I don't know what a Nazi is.

And they are certainly Democrats (democrats too) who are now saying that the invasion was wrong. They are in effect saying that Saddam should still be in power, whether they realise or admit it or not.


Are you suggesting that "they" shouldn't be given freedom of expression as dictated in the first amendment?


I am wondering why the NAACP of all people feel that they don't have to respect the advancement of coloured people. I would have thought that their house rules were more clear on the subject.

I figured that was obvious. Did you think about it and immediately come up with it being a free-speech issue as there is no possible reason not to say something except a law forbidding it?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why would the hatemongers in the MSM work to expose one of their own? ;~D
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
They are in effect saying that Saddam should still be in power, whether they realise or admit it or not.


Oh, I see now. They are IN EFFECT saying that. It's a good thing we have you to INTERPRET what their meaning is. I guess it makes sense that if we pulled out NOW, Saddam would resume power. Your line of reasoning is a little bit twisted.

I figured that was obvious. Did you think about it and immediately come up with it being a free-speech issue as there is no possible reason not to say something except a law forbidding it?


The part that made me think of free speech was you questioning why they should be ALLOWED to make statements like that.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Oh, I see now. They are IN EFFECT saying that. It's a good thing we have you to INTERPRET what their meaning is. I guess it makes sense that if we pulled out NOW, Saddam would resume power. Your line of reasoning is a little bit twisted.


There is not much interpretation involved. If somebody is AGAINST the removal of a dictator, he is FOR the remaining of that dictator in power. It's just that many on the left don't seem to realise that their opinions and actions have consequences.

There is nothing "twisted" about pointing that out.



The part that made me think of free speech was you questioning why they should be ALLOWED to make statements like that.


Well, I am glad that that is cleared up now that I told you that I was talking the NAACP house rules.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a conservative, you should never bring up the term "house rules".
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

As a conservative, you should never bring up the term "house rules".


What's wrong with you?

What are you going on about?

You keep changing the subject from current events to freedom of speech to conservatism. What's that supposed to do for us?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was a joke. You know DeLay, Abramhoff, Cunningham...House Rules.

Nevermind, I should know better than to joke around on a messageboard.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't they recall that the Ku-Klux-Klan was allied with the Democratic party and opposed by the Republicans?


or, how about the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without STRONG support from the Republicans because of the divide in the Democratic Party?

I guess all those facts are irrelevant.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was a joke. You know DeLay, Abramhoff, Cunningham...House Rules.


House Rules...lol! I GET IT! (corny, but good)

Nevermind, I should know better than to joke around on a messageboard.


of course you should, davad. Forty lashes with a USB cable for you!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?
---davad

Yes, I am. Republicans have traditionally done more for minorites than Democrats.
The Dems just take the credit and then pass laws and implement programs to not-so-subtly keep blacks in their place and easily manipulated for their votes.
Republicans have made all the major advances in minority affairs.

A few examples:

Johnson depended upon the Repubs in the House and Senate to ratify the Civil Rights Act. The Dems agreed to it, but only with provisions.

Nixon signed Affirmative Action into law.

Reagan signed off on MLK Day.

Bush 41 appointed the first black to the Supreme Court (and the Dems fought him all the way).

Bush 43 had the first important (first, period?) black Cabinet members in Powell and Rice.

Carter had no blacks on his staff, unless I'm sadly mistaken.

Clinton did have Vernon Jordan, a friend who acted as kind of a pimp for him, getting him laid, then offering lucrative job positions to the women in return for silence. Cool, huh?

Yeah, the Dems are all about minorities, alright.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
but what are you saying about Clinton? Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?
---davad

Yes, I am. Republicans have traditionally done more for minorites than Democrats.
The Dems just take the credit and then pass laws and implement programs to not-so-subtly keep blacks in their place and easily manipulated for their votes.
Republicans have made all the major advances in minority affairs.

A few examples:

Johnson depended upon the Repubs in the House and Senate to ratify the Civil Rights Act. The Dems agreed to it, but only with provisions.

Nixon signed Affirmative Action into law.

Reagan signed off on MLK Day.

Bush 41 appointed the first black to the Supreme Court (and the Dems fought him all the way).

Bush 43 had the first important (first, period?) black Cabinet members in Powell and Rice.

Carter had no blacks on his staff, unless I'm sadly mistaken.

Clinton did have Vernon Jordan, a friend who acted as kind of a pimp for him, getting him laid, then offering lucrative job positions to the women in return for silence. Cool, huh?

Yeah, the Dems are all about minorities, alright.


I didn't say anything about past presidents did I? When are you going to deal with the present day and stop relying on the past? The issue is appointees of minorities....Bush VS. Clinton.

Put on your readin glasses;

And Bush's overall record of diversity pales when compared to the standard set by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, for filling the roughly 2,800 political posts that form a presidential administration.

Blacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton, the snapshot shows. Women won 36 percent of Bush's appointments, noticeably fewer than the 44 percent of Clinton's.

Overall, the Bush administration gave more than half, 54 percent, of its political positions to white men. Clinton awarded 57 percent of his jobs to women and minorities.

The snapshot does confirm Bush's claim that he has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton.

But it also shows that just below those highly visible positions -- in the hundreds of little known but important appointments to senior executive posts that don't need Senate confirmation -- the diversity of the Bush administration fades.

Under Clinton, women held 43 percent and blacks 13 percent of the senior executive posts, and 45 percent went to white men. Under Bush, women won just 24 percent and blacks 6 percent of the jobs, and 66 percent went to white men.

Take, for instance, the Department of Education, headed by Rod Paige, the black former chief of Houston's public schools, whose appointment Bush often mentions.

Paige's 18-member top-level team -- deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretaries -- was quite diverse. A third were minorities and more than half women. Less than a quarter were white men.

But of his 22 senior executives -- chiefs of staff, deputy assistant secretaries and advisers -- only three, or 14 percent, were minorities and just a third women. And 60 percent were white men.

Those are among the findings from the first independent review to examine the claims of diversity by Bush and Clinton, based on an analysis of federal personnel records for September 2000 and September 2002.

In his speech to minority journalists, Bush charged that Senate Democrats were blocking his attempts to diversify the federal bench.

The Democrats have filibustered votes on 10 of Bush's judicial nominees, which include a Hispanic man, a black woman and two white women.

Yet overall, Bush has nominated fewer blacks and women than Clinton -- a third of his candidates compared with more than half of Clinton's.

Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and an authority on federal judicial selection, credits Bush for embracing diversity.

But, he said, the Bush administration has focused more on finding candidates with a conservative philosophy like the one held by Thomas

Link

Where his predecessor, George Bush, could find only one qualified woman, one African-American and two Hispanics for his Cabinet, Clinton nominated three black men, a black woman and two Hispanic men to join nine white Cabinet nominees — three of them women. George W. Bush’s push for diversity in his own Cabinet this year can be seen as an affirmation of Clinton’s work on that front.

Link
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush 41 appointed the first black to the Supreme Court (and the Dems fought him all the way).


Two words: Thurgood Marshall.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Funny how we never heard from race watchdog groups about things like that during his reign, ain't it?

No, Just sad.  Sad that the black leadership has sold their soul back into slavery.  This time to the democrat party.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

And why are they allowed to refer to a black American who made it in politics, even though it was difficult, as a "token"?

And worse.  They are using a lot worse against Michael Steele (Republican running in Maryland for the senate seat).  The simple answer is that they are being programmed and told what to say by a very racist democrat party that is trying to use race to keep the blacks in line.  When one strays to the republicans, they are then labeled a token, Uncle tom, Aunt Jemima, or worse.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are you suggesting that Bush has appointed more minorites to positions than Clinton?

I think he is suggesting just that.  At least to meaningful positions.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Are you suggesting that "they" shouldn't be given freedom of expression as dictated in the first amendment?

Are you suggesting that no one can them call them for their hate speech?

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am wondering why the NAACP of all people feel that they don't have to respect the advancement of coloured people. I would have thought that their house rules were more clear on the subject.

There are many things wrong with the NAACP.  First, it is not an organization of Colored people  (as its name indicates) as they exclude hispanics, asians and indians.  Second, they only allow liberal colored people to join.  Third, they practice exactly what they use to preach against.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why would the hatemongers in the MSM work to expose one of their own? ;~D

Well, they are supposed to at least try to maintain a veneer of objectivity.  Although it is clear they are incapable of getting beyond their own prejudice.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

As a conservative, you should never bring up the term "house rules".

He is not American, and therefore does not have to worry about Rostenkowski and Trafficant.