Jerry Falwell's interests function as a religious organization. The NAACP is now, blatently, a poltical organization. They can pretend that they aren't partisan, but the fact is they are now the African American wing of the Democratic party.

Are you taking issue with the specific example chosen? Or the general point that there are "lots" of partisan mouthpieces? I want to know if this is worth my time to debate.

I think it is a moot point, since the NAACP openly states that they are non-partisan, and that they don't endorse Presidential candidates... Pretty laughable of late.

So you really can't base your ideas about that their tactics, methods AND goals on what they say. Once organizations start behaving that way, you pretty much have to look at the results of their tactics and methods, and take their stated goals with a grain of salt.

Members of their leadership have been very hateful and disingenuous with their characterizations of Republicans and the choices available in this election. Once you have have crossed that line, and I think it was crossed probably 20 years ago, you lose the right to be judged in an "It's the thought that counts" manner...

What is it with left wingers and their inability to grasp objective facts.

In my experience, and one of the reasons why I tend to have less respect for left-wing political junkies is that while often intelligent, they don't tend to look into issues for themselves.  They just regurgitate.  They can't be bothered to look into these things for themselves.

Here's the GDP graph:

The economy in 2000 was CLEARLY starting to hurt.  It was teetering.  3Q2001 (July1  thorugh Sept 30 for you Democrats) was where things really went to hell.

The economic downturn in 2000 wasn't Clinton's fault any more than the subsequent recession was bush's fault.  Dumb people who spent trillions (literally) in the dot-com bubble and then lost it when the bubble burst caused the down turn and 9/11 (and having essentially the month of September being shut down) put us into the recession.

vinciple: My problem with the NAACP is simple: Any group that calls its political opponents Nazis and worse deserve no respect.  The NAACP has slowly become a fringe hate group in my book. Calling the Republican Party the party of the swastika is incredibly offensive, especially given that it is the party of Abraham Lincoln.

"Any group that calls its political opponents Nazis and worse deserve no respect. "

and what makes is especially heinous is the fact that as a supposedly non-partisan organization that refuses to endorse candidates, they should have no "political opponents" at all.

If Kerry wins and the economy contiues to recover RadLibs will probably say that it was "buyer confidence" spurred on by the belief that Kerry would win. If the budget tanks a few months after he wins, they'll certainly blame it on Bush, though

Very true... but of course the ReactCons can be counted on to do exactly the reverse.

The problem in dealing with the economy is that cause and effect is so vague and open to personal interpretation -- even, in the rare cases, when the observer is really trying to figure out the non-partisan truth. Which measures are the most significant? How accurate are those measures? Which variables does one attribute the changes to? And how much time must pass, in order to see the fluctuations as more chance than meaning? Yet, there are all those numbers to quote, and we all have been taught to believe in the objectivity of numbers.

Simply the current idea that "the economy" for better or worse can routinely be attributed to a president rather than any particular policy goes a long way to demonstrate the foolishness of it all.

Economics is the only field I know of that is more abused, even than education, by ridiculous interpretations of experts and numbers.

> The KKK is a nasty racist organization even today. But they're not terrorists
> today. They are a white supremacy group just like the NAACP has become a
> black supremacy group.

Oh, what a bunch of left-wing, liberal, whiny "moral equivelance" claptrap. I expected better of you. That's garbage, and -you know- it's garbage, and you're just saying it to be controversial. It fails even the most basic sniff test. Here's how you can tell.

I want you to imagine yourself walking in to your church. Y'know, YOUR church. The one your friends and neighbors go to.

Imagine yourself standing up and saying "I was thinking of going to an NAACP meeting." Man, that might be a little embarassing. You might even get some funny looks.

Now imagine yourself standing up in your church and saying "I was thinking of going to a KKK meeting." What would happen? Well, assuming you don't go to a racist church -- and I think that's a safe assumption -- here's what would happen: your pastor would talk to you after the service about your problem. Most of your friends and neighbors would probably stop letting their children play with yours. And, _they would be right_.

So don't give me this delusional, drama queen, typical no-social-skills CS geek "all people I disagree with are in the same hash bucket" attitude. The NAACP has a lot of problems, but being like the KKK in any substantive, non-left-wing-lawyer's-argument way is not one of them. You're wrong, and you know you're wrong. You would be ashamed if one of your children made such a stupid argument. Your father would be ashamed of you if he knew you were making such a stupid argument. And you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Likening the NAACP to the KKK is "left wing"??? heh, urm... I'm not following that. The NAACP is very left wing, itself.

I think you'd get a better reaction from other church goers partially because the NAACP is living off the laurels of previous generations, and because people are simply deathly afraid to say anything politically incorrect. That seems to be changing, thank goodness. I think they are now beginning to be held accountable by the general public and their members for all the abuse and extortion they perpetrate, and the vile people they allow to manipulate the organization.

What's left wing is trying to make a moral equivelance argument that an organization that engages in peaceful political protest -- even for causes that one disagrees with -- is "the same" as an organization with a 100 year history of committing public murder and dismemberment.

There is, quite simply, no comparison whatsoever. Claiming that those two organizations are effectively the same is utterly and completely morally bankrupt.

peterb's replies only solidify that no political group wants to say the "bad people" are on the same side of the spectrum as they.

Draginol, the next time you feel like asking "What? I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND it! Why do people think I'm a right-wing loony?" come back to this post and read the comment where you compare the NAACP, a political lobbying organization that holds positions one might disagree with, to the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist organization that has a 100 year history of organizing and committing brutal public murders and vivisections of people for the crime of being black.

> The KKK is a nasty racist organization even today. But they're not terrorists > today. They are a white supremacy group just like the NAACP has become a > black supremacy group. Oh, what a bunch of left-wing, liberal, whiny "moral equivelance" claptrap. I expected better of you. That's garbage, and -you know- it's garbage, and you're just saying it to be controversial. It fails even the most basic sniff test.

You can't even decide who to blame, first the right, then the left! You are a confused, anonymous person.

If conservatives see something they don't agree with or is just stupid, they call it "a bunch of left-wing, liberal, whiny 'moral equivelance' claptrap." When liberals see something they don't agree with and so on, they call it neoconservative nonsense, etc, etc. Accept the facts, no matter what side you're on.

And Draginol, when you say "What is it with left wingers and their inability to grasp objective facts", please don't lump all liberals/democrats together. I am quite capable of grasping objective facts and, from a democrat, your graph says all that needs to be said. The failing economy argument is moot. However, I think there are plenty other arguments that can be made

All I meant was if he apologized to the NAACP his image with African Americans might improve, not whether it was right or wrong.  I also said it was unlikely to happen.

What is it with left wingers and their inability to grasp objective facts.

The majority of people don't take time out to research facts.  The majority of people voting for Bush will be Christian and voting for him because Bush is a born again Christian himself who wears his religion on his sleeve.  I think 75 % of people I talk to about politics during the day cannot quote me things politicians have said or state any facts, or really carry on about current events and that's being generous.  This goes for both  liberals and conservatives. 

psychx: Aye, it all boils down the emotional majority who are too lazy to grasp real issues.

Yeah Stevendedalus the emotional majority is one of the reasons for the electoral college .  I also want to state that I read my first reply and it looks like I was stating Bush made a mistake with the NAACP.  I don't necessarily think he made a mistake, but what I meant was that considering Bush does not admit mistakes, like most Presidents, it would be highly unlikely.  I'm glad it sparked some good debate though. 

the emotional majority

Heh, the phrase I have always used for this group is "the mass moronacy".

Just noticed this:

The majority of people voting for Bush will be Christian and voting for him because Bush is a born again Christian himself who wears his religion on his sleeve.

You really believe that? Sure, the majority of people voting for Bush will be Christian. But you think they're voting for Bush because he's a born again Christian? Do you have any data to back that up? I find that highly unlikely.