l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 July 11, 2012 by Doug Johnson
Well that’s kind of a schizophrenic headline, but how you perceive Mitt
Romney’s address to the NAACP will probably be shaped by what you read
about it.
Newsbusters notes that there were a smattering of boos in two particular
spots, and points to a live blog from The Guardian that sums up the speech
like this:
11.05am: Other than those two episodes, Mitt Romney has been received
politely by the NAACP audience, with plenty of applause at the appropriate
places.
There was even a standing ovation as he finished. No one thinks that Romney
is going to make serious inroads in the black vote, he’s just out showing
that he’s a real candidate not afraid to take the battle to the President
in areas or with groups that don’t support him.
The Campaign Spot has the full text of the speech, minus the booing…
Update: You can watch the whole speech below and form your own opinion.
下面的comment很有意思:
GarandFan • 4 hours ago
So how come THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT is sending a WHITE guy to speak to the
NAACP?
Guess he doesn't want anyone bringing up that Black 14.6% UNEMPLOYMENT rate.
5 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Grumpy • an hour ago • parent
Yeah, he can get away with that because we all know African-Americans
are stupid and don't know what the unemployment situation is these days.
Nicely played, racist.
0 2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GarandFan • an hour ago • parent
CONGRATULATIONS! RACE CARD!
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jinx McHue • an hour ago • parent
DERP DERP DERP DERP RACIST DERP!!!
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 6 hours ago
Since the racist left is saying that he's too white for any black people to
vote for him , it is surprising that they even allowed him to speak. http://washingtonexaminer.com/...
Wait... did I say, "racist left"? My apologies for the needlessly
repetitious phrase.
5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 6 hours ago • parent
Just so I'm clear on this, you're claiming the NAACP is racist?
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 6 hours ago • parent
Would an organization named "The National Association for the
Advancement of White Persons" be accused of being racist just on the basis
of its name?
6 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
Wow are you an ignorant bastard. But I suppose were the whites
in America subjected to slavery, lynching (in the 20th century), burning
alive, deprived of the right to vote etc etc etc, no I don't think it would
be accused of racism because of its name.
Jackass - ignorant in toto.
2 10
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PBunyan • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Oh, I get it. You leftists know that they're racists
, but think it's o.k. that they're racists. They have an excuse.
7 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
PBunyan: I am sure that Hugh is one of those idiots who
believes that black people can never be racist.
5 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
PBunyan: So, you too believe that the NAACP is a racist
organization?
And no, I don't think the NAACP is racist.
1 6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PBunyan • 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: It not a matter of belief, it a plan and
simple fact. I suppose you thing La Raza is non racist,too, because most all
leftist seem to believe that only whites can be racists.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 5 hours ago •
parent
Hugh_G: Answer the question asked of you, sheet boy.
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
Rodney G. Graves: Yes, black people, white
people, red people, brown people, Asians, Hispanics, Anglo-Americans, you
great Aunt Nellie and anyone else can be racist. Of course, there was no
point whatsoever to the stupid question.
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 5 hours ago &#
8226; parent
Hugh_G: Still not the question asked of you,
sheet boy.
The question was: Would an organization
named "The National Association for the Advancement of White Persons" be
accused of being racist just on the basis of its name?
Answer the question.
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Why not answer the question? You are aware that
whites make up a far greater fraction of the poor than blacks do. What would
be wrong about an organization to advance them? Would it be patently racist
to create such an organization? If so why?
The presumption is that leftist jackholes like you would
call it racist even though there would be a legitimate, nonracist purpose
for such an organization.
5 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
jim_m: Your ignorance is mind boggling. You do know
about the Census Reports right? You know that the % of black poverty is far
greater than the % of white poverty? You know that, right?
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: You know that empirically, there are nearly
3x as many poor white people don't you? Yet you claim that the number of
poor white people is irrelevant. You know that your position is racist,
right?
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
jim_m: What are you blathering on about now? I answered
the question about the fictional NAWP. Had whites the history of blacks, NO
I would not think the organization racist.
Do you know anything at all about the history of blacks
in America? Anything other than your tripe about "plantation" mentality, and
your freaking nonsense about democrats enslaving them and republicans
freeing them.
Show 1 new reply
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 5 hours ago •
parent
Hugh_G: Racism is the act of ascribing behavior
based on "race." Giving out blanket excuses is merely a less overt form,
sheet boy,
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
Rodney G. Graves: No, racism at its core is the
belief that one's own race is superior.
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 4 hours ago &#
8226; parent
Hugh_G: Your proffered definition cannot
obtain unless my definition is fulfilled first, sheet boy.
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: The two definitions are not mutually
exclusive. You are making a distinction without a difference. Who's trying
to wriggle out of their statements now?
3 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Let's be more explicit:
There is a race where 29.06 million people live in
poverty. There is another race where only 10.67 million live in poverty. Is
it racist to create an organization to focus on lifting those 29.06 million
people out of poverty based on their race? Would it be racist to create an
organization to lift those 10.67 million people out of poverty based on
their race?
The obvious point is that there are 29.06 million
white people in poverty in the US. There are 10.67 million black people in
poverty in the US. Few would consider it racist to form an organization to
lift poor blacks out of poverty, but many would consider it racist to lift
poor whites out of poverty.
3 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 4 hours ago • parent
jim_m: You keep dodging the origin of the NAACP
and the history of violent racism, well into the 20th Century. T
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: No. I simply think that it is
irrelevant to the question of whether or not an organization designed to
help disadvantaged white people would be racist.
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: That is not what was asked. Whites are the
vast majority of the poor. Would it be racist to create an organization
specifically, to lift white people out of poverty?
Yes or no? What does the history of anyone have to
do with whether or not a specific action is racist?
Why is it racist to do something to aid the majority
of poor based on race and not racist to form an organization to only help
poor people of racial minority status? (in this case I am not referring to
the NAACP since it does more than just help the poor)
The point (since you are too stupid to grasp it) is
that in every case where you would accept an organization to promote the
welfare of blacks or any other minority, you would call the equivalent
organization to help white people racist. According to you it is never
racist to help racial minorities and only racial minorities but always
racist to help whites (even when they are the majority of the people
affected by something)
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 4 hours ago • parent
jim_m: 1.The number of whites far exceed the
number of blacks. Christ any first year student of statistics knows you have
to look at the percentages.
2. No.
3. That's too dumb and incomprehensible to be
worthy of response.
4. That's false on its face. Again, it's % of
population, not numbers.
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: OK racist, try this:
The asian poverty rate and the white poverty
rate are within 1% of each other. Would it be racist to create an
organization to lift the asian poor out of poverty? I doubt that you would
say yes even though there are only 1.8 million poor asians and over 29
million poor whites.
You focus on percentages because in the one
instance it makes your argument look a little better, but universal
application of that analysis shows that you are only trying to justify your
racism.
Any first year stats student could tell you
that there is no correct way of analyzing the data. Only ways of presenting
the data that support your point and ways of presenting the data that do not
support your point. The issue is whether you can justify your presentation
of the data as being the correct way to view it.
Simply claiming that percentages are the
best way doesn't make it so. In fact looking at percentages is weak since it
denies the reality of the numbers of people that you are talking about.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Why does one have to look at
percentages? Look at my comment showing that there are 3x as many poor white
people as there are poor blacks.
Yes there are a higher percentage of Blacks
who are poor than whites. I am sure that if the white population were double
and the number of poor doubled so there were 6x as many poor whites as
blacks you would still say that the percentage is what matters.
That is an ignorant and frankly, offensive
way of twisting the statistics so you can discriminate by race. Frankly I
consider it to be a racist dismissal of the suffering of approximately 19
million people.
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Ah yes, Slavery (practiced and defended by Democrats
of the era) and Lynching (practiced by Democrats of that era). Project you
much?
ATQ.
5 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Grumpy • 41 minutes ago • parent
Hugh_G: word.
0
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 6 hours ago • parent
I expected an ignorant reply but you really outdid yourself.
If you click on the link (you do know how to click with a mouse ?)
you will find an article about a video produced by two leftist goons from
Media Matters and the NYT. THEY are the ones claiming that Romney is too
white and they make a number of offensive racial remarks.
You should watch it. I am sure that you will find it not only funny
but accurate to your twisted and racist world view.
3 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
I just asked a question. It was you who wrote:"....it is
surprising they even allowed him to speak." They, meaning the NAACP.
A reasonable question.
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Sarcasm. The racists of the video presume to speak
for everyone.
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
jim_m: Even the NAACP?
1 4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: The timing of the video would seem that they
presume to speak for the NAACP too.
3 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago • parent
jim_m: Do you really believe that? Do you have
anything whatsoever outside your biased, prejudiced, twisted mind to support
that?
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: I said that they presume to speak
for the NAACP not that they did speak for the NAACP. Do you have some
serious reading comprehension problem?
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD • 5 hours ago
• parent
jim_m: Progressive filters tend to act
in that fashion...
4 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago •
parent
jim_m: It's becoming fun watching you
try to wriggle out of your typically ignorant comment.
So now they "presume to speak for the
NAACP." And how is that? And what does "presume to speak" mean to you?
0 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago •
parent
Hugh_G: I'm not trying to wriggle
out of anything dumbass. I said what I meant and I explained it. You are too
dimwitted to read and understand it. I am not going to waste my time on an
idiot who cannot even understand simple English.
5 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours ago &#
8226; parent
jim_m: Now you have a temper
tantrum and quit. LOL
1 5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5 hours ago &#
8226; parent
Hugh_G: Nope. I'm just not
going to waste my time on a loser who can't read.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hugh_G • 5 hours
ago • parent
jim_m: Oh believe me I
can read. And I can comprehend your ignorant comments and your attempts to
disguise your contemptible views on race and blacks in particular.
0 6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jim_m • 5
hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: whatever. At
least I don't promote the party that enslaved them. I side with the party
that set them free.
At least I don't
side with the party that fought against civil rights, I side with the party
that fought for them.
At least I don't
side with the party that promotes social welfare programs that trap
minorities in poverty for generations, I side with the party that works to
end the modern form of slavery.
If I am racist for
that what does it make you?
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rodney G. Graves MOD
• 4 hours ago • parent
Hugh_G: Your
assurance runs counter to your observed comments.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GarandFan •
; 4 hours ago • parent
Rodney G. Graves
Yeah, label me
IGNORANT as well if you like. Just ANSWER THE QUESTION.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jinx McHue • 5 hours ago
So since people at the NAACP obviously approved of Romney's pro-traditional
family statements, can we expect the gay mafia to come after them now?
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
herddog505 • 3 hours ago
Can you imagine if Barry showed up at a Tea Party (never happen: he hasn't
got the stones) and he got booed? The Mars Rover would pick up the screams
of "RAAAACISM!" |
|
