Scoff.

So, who in 2004 will get the Klan vote?

It would seem that the Dems chose the NAACP to be in their tent instead of the KKK.

Probably because it's bigger.

Or because they were a safer bet.

and only slightly less racist.

Please explain how the NAACP is racist. I've heard the charge and the rationale before from others, but I'd like to hear your explanation of it.

I don't know about that but if it was politically expediant I'm sure both parties would jump into bed with NAMBLA.

Well it's very existance is about a certain racial group, is that not racist?
Yes I'm playing devil's advocate

That would mean that any group tied to any ethnic group or sex would be racist or sexist by definition.

Working for the advancement of one specific group is not necessarily racist, it is when you work for the suppression of competing groups that you become racist/sexist.

ok then, let's think this one through. tomorrow, me and my white friends are going to launch a few new organizations. some will be businesses others will be activist groups. here are the names that they will be known by:

NAAWP - national assoc. for the advancement of white people
WET - white entertainment television
WSU - White student union ( gotta get the college campuses involved)
UCCF - united caucasian college fund
NOWLE - national organization of white law enforcement executives
WRAG - white retail action group
NAWA, Inc - national association of white accountants
NWCC - national white chamber of commerce
WITE - White information technology eprofessionals
WGSA - white graduate students association
NAWSE - national assoc of white school educators
CWCF, inc - congressional white caucus foundation
NACHR - national assoc of caucasion-americans in human resources
AWC - assoc of white charities

the list goes on and on. i believe that most of the organizationsi based this list on provide real value to the community, but what would you say if you saw one of my new organizations in the news? most would assume it has a racist agenda, and they would be right. i'm pretty sure that these organizations aren't based on creating a society where the color of one's skin is irrelevent. and if i remember correctly, that was one of the goals of the civil rights movement.

now please pardon me while i go find my flame resistant suit and a big-ass fire extinguisher.

a but isn't racism by definition merely discrimination, positive or negative.

But, if you pull strings, exert pressure and harass someone to hire your candidate, aren't you suppressing all the other candidates? And if you do it because your candidate is a particular sex or race, doesn't that make it sexist or racist? How and where do you draw the line between supporting yours and supressing theirs? I've wrestled with this for some time and have yet to find a satisfactory answer. :confused:

any organization that is designed on the premise of the exclusion of or the the advancement of one particular race is discriminatory and goes against the idea of genuine equality.

i would support the NAAAP - national association for the advancement of all people. but the NAA(fill-in-the-blank)P is just plain wrong.

all of these organizations build walls between people.

So are you saying that even in the midst of blatent racism when many black orgs were created, that in the spirit of "genunine equality" that they should NOT have been created?

And you want to get into the walls of these particular orgs that are currently helping non-whites..why lookout123? What are you going to contribute that these orgs will be able to use to advance their culture/ethnicity?

Great gosh almighty, I had to laugh when I saw this...um, didn't you know? These groups have been in existance ALL ALONG, just not by those names!! :lol:

Kerry Tells Black Voters He Shares Their Hopes:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...t&section=news