Help the Poor - Screw them

Published on March 23, 2006 By Dr Guy In Current Events

In another example of the dog biting the hand that feeds them, the NAACP has decided that Andrew Young is a turn coat! Andrew Young?

Yep. Why? Because he arm twisted Wal-Mart for some money and endorsed them! his sin? He actually likes Wal-Mart! SHOCK!

So what did happen? Well the NAACP decides they are bad! WHy? They hire people, and give cheap prices! Oh, but that is bad for the poor people! Yes! It might actually enable them to get stuff without government assistance!

oh the Horror! Stop that evil company that ENABLES poor people! We must not allow them to rise above their designated place!

Does anyone else see the NAACP as the new Plantation master other than me?

God how I hate slave owners and enablers!

Comments

bakerstreet

on Mar 23, 2006

No, the plantation masters are the unions, and the NAACP shows how buyable they are every time they start making these stands that have little or nothing to do with their mandate. In terms of the poor, Wal-Mart hires them, and sell them stuff at affordable prices.

I defy ANYONE to tell me that a clerk at a mom and pop local supermarket is getting better pay than at Wal Mart. In the small towns I lived in they couldn't get workers to stay at local shops because Wal Mart stole them all. Most of the businesses in small towns are family owned and run, anyway.

That's good for the family, and I support those stores all that I can, but in the end if you are talking about helping the poor, a lot more people have been elevated because of Wal Mart than have been degraded.

I hate what Wal Mart has done to small town America, but I'm not going to lie to make my point. Whenever I can I shop somewhere else, simply because I prefer the profits of the store to stay in my community. That doesn't mean Wal Mart is a villain, it just means that I want to preserve local business.

JillUser

on Mar 23, 2006

Boy, from that title I had something far different pictured in my mind

Dr Guy

on Mar 24, 2006

No, the plantation masters are the unions, and the NAACP shows how buyable they are every time they start making these stands that have little or nothing to do with their mandate

I dont know. While I agree with the buyable part, I still see the NAACP as trying to be the new plantation owners and beating their slaves when they do not obey. Just like the plantations of the old south, they had to sell their goods to others as well. But in the end, it was the owners that dictated what, when, how, why, who and where with the slaves.

I dont shop Wal-Mart either, but for a different reason. But my reason has nothing to do with trying to commit corporatecide on them either.

Dr Guy

on Mar 24, 2006

Boy, from that title I had something far different pictured in my mind

Oops! Should keep the hot stuff in the article and not in the title.

Dynosoar

on Mar 24, 2006

bakerstreet

on Mar 24, 2006

"Oops! Should keep the hot stuff in the article and not in the title."

Yep, for a split second I thought this was going to be a 'legalize prostitution' blog.

Dr Guy

on Mar 24, 2006

Glad you enjoyed it.

Dr Guy

on Mar 24, 2006

Yep, for a split second I thought this was going to be a 'legalize prostitution' blog.

{Rim Shot}

Chakgogka

on Mar 24, 2006

For me the most interesting sentence in the linked article was:
"He [Young] defended his role as entirely consistent with the ideals of the civil rights movement"
which I'm sure is essentially true.

It's often puzzling as to why some 'issues' activists (be it feminists, gay rights, anti-racism, environmentalists etc) seem to take such extreme stances on the single issues they campaign on. One explanation is that many of them who come from the radical left have an analysis that blames the 'system' (liberal democracy and free markets) for all the ills of the world. They are sometimes less than honest and upfront about this analysis (largely because they know most people see it as too extreme). Likewise the old communist and trotskyist movements had a long history of working through 'front' organisations on single issues which they always hoped to link to a more 'revolutionary' perspective.

This I think is much the same thing, although the modern American radical left seems to me (an outsider) to be far less intellectually cogent than old-style marxists (although equally wrong). If you realise that such extreme stances are often not really about the issues they purport to be about, but rather an incoherent yearning for a brave new world to be fashioned from the ashes of capitalism, then I think the motivation becomes clearer.

It goes without saying that all of these campaigns for social improvement contain many moderate activists who do not link their worthwhile campaigns with demands to 'overthrow the system', but they are usually a little less newsworthy.

Dr Guy

on Mar 25, 2006

For me the most interesting sentence in the linked article was:
"He [Young] defended his role as entirely consistent with the ideals of the civil rights movement"
which I'm sure is essentially true.

That is the critical sentence. If you believe it, then you agree with Young, and no more defense is needed. If you disagree with it, then you side with the NAACP and no argument will sway you.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!