Why did the Mainstream Media Ignore This?

Published on February 4, 2006 By Dr Guy In Current Events

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?

Comments (Page 1)

BenUser

on Feb 04, 2006

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

Dr Guy

on Feb 04, 2006

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'.

Rightwinger

on Feb 04, 2006

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?

Leauki

on Feb 04, 2006

"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"?

davad70

on Feb 04, 2006

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?

davad70

on Feb 04, 2006

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?

Leauki

on Feb 05, 2006

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?

ParaTed2k

on Feb 05, 2006

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

davad70

on Feb 05, 2006

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.

Leauki

on Feb 05, 2006

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.

davad70

on Feb 05, 2006

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

Leauki

on Feb 05, 2006

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?

davad70

on Feb 05, 2006

It was a joke. You know DeLay, Abramhoff, Cunningham...House Rules.

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

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 05, 2006

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.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 05, 2006

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!

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!