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 3)

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

You're full of it, as usual. Federal Judges are "do nothing" positions? Cabinet members are "do nothing" positions?

Ok, so tell us how many judges and Cabinet positions, not any positions. Then do a comparison. Please link to sources. The undersecretary for underwear may be a nice plkum job, but hardly influential.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

There's a little dust on those names, can't you come up with anyone recently?

Oh, you mean like Harry Reid? Hillary Clinton? Those names?

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

I already gave you links for all that.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

Oh, you mean like Harry Reid? Hillary Clinton? Those names?

How about you give some links to back up your claims for once. Links that show Hillary and Reid were censured, penalized, convicted, or found guilty of anything?

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

How about you give some links to back up your claims for once. Links that show Hillary and Reid were censured, penalized, convicted, or found guilty of anything?

As soon as you show me the same for Delay, or show me where Abramoff was elected to the house.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

I never said Abramoff was elected to anything. Although he did hold a position in Bush's transition team.

Here's Delay's ethics violations;

On September 30, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay because he "offered to endorse Representative [Nick] Smith's son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor of the Medicare bill." [48]

On October 6, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay on two counts. The first count stated that DeLay "created the appearance that donors were being provided with special access to Representative DeLay regarding the then-pending energy legislation." The second count said that DeLay "used federal resources in a political issue" by asking the Federal Aviation Administration and Justice Department to help track Texas legislators during the battle over Texas redistricting.[49] At the time of the latter admonishment, the House Ethics committee deferred action on another count related to fundraising while that matter was subject to state criminal action. That state investigation eventually led to the felony indictment on September 28, 2005.Link

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

How about you give some links to back up your claims for once. Links that show Hillary and Reid were censured, penalized, convicted, or found guilty of anything?

Here's Delay's ethics violations;

You seem to have a problem with your own post. Now show me from your first one where Delay is guilty of any of your stated criteria.

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

I never said Abramoff was elected to anything. Although he did hold a position in Bush's transition team.

Now show me how Abramoff (elected or not) is violating House rules. You brought him into it, not I.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

You seem to have a problem with your own post. Now show me from your first one where Delay is guilty of any of your stated criteria.

It's right there...try reading.

You have problems with your own posts.

As soon as you show me the same for Delay, or show me where Abramoff was elected to the house.

notice the word or

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

Now show me how Abramoff (elected or not) is violating House rules. You brought him into it, not I.

For one, you're making way too much of something I clearly said was a joke. But if you want to get all technical, I never explicitly said in that post that Abramoff violated anything. Although the case could easily be made that he facilitated people to break house rules.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

It's right there...try reading.

You have problems with your own posts.

You still have not shown me either. So the OR is appropriate. Now you want to show me either or?

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Although the case could easily be made that he facilitated people to break house rules.

As I guess the case could be made for Reid and Clinton as well. You still have failed to show either or.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

You still have not shown me either. So the OR is appropriate. Now you want to show me either or?

Are you at work? Do they let you do drugs at work or something? Is that why you cannot read what I posted about Delay? The Ethics committee found him guilty of violations.

Now show me where that's happened with Clinton and/or Reid.

No more 5 points a comment for you until you show evidence of Reid and/or Clinton being found guilty of anything.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

On October 6, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay on two counts

On September 30, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay because he "offered to endorse Representative [Nick] Smith's son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor of the Medicare bill." [48]

Are you at work? Do they let you do drugs at work or something? Is that why you cannot read what I posted about Delay? The Ethics committee found him guilty of violations.

No, they cannot find him guilty. They admonished him for the appearance of imporpriety. Now do you want to try again? (an admonishment is not a censure either, nor is it guilt).

Rightwinger

on Feb 07, 2006

Gene Nash---I stand corrected. Sorry.

I didn't say anything about past presidents did I? When are you going to deal with the present day and stop relying on the past? The issue is appointees of minorities....Bush VS. Clinton.

---davad

Firstly, "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it". Pick up a history book; preferably one that goes back further than 1992. I was simply making the point that Republicans, traditionally, have done much, much more for minorities than Democrats have ever attempted.

I want you to tell me how many important, policy-making positions Clinton filled with blacks and women, not just peripheral ones. I don't give a rat's behind who the kitchen staff was or who made copies or ran to get his coffee.

The snapshot does confirm Bush's claim that he has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton.

---davad text quote

The key phrase is "requiring Senate approval". "Diversity" doesn't mean a thing.
For my part, it's just a job that happens to be in the White House, unless you need to be approved by the Legislative. I work with women and black people, too, after all.

And Delay has yet to be convicted of anything. Censured is one thing, convicted is another. If they all took hits for "ethics violations" nobody'd be running the country.
Also, when the Abramoff thing hits the fan and it starts sticking to more and more Dems, too, I bet it'll cool off real quick.

Paige's 18-member top-level team -- deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretaries -- was quite diverse. A third were minorities and more than half women. Less than a quarter were white men.

But of his 22 senior executives -- chiefs of staff, deputy assistant secretaries and advisers -- only three, or 14 percent, were minorities and just a third women. And 60 percent were white men.

---text quote

+LOL+ Well, since he was black, having white men in the key positions SHOULD qualify as diversity.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

The part of your reply that strikes me the most is the part I underlined. Is it your sunconcious telling you that minorites are only good for working in the kitchen, making copies, and getting coffee?

So...in your world....

Secretary of Commerce(Black Man) is like working in the kitchen?Link

Attorney General(Woman) is akin to making coffee? Link

Scretary of Transportation(Asian Man) is like being an asian chauffeur?Link

Secretary of Labor (Black Woman)is like a housekeeper maybe? Link

Secretary of Health & Human Services(Woman) is kinda like...I dunno but I'm sure you could come up with some demeaning task she probably did. Link

Sec of Housing & Urban Development.(Hispanic Man) Link

Another Sec of Transportation.(Hispanic Man) Link Also served as Sec. of Energy

Secretary of Energy.(Black Woman)Link

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.(Black Man)Link

Surgeon General.(Black Woman)Link

It's sad that you think so little of Cabinet positions to liken them to getting coffee, working in the kitchen, and making copies.

The fact is that the past is the past. Yes, we can learn from it...and Democrats have. Go out on the street and ask 10 black people who they think represents their best interest. Please don't go to the tired excuse that the liberals and the media have duped them. That only insults them and makes them feel that you think they're too dumb to know what's best for them.

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!