Forums / Discussion / General

White Supremacist Who Influenced Charleston Suspect Donated to 2016 G.O.P. Campaigns

Still no word on those donations from Saudi Arabia/et al to Hillary tho…

Also: why are white separatists called "white supremacists" while black separatists are collecting millions of dollars from public schools to tell teachers that minority students need to be separated from white students because their cultures don't allow them to succeed in a school environment that caters to white culture?

Discuss.

Black separatists? I though they were a thing from past

Ah, and apparently the SC governor will call for the removal of the Confederate flag because "it was appropriated as a symbol of hate and belongs in a museum". Someone might want to let the Buddhists know that the swastika was appropriated as a symbol of hate and belongs in a museum, they're still using it on temples, signs, even clothes and bags! How racist of them to even consider that the swastika had a non-racist history before it was used by Hitler, everyone knows what it means now and there are still some racists who oppose Jews and pose with the symbol in their profile pics!

Al Sharpton is a black separatist. Also look up the Pacific Education Group, they're who I was referring to in my OP. They literally say we need to separate minority students from white students or they will never succeed.

can you tell me their ages(the separatists)?I think they were not around during the separation era.

It's a movement backed by tens of thousands of people, I can't list their ages… PEG has a website with its staff listed though, they're all old.

Here are the active black separatist groups in the USA. Notice how most of them are chapters of the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party, both considered hate groups by the FBI.

Al Sharpton isn't a black supremacist. He's a vulture and a concern troll, basically a black version of Nancy Grace.

As for the Pacific Education Group, All I can say is that segregation was besten in the past, and it'll be defeated in the present as well, before shit really hits the fan.

Shit has already hit the fan.

Al Sharpton has attended and supported many recent NBPP rallies as well as hosted the NBPP national chairman ("kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel") on his radio program.

And PEG was just the subject of an investigative report that found they've received over $5 million from public schools within the last 5 years alone for preaching their separatism and running workshops for white teachers.

so .. they want to make the NAACP ,the Little Rock students efforts go to waste?oh…shit

I want them to try. Because the moment they do, the Federal Government is going to come down with its supreme court to say, "The fuck do you think Brown v Board of Education was about? Check your Amendments! 14th all up in here!"

The jews are responsible for this.

Grow up and go back to /pol/.

NO, U!

Really, no one has anything to comment about this or the flag?

Then can we talk about the Iranian parliament chanting "death to America" as they passed legislation to ban foreign inspections of their military/nuclear sites?

There's always such good news on Mondays.

Here's a good one.

Obama forcing military to measure Arctic ice levels

{ The administration contends that changing ice levels in the Arctic could require additional U.S. military presence in the region, justifying the need for the Pentagon to commit significant time and resources to monitoring the effects of climate change. }

Why not Antarctic sea ice too??

Well, the mainstream media and government climate scientists stopped caring about Antarctica this past fall/winter when it reached a new record maximum. We don't need to monitor continents that aren't willing to fit the narrative.

And of course you contributed nothing to this debate. Instead, you act like a complete idiot who's sole purpose is to troll in serious debate threads.

Anyways, I feel that the flag should be removed since we're in 2015 and not the 1960s or 1860s. You want to get butthurt and protect the flag, then fine, go hang one up at your house and see how long you'll survive until someone comes after you.

I don't really think there's a liberal media bias. It's just paranoia amongst the conservative groups in America just because they're upset that the news isn't agreeing with them.

Plenty of journalists have openly admitted it exists.

CBS Sharyl Attkisson { "You know, it’s fairly well discussed inside CBS News that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value….They never mind the stories that seem to, for example -- and I did plenty of them -- go against the grain of the Republican Party." }

Final editorial of NYT editor Arthur Brisbane { “So many reporters and editors share a kind of political and cultural progressivism -- for lack of a better term -- that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.” }

Washington Post journalist Deborah Howell { "I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo." }

That's why you have to read other countries' American news, and even then you need like four different countries' angles to get the full impact, preferably at least two non-English. All sorts of translations are available online, and many countries have begun publishing English-language reports in tandem with their regular publications.

How about we look at the flag thing from another angle:

In Washington DC, there are eight Confederate war hero statues amongst the other monuments. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate United States of America and later arrested for treason, has a statue there. Alexander Hamilton Stephens is there, he gave the Cornerstone Speech that called slavery the "natural state" of blacks. Wade Hampton III was a closet KKK supporter and his statue is still there. Where do we draw the line?

If we do ban the flag and ban these statues, are we making the case to ban sports names like "Chiefs" and "Indians"?

& I guess I also have the question, does covering up evidence of racism make racism disappear?

I suppose I'm just a little confused- who is advocating that we actually ban the flag? I mean… that's so obviously unconstitutional.

The whole point is to ban the flag from public spaces. Government buildings, etc. It's not unconstitutional because it's not the national flag. A lot of states have "forbidden flag" lists.

In that case, it isn't really "banning" the flag so much as the government making decisions on its own actions and displays. Yes, I did find a list of said laws, and those which do not expressly refer to public buildings are very clearly unconstitutional. I have a strong suspicion that the only reason they're still around (and as a key aspect of this, not all of them are) is because the state governments are smart enough to not act on them.

Liberal Media Bias and Conservative Media Bias is pretty obvious if you're willing to either watch both, or neither, and look at things from a neutral point of view. The news has it especially hard because they aren't in the business of delivering the news anymore. They're in the business of selling you the news, through individuals who carry clout in various political circles, ((Al Sharpton for MSNBC and Mike Huckabee for Fox, for example)). Mostly these people read off a prompter or ask very leading or softball questions to give their audience what they want to get them to tune in more. That's why whenever there's a controversy, pundits are the first to make sweeping statements and state false facts, such as whether said event was true or not without any evidence to support either statement. Look at any of these shooting cases for example, you'll have pundits using the affirmative language to describe events instead of waiting for official reports or investigations. ((You'll hear a lot of "The Shooter was or Was Not, but not a lot of "we suspect or we believe")).

A media bias is much more to do with demographics then anything else. And none of it is truly nefarious as either side tries to make it out. If you have an audience of a certain political view or sway, appealing to them is a sure fire way to get their attention, and by extension their money. Just watch any show aimed for "Young Adults" or "Older Audiences". See how many marijuana and same-sex topics are depicted Vs Financial problems and Cultural Differences.

Denying it exist is just being ignorant. Understanding what it is instead of making it some boogeyman is a much better and wiser idea.

{ as the government making decisions on its own actions and displays. }

Government buildings are not the only "public" space. These laws apply to schools, parks, sidewalks, etc etc and bring up free speech issues. The public sidewalk is where protestors must stand, depending on how the bill is written (regulations concerning flags in public spaces must go through the General Assembly) you could be limiting what protestors are allowed to do in protest. People want the states to stop selling Confederate flag license plates, but that's an item that goes on your private property. Amazon/eBay are being petitioned to stop selling any items that refer to the Confederate flag, manufacturers are feeling so pressured they've had to ask lawmakers if they're still allowed to produce the flag itself.

{ (and as a key aspect of this, not all of them are) }

One of them is not, California repealed the ban on red flags so a communist could make children at summer camp raise and verbally pledge allegiance to "the workers' red flag" every morning. Call me crazy, but that one should probably stand.

Let me rephrase- any law that can be made to apply to the expression of private citizens is patently unconstitutional. If the respective state governments are dumb enough to act on them in that way, then they will be struck down. And yes, this is the case no matter which flag is referred to.

Here we go people, hold on tight.

Ebay, Amazon, Walmart, Sears, Kmart will ban Confederate flag themed items

{ "We believe it has become a contemporary symbol of devisiveness and racism." }

Can't wait until the Christian cross becomes a contemporary symbol of devisiveness and bigotry". This is one hell of a standard we're establishing here, what else will be considered a contemporary symbol of devisiveness to people offended by everything?

edit: a quick search confirms you can buy Nazi memorabilia on Amazon and eBay right now, especially if you want old German coins with swastika on them. Please, someone, think of the children who might see this symbol and be awakened to violence against Jews!

All media has bias, Humans have bias. Doesn't matter how hard they try it will exist.
Left Bias exists as much as Right Bias.

Ebay, Amazon, Walmart, Sears, and Kmart are private companies, if they want to fucking ban it, that is their god damn choice. Just like if they can allow smoking or guns in their stores.

I can name one mainstream media source with a right bias, how many can you name that lean left?

& like I said on fb, that's a lovely sentiment from the 1800s when our government wasn't owned by the ten guys who between them own all the corporations around the globe.

The bigger problem is that you can buy nazi memorabilia and tons of other morally questionable items from those websites and stores. They're rushing a kneejerk reaction to the flavor of the week, which makes it all the more dangerous. What else would they pull if someone were offended enough? & beside that, the message they're sending is dangerous in itself: it's the flag that caused Roof's actions, it was the flag that spurred him into action, if he never saw the flag it would have all went down differently, that's why we have to ban it from sight. The conversation has been completely derailed from race and the victims and it's gone right back to your typical blame-the-object circlejerk. They started with guns but the Confederate flag is such a fresher topic~ a much better controversy to spin~ This is why we never "do anything" in response to these events when they happen, we'd rather blame objects than individuals.

Why will Amazon and eBay sell this flag?

Does Saudi Arabia not today stand for worse than the dead Confederacy?
Hasn't Christianity, by the same standards, also stood for divisiveness and murder?
Where are they drawing the line and by what basis have they drawn it?

if you're quick you might still be able to snatch this off ebay

They are PRIVATE COMPANIES!
If they feel perfectly fine selling Those objects they can. If they want to sell nazi items, middle eastern flags, or satanic artwork that is their choice, Even if I don't agree with it.

Personally I would have banned the confederate flag when they lost the war. It symbolized a dead nation, no reason to cling to it like it actually means anything at all anymore.

I think people are far too fucking clingy to their damn symbols and flags.

Yeah, they are allowed to to not sell Confederate flags while selling Nazi flags, and I'm allowed to call them reactionary hypocrites.

Yeah, private companies, whose CEO serves on the U.S. China Business Council, who also spent the most money lobbying for the TPP so far. That's not what the Constitution was written to protect, the businesses the Constitution was written to protect are the businesses being regulated out of existence by the Fortune 500 corporate monopoly that runs the planet.

But you know, private companies.

Don't be fucking asinine. Those et al. you're referring to donating to her foundation, not her campaign. Big difference. One benefits her directly, the other, not so much.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have slavery.

I think someone's been drinking too much of the Alex Jones Kool-Aid.

{ Those et al. you’re referring to donating to her foundation, not her campaign. Big difference. One benefits her directly, the other, not so much. }

They donated to her foundation while she was the Secretary of State who was in charge of negotiating foreign contracts that involved those countries that donated. Educate yourself on the actual issue before you discuss it, plz.

{ Saudi Arabia doesn’t have slavery. }

Are you fucking joking.

Human trafficking in Saudi Arabia

{ Saudi Arabia is a destination for men and women from South East Asia and East Africa trafficked for the purpose of labor exploitation, and for children from Yemen, Afghanistan, and Africa trafficking for forced begging. Hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers from Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Kenya migrate voluntarily to Saudi Arabia; some fall into conditions of involuntary servitude, suffering from physical and sexual abuse, non-payment or delayed payment of wages, the withholding of travel documents, restrictions on their freedom of movement and non-consensual contract alterations. According to international organizations such as Ansar Burney Trust, young children from Bangladesh and India are also smuggled to Saudi Arabia to be used as jockeys. The children are underfed to reduce their weights, in order to lighten the load on the camel. }

Willful ignorance is the worst of all, you could have easily Googled this before you posted.

Slavery and sex trafficking are low on the list of Saudi Arabia's continued crimes.

I don't know what the confederate flag has to do with media bias, but I think that a lot of perceptions of bias come from where you live. Different regions have different political climates; even in an age of easy communication and national news companies, the people around you can have a big influence on what you're exposed to.

The confederate flag is directly a symbol of treason and slavery, and it cannot be argued otherwise. Flying it over a state capitol is not appropriate by any stretch.

Comparing it to the swastika as used by buddhist groups is not an accurate comparison, because the swastika actually did have uses and connotations separate from the Nazis. The confederate flags never did. They were invented by and for the confederacy and stand for treason and slavery.

The statement being made was that the Confederate flag belongs in a museum because of its appropriated meaning. Swastikas, despite also having been appropriated for war crimes, are still featured on public government buildings all across the US.

As we call for memorials to be removed and buildings renamed simply because of their ties to Confederate figures, we ignore buildings like that? & add the Native American chief figure to the list of offenses, this from the country that's trying to force the Redskins/Chiefs/Indians sports teams to change their names? tsk tsk tsk America.

edit: nvm he bumped a thread this fits in more.

@lisa

Human trafficking is also illegal in saudiland, so to say saudi government is responsible for this is equivalent to saying that the U.S. Government is responsible for robberies committed by gangs in the United States.

That is as far as I can go so otherwise it would be derailing.

Of course there's a liberal bias. Western society, as a whole, has slowly gotten more liberal (at least in social issues) since television has been popular. (Source:http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/ & http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx) Heck, the only news outlet that is consistently more conservative than liberal on same sex marriage is conservative talk radio. (Even Fox News doesn't make the cut! Source; http://www.journalism.org/2013/06/17/differences-media/)
The thing, is though, is it's a chicken or an egg thing. Consider voting rights 50 years ago. Back then, liberals strongly favored not barring eligibility to vote by race. Today, that's considered common courtesy. So did the news media cause this shift in opinion? Or did this shift in opinion cause a change in the media?
I don't know, and I don't really care. I prefer to point out inaccuracies as though they were isolated events, rather focusing on a news outlet's trend of inaccuracies. Not that there's not any merit to that, it's just that I'm lazy. It's a lot harder to keep people from making a certain type of mistake than correcting them as they come and hoping that it might some day condition them, even a little.
Again, probably not the best idea, but I don't feel as if I am knowledgeable enough to feel comfortable advising people in what they say and how they say it, and I'm not sure if I will ever will be. Yes, I'm a wishy-washy lazy pansy, but at least I'm honest about it.

{ Western society, as a whole, has slowly gotten more liberal (at least in social issues) }

That's right when you're considering society in general, but when it comes to the literal political meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" the media isn't supposed to have an opinion either way. If an investigative journalist in the 20s got wind of the Clinton Foundation scandal, it would be a goddamn shitshow. Every reporter from every agency would be trying to figure out exactly what happened in the interest of reporting facts, and they wouldn't have stood for being roped off like cattle. Now we've got newscasters literally offering possible excuses and explanations for certain candidates while putting others' minor flaws under a microscope. They're ignoring data releases from certain government agencies that would expose the holes in their agenda, whatever side they're on. The whole mainstream media environment has moved from factual investigations which expose those in power positions to carefully crafted propaganda in favor of those in power. Unemployment rate coverage is the ideal example of this.

Not supposed to have an opinion either way? I can't be too sure about that.

The ideal of free press was, in my understanding, to have a diverse array of outlets with differing opinions. For instance, it would be fine to have something like Fox News as long as another, less biased source is popular as well. At the end of the day they have a right to spew their bullshit, but it becomes a problem when it monopolises the mainstream media. A rich media outlet may influence the govt to pass laws favouring them, plunging everyone down the rabbit hole further.

But then again, that's my personal opinion of capitalism being injected into the conversation. IMO, disgusting media will always be dominant for as long as this current economic and psychological monolith remains unchanged.

(Fox News is not what I'm referring to in terms of the monopoly, but appalling quality of news in general. This includes but is not limited to MSNBC, CNN, Sky News, and British tabloids.)