NAACP founded by 3 Republicans

From http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history

Founding group
The NAACP was formed partly in response to the continuing horrific practice of lynching and the 1908 race riot in Springfield, the capital of Illinois and resting place of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, William English Walling and Dr. Henry Moscowitz issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, seven of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln's birth.

SOP

Soulshiner wrote: From http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history

Founding group
The NAACP was formed partly in response to the continuing horrific practice of lynching and the 1908 race riot in Springfield, the capital of Illinois and resting place of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, William English Walling and Dr. Henry Moscowitz issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, seven of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln's birth.

SOP

The Democrat Party wasn't always the liberal party.
And the first black members of the House and Senate were Republicans after the Civil War.
Party identities change.

FredHayek wrote: The Democrat Party wasn't always the liberal party.
And the first black members of the House and Senate were Republicans after the Civil War.
Party identities change.

What are you saying, the Republican Party was more liberal and was left of the Democratic Party in 1909?

All this because Limbaugh shot his mouth off about three Republicans founding the NAACP.

Yes. Democrats, especially southern Democrats were supressing the minority vote and often, in the leadership posistions of the KKK. Sen. Robert Byrd is a good example.

Kennedy & LBJ were willing to sacrifice their base of white southern supporters to get the black vote, which had been moving to "D" since FDR. This prompted some leading Dems in the south to join the Republican Party.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Arlen, we are missing you on the last thread you posted. where are your references to where President Obama keeps saying he is rich? Or are all of your posts lies?

What is the difference between Obama saying he is rich and saying he is one of the wealthy who should be paying a greater share of the tax burden Dog? Or is it simply a difference without a distinction that your jaws are locked onto?

Blazer Bob wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Arlen, we are missing you on the last thread you posted. where are your references to where President Obama keeps saying he is rich? Or are all of your posts lies?

You never got back to me, does that mean all your posts are lies. You are such a tool.

Blazer Bob wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: FYI, big difference between a venture capitalist and an equity manager. A venture capitalist is investing to grow the company, nuture it to bigger things, while an equity manager (Mitt) sucks the life out of the company to pad his own pocket.

Arlen continues to confirm that conservatives do not believe that Mitt is qualified, but only not Obama.

Where does that deffinition come from?


https://www.google.com/search?sourceid= ... i=g4&pbx=1

gee BB, did not know you were that incapable of determining the difference between a venture capitalist and an equity manager. VCs invest in a company early on to nurture the company until the company succeeds. Think of the growth of a child from toddler to adolescence. Private equity firms, on the other hand, come into a company later in the growth cycle, typically mature companies where they believe the company is undervalued. They invest a small amount of capital then leverage the rest from the assets of the company. Sometimes they enable the company to get healthy, more often, they strip the assets to make their money. They are less concerned with the growth of the company as they are in getting their management fees and return from the assets.

TPM has a good article describing these differences. I thought most intelligent adults were aware of these differences, so thought you were kidding.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... enefit.php

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Arlen, we are missing you on the last thread you posted. where are your references to where President Obama keeps saying he is rich? Or are all of your posts lies?

What is the difference between Obama saying he is rich and saying he is one of the wealthy who should be paying a greater share of the tax burden Dog? Or is it simply a difference without a distinction that your jaws are locked onto?

Gee Printsmith, stalking me to continue personal attacks? In answer, Arlen alleged that he was tired of President Obama always saying he was rich. He was requested to point out where the President had made such remarks. He ran and hid instead. As to President Obama always saying he is wealthy, can you document all of these statements, or were there are only one or two such remarks, which you have to admit is quite different than the allegations made by Arlen. But methinks you are less interested in this distinction than you are in attacking me.

FredHayek wrote: Yes. Democrats, especially southern Democrats were supressing the minority vote and often, in the leadership posistions of the KKK. Sen. Robert Byrd is a good example.

Kennedy & LBJ were willing to sacrifice their base of white southern supporters to get the black vote, which had been moving to "D" since FDR. This prompted some leading Dems in the south to join the Republican Party.

Once again, all you have to look at is the racial mix at the two political conventions to see which one is truly open to people of all colors.

Or just look at the racial makeup of the parties:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/repub ... gious.aspx

The results show clearly that the Republican Party today is first and foremost a political entity dominated by white Americans. Eighty-nine percent of rank-and-file Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, leaving just 5% who are Hispanic (of any race), 2% who are black, and 4% of other races.

Further, by well over a 2-to-1 ratio, whites who identify as Republicans claim a conservative, rather than a moderate or liberal, ideology (or have no opinion when asked about their ideology).

Democrats have a significantly more diverse party composition. Well over a third (36%) of Democrats are nonwhite (Hispanic, or black or some other race) and the 64% of Democrats who are white are strongly skewed -- by more than a 4-to-1 ratio -- toward an ideological position that is moderate or liberal rather than conservative.

Once again, all you have to look at is the racial mix at the two political conventions to see which one is truly open to people of all colors.

What a bunch of CRAP. Sorry, but it is. What is it about the Republican party that isn't open to a person of any color? Do you really believe there is some obstruction that would keep people of color from joining the Republican party? I realize the left bribes it's voter base with taxpayer freebies and it treats people of color like dependant children who would perish without their help, but seriously, what would prevent a black person from getting involved in Republican politics?