Too funny....'black' NAACP leader outed as white

[Asclepias]

Sharpton is employed as the boogeyman for you white people. Never fails you guys claim he is a leader!

I appreciate the media for giving him attention. Keeps the monkeys distracted.

"The ones that take on the role of it"? Can you name 5 people that take on the role besides Sharpton, or my personal favorite, Jessie Jackson?

The CBC.

I dont know anyone named "The CBC". I said 5 people.

Congressional Black Caucus. I think there is more than 5 people in there.

Really, you didn't get it?

CBC is a group not a person. I said name 5 people.

Cory Booker Democratic New Jersey
House
Representative Party State – Congressional District
Alma Adams Democratic North Carolina – 12th
Karen Bass Democratic California – 37th
Joyce Beatty Democratic Ohio – 3rd
Sanford Bishop Democratic Georgia – 2nd
Corrine Brown Democratic Florida – 5th
G. K. Butterfield Democratic North Carolina – 1st
André Carson Democratic Indiana – 7th
Yvette Clarke Democratic New York – 9th
William Lacy Clay, Jr. Democratic Missouri – 1st
Emanuel Cleaver Democratic Missouri – 5th
Jim Clyburn Democratic South Carolina – 6th
John Conyers, Jr. – Dean Democratic Michigan – 13th
Elijah Cummings Democratic Maryland – 7th
Danny K. Davis Democratic Illinois – 7th
Donna Edwards Democratic Maryland – 4th
Keith Ellison Democratic Minnesota – 5th
Chaka Fattah Democratic Pennsylvania – 2nd
Marcia Fudge Democratic Ohio – 11th
Al Green Democratic Texas – 9th
Alcee Hastings Democratic Florida – 20th
Hakeem Jeffries Democratic New York – 8th
Eddie Bernice Johnson Democratic Texas – 30th
Hank Johnson Democratic Georgia – 4th
Robin Kelly Democratic Illinois – 2nd
Brenda Lawrence Democratic Michigan – 14th
Barbara Lee Democratic California – 13th
Sheila Jackson Lee Democratic Texas – 18th
John Lewis Democratic Georgia – 5th
Mia Love Republican Utah – 4th
Gregory Meeks Democratic New York – 5th
Gwen Moore Democratic Wisconsin – 4th
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Democratic District of Columbia – At-large
(non voting congressional delegate)
Donald Payne, Jr. Democratic New Jersey – 10th
Delegate Stacey Plaskett Democratic U.S. Virgin Islands – At-large
(non voting congressional delegate)
Charles Rangel Democratic New York – 13th
Cedric Richmond Democratic Louisiana – 2nd
Bobby Rush Democratic Illinois – 1st
Bobby Scott Democratic Virginia – 3rd
David Scott Democratic Georgia – 13th
Terri Sewell Democratic Alabama – 7th
Bennie Thompson Democratic Mississippi – 2nd
Marc Veasey Democratic Texas – 33rd
Maxine Waters Democratic California – 35th
Bonnie Watson Coleman Democratic New Jersey – 12th
Frederica Wilson Democratic Florida – 24th

Those are politicians. I asked for leaders. Maybe you should admit you simply dont know. Its ok because I already knew. Thats why I said this would be amusing.

 

[Pogo]

Link fails. You lose.

Get over it. We know she faked her "heritage."

Elizabeth Warren Repeats Her False Claims of Native American Ancestry in New Book - Breitbart

No, actually we know no such thing.

That's why I asked you for documentation of the negative. Which you don't have.
So you lose. Not that complex.

Oh get over it Pogo!

Hey, don't post easily-shot down myths and you won't get so easily shot down.

It isn't a myth. You are just playing the liberal game of "it isn't true unless you convince me." Well, I don't have to convince you. Everyone else knows it's true.

Oh good, the old "everybody knows my ipse dixit is reality" fallacy. A crowd favourite.

Why it matters: if you're willing to lie about that one .... why should anyone believe you about this one?

 

[Asclepias]

Get over it. We know she faked her "heritage."

Elizabeth Warren Repeats Her False Claims of Native American Ancestry in New Book - Breitbart

No, actually we know no such thing.

That's why I asked you for documentation of the negative. Which you don't have.
So you lose. Not that complex.

Oh get over it Pogo!

Hey, don't post easily-shot down myths and you won't get so easily shot down.

It isn't a myth. You are just playing the liberal game of "it isn't true unless you convince me." Well, I don't have to convince you. Everyone else knows it's true.

Oh good, the old "everybody knows my ipse dixit is reality" fallacy. A crowd favourite.

Why it matters: if you're willing to lie about that one .... why should anyone believe you about this one?

By everybody he means all the illiterate people.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Was he pretending to be black ?

Why do you ask?

It was a rhetorical question.
The point is this slug is lying about who she is.

I think that was pointed out in the OP. I would assume you knew most people understood that so thats why I asked what your question was for.

Obviously. That's the whole point of this thread.

The point though, is the first president wasn't pretending to be something he wasn't. This woman cannot lead people while living a huge and blatant lie. I would think that would be pretty obvious, yet you seem to be supportive of her.

I'm supportive of her commitment. For example Bush lied but there are people that support other aspects of his body of work.

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

 

[Asclepias]

Why do you ask?

It was a rhetorical question.
The point is this slug is lying about who she is.

I think that was pointed out in the OP. I would assume you knew most people understood that so thats why I asked what your question was for.

Obviously. That's the whole point of this thread.

The point though, is the first president wasn't pretending to be something he wasn't. This woman cannot lead people while living a huge and blatant lie. I would think that would be pretty obvious, yet you seem to be supportive of her.

I'm supportive of her commitment. For example Bush lied but there are people that support other aspects of his body of work.

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

What makes you think that?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

One wonders what the reaction from the members of the organization will be boil down to. If her only "crime" is being white, do they really want to be on record as firing someone because of her skin color?

If she is fired its because she was dishonest and not because she is white. The NAACP isnt just a Black organization.

I'm not talking about the official reason, I'm talking about the gut reaction from the "rank and file" members.

In your opinion what is their reaction going to be?

I really don't know. I would like to think they would at least say she did a good job (if she did). I would hate to think they would be outraged by her being white.

As I said before the Black community is not monolithic. Some will indeed be outraged at the dishonesty. Some will overlook the lie and others simply wont care because she is working to better things for Black Americans.

No one is saying a member of the NAACP must be black, but I would assume other members and supporters would insist on a leader being trustworthy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well then. This is the conflict of their race narrative personified. Do you accept her for being white? Reject her for not being black? What is a NAACP member to do?

If they act either way, they prove themselves to be the collective of hypocrites they've always been.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It was a rhetorical question.
The point is this slug is lying about who she is.

I think that was pointed out in the OP. I would assume you knew most people understood that so thats why I asked what your question was for.

Obviously. That's the whole point of this thread.

The point though, is the first president wasn't pretending to be something he wasn't. This woman cannot lead people while living a huge and blatant lie. I would think that would be pretty obvious, yet you seem to be supportive of her.

I'm supportive of her commitment. For example Bush lied but there are people that support other aspects of his body of work.

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

What makes you think that?

The fact that you even ask that says trust is not something you deem very important or necessary.

 

[Asclepias]

If she is fired its because she was dishonest and not because she is white. The NAACP isnt just a Black organization.

I'm not talking about the official reason, I'm talking about the gut reaction from the "rank and file" members.

In your opinion what is their reaction going to be?

I really don't know. I would like to think they would at least say she did a good job (if she did). I would hate to think they would be outraged by her being white.

As I said before the Black community is not monolithic. Some will indeed be outraged at the dishonesty. Some will overlook the lie and others simply wont care because she is working to better things for Black Americans.

No one is saying a member of the NAACP must be black, but I would assume other members and supporters would insist on a leader being trustworthy.

You are assuming her lying about her race would be seen as untrustworthy to some. Her body of work may overcome her lie in their eyes. MLK is no less revered even though he cheated on his wife and was a minister.

 

[Asclepias]

I think that was pointed out in the OP. I would assume you knew most people understood that so thats why I asked what your question was for.

Obviously. That's the whole point of this thread.

The point though, is the first president wasn't pretending to be something he wasn't. This woman cannot lead people while living a huge and blatant lie. I would think that would be pretty obvious, yet you seem to be supportive of her.

I'm supportive of her commitment. For example Bush lied but there are people that support other aspects of his body of work.

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

What makes you think that?

The fact that you even ask that says trust is not something you deem very important or necessary.

The fact that you assume to define what is deemed trustworthy for someone else is amusing.

 

[pwjohn]

Who let that white honky in the door. lol

If they're happy with her then so be it.

 

[Asclepias]

If she is fired its because she was dishonest and not because she is white. The NAACP isnt just a Black organization.

I'm not talking about the official reason, I'm talking about the gut reaction from the "rank and file" members.

In your opinion what is their reaction going to be?

I really don't know. I would like to think they would at least say she did a good job (if she did). I would hate to think they would be outraged by her being white.

As I said before the Black community is not monolithic. Some will indeed be outraged at the dishonesty. Some will overlook the lie and others simply wont care because she is working to better things for Black Americans.

No one is saying a member of the NAACP must be black, but I would assume other members and supporters would insist on a leader being trustworthy.

See?

Is Rachel Dolezal head of Spokane NAACP white - CNN.com

"The NAACP issued a statement Friday on Rachel Dolezal's "enduring a legal issue with her family," saying, "We respect her privacy in this matter."

"One's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership," the group said. "The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal's advocacy record."

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm not talking about the official reason, I'm talking about the gut reaction from the "rank and file" members.

In your opinion what is their reaction going to be?

I really don't know. I would like to think they would at least say she did a good job (if she did). I would hate to think they would be outraged by her being white.

As I said before the Black community is not monolithic. Some will indeed be outraged at the dishonesty. Some will overlook the lie and others simply wont care because she is working to better things for Black Americans.

No one is saying a member of the NAACP must be black, but I would assume other members and supporters would insist on a leader being trustworthy.

You are assuming her lying about her race would be seen as untrustworthy to some. Her body of work may overcome her lie in their eyes. MLK is no less revered even though he cheated on his wife and was a minister.

Everyone has a skeleton or two in their closet, this is not what's going on here. This woman's entire being is a lie.
Amazing to me that any defense of her at this point can be attempted.

Of course then again, when liberals are ready to deny the biological truth about someone like Bruce Jenner and agree he's a woman simply because that's what he wants to be, then I guess all bets are off.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Obviously. That's the whole point of this thread.

The point though, is the first president wasn't pretending to be something he wasn't. This woman cannot lead people while living a huge and blatant lie. I would think that would be pretty obvious, yet you seem to be supportive of her.

I'm supportive of her commitment. For example Bush lied but there are people that support other aspects of his body of work.

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

What makes you think that?

The fact that you even ask that says trust is not something you deem very important or necessary.

The fact that you assume to define what is deemed trustworthy for someone else is amusing.

You embody the insaneess of liberalism.

 

[Asclepias]

In your opinion what is their reaction going to be?

I really don't know. I would like to think they would at least say she did a good job (if she did). I would hate to think they would be outraged by her being white.

As I said before the Black community is not monolithic. Some will indeed be outraged at the dishonesty. Some will overlook the lie and others simply wont care because she is working to better things for Black Americans.

No one is saying a member of the NAACP must be black, but I would assume other members and supporters would insist on a leader being trustworthy.

You are assuming her lying about her race would be seen as untrustworthy to some. Her body of work may overcome her lie in their eyes. MLK is no less revered even though he cheated on his wife and was a minister.

Everyone has a skeleton or two in their closet, this is not what's going on here. This woman's entire being is a lie.
Amazing to me that any defense of her at this point can be attempted.

Of course then again, when liberals are ready to deny the biological truth about someone like Bruce Jenner and agree he's a woman simply because that's what he wants to be, then I guess all bets are off.

Yes actually that is exactly what is going on contrary to your opinion. She is white. So what? Whats more important is her body of work. I've never given much thought to how amazed you would be.

Now you have reached the point where you start throwing logical fallacies into the discussion. Just like all Blacks wont be monolithic neither will all liberals.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm supportive of her commitment. For example Bush lied but there are people that support other aspects of his body of work.

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

What makes you think that?

The fact that you even ask that says trust is not something you deem very important or necessary.

The fact that you assume to define what is deemed trustworthy for someone else is amusing.

You embody the insaneess of liberalism.

You illustrate the illiteracy of conservatism.

 

[kwc57]

Like Elizabeth Warren faking being a Native American?

.... Link?

Seriously? Were you marooned on an island or something?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm not talking about the official reason, I'm talking about the gut reaction from the "rank and file" members.

In your opinion what is their reaction going to be?

I really don't know. I would like to think they would at least say she did a good job (if she did). I would hate to think they would be outraged by her being white.

As I said before the Black community is not monolithic. Some will indeed be outraged at the dishonesty. Some will overlook the lie and others simply wont care because she is working to better things for Black Americans.

No one is saying a member of the NAACP must be black, but I would assume other members and supporters would insist on a leader being trustworthy.

See?

Is Rachel Dolezal head of Spokane NAACP white - CNN.com

"The NAACP issued a statement Friday on Rachel Dolezal's "enduring a legal issue with her family," saying, "We respect her privacy in this matter."

"One's racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership," the group said. "The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal's advocacy record."

Again, I'm not suggesting she isn't "qualified" due to her race or record, I'm suggesting she's not qualified because she's a big fat liar.

 

[dannyboys]

Did NAACP president lie about her race City investigates Spokane - KXLY.com

So, given these people are stupid. This woman is OBVIOUSLY white. The only thing that makes her look black is POSSIBLY her hair, but that could just be a perm job.

So, how could no one else notice she's white???

But let's just think about this. You can't have an all white group. That's "discrimination." So, can you have an all black group. Is it discrimination to exclude her because she's white???

She learned how to speak ebonics and act like someone with a double digit IQ. No problem.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Her commitment is under the guise of mental illness. Anything she does or stands for now must be taken into question, and in fact her blatant violation of trust deems her unfit for her position and standing.

What makes you think that?

The fact that you even ask that says trust is not something you deem very important or necessary.

The fact that you assume to define what is deemed trustworthy for someone else is amusing.

You embody the insaneess of liberalism.

You illustrate the illiteracy of conservatism.

And you are a total waste of my time and this boards bandwidth.

To the rest of the board I ask, how on earth do you argue with complete insanity.