|reply to tapeloop |
Re: once again
You're splitting hairs.
He's an NAACP employee taking a political position in a public paper in order to sway voters at the behest of the NAACP. The NAACP in turn is speaking for their phone company donors, which is obvious by the network neutrality position he takes and the bizarre Google "free ride" rhetoric which only incumbents use.
Moore, an NAACP employee, tells us that "broadband in every home should remain our policy goal", yet the organization still supports "franchise reform" as a whole, and participates in a massive disinformation effort funded by incumbent phone providers.
If you want to test your theory that Moore's position isn't theirs, try getting them to publicly state that they support network neutrality laws or oppose bell franchise reform. I promise you they won't do it.....and it has nothing to do with minority concerns...
tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
So noting that one is head of a separate organization is "splitting hairs" now? Hm.
And, disingenuousness notwithstanding, even if one were to prove the negative of the NAACP proper sharing Moore's opinion, it would render the headline moot as the two entities would no longer be in contradiction, would they?
I cannot stand demagoguery. If you disagree with my stance, you're a blithering twit. You're not a twit, are you?
quote:Since the NAACP National Voter fund was created by the NAACP for lobbying purposes, espouses NAACP political positions, and takes funding from the NAACP, yes, you are.
So noting that one is head of a separate organization is "splitting hairs" now?