Freddy’s Fashion Mart. (Which, I’m going to say, is the stupidest name for a store I’ve ever heard).
He’s not soully responsible, mind you, but he isn’t entirely innocent.
Yes, I can honestly believe that. No, they’re not the ONLY ones responsible. But they still have to shoulder some of the blame.
You’ve never heard the phrase “the buck stops here?”
When you’re in charge, if people are doing things on YOUR influence (you lead a protest that turns into a riot), you have to step up and accept your share of the responsibility. That’s life, kiddo.
I agree that comparing Sharpton to McVeigh is absurd. David Duke? Not so much.
None that meet my standards, plenty that don’t meet my standards say she was, but they are discountable. So after reviewing the reliable stuff I amend to say that she killed a young man with whom she had been romatically linked. It was in an intersection collision and they were each driving different cars, she was 17, she has never publicly discussed the details. Apparently she doesn’t care to being repeatedly asked about it either.
Obviously I did not declare moral equivalence between Sharpton and the others mentioned, but was making an (overlooked) point about the absurdity of praising the worth of someone who has committed evil acts and revolted vast segments of society, on the grounds that he’s drawn our attention to real or alleged ills.
Though Al is not all that far from David Duke on the spectrum of bigots. Both are hustlers appealing to racist and/or alienated voters, who got a surprising amount of support in failed Senate bids. Duke, if I remember right, is one up on Sharpton in that he actually got elected to some minor office (state Legislature?).
The comment wasn’t directed at you, nor do I think** Airman** was referring to the fashion mart incident.
The “buck stops here” doesn’t mean a leader is responsible for everything the people he’s leading do. If after including N. Korea in the axis of evil, Karl Rove went out and firebombed a Korean grocery store, Bush would not be responsible for that.
When Truman said that, he meant that the decisions will be made by him and nobody else, and that he’d be responsible for those decisions.
You’ve completely misinterpreted the saying, and the responsibilities of a leader
Of course. However, the leader still represents the group. And if someone in the group fucks up, the leader has to either kick them out, or say, “Hey, that asshole fucked up-on behalf of XYZ Association, I appologize.”
I don’t think Sharpton ever defended Roland Smith. Roland Smith did not fuck up because of Sharpton, and there is no need to apologize for something he’s not responsible for.
Bob, you’ve managed to truly amaze me. With your last few posts in this thread, you’ve actually managed to go lower in my estimation of your previous bottom crawling. You have now proven that you are:
[ul][li]a bigot[/li][li]stupid[/li]just sleazy[/ul]
[QUOTE=Monty]
Bob, you’ve managed to truly amaze me. With your last few posts in this thread, you’ve actually managed to go lower in my estimation of your previous bottom crawling. You have now proven that you are:
[ul][li]a bigot[/li][li]stupid[/li][li]just sleazy[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Wow, if you were in the movie business, you’d be the projectionist.
And if you were in the education business you’d be unemployed.
To what do you attribute your stunning lack of popularity here, Bob? It’s not political affiliation… that might plausibly be an excuse for MY antipathy, to be sure, but many of the people hurling insults and disdain your way lean left.
What do you think is causing this reaction?
FTR, the projectionist is a very important part of the movie business. It would be kind of hard to watch a movie at the cinema without it being projected onto the screen.
I think that Bob was oh-so-cleverly implying that you are guilty of psychological projection and that you were ascribing your own traits to him. Of course, it is ironic, as he is indeed a sleazy stupid bigot, so him accusing others of it is projection.
But theaters are starting to go towards downloading the film digitally to be played for the audience. The projectionist may be phased out. :eek:
By the way, not saying that you didn’t realize that bit about projection, Monty. Just pointing out its extreme irony.
How many days do we have left of this fool’s crap by the way? Are we under 48 hours now?
Hey guess what, y’all? I’m a racist! That’s right! A true blue, hating racist. Check this out…
Everybody that is not BobLoblawis superior.
There. I said it.
Um… could it be that racism transcends partisan politics? (just a guess)
IMO, the problem is the style of Bob Loblaw’s argument. But that is also part of his point re Sharpton, isn’t it?
In this thread we have brickbacon making many succinct points - points that do not fundamentally disagree with Bob’s premise - the difference is the style of argumentation. But does the style change the validity of the message? As you yourself alluded to earlier in this thread, an inyourface style also serves a purpose, even if in spite of itself.
I like this thread, not because I agree that every single person here is an out and out racist who deserves flaming, but because the confrontational style has caused a mass defensiveness that might lead to a personal re-evaluation of racist tendencies - conscious or unconscious.
Also, props to brickbacon for advancing many excellent arguments. And to jfranchi - I really like your style.
No reason to see any vitriol, here. That was a valid argument. Of course, ole Bob said “racist” instead of implying “race-baiting”. So I guess he gets a half-point for at least coming right out with it.
“Squeaky wheel gets the oil.”
Poster Max the Vool made some less vitriolic points back on page one. Didn’t get a single reply (I just read the entire thread, so I’ve got a broader perspective here).
In your face gets much more attention. No one here has asserted that Al Sharpton is a fool. Do you think he doesn’t realize this? Is his style purely self-promotion, or just a more efficient way to reach a broader audience?