Al Sharpton is a decent man

[Miller]

So, unless I’m misreading Fearless Reader, we should excuse Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, because there is a long and continuing history of discrimination against blacks in this country. Well, last week fully three quarters of Texas voted to discriminate against me. Who do I get to hate?

[What_Exit]

@Miller

So, unless I’m misreading Fearless Reader, we should excuse Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, because there is a long and continuing history of discrimination against blacks in this country. Well, last week fully three quarters of Texas voted to discriminate against me. Who do I get to hate?

I am sorry Miller, there was a redrawn map of North America circulating last year that had the North East and the West Cost and Michigan (Blue States) join Canada as the United Stated of Canada and the rest of the US (Red States) as Jesus Land. This might make everyone happier.

I found it on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

All I can say is there is a lot of ignorance out there. Try not to hate them. Their kids may be better. I am sure my grandparents would have been intolerant of Gay Marriage. So maybe a few more generations and we can all be adults about this.

Jim

[Miller]

Unfortunetly, the blue states aren’t too keen on gay marriage, either. But that’s not really the point. I’m being discriminated against. According to Fearless Reader, that means I get to discriminte against someone else, and anyone who calls me on it is really exhibiting unexamined homophobic tendencies. At least, I think that’s what she’s trying to say. It’s hard to tell, because women just aren’t good at putting together logical arguments. It sure is precious when they try, though, isn’t it?

[What_Exit]

@Miller

Unfortunetly, the blue states aren’t too keen on gay marriage, either. But that’s not really the point. I’m being discriminated against. According to Fearless Reader, that means I get to discriminte against someone else, and anyone who calls me on it is really exhibiting unexamined homophobic tendencies. At least, I think that’s what she’s trying to say. It’s hard to tell, because women just aren’t good at putting together logical arguments. It sure is precious when they try, though, isn’t it?

I guess you chose the group.

I think in another 20+ years you’ll have equal rights in NY, Mass, California, Hawaii, Nevada, probably NJ and a few others. It stinks for now.
The Woman’s movement really got going in the 1880’s and has probably only mostly completed in the last decade. The Civil Rights movement really got started in 1946 and they are getting much closer with Generation “Y”. The Gay Movement really did not get going until the Stonewall riots of 1969. So figure 20-25 for most rights and another 20-25 for complete acceptance. Again not fair but reality. I thought it would happen sooner but the last 5 years have proved this country can move backwards. It will swing again.

From a fiscal republican standpoint is this piece of stereotyping that is fairly well accepted and in practice largely true.
Take an area of urban blight. The Gay/Artist community will move in for cheap rent/ownership.
The town/area will start turning around and wealthier gays will move in as they don’t care about the schools that much.
Then the Yuppies without kids will start buying in as the real estate values are going up and the place is Trendy. By the time the yuppies come in the artists need to start the next area up.

There are actually a few towns trying to be gay friendly to get this cycle started.
My fiscally republican Gay Brother-In-Law agrees with this basic piece of economics and in practice it seems to work.

Your time will come.

Jim

[Miller]

I’m sure that will be a great comfort to me when I’m seventy.

[What_Exit]

@Miller

I’m sure that will be a great comfort to me when I’m seventy.

I am sorry, I was just trying to present some analysis of a terrible situation.

I really do know my answer was not good, I just don’t think there is a good answer.
If anything the push for gay marriage before the last election actually helped Bush get re-elected. I witnessed a grass roots movement of the religious right to get the ignorant out to vote. It was galvanized on this issue. The republicans actually place gay legislation on the ballot just to get these intolerant voters out.

BTW: I am not comfortable with the idea myself and I have attended a gay wedding. I just can’t see it being my business to tell you, “you can’t get married”.
It is your choice and you should be allowed full rights. This country still has so far to go.

Jim

[Miller]

@jrfranchi

I am sorry, I was just trying to present some analysis of a terrible situation.

I really do know my answer was not good, I just don’t think there is a good answer.

I don’t mean to get bitchy, but you’re really not telling me anything I don’t already know. I appreciate the sentiments and all, but it’s really got nothing to do with this thread or why I was posting. That said…

If anything the push for gay marriage before the last election actually helped Bush get re-elected. I witnessed a grass roots movement of the religious right to get the ignorant out to vote. It was galvanized on this issue. The republicans actually place gay legislation on the ballot just to get these intolerant voters out.

Al Franken did an interesting analysis of why this is probably untrue in his latest book. I don’t have it with me here, but if you’re interested, I can dig it out when I get home and post the relevant bits.

[What_Exit]

@Miller

I don’t mean to get bitchy, but you’re really not telling me anything I don’t already know. I appreciate the sentiments and all, but it’s really got nothing to do with this thread or why I was posting. That said…

Al Franken did an interesting analysis of why this is probably untrue in his latest book. I don’t have it with me here, but if you’re interested, I can dig it out when I get home and post the relevant bits.

I am curious about that. It looked that way and the church lady at work was part of a get out the vote drive for the religious types that don’t believe in evolution and are against gay marriage.

This thread is pretty far from where it started anyway. I don’t know if anything in it is really a Hi-Jack at this point. I think this thread has mutated to a tolerance vs. bigotry thread.

Jim

[Fearless_Reader]

@jrfranchi

On the hi-jack portion, we can probably move beyond that now. Bob Loblaw is no longing posting and you reopened the thread after it had died down. I was halting that before a mod asked us to. I don’t believe they will mind at this point as the Al Sharpton part of this debate is basically completed.

Whether you like him or not **Giuliani ** is a “Respected Public Figure”.

**Jackmannii ** is mainly asking you for some cites on Rudy

You said

He and I both are a bit dubious about this claim.

I posted quite a bit about Giuliani a few pages back, and you said you were troubled by it, and that it was a hijack. But now you change your mind and say it’s okay to hijack and you are also dubious. Dubious about what? It amazes me that I should be called out for saying Giuliani was racially divisive, or said things that made him look bad. Was there some kind of mass amnesia after 9-11? His approval rating on September 10th, 2001 was 40 percent. And falling.

I’m sorry, but I didn’t see that Jackmannii was truly curious about Giuliani. I’d be willing to bet he is not, if it were possible to prove it. But since you have now changed your mind and are also questioning my integrity, I will provide the cites:

Daily News:

“I would not want a picture presented of an altar boy, when in fact maybe it isn’t an altar boy,” Giuliani said of Patrick Dorismond, a former altar boy, after Dorismond minding his business, was intercepted by a police officer and ended up being shot dead.

The problem, as you can see, is that the reporters simply don’t understand when the mayor is using innovative speaking techniques. The exact same thing happened when the mayor went on Fox TV to talk about Dorismond’s arrest record.

“What you have here is robbery, attempted robbery, possession of a gun,” Giuliani said.

“Convictions?” asked Brit Hume. “Convictions?”

“Convictions and arrests, both,” Giuliani said. “You have both happening.”

Again, people stuck in the old way of thinking probably believed that the mayor really said that Dorismond had not been an altar boy and did have a record of convictions for dangerous crimes. In fact, on both the altar boy issue, and the conviction matter, the mayor was using a specialized form of language.

It is called Reverse Speaking. So the truth is, Dorismond did not have any criminal convictions, and he was indeed an altar boy, even though that is the direct opposite of what Giuliani said in words.

Second source:

For example, in the wake of Dorismond’s killing, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, currently campaigning for a US Senate seat, made callous remarks about the dead man. Giuliani illegally disclosed Dorismond’s sealed juvenile records and refused to extend condolences to the deceased’s family.

All blacks, Latinos and even most whites living in New York City were appalled by Giuliani’s racist behaviour, yet according to polls, only 28 per cent of upstate New Yorkers and 34 per cent of suburban voters disagreed with Giuliani’s handling of this situation. Two-thirds of upstate New Yorkers even said that Giuliani should not have to express remorse to Dorismond’s family.

In effect, millions of white middle- and upper-class people have made the cold calculation that a certain level of unjustified killings of blacks, Latinos and poor people is necessary to maintain public order.

You see Jim, I don’t live upstate or in the suburbs, I don’t just drive in for ballgames - I live here. I saw what he did. I lived through it. Need more?

NYPD’s racial profiling:

On Brian Lehrer’s On the Line (WNYC-AM, Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to noon), Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was talking about the way the cops, particularly the nearly all-white Street Crime Unit, have been jumping mostly black and Latino New Yorkers in search of guns - or whatever else turns up.

So here we have— according to official police statistics— over 30,000 New Yorkers having been restrained by the police and searched for doing nothing wrong. In addition, nearly half the felony gun cases actually brought to court in Manhattan by the Street Crime Unit have been thrown out as being unconstitutional.

But the police commissioner— and the mayor, who often makes clear that he is the ultimate commander of the NYPD— are responsible for even worse constitutional violations.

During that WNYC interview, Attorney General Spitzer, who has begun an investigation of Giuliani’s police, startled Brian Lehrer by breaking this news:

“I’ve spoken to many officers who say they do not fill out the required forms for every stop-and-frisk. They may fill out one in five or one in 10. We may have several hundred thousands of these police actions without arrests.” (Emphasis added.)

The American Jewish Committee and the New York Board of Rabbis have joined the black and Latino communities in sharply criticizing the mayor and his police commissioner.

Rabbi Robert Levine speaks of New York under Giuliani as “a racially polarized city in which there are two standards of justice.”

More “stop and frisk” data:

An examination of the UF-250 data indicates that NYPD officers routinely stop blacks and Hispanics out of proportion to their presence in the general population.[119] In many precincts, as noted above, significant disparities exist between the actual population of Hispanics and primarily African Americans within New York’s communities, and the racial distribution of UF-250 subjects reported by the NYPD. In addition, a number of minority New York City residents also contend that they are more likely to be stopped and frisked, as well as detained by the police.[120] During the Commission’s hearing on police practices in New York City, the testimonies of several community residents reflected a great deal of frustration with this situation.[121] For example, Arthur Mims, a New York City resident, stated that while on his way home one evening in November of 1997, he was stopped by police officers from the Midtown North precinct. “They came over to me and asked me what is in my “f-ing” bag, and they didn’t say “f-ing.” I said I work here. I went over to the door, rang the bell, co-workers came out and said he works here. And with that I was maced.”[122]

Similarly, Anthony Rivera, a corrections officer of the New York Department of Corrections, informed the Commission of another potentially serious incident that involved the Street Crime Unit:

I was also stopped by a fellow officer while picking up my daughter one day at school, by the Street Crimes Unit. They just came out of their vehicles, about three vehicles, like cowboys from the wild, wild west, with their guns drawn. Luckily I had a shield, and my friend, my fellow officer, had his shield. But if it was a regular Latino out there, we might have been a statistic that you talk about today, our brothers being shot without probable cause, or for any reason.[123]

Other witnesses maintained that minority youth in particular are especially likely to be stopped and frisked in New York City. According to Hyun Lee, program director of the Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence,

[y]outh of color who sit on their front stoops these days are routinely subjected to illegal stops and frisks during random neighborhood drug sweeps conducted by the NYPD. After illegally searching the youth and coming up with absolutely nothing, the police continue the process of detention and questioning for several hours, hoping to acquire leads on other cases. During the detention, the police officers also take illegal Polaroid snapshots of the youth. Although the youth has committed no crime and have no prior record, his or her face is now logged into the criminal justice system. These illegally acquired mug shots are later used to facilitate the selection of suspects when a crime is reported.[124]

Why did Giuliani refuse to meet with any black leaders during his tenure? In his own words:

(NY Post) By DAVID SEIFMAN Mayor Giuliani claimed yesterday that by ignoring New York’s black leaders, he’s actually been able to accomplish more for minority communities.

The mayor said he adopted a strategy to avoid dialogue with black leaders because many of them espouse a philosophy of dependence that has kept their constituents “enslaved” and “oppressed.”

And the mayor argued the tactic worked because minorities “are much better [off] today than they were the day before I came into office.”

“If I had spent my time engaged in that dialogue, the changes that you saw take place would not have taken place,” Giuliani said in his year-end interview at City Hall. "Because what happens when you engage in the dialogue is, you compromise. I think the things we’ve done are better for the community than the things they’ve been fighting for the last 20 to 30 years.

No compromises for the great white hope of Giuliani. He knows what’s best for “them”, even if they don’t.

This is your respected public figure. Who insisted on building his 15 million dollar command center at 7 WTC, even though it was a prime target area, and walked out of the rubble and straight to the cameras to become a hero. Let’s not ruin that image by asking why the FDNY radios didn’t work, or how the feud between NYPD and FDNY might have cost lives. That would be offensive, right?

So what are a few dead innocent black men, compared to a cleaner Times Square? Who cares about the civil rights of all those frisked innocents - the suburbans felt safer under Giuliani!

Did someone mention anti-semitism? I guess it would be offensive to mention that Giuliani spent MLK day with Joerg Haider, an Austrian nationalist who openly praised Hitler’s policies. And look up The Manhattan Institute, where Giuliani admits he got many of his policies from. Eugenics anyone?

Cronyism, corruption, and racism combined? Russell Harding. Makes Michael Brown look like an amatuer:

On the Clintons:
“And her husband having his offices in harlem is a hoot . . . he and the blacks were made for each other . . . nothing but trash all of them . . . i think we need to move to a conservative all-white state like idaho.”

On Colin Powell:
“I think it was a horrible choice that he will come to regret soon . . . he’s black and will just throw around that black 'tude all of them have . . . and be a big black ass in the long run if you ask me.”

On NYC snow removal:
“No, manhattan is always clear . . . the other boros take a little longer . . . but then all that lives in those areas are the low class white trash or blacks . . . so no need to make things easy on them.”

Was he renounced or was he rewarded?

In his final days as head of the city’s Housing Development Corporation, former Giuliani aide Russell Harding collected a whopping $128,000 extra in pay, records show. The payment was included in Harding’s January 10 paycheck, issued just days before he stepped down after three and a half years at the helm of the agency, which helps finance affordable housing.

It is not clear what the extra payout represents. Corporation officials refused to discuss the issue, citing an ongoing probe of Harding’s high-spending conduct by the city’s Department of Investigation.

Asked about the payment, Harding’s attorney, Gerald Shargel, said, “There will be a day when we respond to all this but it won’t be today.”

Harding was shifted to HDC by Giuliani in 1998 after serving as an executive vice president for corporate communications at the Economic Development Corporation. He caused a minor stir in that post as well when he implemented a controversial bonus program that rewarded top executives with extra pay of up to $15,000. Prior bonus programs had been spread out among lower- and mid-level employees. In 1997, a year when cops, firefighters, teachers, and other city workers went without any pay hikes, Harding himself collected a $3400 bonus—after working at the agency for only six months.

A college dropout, Harding had no financial background when Giuliani appointed him to head HDC, which handles complex housing bond deals worth tens of millions of dollars. Expense records show that Harding spent much of his tenure jetting around the country and staying at expensive hotels and resorts. Along with Cusack, his top aide, Harding spent an astonishing $250,000 in expenses, which included gifts of a television and a DVD player to someone he met in an online chat room.

If you need more, let me know. We never even got up to the public schools, or the deficit Giuliani left behind. For 400 pages of quotes, you can always buy the book.

I’m sorry Jim. This reminds me of the time I told my younger brother there was no Santa Claus. I don’t expect you to be any more grateful than he was. I thought I was sparing you, but you asked.

[What_Exit]

@Fearless Reader

I posted quite a bit about Giuliani a few pages back, and you said you were troubled by it, and that it was a hijack. But now you change your mind and say it’s okay to hijack and you are also dubious. Dubious about what? It amazes me that I should be called out for saying Giuliani was racially divisive, or said things that made him look bad. Was there some kind of mass amnesia after 9-11? His approval rating on September 10th, 2001 was 40 percent. And falling.

I’m sorry, but I didn’t see that Jackmannii was truly curious about Giuliani. I’d be willing to bet he is not, if it were possible to prove it. But since you have now changed your mind and are also questioning my integrity, I will provide the cites:
…snip…
I’m sorry Jim. This reminds me of the time I told my younger brother there was no Santa Claus. I don’t expect you to be any more grateful than he was. I thought I was sparing you, but you asked.

I need time to read over your post. You present compelling arguments.

On the thread Hi-jack: at the time the thread was still focused on the OP and Bob Loblaw. It would not have been appropriate for us to continue at that point in this thread. Now the thread has been effectively done and we seem to be on to other points. So it is no longer a negative hi-jack per se. Does that part make sense?

As far as Giuliani plunging polls, I was aware of that. I knew many New Yorkers who did not like him.
I liked him as a candidate back in '88 when he didn’t have a clue how to run for office. So I did not discover a like for him on 9/11. I liked the fact it was safe for me to return to Yankee Stadium and the Bronx Zoo with kids again. So I always liked him and he lived up to all my expectation and more on 9/11.

I did not mean for “dubious” to reflect your integrity, I was honestly dubious that you could provide cites to prove your statement about Rudy. Give me a chance to look these over and attempt to verify them against additional resources.

I believe Jackmannii was coming from the same direction, but I cannot speak for him.

As far as Santa, well I do kind of believe in the big guy. Not so much the sled and the chimney, but as the idea of Good Will toward all mankind. Can’t help myself on this one.

Jim

[Fearless_Reader]

@Miller

According to Fearless Reader, that means I get to discriminte against someone else, and anyone who calls me on it is really exhibiting unexamined homophobic tendencies. At least, I think that’s what she’s trying to say. It’s hard to tell, because women just aren’t good at putting together logical arguments. It sure is precious when they try, though, isn’t it?

I said nothing like that. Too bad lying about another poster isn’t against the rules here.

I just wonder why you need to do it. Are you that sad, or that lazy, or just unable to read? You have a compelling argument for your own discrimination without resorting to lies or smearing someone else. And yet you do it. Could it be human nature, or are you just not a decent man?

[What_Exit]

Fearless Reader: I have review your cites and I have these replies.

1st quote:
Is not from Daily news
It is from Kevin McAuliffe who is selling a book about how awful Rudy was.
Included on his site is this gem that is supposed to be bad.

@N.Y. Times

I think that’s an insulting question. Happy New Year. That’s been a perception from the very beginning. It’s something that you keep writing and I really don’t give a darn. I’m doing my job as well as I can do it. I think I’m taking New York City into the next century in much better shape than I found it. If people like my personality, thank you. If you don’t, I really don’t care.

2[sup]nd[/sup] quote: Completely true, he did a terrible job on this case. In fact I think this was a case where Rev. Al did good in trying to keep the news media focused on it without using inflammatory words to make a bad situation worse. Rudy’s primary guilt was in defending the police actions to a fault. He is guilty in this case.
3[sup]rd[/sup] quote: He is guilty again. The cops had a free hand in cleaning up the city. They exceeded their authority often. Rudy shielded them often. I agree. Very damning.
4[sup]th[/sup] Quote: Stop, Question, and Frisk. Good take on the policy. Why do I recall it a little different? I recall it as youths in gang colors, not youths of color.
5[sup]th[/sup] Quote: Yep, Rudy can be an asshole. He did actually make the city better and improve health care and safety didn’t he?
6[sup]th[/sup] & 7[sup]th[/sup] Quote: Okay Russell Harding was a complete jerk and said stupid things, Rudy was grossly wrong to not toss him out as bad trash. This is the most damning thing you have shown me. Also the only surprise. If it is all true it eliminates one more candidate that I would want to vote for. I have never seen or heard of this Harding Moron before.
Thanks for killing Santa again.

As far as Miller, he was extending the logic you used about Farrakhan. If Farrakhan is allowed to make hate speech because blacks were oppressed then Miller should be aloud to make hate speech because Gays are oppressed.
He was using a large blunt instrument to make a valid point. Your arguments for Farrakhan are weak.
Sounds like Farrakhan, Harding and David Dukes should go on a retreat together.

Jim

[FinnAgain]

@Fearless Reader

I said nothing like that. Too bad lying about another poster isn’t against the rules here.

You said that David Duke can’t be judged on the same level as Louis Farrakhan because Farrakhan was reacting to real oppression. Which is exactly what Miller and I called you on.

If that’s not what you meant, you do seem to be having a rather large problem communicating effectively here.

[Fearless_Reader]

@FinnAgain

Why not?
“I hate group X” is “I hate group X” no matter who says it.
Or do you think that black people can’t be racist?

Of course black people can be racist. I said that before. What I have trouble with is the comparisons.

@FinnAgain

Bullshit on both counts. Simply because someone is part of a ‘group’ which has had a history of oppression, does not mean that they’re allowed to do as they please. Would it suddenly be non-racist for say, a Jew, to say “black people suck?” If not, then why is it okay for Farrkhan to say “Jewish people suck?”

I wasn’t referring to someone being able to “do as they please”. Why do you keep taking my words out of context?

@FinnAgain

There are no facts which justify Farrakhan’s bigotry., or could possibly justify his bigotry.
And it is disturbing that you don’t place him in exactly the same category as Duke.

Disturbing? Why? Why must they be in the exact same category when they are coming from different perspectives and experiences? Why isn’t it enough that I am against the idea of hate speech in general? Why is it disturbing to think they should be addressed in a different way as individuals?

I’m not talking about justifying bigotry, but trying to understand it and deal with it. Do you think it will just disappear if we throw everyone into the same box and dismiss what they say or why they’re saying it?

@FinnAgain

You were the one who was arguing that racism was bad, right?

I can live without your insinuations, okay?

@FinnAgain

~blink~~blink blink~

Same with your need for visual and audio aids. Does your argument suffer if you don’t employ these tactics?

@FinnAgain

What ‘merit’ does Farrakhan’s obvious and blatant and unapologetic racism have? You seem to be evading the issue with great force. What the hell does the ‘messenger’ have to do with a message that is blatantly racist?

The merit comes from the need to acknowledge the past and ongoing discrimination and oppression. Do you think simply dismissing Farrakhan is going to make the problem go away?

@FinnAgain

Wait. Before I go looking for cites, please define all your terms. I’d rather not go looking only to find that we’re not speaking the same language.

Describe, as you see it, ‘tribalism’ or ‘meta-tribalism’ and ‘racism’. I had assumed that LHoD definition would suffice, but something tells me that might not be the case.

No cites, huh. I guess only newbies need to present cites on demand, regardless of how rude, baseless, or off-topic the request is. Could you at least cite LHoD’s definitions that you are referring to, or do I need to wade through this board to find them?

But I do suspect that defining the terms is one the problems we are having. The rest of your post points to that too. Is it worth it for us to continue or not? I was really looking forward to a reasonable debate about this, but to be honest, I’m very skeptical that anyone currently replying to me feels the same. Respect is a two-way street. How about a little less heat (and sarcasm), and a little more light? So far, I feel I’ve been wasting my time replying to personal attacks and outright lies about what I’ve said.

I’m willing to go forward and define terms, but I need some good faith reassurance it won’t be just another round of take a piece out of the newbie. I’m interested. I promise to reply (perhaps not immediately - that hijack took up most of my free time today). But more smearing I don’t need. If so many of you are that determined to get rid of me, just say the word. I’d appreciate the honesty.

[Jackmannii]

@Fearless Reader

I’m sorry, but I didn’t see that Jackmannii was truly curious about Giuliani. I’d be willing to bet he is not, if it were possible to prove it. But since you have now changed your mind and are also questioning my integrity, I will provide the cites:

Still up in arms about perceived challenges to your “integrity”, while casting aspersions on others, I see.

Casting back to your original remarks juxtaposing Farrakhan and Giuliani, you suggested there were readily available racist “soundbites” from Rudy.

Why then, do your cites* virtually all seem to be about general Giuliani administration policies with which you differ, Giulianai’s attendance at a Congress of Racial Equality dinner with 2000 other people including a far-right Austrian politician (you make it sound like they were hugging on the dais) or statements made by another city office-holder, rather than any bigoted “soundbites” from Giuliani?

The closest item you have relates to a black man shot by NYC police, whose juvenile criminal record was improperly released by the mayor, who also suggested that the man was not the paragon of virtue portrayed by other sources.

Insensitive? Yes. But let’s see how it compares with just a limited sampling of Farrakhan “soundbites”. From USA Today:

*"During Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign, Farrakhan refers to Judaism as a “gutter religion,” and the Chicago Tribune quotes him as saying: “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes.”

During his November 1970 “Black Solidarity Day Address,” Farrakhan urges black men to “take this beautiful woman — she’s your queen! She’s your jewel. Don’t let a white man get near this black woman. And last but not least, black man, don’t let that white man at anytime in your life give you his white woman! We don’t want her!”

Before a City College audience in New York, Farrakhan warns: “The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.” *

Somehow I just don’t see in your cites the kind of crude race-baiting and appeals to hatred that Farrakhan is known for. Your attempts to lump the two men together are off-base.

As to your refusal to acknowledge that the subject of this thread is an unrepentant bigot based on the supposed guilt of everyone else including other posters, I’ll toss this quote right back at you:

@FearlessReader

You have a compelling argument for… discrimination without resorting to lies or smearing someone else.

*Gotta love the Village Voice. It takes me back…

[Fearless_Reader]

@FinnAgain

You said that David Duke can’t be judged on the same level as Louis Farrakhan because Farrakhan was reacting to real oppression. Which is exactly what Miller and I called you on.

If that’s not what you meant, you do seem to be having a rather large problem communicating effectively here.

Is it possible that a large problem is the large chip on your shoulder?

Miller mischaracterized what I said for his own reasons. What is there to call me on? I don’t put black anger and white anger in the same category. Why is this such a problem? Can anyone explain that without the insults or lies?

Look, if you want to try to have a discussion let me know. I’ve really got to go now.

[What_Exit]

@Fearless Reader

Is it possible that a large problem is the large chip on your shoulder?

Miller mischaracterized what I said for his own reasons. What is there to call me on? I don’t put black anger and white anger in the same category. Why is this such a problem? Can anyone explain that without the insults or lies?

Look, if you want to try to have a discussion let me know. I’ve really got to go now.

Your full of it on this one. **Miller ** is part of a group that is probably more oppressed than the blacks. He made a simple point. You were excusing Farrakhan version of hate because of Black oppression. **Miller ** was saying that by your logic it would excuse him if he chose to help his cause by making hate speech towards a group.
Why don’t you see that is what you effectively said?

Jim

[What_Exit]

Some great news on the Russell Harding front.
Disgraced ex-Giuliani official claims mental illness, judge prescribes prison
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-russ0722,0,695757.story?coll=nyc-moreny-headlines

Jim

[Fearless_Reader]

@Jackmannii

Insensitive? Yes. But let’s see how it compares with just a limited sampling of Farrakhan “soundbites”.

See? I was right, you only wanted to make a comparison.

You cannot compare Giuliani to Farrakhan, for an even more compelling reason than the Farrakhan v. Duke comparison.

Why? Because Giuliani was an elected official. He was Mayor of NYC. The whole city, not just his base, not just white people. He was accountable to all of us here.

What about Farrakhan? Who is he accountable to? Was he in charge of the NYPD? City services?

You want to compare talk to actions, between an accountable official and an activist with limited power?

Who are you kidding? You’ve got a hard-on for Farrakhan, and your beef with me is that I am not foaming at the mouth to the degree you’d like. Too bad. Go fuck yourself for your sneaky smears and lies about me, and wasting my time with your bogus demand for cites. It’s all about self interests. Objective my ass.

[FinnAgain]

@Fearless Reader

Is it possible that a large problem is the large chip on your shoulder?

Oh, yeah, you want to keep things insult and snark free.

@Fearless Reader

Look, if you want to try to have a discussion let me know. I’ve really got to go now.

It depends, are you going to do things like say I’ve got a large chip on my shoulder and then whine about how I’m not being nice and fluffy to you?

@Fearless Reader

Miller mischaracterized what I said for his own reasons. What is there to call me on? I don’t put black anger and white anger in the same category. Why is this such a problem? Can anyone explain that without the insults or lies?

Miller correctly pointed out the logical implications of your own position, which you still refuse to cop to. And yes, the problem with placing ‘white’ and ‘black’ racism in different categories is that it ends up being a partial-to-total excuse of racism if one is of the ‘right’ group. Which was, of course, Miller’s point. Should ‘gay’ racism be less or more severely judged than ‘black’ racism? Why?

No, that’s not possible. That is the clear logical implication of your post. For fuck’s sake have some accountability.

@Fearless Reader

Of course black people can be racist. I said that before. What I have trouble with is the comparisons.
I wasn’t referring to someone being able to “do as they please”. Why do you keep taking my words out of context?

Does this even make sense to you? You say that Farrakhan can’t be judged on the merit of his words, because he’s black and has a history of oppression. Then you deny that you’re giving him special treatment?

Again, if you don’t mean that, you really need to spend much more time working on your posts.

@Fearless Reader

Disturbing? Why? Why must they be in the exact same category when they are coming from different perspectives and experiences? Why isn’t it enough that I am against the idea of hate speech in general? Why is it disturbing to think they should be addressed in a different way as individuals?

Can you please not contradict yourself from one sentence to the next? If you’re against hate speech in general, then it doesn’t matter who says it. If you want to have different standards depending on the race of the racist, then your claims of disliking hate speech “in general” are simply false.

Again, if that’s not what you meant you really need to spend more time working on your posts.

@Fearless Reader

I can live without your insinuations, okay?

This is fucking absurd. Do you care/think about the logical implications of your posts? Any attempt to ameliorate racism depending on who it comes from shows that you have mutable standards. There’s no escaping that logic, I’m afraid.

And quite frankly, your tactic of accusing those who correctly read the logical implications of your posts of various and sundry bad things is rather distasteful. If you don’t want posts which imply the things they’re implying, write them differently.

@Fearless Reader

Same with your need for visual and audio aids.
Does your argument suffer if you don’t employ these tactics?

WTF?
You’re actually going to complain about the fact that I illustrated my surprise with text? Tell me you’re kidding.

@Fearless Reader

The merit comes from the need to acknowledge the past and ongoing discrimination and oppression.

Jesus, you say you don’t support racism, and then you say Farrakhan’s message has merit. What, his message that “The Jews” control black America? You’re getting rather Machiavellian on us here. The goal of combatting racism does not allow one to be a racist.

And yet again, if you’re going to deny implying that, then you need to take a serious look at your text and stop blaming everybody else for correctly reading the logical implications in your posts.

@Fearless Reader

Do you think simply dismissing Farrakhan is going to make the problem go away?

What does that have to do with anything? Why set up such an obvious strawman? Dismissing Farrakhan as a racist, which he is, won’t make overall racism in society go away, but it will marginalize a racist. So in a sense, it will keep more racism from being added to the mix.

@Fearless Reader

No cites, huh. I guess only newbies need to present cites on demand, regardless of how rude, baseless, or off-topic the request is.

What is wrong with you? I asked you to define your terms so I know what cites to look for. And you keep bringing up this ‘newbie’ thing, who the fuck has taken you to task for being new to the boards? Are you just nursing a persecution complex?

@Fearless Reader

Could you at least cite LHoD’s definitions that you are referring to, or do I need to wade through this board to find them?

No, you need to have read this thread. I think it’s on page six or something.

@Fearless Reader

But I do suspect that defining the terms is one the problems we are having. The rest of your post points to that too. Is it worth it for us to continue or not?

I’m guessing not, especially if you’re not going to finally take accountability for your posts.

@Fearless Reader

I was really looking forward to a reasonable debate about this, but to be honest, I’m very skeptical that anyone currently replying to me feels the same.

I was hoping for one from you too, but so far you’re unable or unwilling to look at the clear logical implications of your posts, busy accusing other posters of having hidden agendas, etc…

@Fearless Reader

Respect is a two-way street. How about a little less heat (and sarcasm), and a little more light?

Should I bake you a cupcake too? I’m perfectly allowed to point out the logical contradictions inherent in your post. Do you even read Cecil Adams’ stuff? Sarcasm bothers you? You’ll sure get that in GD as well. Maybe you’re a bit thin skinned for this board.

@Fearless Reader

So far, I feel I’ve been wasting my time replying to personal attacks and outright lies about what I’ve said.

Again, this bullshit.
Your posts set up clear logical implications, which you refuse to address. I knew it was a bad sign that even when I pointed out that you’d made clear and transparent syllogisms, that you still tried to blame it on me. Evidently you’re not going to be responsible for your own posts. Pity.

@Fearless Reader

I’m willing to go forward and define terms, but I need some good faith reassurance it won’t be just another round of take a piece out of the newbie.

Again this absurd “newbie” crap. Will you get off it? And look at your own posts, you think you’re behaving all that nicely when you call people liars, say they have hidden agendas, etc, etc, etc… ?

@Fearless Reader

I’m interested. I promise to reply (perhaps not immediately - that hijack took up most of my free time today). But more smearing I don’t need. If so many of you are that determined to get rid of me, just say the word. I’d appreciate the honesty.

This is insane. I’ve been debating your points, and you’re claiming you’re somehow a victim? Takes all kinds I guess.