Me too, actually. I hold with Michael Lind: Race-based affirmative action should be, not merely abolished, but replaced, with an even more vigorous program of class-based affirmative action. Create a “social escalator” to which all the poor have access.
And attitude like this are why millions of working class whites don’t trust the Democrats.
But it remains true that the Pubs’ (and, for that matter, the Dems’) slavish service to the business interests is, on the balance, bad for minorities, and for poor and working people generally. (Most blacks in America are poor, but most poor people are white.)
It is also true you will not see brown faces in any American corporate boardroom in anywhere near the proportion you will see them in the general population.
No, most blacks are well above the poverty line. However, it is true that blacks are disproportionately poor.
That is embarrassing to me, but nowadays it is unsual and anomalous. The only fringe group who have consistently tried to run in Dems’ clothing in recent decades are the LaRouchies. Who (unlike Duke) never actually get elected to anything, and at least offer a lot more entertainment value! 
Which merely means that you find anti-Bush bigots congenial, but not the rest.
Thus, you don’t object to bigotry per se, and your OP was entirely hypocritical.
Imagine my surprise.
Regards,
Shodan
How does that show he’s not a fundamentalist? Seems to me like it leaves open the possiblity, because it looks like an argument against gay marriage.
As a Democrat, I find your overall positive view of Sharpton embarassing. He is unapologetic about his long and lurid history of racism.
Republicans currently have a lot to answer for, but using (as you put it) an “anomaly” like a self-proclaimed Nazi running for office as a Republican to label the GOP as racist (and suggesting that the Dems are now pristine on this score) just smacks of politics as usual.
Sharpton I won’t defend, but I defy you to come up with any generally acceptable definition of “bigot” that includes Moore. (Just hating Bush and everything he’s done makes nobody a “bigot.”)
No. He appears to be saying that spending energy to support a ban on gay marriage does nothing to " help us to welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, heal the sick, or visit those in prison." That is not support for such a ban but a criticism based on it being a waste of time and energy.
Umm… well, it doesn’t look like opposition in principle, either, just a statement that campaigning for such a ban isn’t a priority. Opposing a gay marriage ban doesn’t necessarily make him gay friendly. I wouldn’t support a complete ban on the sale of tobacco, but that doesn’t make me tobacco friendly. I have the uncomfortable feeling that he’s trying to be slick here.
Not quite. Most of the world’s Muslims would likely regard the current Nation of Islam warily as potential heretics. But to the best of my understanding most black Muslims are pretty well mainstreamed into Sunnism these days. Farrakhan’s NOI faction are a relative minority.
By the by, I’d regard Farrakhan, with his own brand of racial supremacism, as a lot closer parallel to David Duke and his ilk. Michael Moore is much more of the left version of Rush Limbaugh.
- Tamerlane
I don’t understand how you believe you can get away with these easily provable lies. It’s posted right there in black and white.
I said I wouldn’t defend Sharptom from a charge of bigotry, that is all. Arguably, he is a bigot. But you can’t by any stretch reasonably say that about Moore.
You can read the whole article at http://www.insightnews.com/search.asp?mode=display&articleID=2101, which I forgot to link to before.
Yes.
He was born & grew up in Detroit, MI, so not from an Islamic country. He moved to Minnesota about a quarter century ago to attend law school.
He is black, and a Muslim; I don’t know if that makes him part of the ‘black Muslim’ faith or not. He generally doesn’t talk much about personal beliefs like religion or stress them on his website (www.keithellison.org), but rather talks about the issues & policies inspired by those beliefs.
He’s pointing out that strongly supporting and arguing on behalf of this bill in contrary to the principles of their religion. He’s arguing against a gay marriage bill/ammendment/whathaveyou, so what exactly is that basis of your complaint?
You don’t say!
BTW, I wouldn’t put Sharpton and Moore in the same category, either, although both primarily seem motivated primarily by one thing-- self-promotion.
Never heard anyone but David Horowitz say that about Lind before. Which particular orifice . . . ?