Why isn't this murder?

[DinoDoc]

It's more a question of why should they?

Fighting to be treated the same as everyone else implies that you wish to be treated the same as everyone else. Patting Sharpton on the head and excusing his misbehavior is a betrayal of everything you believe he fought for.

[kentonio]

Patting him on the head and excusing his behaviour by saying that I find it obnoxious? You can disapprove of something yet understand why someone feels that way.

[DinoDoc]

Patting him on the head and excusing his behaviour by saying that ...

Yes its different, yes blacks from the civil rights era get a pass on some things that whites do not. Deal with it.
No, it isn't different. People shouldn't get a pass on somethings simply because of skin color and people shouldn't have to deal with it.

[kentonio]

No, it isn't different. People shouldn't get a pass on somethings simply because of skin color and people shouldn't have to deal with it.

People shouldn't have to deal with being beaten, killed, discriminated against and treated like animals based purely on the colour of their skin, but they were. Real life isn't a comic book morality tale.

[Zevico]

People shouldn't have to deal with being beaten, killed, discriminated against and treated like animals based purely on the colour of their skin, but they were.

Yes. And Sharpton treated Jews and whites like animals. He's never apologised for his actions and never said that he was wrong. Which means that he does not believe in civil rights for all. He's a black supremacist. So when you tell me that I should just ignore a racist for his racism and calls for violence, and then tell me that Limbaugh and Beck are evil for using over the top language and not actually calling for violence, I think you're holding Limbaugh and Beck to a standard over and above you hold Sharpton to. In fact you admit that yourself. You're an explicit believer in double standards:

Yes its different, yes blacks from the civil rights era get a pass on some things that whites do not. Deal with it.

The irony, of course, is that by claiming that blacks from the civil rights era 'get a pass' on being racists, you're really saying that they're not responsible for their actions. Blacks from the civil rights era are, in your view, completely devoid of moral agency. In your view, blacks from the civil rights era are simply unable to tell right from wrong or do right while abstaining from wrong. Because they suffered. Well, lots of people suffer, but not all of them choose to do wrong. You're saying they have every right to do wrong.

And that's pretty darn racist.

But, in fairness, you do contradict yourself:

Patting him on the head and excusing his behaviour by saying that I find it obnoxious? You can disapprove of something yet understand why someone feels that way.

So his actions are obnoxious, but he "gets a pass." Which is it?

Now does it follow that endorsing him as a friend and partner of the United States Government is--
(a) as obnoxious as endorsing a white supremacist as a friend and partner of the USG, given that Sharpton is a black supremacist?
(b) something for which the United States Government "gets a pass", because black supremacism is really just excusable and frankly, something to be washed away or ignored so just "deal with it", as you put it, because of the existence of white supremacism?
If you answered "(b)", you and the President have something in common.

Real life isn't a comic book morality tale.

Of course it isn't. It's also not an electric bugaloo. Why you regard your insight about life not being a comic book morality tale as more profound than mine about life not being an electric bugaloo, I don't know. But you do.

Incidentally, when you say I'm 'inherently' a liar, that means you can't identify a single instance where I've lied. You just 'feel it in your bones.' And if you feel that way--well, who am I to argue?

Also incidentally, in a previous post I identified an instance where Obama physically greeted a member of the New Black Panthers with a smile, when she introduced herself as a representative of that organisation. Then he chose to march. You still appear to be under the impression that Obama's decision to march with the New Black Panthers was unwitting. That's simply not the case. Put it this way: a member of the KKK approaches you and says he supports you and all that you believe in. Do you:

a) Withdraw and refuse to accept the greeting and endorsment of the KKK; or
b) Smile at them, say nothing, and decide to go on a march with him and his movement and without saying a word about it afterwards.

If you chose (b), then you and Obama have something in common.

[kentonio]

The irony, of course, is that by claiming that blacks from the civil rights era 'get a pass' on being racists, you're really saying that they're not responsible for their actions. Blacks from the civil rights era are, in your view, completely devoid of moral agency. In your view, blacks from the civil rights era are simply unable to tell right from wrong or do right while abstaining from wrong. Because they suffered. Well, lots of people suffer, but not all of them choose to do wrong. You're saying they have every right to do wrong.

And that's pretty darn racist.

I think that blowing up buildings is wrong. I think murdering people is wrong. The French Resistance did both of these things and a whole lot more, and while I find many of the actions themselves to be repellant I can understand why in that situation they did the things they did.

If you treat people like ****, and try and deny them their basic human rights, then you lose the right to cry about it when those people end up taking extreme positions themselves. For American whites to squeal about how terribly racist it is for those horrible civil rights leaders to actually say bad things about white people, is absolutely laughable. Wounds run deep.

[Guynemer]

Of course Romney agrees with Limbaugh on the idea that it is absurd that a woman is asking taxpayers to pay for her birth control for sexual (not medical) purposes! Liberals don't seem to comprehend how rightly absurd that is. We're not talking birth control for medical issues but as purely contraception. The fact of the matter is, sex is not a medical necessity and the government shouldn't subsidize someone's birth control any more than they should subsidize someone's gas used for driving, especially when cheaper alternatives that also limit STD's (such as condoms) exist.

I've gotten into arguments with liberals on my defense of Limbaugh's basic point and their brains seem incapable of fathoming that there's something wrong with the idea of asking the government to pay for your contraception.

I see. So erectile dysfunction medications shouldn't be covered either, then, as sex is not a necessity.

Sex may not be a necessity, but birth control is a massive cost-saver. Having a kid costs us far more--orders of magnitude more--than contraception.

[regexcellent]

I see. So erectile dysfunction medications shouldn't be covered either, then, as sex is not a necessity.

Sex may not be a necessity, but birth control is a massive cost-saver. Having a kid costs us far more--orders of magnitude more--than contraception.

Until he grows up and starts being productive.

[DinoDoc]

I see. So erectile dysfunction medications shouldn't be covered either, then, as sex is not a necessity.

There's no federal mandate requiring employers pay for Viagra.

[Zevico]

I see. So erectile dysfunction medications shouldn't be covered either, then, as sex is not a necessity.

Sex may not be a necessity, but birth control is a massive cost-saver. Having a kid costs us far more--orders of magnitude more--than contraception.

Contraception is a planned expense. You do accidentally walk into the street and get run over. You don't accidentally fall into bed, have sex and get someone pregnant. Insurance is for expenses that arise because of accidents. Conception after coitus is an "accident" only if you're using contraception which fails. State-subsidised contraception is not a form of insurance. The premise of state-subsidised contraception is that it is --to use your words--a "massive cost-saver." So it's a funny thing for it to be described as part of a state mandated insurance program, because it's clearly not.

[Al B. Sure!]

Besides, condoms are like 35 cents. Cheaper alternatives to birth control pills exist.

[Zevico]

For American whites to squeal about how terribly racist it is for those horrible civil rights leaders to actually say bad things about white people, is absolutely laughable. Wounds run deep.

You know, that's the second racist remark you've made in this thread. You've now attributed responsibility for black supremacism to "whites." Which, of course, presumes the existence of white identity and imposes it onto people because of their skin colour rather than the content of their character. Remember that famous speech about judging people by the content of their character rather than their skin colour? Martin Luther what's-his-name?

In your view it doesn't matter if you march for justice against segregation or not: according to you, if you're white, you're fair game. If you want to assign people identities and attribute collective guilt onto people simply because of their skin colour and justify race riots against people because of their skin colour, you're a racist.

Not only that, the irony is that you're the one engaging in a pure, comic book morality style fantasy. Because Al Sharpton was never a civil rights leader. He was born in the the mid-50's, grew up in the 60's-70's. He became a "leader" in the 80's-90's. Crown Heights took place in the 90's. 3 decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

The purpose of this riot was to kill Jews. It succeeded. It had no other purpose whatsover. And in 1995 he called the owner of a store in a notionally "black" neighbourhood a "white interloper." Well, the store got burned down. I guess Sharpton won again. What a victory for civil rights that was.

Sharpton wasn't in the French Underground; he wasn't fighting some underground battle for justice. He was a free citizen who was perfectly able to do as he wished. And he did.

You're the one who's recast Al Sharpton's role as analogous to that of a member of the French Resistance; clearly he never participated in any kind of underground activities against a white supremacist government. To the contrary: he was the beneficiary of a peaceful civil rights movement that overturned decades (centuries, really) of white supremacist policy in the South.

Let's review:
(a) Sharpton called on Jews to fight him. Thereafter, a race riot broke out. In the 1990's.
(b) Sharpton described the owner of a store as a "white interloper" in a black neighbourhood. The store got burned down. In the 1990's.
(c) The Obama administration has endorsed Sharpton as a friend and partner.
(d) The New Black Panthers were founded in 1989. Not exactly the era of Jim Crow. Since that time they've put a bounty on a man's head, engaged in and been found guilty of voter intimidation, and marched with President Obama with his knowledge and apparent consent. Also, having been found guilty of voter intimidation after the case was pursued by DOJ officials hired during the Bush era, the Obama Administration chose to withdraw the case rather than press for the imposition of a penalty--such as an injunction, for instance--preventing the Panthers from engaging in such conduct in future. The DOJ officials who did that were promoted by the Administration. The DOJ officials who did that had refused to participate in the running of the case earlier because they thought it was morally wrong to enforce voter intimidation laws against black people. And that attorney resigned and wrote a book about it: J Christian Adams' Injustice.

Questions:
(1) Is Sharpton a black supremacist?
(2) If yes to (1), is the Obama administration wrong for endorsing him?
(3) Is the New Black Panther party a black supremacist organisation?
(4) Was Obama's choice to march with the NBLP, notwithstanding their black supremacist status, and say nothing in response to their purported endorsement of his candidacy for presidency morally wrong?
(5) The Obama DOJ withdrew a case against a black supremacist organisation that engaged in voter intimidation after they were found guilty. The Obama DOJ did that to prevent the organisation from being subjected to court penalties or orders. Was the Obama DOJ in the wrong?

[Al B. Sure!]

Anyway, CNN finally mentioned the Daniel Adkins case.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[Dinner]

That case, Daniel Adkins, shows why concealed carry permits should be damn hard to get. Other wise you have wannabe vigilantes running around thinking they have a license to kill anyone they don't like.

[kentonio]

You know, that's the second racist remark you've made in this thread. You've now attributed responsibility for black supremacism to "whites." Which, of course, presumes the existence of white identity and imposes it onto people because of their skin colour rather than the content of their character. Remember that famous speech about judging people by the content of their character rather than their skin colour? Martin Luther what's-his-name?

As you're one of the more racist posters on this board, being accused of the same by you is rather humerous. The idea that white supremacism has not given rise to vast amounts of anger and resentment is pretty ****ing stupid to be quite honest. It's also disingenuous as it's the same mealy mouthed crap that has been used by people for a long time to plaster over previous and current discrimination. You're basically telling blacks that they have no right to be angry or hold resentment about the treatment they received (and often continue to receive) because if they want to be treated equally and fairly they should rise above it all and be the better person. In other words swallow generations of pain and suffering so that white folks can feel better about themselves.

In your view it doesn't matter if you march for justice against segregation or not: according to you, if you're white, you're fair game. If you want to assign people identities and attribute collective guilt onto people simply because of their skin colour and justify race riots against people because of their skin colour, you're a racist.

Don't tell me what my view is, you simpleminded idiot. There's a difference between accepting that oppression carries long reaching consequences, and considering that somehow desirable.

Not only that, the irony is that you're the one engaging in a pure, comic book morality style fantasy. Because Al Sharpton was never a civil rights leader. He was born in the the mid-50's, grew up in the 60's-70's. He became a "leader" in the 80's-90's. Crown Heights took place in the 90's. 3 decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

In 1969, Sharpton was appointed by Jesse Jackson as youth director of Operation Breadbasket, a group that focused on the promotion of new and better jobs for African-Americans.

The purpose of this riot was to kill Jews. It succeeded. It had no other purpose whatsover.

Riots rarely do have a purpose you ****, they're generally just a result of swelling anger amongst a population about perceived mistreatment. Which was the case here.

Sharpton wasn't in the French Underground; he wasn't fighting some underground battle for justice. He was a free citizen who was perfectly able to do as he wished. And he did.

Civil rights wasn't an underground battle for justice? You really do beggar belief sometimes.

Oh and for goodness sake, get over yourself about the bloody New Black Panthers. They're a tiny, insignificant radical splinter group who you've only ever heard of because FOX and the like realized they would make a great scare group to stir up some more racial discontent.

As of 2009, the NBPP claimed a few thousand members organized in 45 chapters, while independent estimates by the Anti-Defamation League suggest that the group is "much smaller"