Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes him a less reputable spokesman. To the same extent that the new black panthers are less reputable spokespeople. So they are less relevant. Common sense dude.
Sam, your'e just not getting it, what can be done to help you???
Deal. The guys in the OP are pieces of **** and should be charged with a hate crime. To not do so would be a miscarriage of justice and would indicate an obvious double standard.
Sam, your'e just not getting it, what can be done to help you???
I get it perfectly. You can't equate the leader of a fringe group to a guy that's on the mainstream media on a regular basis. This is common sense.
For example, George Bush saying he hates black people would be much more of an national issue than David Duke saying so, since George Bush is a much more reputable individual.
I never wrote "there are no white people that present themselves as spokespeople for white people". You are misquoting because your argument has been deflated.
I can't say I blame you, though.
Is there a number of times in one day you can fail to come off as clueless???..
NO ONE ever atributted that statement to you!!!...oh jeezzuss!!
SamBarrow
Senior Member
befriend
Status: "Liberalism - Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory." (set 13 days ago) Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DC
578 posts, read 46,087 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmark
When was the last "white" spokesman that you heard going before the public and denouncing any actions of white people doing bad things simply because the people were white???..
When did the last "white" spokesman exist? You don't see any white people come out and defend white criminals on the basis of race.
Sam Barrow made the comment that you don't see white people coming out, etc.
I get it perfectly. You can't equate the leader of a fringe group to a guy that's on the mainstream media on a regular basis. This is common sense.
For example, George Bush saying he hates black people would be much more of an national issue than David Duke saying so, since George Bush is a much more reputable individual.
Again, you want to dismiss the common definition of what a spokesman is in order to push an agenda...it just won't work!!!
Is there a number of times in one day you can fail to come off as clueless???..
NO ONE ever atributted that statement to you!!!...oh jeezzuss!!
SamBarrow
Senior Member
befriend
Status: "Liberalism - Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory." (set 13 days ago) Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DC
578 posts, read 46,087 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmark
When was the last "white" spokesman that you heard going before the public and denouncing any actions of white people doing bad things simply because the people were white???..
When did the last "white" spokesman exist? You don't see any white people come out and defend white criminals on the basis of race.
Sam Barrow made the comment that you don't see white people coming out, etc.
Do try to keep up!!!
Well I'll give you that. I made a generalization that was false. There are white spokespeople, however the people who speak solely on behalf of the white race are much less reputable than the people who speak solely on behalf of the black race.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson about as much of "representatives" of Black Americans as David Duke and Rush Limbaugh are "representatives" of White Americans.
David Duke? Is that guy even alive? Is this 1991?
MAYBE you can say Rush; that at least is closer.
If, God forbid, a black person is found lynched tonight who do you think will be presented front and center on the five nationally televised morning shows tomorrow?
If the races were reversed in this scenario, however, it probably wouldn't even make the news but if it did you would NOT see the same old self-appointed "Professional Communicator of White Indignation" that you see on the TV news with each racial incident. There are none.
Again, you want to dismiss the common definition of what a spokesman is in order to push an agenda...it just won't work!!!
Okay, they are technically spokespeople, but they aren't nearly as relevant. Happy? I think you know exactly what I meant but you want to try to tear apart my argument based on bad choice of words.
No problem, the only problem I have is the number of people who assert that as a culture we black people routinely shield the actions of black criminals.
No problem, the only problem I have is the number of people who assert that as a culture we black people routinely shield the actions of black criminals.
I know that most black people don't, but a few of those so called "leaders" like the ones mentioned definitely do and I think it's disgusting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
