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.
Here we go again. Sharpton never said anything about race.
I don't see where race has anything to do with it.
Oh, you don't? Sharpton publicly stated that his organization, the Harlem-based "National Action Network", was considering on marching at the DNC. The mission statement of the NAN is:
National Action Network (NAN) is one of the leading Civil Rights organizations in the nation, with numerous local chapters around the country. NAN works within the spirit and tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote a modern Civil Rights agenda that includes one standard of just and decency for all people regardless of race, social justice for communities, and the improvement of race relations.
Likewise, Julian Bond's organization, the NAACP, has a self-described goal of:
Quote:
The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.
So if this squabble has NOTHING to do with race, why are these two organizations getting involved? Given the history and their self-described goals of these organizations, it seems that they wouldn't be making public statements or planning marches unless they believed race was an issue. Race must be an issue, whether these organizations agree or not.
In my opinion, the fact that they disagree indicates that each side supports a different candidate, and this fiasco exposes that they'll use whatever means necessary to advance their political agenda, whether it has something to do with discrimination or not.
Last edited by anonymous; 02-18-2008 at 10:08 AM..
So if this squabble has NOTHING to do with race, why are these two organizations getting involved? Given the history and their self-described goals of these organizations, it seems that they wouldn't be making public statements or planning marches unless they believed race was an issue. The fact that the two organizations disagree is irrelevant to whether or not race is involved
Silly argument. Sharpton and Bond are both Democrats, that's why they should be involved with the delegate issue. The more you guys racialize this issue, the more you expose your racist preconceptions. If you don't wanted to be labeled racist, then stop projecting your racist interpretations on news articles that don't even have any racial significance.
Silly argument. Sharpton and Bond are both Democrats, that's why they should be involved with the delegate issue. The more you guys racialize this issue, the more you expose your racist preconceptions. If you don't wanted to be labeled racist, then stop projecting your racist interpretations over news articles than don't even have any racial significance.
Yes, yes..we get it. "Us guys" who oppose Obama and seek to rationally interpret facts and how they pertain to the current situation are all racists.
Thank you for yet another intelligent and unbiased interpretation of the situation.
Silly argument. Sharpton and Bond are both Democrats, that's why they should be involved with the delegate issue.
Sharpton said his Harlem-based National Action Network is considering a march on DNC headquarters. In this case, Sharpton is not acting as an individual, he is acting as the leader of a large race-based organization.
I don't know the context of Julian Bond's statements, perhaps he was speaking as an individual. However, being the leader of the NAACP, he no longer has the luxury of having public opinions that are strictly personal.
Quote:
The more you guys racialize this issue, the more you expose your racist preconceptions. If you don't wanted to be labeled racist, then stop projecting your racist interpretations over news articles than don't even have any racial significance.
That's funny, it sounds sort of like extortion.
Sort of like "If you don't start agreeing with me, I'll publicly label you a racist."
Sort of like "If you don't start agreeing with me, I'll publicly label you a racist."
Isn't that a common tactic of Sharpton?
Nope, that's what you have boxed yourself into by arguing the way you do. This thread is exhibit A for that. Original poster sees racism in an article about two black Democrats disagreeing over the seating of delegates. She claims that the actions of Sharpton were meant to stir up racial controversy. Well, that's not what the article was about. It was about two Democrats who just happen to be black having a disagreement. Where was the racial provocation in that? But if you insist that this story has racist implications, then that's your problem. That reinforces the belief that you see the world through racist eyes.
Nope, that's what you have boxed yourself into by arguing the way you do. This thread is exhibit A for that. Original poster sees racism in an article about two black Democrats disagreeing over the seating of delegates. She claims that the actions of Sharpton were meant to stir up racial controversy. Well, that's not what the article was about. It was about two Democrats who just happen to be black having a disagreement. Where was the racial provocation in that? But if you insist that this story has racist implications, then that's your problem. That reinforces the belief that you see the world through racist eyes.
Why do you label SOMEBODY as a racist in every post you make? Can you please explain? Inquiring minds want to know.
Nope, that's what you have boxed yourself into by arguing the way you do. This thread is exhibit A for that. Original poster sees racism in an article about two black Democrats disagreeing over the seating of delegates. She claims that the actions of Sharpton were meant to stir up racial controversy. Well, that's not what the article was about. It was about two Democrats who just happen to be black having a disagreement. Where was the racial provocation in that? But if you insist that this story has racist implications, then that's your problem. That reinforces the belief that you see the world through racist eyes.
You are conveniently ignoring the crux of my argument, and focusing on questioning my credibility as a poster.
I'm not interested in your ad hominem attacks. I want you to address the points I made, which I actually repeated in both posts.
I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Once you have that taken cared of, come back here and we can talk again.
When labeling someone as a racist fails, there's always the Obama supporter fallback: Labeling them as uneducated. Would you care to answer the OP's questions as well as mine?
Why do you label somebody as uneducated or a racist in EVERY post you make? Are you having difficulty understanding direct questions?
This is an intramural fight among Democrats. If scare tactics are being used it's being done by Democrats against Democrats. Leave the Republicans out of this. Recall the tide turned Obama's way when Clinton's surrogates, chief among whom was husband Bill, began playing the race card. The Republicans have not said a word about race in their primaries.
Thank you!
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.
Thank you!
