Al Sharpton and Cornel West go at it (Congress, racist, Brown)

[fitzy24]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Big news! Two blacks disagree about something. How profound.

Is it similarly newsworthy that Savage and Hannity can't stand each other?

Tell me about it. It's funny cons get excited when 2 blacks disagree on a topic. They can't wait to run here and post about it. Do they think these two won't speak to each other anymore? LOL...they probably went out for a drink afterwards.

[fitzy24]

Originally Posted by highcotton
Stupid, idiotic fools have elected scumbag Al Sharpton...just like they have elected scumbag Obama

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Al Sharpton holds no public office, so no one elected him.


Why are you so mad that a majority of the nation disagrees with you ? Calling other people stupid just makes you look childish.

...and stupid himself.

[wutitiz]

couple of clowns. If libs wanted to put forth some thoughtful black leaders, there is no shortage of them. e.g. Randall Kennedy.
Booknotes :: Watch

But they don't; instead they give us Sharpton and West.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

couple of clowns. If libs wanted to put forth some thoughtful black leaders, there is no shortage of them. e.g. Randall Kennedy.
Booknotes :: Watch

But they don't; instead they give us Sharpton and West.

Again, neither of the men you mentioned were elected by their piers, we didnt put forth anything.

as for your argument about Randall Kennedy, I dont know him, but if he is really a Liberal then it doesnt really matter now does it, you would dislike him anyways.

-------Update----

yea, you would hate him http://www.theroot.com/views/profess...d-tavis-smiley

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

What you ask is an impossibility. Only one person gets a chance to deal with a unique set of circumstance as President of the United States. No four years are the same or have ever been the same. One cannot say that Obama would have done better than Bush, had Obama been the President during the term of Bush. All one can do is extrapolate and speculate.....but no one can prove anything.

My point is that a large segment of white America has conditional support for Obama and one of those conditions is that he not show favoritism towards blacks. Indeed, Obama became the darling when he broke paths with the traditional civil rights rhetoric and background of most black politicians up until that time. What white America does is that it has the power to control the direction things go by who it is willing to elevate and support within the system. If one wants to rise to the top in this system, which is dominated by the white majority and their even greater money, you have to appeal to them and not threaten them. Hence, Obama has had to walk on egg shells to avoid the appearance of favoritism or continuing, if not championing, the black struggle for equality with the power of the presidency. A large percentage of whites feared that what goes around comes back around and that a black person could use the power to favor blacks like whites have used it to favor whites. Thus, Obama has essentially been neutered in that regards and may have been instructed by his team to overcompensate away from such appearances to leave no misinterpretations.

I do not feel that Hilary would have to have walked on such egg shells because she is not black and whites do not naturally feel that she might want to "Pay back" white folks for what they historically have done to blacks. This is why she could speak out in favor of black causes and attend those state of black America conferences hosted by Tavis Smiley and the like....WHICH OBAMA DID NOT DO!!

In regards to the question about jobs....I do not know what the answer is. I do not know of illegal immigration negatively impacts jobs or not. What I do know is the Hilary answers showed that she was trying to win the black vote....and Obama answer did not. I mean, lets not pretend that Obama is above politics and telling certain people what they want to hear....because he is not. Hilary played to the people whose vote he was trying to get and Obama played to the peoples whose vote he was trying to get. As the old saying goes "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free". Obama had the black vote locked up early due to the historical precedence plus and the fact that he was viable and a democrat.

Your other comment makes it seem as if Hillary had set forth some plan for Black people in America, that is why i asked the question. Based on your response, it seems she never did, so i return to my original premise. Your entire argument is based on him not being vocal enough. And the fact that you just said you have no idea what Hillary would have done negates this entire conversation.

You even make the argument that Hillary was able to go to Tavis' event while Barack wasnt. Do i need to Remind you that there is a big difference between being Secretary of State and President ? The President does not have time to go to events like that. It isnt a black thing. And even if he did have time, I dont think he would go to an event held by someone who openly campaigned against him and continued to attack him.

The Bold about Hillary and Barack's answers is not what you "know" it is what you believe. Your opinion is not fact,but you seem to be touting it as if it is . And just so you know, Hillary won the Hispanic vote in the
Primaries with 63%, she won every state with a Latino population greater than 10%(excluding Illinois and Colorado).

[florida.bob]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Classic!!!!!!!!!!Al Sharpton has been a let down. He's nothing but a hack for the DNC as of late.


AL SHARPTON AND CORNEL WEST GO AT IT OVER OBAMA! - YouTube

Both are very excessive.

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

couple of clowns. If libs wanted to put forth some thoughtful black leaders, there is no shortage of them. e.g. Randall Kennedy.
Booknotes :: Watch

But they don't; instead they give us Sharpton and West.

Your saying Cornel West isn't thoughtful? Really?

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

There are a couple of Problems with what you just said.

1. You never showed how Hillary would have did more than Barack has.

2. The question you used as an example is an invalid question for 2 reasons.

Every major study done by a reputable group whether it be a major university or a Business Organization shows that immigration(legal or illegal) does not affect jobs negatively. The person who asked that question did so based on a misconception.

The second part is President Obama has deported more illegals than the last 2 Presidents combined.

And no, it is not obvious that he was trying to win the latino vote based on the answer to that question, that is your opinion.

Also, can you show some examples of where he threw anyone under the bus ???

Dont get me wrong, you have every right to your opinion, i just dont see where you are coming from. Your argument just seems to be " he wasnt vocal enough so that means he was actually against us"

Nobody knows what Clinton would have done differently, but leftist leadership such as the CBC would have felt more comfortable criticizing her. I remember Rep. Emanuel Cleaver saying there would be a march on DC because of black joblessness if Obama weren't the prez.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your other comment makes it seem as if Hillary had set forth some plan for Black people in America, that is why i asked the question. Based on your response, it seems she never did, so i return to my original premise. Your entire argument is based on him not being vocal enough. And the fact that you just said you have no idea what Hillary would have done negates this entire conversation.

She DID have a plan....and that was to say things to EARN the black vote...or at least show respect for it, so she could win the Democratic primary in 2008. The black vote was needed for her victory and she knew she had to earn it given there was a charismatic black candidate in then Senator Obama. Just so you know, I was never a fan of Hilary Clinton. She, to me, is no Bill Clinton in regards to a black agenda.

My point is not negated because the essence of my point is that she DEMONSTRATED a greater respect for the black vote than did Obama. She did not chastise. Thus, with greater respect comes the probability of greater leverage for black people to get the office to at least address some of the pressing concerns of the black community. The republicans do not respect the black vote or have needed it thus, blacks have no leverage to get them to address black concerns. Obama, and or his handlers, made a calculation that he did not need to pander or play to the black electorate, because many were already on board with support, due to the historical precedent and significance. also, the black electorate made the calculation that it was better that HE NOT appear to be championing our historical issues and grievances because whites would not put him into office if he did (which is an assumption that I totally agree with). If Obama had come out and said he would address issues like higher rates of black unemployment, poverty, discrimination and other such issues, he would have been toast.

Thus, I am not faulting Obama, I am faulting what the black electorate GAVE UP to get Obama in the white house. We would not have given those things up for Hilary, regardless of what Hilary ultimately would have or have not done for blacks. We would have continued to speak TRUTH to power concerning our plight of inequality......and America would not have seen her election as EVIDENCE that RACE IS NOT AN ISSUE and hence.....the black struggle and claims of race being an impediment is just an EXCUSE.
I am sure you have heard it enough time, that when racism is mentioned how people retort with "This nation elected a black president....how can it be racist".

Hence, we no longer ask for anything and to protect Obama, we have rationalized that we should not longer be asking things or expecting things from the Presidency, something we never rationalized before, because no president is the president of JUST BLACK AMERICA. Our legitimate struggle has been made illegitimate by a "post racial" mantra that gives the enemies of black people are argument to disprove that that such enemies actually exist and are impediments to black progress....none of which would be true if Hilary won the Democratic Primary.

You even make the argument that Hillary was able to go to Tavis' event while Barack wasnt. Do i need to Remind you that there is a big difference between being Secretary of State and President ? The President does not have time to go to events like that. It isnt a black thing. And even if he did have time, I dont think he would go to an event held by someone who openly campaigned against him and continued to attack him.

I was talking about in 2007-2008 Democratic Primaries. Not Post Obama winning the election.

The Bold about Hillary and Barack's answers is not what you "know" it is what you believe. Your opinion is not fact,but you seem to be touting it as if it is . And just so you know, Hillary won the Hispanic vote in the
Primaries with 63%, she won every state with a Latino population greater than 10%(excluding Illinois and Colorado).

That is because Hispanics were already with the Clinton's, like blacks originally were. They received no symbolic boost from the first black president and hence did not jump ship for symbolism for the symbolism did not benefit them.

If you ask me....black folk played themselves....or got played....with Obama. He has done much of what Bush has done.

[AeroGuyDC]

I'll always maintain that a media outlet who has to rely on an imbecile like Al Sharpton to fill a timeslot is a morally corrupt, and failed, entity. Which in my view speaks volumes about liberals and liberalism as a whole.