A headline for an Ezra Klein piece that really should have the second and third words reversed. It's a good question, but Ezra only poses as capable of answering it. I can think of 10 other answers to the question, but I'm writing this on an iPad.
ADDED: I've returned to my desktop, as you can see by the addition of tags, so I feel I should make good on my assertion that I have 10 other answers. I'll publish them as I proceed, beginning with one that is a tag.
1. Obama is bland. It's a tag on this blog that I've been using since April 21, 2009: "Yes. As in his campaign, Obama is very bland. For some reason — possibly vaguely racist — Americans liked the bland. But at some point, bland is not what you want." I have 55 posts with that tag. His fans may not want to believe it, but I've been observing it all along, and it's part of why I voted for him in 2008. I don't like demagogues.
2. Ezra speaks of Obama's 2008 "Race Speech" as the sort of speech that his opponents long for, but go back and read it. It's studded with lines like "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons," and "Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity...." We may remember that speech as extremely powerful, but it was assurance of Obama's moderation. Supporters want what they feel they got in the past but their memory of the past is distorted.
3. The "Race Speech" was crucial to Obama's 2008 campaign. A lot of work went into crafting that speech: "... Obama dictated a lengthy draft of this speech to [Jon] Favreau, who edited the speech the next day. Obama stayed up until 3:00 a.m. Sunday night working on the speech, and continued to work on it Monday and in the early hours of Tuesday." Favreau isn't there anymore, and I don't think Obama has the time or motivation to put that much personal effort into a speech about Ferguson.
4. The Jeremiah Wright crisis in 2008 required a direct, decisive response from the candidate. There was no option of standing back and seeing whether things might work out all right without his intrusion and interference. But when he has the option to lead from behind, that's his style.
5. Obama doesn't want a replay of the Skip Gates fiasco, where he blurted out that the police "acted stupidly," when he didn't really know the the facts, and it turned out that what the police did was not stupid at all. In the case of the Ferguson incident, we don't know the facts. Today, I'm seeing: "Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson." (Ezra Klein brings up Skip Gates, but doesn't mention that Obama got the facts wrong because he spoke too soon, only that "the White House no longer believes Obama can bridge divides.")
6. Michael Brown was no Trayvon Martin. Obama said "Trayvon could have been my son." And "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." But he can't (won't) say that about Brown. Yes, he could talk more generally about how racial profiling — real or feared — makes people feel and that's what the protests in Ferguson express and that matters even if Michael Brown strong-armed a shopkeeper and even if he threatened the police officer who killed him. But that's not the speech Obama supporters supposedly want. There is no cherubic boy with Skittles and iced tea. There's a very large, adult man with stolen cigars. It's harder to say deeply empathic things about Brown. And Obama cannot make that personal I-am-Trayvon kind of statement.
7. Obama must help his party in the Fall elections. I think this is the key graphic, the fight for the U.S. Senate. The toss-up states are Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisana, Michigan, and North Carolina. Whatever Obama says now must be calibrated for the effect in these states. Will emotive racial politics carry the Democratic Party through to November? Perhaps that seems like a risky bet.
8. Obama's tired.
9. "On December 11, 2006, I quoted Obama saying: 'I think to some degree I’ve become a shorthand or symbol or stand-in for a spirit....' I liked him for saying that. It was honest. I thought he'd have become something specific, and I'm amused to see that I added: 'Wouldn't it be funny if he didn't?'" I wrote that on February 18, 2008 in a post titled "Why I'm voting for Obama in the Wisconsin primary." It must get wearisome being America's shorthand or symbol or stand-in for so long, wearisome for all of us, and he knows it. Maybe not speaking is the best expression at this point in our long journey.
10. A truly brilliant speech about Ferguson — if he had the will and the time to craft the perfect statement — would not be what his supporters want, but something more difficult, challenging, and surprising.
August 19, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
292 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 292 of 292Rev's Rambo in his mind. In his universe no one ever dies from being beaten to death.
I'm amused by the idea that "Rambo" is the guy who *isn't* in favor of spraying bullets into people. :)
Look, the fear of death has to be rational in order for a homicide to be self-defense. "He could, hypothetically, kill me" is not a rational fear of death. In the Martin case, Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the concrete. That's a rational fear of death. "That's a big guy, and even though I have a taser and pepper spray and a baton and hand-to-hand combat training and a car with doors that lock, I'd better plug him from thirty feet away because he MIGHT beat me to death" is not rational.
Let me offer you a counter-example. I'm sure you've seen the photo of the police sniper aiming at the crowd of protesters. If one of those protesters had said "holy shit, he's pointing a gun at me", pulled out a gun, and shot the cop, would that have been murder? Certainly a sniper rifle aimed at you is a hell of a lot more threatening than a 300 pound guy running at you!
Or what about the cops firing tear gas into crowds? People can be and have been killed by being struck by tear gas canisters. Would it have been murder if the crown had gunned down those cops?
Think about it. Get out of the mindset that tells you "police killings are always fine until decisively proven otherwise".
I think Brown and his buddy were walking in the middle of a street and the cop stopped to get them off the street.. what I heard on Greta. So why didn't Brown just walk to the sidewalk of his own volition when the cop stopped?
What seems to be the most likely (not legally provable, but most likely) explanation, based on what we think we know at this point?
It would appear to be that Brown started the altercation with the officer in the car; the first shot may have been fired at that point, but if it was, the gun apparently wasn't aimed at Brown, and apparently he was not wounded by it, because there were no powder burns. Brown ran away, Wilson pursued him. Brown turned and charged the officer. At least most of the shots appeared to have come during the "charging phase." They were definitely not fired while Brown was running away. Possibility that near the end, Brown raised his arms, and the last shot (or two) may have occurred at this point.
Normal reaction time is about two seconds - assuming that Wilson felt threatened by the charging Brown, it is very possible that he would not be able to react in time to stop the "already in motion" trigger pull(s). This assumes that the shots came in rapid succession.
That would seem to be a more likely scenario than that Wilson shot a non-threatening individual who was trying to surrender.
He can't give the speech that the protesters want because they don't want to follow the process. They want mob justice. Now. No president is therefore going to give them a speech that will satisfy them. The cop deserve a fair trial. Those pushing for his lynching aren't really looking for that.
Show some empathy for an officer’s safety concerns. Don’t make our job more difficult than it already is.
This is a good example of what's wrong with the police mindset today.
The officer is being paid to protect the safety OF the person he's talking to. The safety of the officer is the #2 consideration; the safety of the person he's talking to is the #1 consideration.
Obviously police, being self-interested just like the rest of us, don't usually see it that way. But that's what they are being paid to do. That's why the motto is "protect and serve", not "don't give us trouble".
The same rule applies to cops that applies to everyone else: if you think your job is too hard, too dangerous, or just not worth the hassle, quit. The world doesn't owe you anything.
This assumes that the shots came in rapid succession.
I heard 3 secs from a TV guest but don't know if it is accurate.
Looks like the bone around the cops eye was fractured by the blow from the unarmed teenager.
If I had a gun and was hit in the eye by a man 6'4" and 300 pounds, I'd be shooting too.
Garage is now questioning that he suffered a fracture. Is this like when they said George Zimmerman wasn't injured. And also, he has to be one of the first I've herd denying that protesters have thrown Molotov cocktails.
Do you not realize how easy those things would be to disprove if not true? And I suppose no looters actually looted.
What seems to be the most likely (not legally provable, but most likely) explanation, based on what we think we know at this point?
False dichotomy. That your preferred scenario is more likely than your proposed alternative doesn't mean that either scenario happened.
For example, here's another scenario for you, out of countless possibilities: the cop challenges Brown, Brown talks shit at him, the cop puts his hand on his gun -- cops tend to love that macho intimidation bullshit, even though it escalates tensions -- Brown panics, hits the cop and tries to grab the gun. The gun goes off, Brown runs for it. The cop, who by now is good and pissed, fires at the fleeing Brown, hitting him in the arm. Brown stops and wheels around, either to charge back at the cop, to dodge, or whatever. The cop, either angry or afraid, shoots him five more times.
Or, alternately, his first shots miss -- supposedly 10 shots were fired, six hit -- and Brown turn around so he could dodge better.
Both versions qualify as either second degree murder or manslaughter, and both are more plausible than either the "Brown charged a man who had a drawn gun instead of running for it" or "the cop killed a guy for no reason" version.
Revenant said...
you missed the most important sentence that cop wrote which is that he does not yet know that you are a good guy; he is trained to expect the worst so he can save assets around him with quick reaction. If he stopped you and you have not done anything wrong, act that way. He stopped you for a reason and he has the authority to do that -- we, society has given him that authority. Of course they have to discharge their duties with the utmost responsibility but we also have an obligation to do our part.
"The officer is being paid to protect the safety OF the person he's talking to."
No, we're not.
We are being paid to protect the innocent. Let's perform a simple test to see how sill your statement is.
Police Officer A is speaking to Man B. Man B is slicing the throat of Woman C. Woman C falls on the ground dead and Man B moves to Woman D to slice her throat.
And according to you, the Officers job is to protect Man B?
Wake up.
No offense to the other commenters here, but if you honestly think garage will evaluate evidence regarding the shooting then you're dumber than he is (not easy to pull off). I mean, he disputes the existence of Molotovs on the scene, and there are numerous well-attributed pictures of those.
Here's one.
Another.
Well lookie here.
Well what do you know!?
Now, really, if this guy is willing to dispute the veracity of this blindingly-obvious fact why would anyone believe he's worth trying to convince of, well, anything? The correct approach is to point and laugh.
That would seem to be a more likely scenario than that Wilson shot a non-threatening individual who was trying to surrender.
Imagine how hard that would to accept by the people rioting and looting (or the my free speech was impaired, man clowns at the WaPo). That's gonna require a complete about face -- akin to Susan Rice saying that Benghazi wasn't all about a video. Not gonna happen. Too much at stake. But hey if Obama can make that happen, then he'd get my salute. And the thing is, he could make that happen
Revenant wrote :
"The convenience store video is irrelevant. The cop didn't know about it, and "thug" doesn't imply "suicidal"."
He didn't know about it when he said he told them to get off the street. But he realized while he pulled his car over. And then backed up his car to confront them. There either is or isn't an APB. If so, its not unrewsonable to assume he was responding to it. If he's lying the defense should be able to prove it.
"The autopsy results are inconsistent with the police department's original version of the story, which was that the officer was forced to shoot Brown because Brown was going for his gun."
no. you're getting the facts wrong. No one said he was forced to shoot him because he went for his gun. There are two parts to the altercation. First part the cop says he pushed him back Intoto his car then punched him in the face and they fought over the gun. And a shot went off in the squad car. But then Brown and his friend ran and the cop gave chase before telling Brown to freeze. At that point there is no assertion that the cop had to shoot him because he went for his gun. The charge is that he bum rushed him and cop shot in defense. Get it right.
"As one of the hits (to the arm) could have come from any direction, it is not inconsistent with Brown running away -- he gets hit in the arm and spun around, then is hit in the front by the remaining bullets."
Actually some of the witnesses have said he was shot in the head first,then when dead the cop went over and shot him a few more times. So, its not as if those pushing the cop shot him with his arms up are being consistent with the froensics.
Let's look again at Dorian Johnson's account of the shooting:
Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, who was with him when the shooting occurred, gave this account to MSNBC: Johnson said that he and Brown had been walking in the middle of the street when a police officer approached and told them to use the sidewalk. They complied, and the officer began to drive away, but then threw his car into reverse and came back alongside the teens, nearly hitting them. Johnson heard Wilson say something like "What'd you say?", before trying to open his car door, slamming it into Brown. Then the officer reached out and grabbed Brown by the neck with his left hand. The two men struggled briefly, and then Wilson, still in his car, shot Brown once.
The two things in that which just don't ring true to me are Wilson slamming the car door into Brown and then reaching through the window and grabbing Brown by the neck. If they are true, then the cop is a nutcase. But there's no indication thus far that he is one; he has no prior disciplinary record and was even recognized for "extraordinary effort in the line of duty" this past February.
"The officer is being paid to protect the safety OF the person he's talking to."
No, we're not. We are being paid to protect the innocent.
Which all people presumptively are, absence evidence to the contrary -- which the cop in the WaPo article explicitly doesn't have. He's asking us to defer to him because he thinks we MIGHT be guilty. Thanks, but no thanks -- if you want to assume I'm guilty, do it for free. While you're on the clock, respect and empathy has to be two-way.
Let's perform a simple test to see how sill your statement is.
[straw-man scenario snipped for space reasons]
Eric, notice how I said "the person he is talking to"? And how the original scenario involved a cop who didn't know yet if the person he was speaking to was dangerous?
Pointing out that a guy you just saw slit someone's throat isn't innocent is cute and all, in a banal sort of way, but it has nothing to do with the topic of conservation. Unless you're saying that, as a cop, your response to seeing a man kill one person and try to kill another is to say "hey buddy, I've got some questions for you"?
If they are true, then the cop is a nutcase. But there's no indication thus far that he is one; he has no prior disciplinary record and was even recognized for "extraordinary effort in the line of duty" this past February.
It doesn't show that he's a nutcase. Police do things like that all the time. The phrase "contempt of cop" is part of police slang for a reason.
If you mouth off to a cop, a good percentage of them will escalate the situation -- to arrest, to physical violence, whatever -- in response.
"Look, the fear of death has to be rational in order for a homicide to be self-defense."
This is not true.
Revenant has some very odd ideas.
The law has recognized that in analtercation there often is not time for rational reflection.
Lydia said...
---------
and judging by the recreation of the scene on Greta, if the cop reversed his vehicle, the guys would be on his right on the sidewalk.. how did he hit the guy with the car door?
Garage is now questioning that he suffered a fracture
Yep. What do you got?
Good, I'm glad we can agree then that the statement by itself, the cop is paid to protect the person he is talking to, is complete nonsense.
As for respect an empathy being two way, ha! I've been spit on, pushed, screamed at, insulted, almost ran over, and many other things all because of the clothes in was wearing, a uniform. The person didn't know the first thing about me. All they saw was a uniform.
In your world of unicorns and rainbows, your cops can carry giggle machines and lollipops. I live in a dangerous world filled with human traffickers, narcotics smugglers, and illegal aliens. No, when I see you, I assume you're not allowed entry into my country until you prove otherwise.
Sorry bub, that's the law. On the border, the burden of proof is on you. If you can't satisfy me that you have a right to enter our nation, or are a US Citizen, you're going back the way you came. No judge, no jury, no right to a lawyer.
Yes, there are exceptions. Like claims of refugees, etc. But your rights are still limited.
EVERYBODY STOP WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT NOW!
Put you arms up and realize that your arms have a front and back. A more detailed autopsy can distinguish entry and exit wounds in the arms and whether he was facing or fleeing the shots. One or the other "stories" will be excluded.
For my money, some witnesses have stated that Brown was shot in the back. They should be categorically ignored.
Lydia wrote:
"The two things in that which just don't ring true to me are Wilson slamming the car door into Brown and then reaching through the window and grabbing Brown by the neck"
Both stories are consistent that Michael knocked the cop back into the vehicle. Dorians argument is that the cop himself opened the door but because he was so close it n hit Michael and closed on his own. Which sounds a bit far fetched. even moreso is that he was able to grab Michaels neck while in the car. Michael was known as Big Mike becuase he was 6'4". It seems unlikely that he could get a grip around Michaels neck unless Michael was leaning into the car.
and judging by the recreation of the scene on Greta, if the cop reversed his vehicle, the guys would be on his right on the sidewalk.. how did he hit the guy with the car door?
Maybe he opened the passenger door for Brown and invited him in for a side-by-side chat? Maybe the cop wanted Brown to perform fellatio and that's what ticked Brown off. Let's make up stories to fit lies.
It doesn't show that he's a nutcase. Police do things like that all the time. The phrase "contempt of cop" is part of police slang for a reason.
If you mouth off to a cop, a good percentage of them will escalate the situation -- to arrest, to physical violence, whatever -- in response.
Maybe in your circles but not mine.
There seems to be a lot of walking down the middle of the road in Ferguson, Mo. What's up with that?
(and a preemptive "No shit, Sherlock" to the first one who says, "walking down the middle of the road doesn't merit being shot".)
For garage:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/
Note the MRI/CT scan that shows fracture. Now what do YOU got that shows its bullshit?
He's asking us to defer to him because he thinks we MIGHT be guilty.
NO. That is not what he is saying at all. He stopped for a reason and has to deal with this encounter and he needs to know who you are and what is going on -- you cooperate with him. You cooperate giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he was stopping people for no reason, that would be crazy and that would be harassment. Where it gets tricky is when a certain section of the population thinks they are habitually harassed by cops and don't cooperate. People like Holder, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and all their ilk have done things to make it worse, not better.
Revenant wrote:
"cop starts off this story in a car. What the hell is an unarmed guy going to do to someone in a car? Piss on the windshield? If he too scared of the big guy to take him on with a taser, club, or pepper spray, call for backup. How the hell is "pull a gun on him" the proper step?"
according to cop he pushes him back into squad car! then punches him in the face!mthen tries to get his gun which he has presses against his hip before he can get it out of Michaels hands, and a shot is fired in the car.
That is assault, resisting arrest, and even potential attempted murder. And you think he should just stay in the car and not pursue? What?!
Revenant wrote:
If you mouth off to a cop, a good percentage of them will escalate the situation -- to arrest, to physical violence, whatever -- in response.
I don't know about ht violence part. But if you mouth off to the cop when he is trying to question you it could be construe as resisting. I don't see why that wouldn't necessarily up the ante on the interrogation. If you know this, why would you think it would be smart to mouth off to a cop?
Think of this story. Michael is walking down the middle of the street. The cop asks them to get off the street. They tell him to go f himself. If you don't want a cop to escalate the encounter to maybe writing you a ticket maye you shouldn't mouth off to a cop.
'Cat is Out of the Bag, Man' Guy says:
The cat is out of the bag, man! The Blacks don't like the Whites, the Whites don't love the Blacks, no one likes the Hispanics and the Chinese hate everybody! Shit-house rat time, you hear? The cat is out of the bag, man!
Deciding whether or not to mouth off to a cop is a test of your intelligence.
chickelit said...
EVERYBODY STOP WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT NOW!
Put you arms up and realize that your arms have a front and back
Try this: put your arms up above your head, palms facing forward. Note which side of your forearm is the front. Now put them down at your sides, palms facing backward. Now which side of your forearm is the front?
Are you sure that an autopsy can tell the difference between arms-down shot from behind and arms-up shot from in front?
Now in this particular case the cop says, he realized they were suspects so it was more than just them telling him to f himself when he asked them to get off the street.
The shot pattern should be clear.
When you shoot a gun in quick succession, the gun goes up. If the bullets start at the hand and end in the head, it makes sense that the hands were down. If it starts in the head and ends in the hands, well, how the hell does that happen? After being hit in the head, you crumple like a sack of potato's.
Clearly the shot pattern shows his hands were down, and as he shot, the gun got higher and higher and ended in hitting him in the head.
Are you sure that an autopsy can tell the difference between arms-down shot from behind and arms-up shot from in front?
Pretty sure. One reason is that when you run with your arms "down," they aren't extended straight downwards. The arms-in-the air position is a rather unnatural arresting position (pardon the pun). The natural position for the arms running is folded.
To answer your question, ignorance is bliss, yes, forensic science can easily establish via the shot pattern if arms were up or down.
Revenant wrote:
This is a good example of what's wrong with the police mindset today.
The officer is being paid to protect the safety OF the person he's talking to. The safety of the officer is the #2 consideration; the safety of the person he's talking to is the #1 consideration
if you don't treat an encounter with a cop as a reason to mouth off to him it will probably end up being an encounter without incident. Sure the cop has to look out for the safety of the person he's talking to. But if he's stopping them for something routine or otherwise and they start mouthing off he's immediately recognizing that the person in front of him is non cooperative and adversarial.
At the very least, common sense would tell you there are better ways and worse ways to deal with cops who are questioning you.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks for your license and you say "go f yourself" how should the cop view you, and how do you think that interaction is going to go?
When you shoot a gun in quick succession, the gun goes up. If the bullets start at the hand and end in the head, it makes sense that the hands were down.
I was thinking that if he were running towards him his arms would be folded, bringing the arm hole pattern "together" into a tighter precision pattern, instead looking spread up and down the length.
But even if he were shot with his hands raised, that's pretty good shooting to travel up such a narrow and relatively long distance, especially from a cowardly distance of 35 feet.
Revenant,
DO you really think it's more likely that the policeman chased someone and shot them in the back repeatedly? If so, you're dumber than I thought.
I don't give as much credence to the various "accounts" of the cop -- facebook...friends calling in...etc. They paint a convincing alternative to the initial story being destroyed by physical evidence.
"I was thinking that if he were running towards him his arms would be folded"
I doubt he was running and I doubt he was 35 feet away.
More likely, the officer, with one eye still working fine and blood running down his face, tells the guy to stop.
The guy turns around and takes a posture like he did in the convenience store video. The cop probably already has his gun pulled and at the low ready (Seems like accounts say the gun already went off once). The Officer then probably gives commands in a panicky sorta voice, considering his physical condition is unknown and perhaps deteriorating and knowing he is in a dangerous situation.
Instead of complying, the large man begins walking toward the Officer, not obeying his commands, and begins to pick up speed. A few more commands of stop or I'll shoot sort of language, and the Cop beings to fire.
I doubt the very large black man was running at him.
Revenent - ". I'm sure you've seen the photo of the police sniper aiming at the crowd of protesters. If one of those protesters had said "holy shit, he's pointing a gun at me", pulled out a gun, and shot the cop, would that have been murder? Certainly a sniper rifle aimed at you is a hell of a lot more threatening than a 300 pound guy running at you!"
That is about as stupid as you get, Revenent. If you drive to a military base in a war zone, you and your vehicle are "covered" all the way in until ID is affirmed by a machine gun or even more deadly 20mm cannon.
That is not "a hell of a lot more threatening" than an active attack on you already underway. By some 300 pounder who already broke your eye socket and another facial bone turning around to attack you again.
Begins to fire.
Are you sure that an autopsy can tell the difference between arms-down shot from behind and arms-up shot from in front?
Yes. Again, running with you hands down extended is unnatural.
I doubt the very large black man was running at him.
In that scenario, he would still be walking towards him with arms bent. Arms straight down is not likely.
To St George @ 12:19 pm
I live in an Obamaville neighborhood/zip code in south Seattle. I ask my friends (mostly Obama voters) why Obama always skips this supportive neighborhood to visit Medina (where Bill Gates lives) when he comes to Seattle. Everyone know$$ the answer.
I don't get much pleasure from this kind of needling. Mostly it makes me sad. I think Obama could do a lot of preemptive good by visiting mostly black and minority neighborhoods. But he never does.
Revenant said:
"But in reality, if police kick in your door in the dead of night and you kill one of them because you think he's a burglar, you're going to prison for murder."
In this case, the police did not die but the man who shot three officers certainly did not go to jail. And he wasn't even white!
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/36059839.html
"Why Obama won’t give the Ferguson speech his supporters want."
Because he already has the stupid, criminal black vote wrapped up (that's 95% of 13%), and he is concerned about what the stupid, non-criminal white Democrats are thinking (a rather larger group). Duh.
jr565 -- look a little more closely at that image. That's a file photo of an orbital blowout.
There are now two commenters here who thought that picture was an actual image of Wilson. It was a file photo. It says so in fine print, but I think Jim Hoft should be ashamed to have implied that it was evidence of some kind.
Chuck,
"Crack --
The innocent black youth that we're all concerned about...
The threat to black youth that is 10,000 times greater than "the police" ARE OTHER BLACK YOUTHS."
You say that in a way that's comical. Like either I'm supposed to be stunned by the news, or become as fatalistic as you sound, when I live with black people and laugh at you.
Did you ever see the "Self-Destruction" video blacks made in the '80s? If you did, why do you speak as though blacks aren't aware? That video means we've been addressing what whites are just now noticing for over the last 30 years - but you're going to "inform" us? That's hubris.
Is it because whites, in the '80s, were still encouragingly declaring "Rap's not music" - so they wouldn't be aware of what blacks were already talking about?
And doesn't that means whites are tragicly late to an issue, but acting like they're on the cutting edge by walking up to blacks and mentioning it?
How can we not laugh at you? It's like you're offering to teach me this new dance - The Jitterbug.
I mean, you sound stupid bringing it up.
Do you think blacks don't know who's killing us?
Do you think we have to wait for the white man to tell us who's killing us? We can't identify the shooters in our own community - who we usually know?
O.K., let's flip it to reality:
Of course, as you laid it out, just like the police, WHITE SUPREMACY plays no role in black youth's lives, correct?
Whites have controlled this country, from the presidency on down, for the entirety of it's history - until now. And they did it by using violence. Mayhem. Terror. Rape. Theft.
Funny, that whites would put blame for the results on kids with no power to control the conditions in which they live, when whites insisted that - because of the power they, alone, welded - that was the way it should be.
Why are black youths doing these things? Do you know? Please don't include the usual white racist tropes about "animals" and tell me what you think would make human beings, like anyone else, become a threat to everyone - including themselves.
George Wallace wore his hair like Reagan,...
Pookie Number 2,
"Crack's too stupid and dishonest to understand or acknowledge this, but Trayvon wasn't killed because he wasn't an angel, but because he was pounding someone's head into the pavement."
Because blacks should know they aren't allowed to walk the streets,...
"Pookie Number 2's too stupid and dishonest to understand or acknowledge this, but George Zimmerman was told by a police dispatcher not to follow Trayvon Martin."
Man crack, you have to being up that old chest nut? It's been disproved six ways from Sunday.
"[Trayvon] probably wouldn’t have ended up attacking me if I would have stayed home. I know."
- George Zimmerman
Also:
"George Zimmerman is back in the news, once again in his role as a wannabe security officer.
Zimmerman, the ex-neighborhood watch volunteer acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, was spotted by police just after midnight Monday sitting in his pickup with his dog behind a motorcycle and gun shop, Pompano Pat’s, in DeLand, Fla., according to news reports.
Zimmerman told police, who questioned him, that he had permission from the owner, Pat Johnson, to work night security following a recent burglary, the Associated Press reported. But Tuesday, store manager Sam Porter said he had not been hired to do anything of the kind."
Your hero,...
"Brown was a thug, therefore he was suicidal"
Revenant, if that is what you thought I was saying, you are the one with comprehension problems.
I simply pointed out that he made a run at the Asian store clerk too, after he was out of the store he came back in. He was in a rage. If he acted the same way we saw him act just moments before toward the cop, he committed suicide, end of story. You say no rational person would do that, but no rational person would have come back into the store after they had gotten away with what they wanted either.
How did the cop get his eye socket fractured when he just shot that guy running away from a comfortable distance for sport, a la Montgomery Burns?
" The safety of the officer is the #2 "
I get it, Revenant thinks that cops are superhuman saints, each Christ like in their willingness to give their lives for others, even those who are 6'4", 300 pounds, belligerent, and attacking them.
Not sure how we can reason with you from those premises. Nor am I sure where you are going to recruit these cops from. Remember that Superman is a comic book.
" The safety of the officer is the #2 "
I get it, Revenant thinks that cops are superhuman saints, each Christ like in their willingness to give their lives for others, even those who are 6'4", 300 pounds, belligerent, and attacking them.
Not sure how we can reason with you from those premises. Nor am I sure where you are going to recruit these cops from. Remember that Superman is a comic book.
Your hero,...
I'm typing this real slow so Crack can keep up.
You said that Trayvon died because he wasn't an Honor Roll student. That, like most of what you write, is false.
Trayvon died because he was a violent jackass.
George Zimmerman can be a complete clown, and it will not change the fact that Trayvon died because Trayvon was a violent jackass.
Why are black youths doing these things? Do you know? Please don't include the usual white racist tropes about "animals" and tell me what you think would make human beings, like anyone else, become a threat to everyone - including themselves.
Bad leadership from malevolent clowns like Al Sharpton that get rich by telling whiners like you that they shouldn't try because it's all big bad whitey's fault. Real leaders tell people why they need to hear, not what they want to hear. But that wouldn't make Sharpton any money.
(This is where Crack says that blacks will never abandon Al Sharpton, as though that has anything to do with whether they should.)
Who's with me that the best thing for Ferguson is more illegal immigration and competition for the jobs for which they are qualified.
I've always thought Obama's 2008 run was just for practice, that he never expected to win, at least not his first time out.
With his second time it was a matter of pride and not wanting the humiliation of being a one termer. I remember a reporter asking him why he wanted to win reelection so badly and he said he didn't want a new President taking credit for the economic recovery just around the corner. With the latest job numbers, looks like he shouldn't have tried so hard. Perhaps a President Romney could have turned things around and Obama could have taken credit. After all, Bush keeps getting the blame for all things going wrong on Obama's watch, why shouldn't Obama keep getting the credit for things that go right, for say the next ten years.
"In your world of unicorns and rainbows, your cops can carry giggle machines and lollipops. I live in a dangerous world filled with human traffickers, narcotics smugglers, and illegal aliens. No, when I see you, I assume you're not allowed entry into my country until you prove otherwise."
Your own statement indicts you. It's troubling that you see everyone around you as being a dangerous perp of some sort, and disturbing that you equate illegal aliens with narcotics smugglers and human traffickers.
Frankly, it is exactly such a mindset--seeing everyone who is not a cop as a probable lawbreaker, and more likely violent than not--that makes one unfit to be a police officer. Most people just want to go about their business in peace and to be afforded respect and the presumption of innocence. Perhaps a "smart" citizen will meekly obey any orders issued him by a police officer, in order to avoid a hassle, but as purportedly "free" citizens, we do tend to feel insulted and demeaned when officers of the law bark at us and treat us with suspicion, when we're seen first as perps who must demonstrate our innocence rather than as law-abiding citizens. Officers of the law are our servants and not our bosses. It is natural, therefore, that some citizens will automatically react with varying degrees of resistance when approached by officers with aggressive and contemptuous attitudes.
"But when he has the option to lead from behind, that's his style."
My Boy Scout Patrol Leaders' Handbook from 1964 has a chapter on leadership styles. It specifically calls out "leading from behind" as a style that simply will not work. It even has an illustration showing the Patrol Leader who does this sitting on a chair with a crown on his head while his Patrol works like resentful minions in front of him. It touts the correct leadership method as being "leading from in front" and shows a smiling leader full of pep out front looking back at his fellow Patrol members and saying "Come with me!".
A 12-year-old Boy Scout is expected to know more about leadership than the current President of the United States acknowledges knowing.
"Obama must help his party in the Fall elections."
No, he doesn't. He can just watch it all fall to $h!t and blame the horrible GOP and the racist Tea Party movement for conspiring to circumvent the will of the public. It's a lot easier for him and makes it easier for him to justify getting absolutely nothing done in the next two years.
Pookie Number 2,
"You said that Trayvon died because he wasn't an Honor Roll student."
No, moron, I've been arguing the exact opposite:
No one has to be anything to get killed by whites. You can be a thug, you can be a choir boy, a boy scout, a guy with a family, a pot smoker, a drunk - it really doesn't matter.
Which is why whites' bullshit "he was on his way to get 'drank'" nonsense IS nonsense.
Whether Michael Brown was a student going to his grandmother's, or had just left the theft of a lousy box of cigars, the only point that matters is, whites can't seem to grasp that no one - NO ONE - should be dead for that.
And that goes double for Trayvon,...
mtrobertsattorney said:
"Will there ever come a time when those who voted for Obama will apologize to those who saw though this guy from the beginning and are not at all surprised how things turned out?"
Could this be an opportunity for reparations?
I'll take $250,000. For proof I saw through the sham-wow president I submit my time spent in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania working for John McCain. By the way, I worked a phone next to a woman whose family had escaped East Germany, only to take up residence in Chile, where they escaped again when Allende came to power, came here and as she put it, "I recognize the communist in Obama so where do we go from here?"
Pookie Number 2,
Why are black youths doing these things?
"Bad leadership from malevolent clowns like Al Sharpton that get rich by telling whiners like you that they shouldn't try because it's all big bad whitey's fault."
So the problem is Al Sharpton isn't giving out advice to blacks on how best to cope with being pushed into ghettos and projects by whites?
And not that whites are the kind of people who did that - and it's documented fact they would do it again and again and again - to others?
"Real leaders tell people why they need to hear, not what they want to hear."
Why? It's a crime. Al Sharpton knows that and says it often.
"But that wouldn't make Sharpton any money."
I like it when whites complain about blacks making money now. it totally sinks any suggestion whites don't still wish for slavery,...
Pookie Number 2,
(This is where Crack says that blacks will never abandon Al Sharpton, as though that has anything to do with whether they should.)
I like that whites even have the whole relationship backwards:
Al Sharpton is a REVEREND - he's there for us - not the other way around.
Didn't you see the reception he and Jesse got in St. Louis?
You don't understand anything going on, yet insist on trying to talk authoritatively, like anybody should be listening to you.
Just the kind of behavior that blacks don't like,...
tim in vermont,
"Who's with me that the best thing for Ferguson is more illegal immigration and competition for the jobs for which they are qualified."
You can answer this, I'm sure:
Do white people actually get together and say "This is the argument we've developed to signal our hypocrisy and racism" or is it like birds, and running herd behavior, where everybody just does some crazy turn, spinning on a dime, so everyone knows they've lost it?
I mean, if you're the children of immigrants - and the point is to grow America's expanding pie of prosperity filled from freedom, democracy, and capitalism - then what are you complaining about?
And - an even better question - if a white racist has always indicated they don't care about black's interests, what makes them think we'll buy they care, now that Mexicans have entered the picture?
They're RACISTS for Christ's sake,...
Robert Cook,
"Your own statement indicts you. It's troubling that you see everyone around you as being a dangerous perp of some sort, and disturbing that you equate illegal aliens with narcotics smugglers and human traffickers."
They can't help it - they're completely looped, on their own brain drugs, and don't know it. Check this out:
"Cop Pens Touching Op-Ed: Do Everything I Say and I Won't Kill You"
Come on, do you think whites could've developed the American way of slavery, without being killer nutcases?
So much stupid in Crack's latest brain-fart, and so little time.
So the problem is Al Sharpton isn't giving out advice to blacks on how best to cope with being pushed into ghettos and projects by whites?
Well, yes. The problem is exactly that - African Americans face real challenges, and Al Sharpton and his race-hustling buddies won't actually provide leadership or guidance that will help them improve their lives. He's too busy taking care of himself. And if he has to go through the motions of pretending to care when the cameras are rolling, well, that's what con-men do. And his marks are desperate to be fleeced, so it's even easier than normal.
I like it when whites complain about blacks making money now.
Because, yet again, you're just too stupid to understand simple English. I am thrilled when blacks make money in some productive fashion, and only wish more would follow. When Al Sharpton makes money by fostering hatred among ignorant jackasses like Crack Emcee (who's correctly observed that there's been a violence problem since the 80s, but isn't clever enough to see that all of the Sharptonian film-flam since then has helped no-one but himself), then that's bad.
Al Sharpton is a REVEREND.
Al Sharpton is a black Elmer Gantry who plays you for the stupid, credulous, and self-destructive fool you are.
You don't understand anything going on, yet insist on trying to talk authoritatively, like anybody should be listening to you.
Actually, what's going on is easy to understand - although not necessarily for a hate-suffused stupid asshole like yourself. But it takes effort and self-reflection, and you're unwilling and incapable of that, and you're happy to pay the price of thousands of dead young black males every year instead.
A shame, but not a surprise.
Just the kind of behavior that blacks don't like
To paraphrase some (Israeli, I think) politician, blacks will see progress when their love for their children exceeds their hatred for being told how they can improve their lives. By white people. Who aren't slaughtering themselves, and therefore have gotten something right.
the American way of slavery,
Wait, there were non-American "ways of slavery?" That could possibly be compared to the "American way?" America wasn't the only nation to have slavery? My mind is blown!
Also, just to throw this out there, but isn't judging people today by the ideas or conditions of their distant ancestors more or less what actual racist organizations (KKK, etc) do? Maybe it's only cool when it's done to "whites" though, huh KKKrack?
YESTERDAY:
The Crack Emcee,
"It's a good question,..."
Answered by two words:
White supremacy.
TODAY:
The white power structure was so thoroughly insulated that it couldn’t even begin to pretend it was otherwise. It couldn’t even begin to conceive of what that would look like.
But neither can the rest of America, really. We have our first black president, but we can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like for him to govern with a bare minimum of bipartisan respect, much less with his own black experience foremost in mind. (Even after the 2012 election, a majority of Republicans continued to doubt his citizenship. And even momentary upset at police abuse of his personal friend, Henry Louis Gates, was cause for major racial backlash against him.) He is caught in an impossible contradiction—just as all blacks in America have been since their first ancestors arrived here in chains.
GOOD OL' WHITE SUPREMACY,...
Pookie Number 2,
"Well, yes. The problem is exactly that - African Americans face real challenges, and Al Sharpton and his race-hustling buddies won't actually provide leadership or guidance that will help them improve their lives."
So stopping whites from pushing us into ghettos and projects is wrong - Al Sharpton should be teaching us how to live poor, the way whites always intended.
Gotcha.
"I am thrilled when blacks make money in some productive fashion, and only wish more would follow. When Al Sharpton makes money by fostering hatred among ignorant jackasses like Crack Emcee (who's correctly observed that there's been a violence problem since the 80s, but isn't clever enough to see that all of the Sharptonian film-flam since then has helped no-one but himself), then that's bad."
So Al Sharpton, showing up wherever blacks need him - and no matter how poor they are - to give them comfort and fight whites from making them poor is wrong.
So far, everything you're suggesting benefits whites - I don't get it.
"Al Sharpton is a black Elmer Gantry who plays you for the stupid, credulous, and self-destructive fool you are."
But I can have him on speed-dial for help while you call me names.
Gotcha.
"Actually, what's going on is easy to understand - although not necessarily for a hate-suffused stupid asshole like yourself. But it takes effort and self-reflection, and you're unwilling and incapable of that, and you're happy to pay the price of thousands of dead young black males every year instead."
Um, whites have been in charge since the country started, so didn't those deaths happen on YOUR watch? And, so, aren't WHITES to blame for the results of THIER policies? Al Sharpton didn't create America, whites did.
"Blacks will see progress when their love for their children exceeds their hatred for being told how they can improve their lives."
So now - after defeating slavery, Jim Crow, Red-lining, judicial injustices, sharecropping, peonage labor camps, and all the rest - now you claim we won't "see progress" without following white's advice.
Hilarious.
"By white people. Who aren't slaughtering themselves, and therefore have gotten something right."
I've been the Shabbas for a number of synagogues, and I've been dealing with Jews since I was a child, so please:
As I pointed out to someone yesterday, white's desire to play Rand Paul and patronize me is always a good sign a racist is on the other side of such words,…
HoodlumDoodlum,
"Wait, there were non-American "ways of slavery?""
Yep - whites love to point that out - but they don't understand what they're looking at, of course.
"That could possibly be compared to the "American way?""
No, the American way was unique - that was the point.
"America wasn't the only nation to have slavery? My mind is blown!"
It's the only one where the master's claimed the slaves were "family" - and yet fed them from the pig's trough. Elsewhere a slave was a slave.
"Also, just to throw this out there, but isn't judging people today by the ideas or conditions of their distant ancestors more or less what actual racist organizations (KKK, etc) do?"
Nobody's judging whites by anything but what they themselves have refused to own up to for 400 years. They're only calling racism now - after they did anything they wanted for centuries - because they're losing control of the situation.
Nobody pities them if they remain stubborn, crude, and covetous of what's not theirs.
"Maybe it's only cool when it's done to "whites" though, huh KKKrack?"
When what's "done to whites"?
When you have 400 years of white supremacy on one side, and 6 years of life under a different paradigm on the other, I'd say it would be a long, long time before whites could suggest they're catching a bad deal without irony.
I mean, the description of what whites have done to blacks - stabbed us deep and then, after sliding the knife out a bit, declaring we're healed - tells you how far in even basic understanding whites have to go.
BTW - I hate to embarrass you, but I generally stay so far ahead of white's thinking, it's embarrassing because proof is always easily at hand.
Even though whites always said blacks ain't as smart as they are.
KKKRack RocKKK?
Blacks are always ahead of the game,...
And Crack outdoes himself on the stupid yet again.
Note how he doesn't dispute the fact that Sharpton, for all his speed-dialing accessibility and faux comfort-providing, isn't actually helping anyone besides himself.
Note how he doesn't dispute that Sharpton can't or won't provide leadership on supporting intact families, education, or personal responsibility. In Crack's mind, all Sharpton can do is tell people to "live poor".
Note how he doesn't dispute that Sharpton says and does nothing about black-on-black violence. No graft there, so, sorry, dead blacks! Better luck next time!
Note how he doesn't dispute the lack of recent progress and the self-defeating refusal to take 'white's advice', because some other white people were once bad.
Other than the rapidly fading pleasure we get watching Crack "I'm Too Stupid to Not Marry a Murderer" Emcee try to argue without the advantages of information, insight, or intellect, very little of this is 'hilarious'.
But go on, blame everyone else. It's working really well for you so far.
Pookie Number 2,
"And Crack outdoes himself on the stupid yet again."
Thank you, you're too kind [accepts flowers, bows, waves, points at celebrities]
"Note how he doesn't dispute the fact that Sharpton, for all his speed-dialing accessibility and faux comfort-providing, isn't actually helping anyone besides himself."
Oh, no, I do dispute it. I just listed a whole host of accomplishments for blacks and Rev. Al's been part of all of them - not you.
"Note how he doesn't dispute that Sharpton can't or won't provide leadership on supporting intact families, education, or personal responsibility."
Because those are YOUR concerns - we don't work for you any more, remember? We didn't care for your concerns when we had to under slavery, which is why you called us "lazy." Of course, after slavery, you burnt down our towns because you realized we weren't lazy and you'd been played for fools. Now you hate us. Pathetic.
"In Crack's mind, all Sharpton can do is tell people to "live poor"."
Let's try this again - Al Sharpton didn't invent white supremacy - the main problem for blacks.
Al Sharpton is trying to stop white supremacy - the main problem for blacks.
White supremacy - the main problem for blacks - hasn't been doing so well on Al Sharpton's watch. If it was, you wouldn't even be talking to me.
"Note how he doesn't dispute that Sharpton says and does nothing about black-on-black violence."
White supremacy created our country's results - nobody else has been in charge. What whites are admitting is what blacks are saying - you're lousy leaders yourselves.
Blacks are Americans so YOU FUCKED UP. The citizens everyone knows has the least resources and power can't also be expected to fix the problems of the powerful who have access to everything.
Your mind is a pretzel.
Al Sharpton would say the same thing - you can't point at blacks, living under white supremacy, and say we can stop what whites made.
"No graft there, so, sorry, dead blacks!"
Wait. This is rich. American whites - the same people who made trillions off of black American bodies, and labor, under threat of violence and death for centuries - are hoping to point at Al Sharpton (this one guy - not an organized national plot involving millions like slavery) as "bad"...by what?
White ethical standards?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! "Better luck next time!" indeed!
"Note how he doesn't dispute the lack of recent progress and the self-defeating refusal to take 'white's advice', because some other white people were once bad."
I don't get this "lack of progress" bit - you do realize we're talking about American slaves and their kin, right? BTW - look at that photo and ask yourself two questions:
1) What kind of culture would work her, 24 hours a day, until death.
2) Is that and what followed a crime the American government is guilty of co-signing?
We're now up to reparations being taken seriously. Like freedom for blacks, it, too, used to be called "impossible." Like just a few months ago. [snicker] That's progress.
"Other than the rapidly fading pleasure we get watching Crack "I'm Too Stupid to Not Marry a Murderer" Emcee try to argue without the advantages of information, insight, or intellect, very little of this is 'hilarious'."
Ooooh - going for the low blow again. Like I said, whites will never win that way. You're already seen as disgusting, and then you insist on validating it.
How can it lose, right?
All that talk of us on the Democrat "plantation" hasn't won a single convert, but I can't convince a single white who says it to stop. As a matter of fact, I think it would be pretty easy to prove that, once whites started talking like that, the racial opposition to them increased dramatically, leading to where we are today.
But that's how they think they're going to win. And also do it by winning black votes. They've said so.
"But go on, blame everyone else."
400 years vs. 6. Sure, it's our fault. And it's whites who aren't passing the buck to the people they never let run anything until now.
"It's working really well for you so far."
I rest my case,...
Because those are YOUR concerns - we don't work for you any more, remember?
You need to decide whether you care about thousands of blacks being killed every year or not. Sounds like not - very unfortunate, but again, not a surprise, because you're just not an intelligent person.
I'm also terribly sorry that pointing out the reality of your limited intellect represents a "low blow", but it is what it is. You do that whole "what-you-say-makes-me-feel-bad-even-though-it's-true-so-I'll-ignore-it" bit a lot, and I doubt you're perceptive enough to see the logical fallacy.
Now you hate us.
Nope. Mostly pity, because things don't have to be the way they are. And respect, for the people that work hard and don't spend their time bitching and begging.
And scorn for you, sure, because you'll live and die a hopeless, racist failure.
Pookie Number 2,
"You need to decide whether you care about thousands of blacks being killed every year or not."
Oh, we do, but we also don't think you have the answers - because whites did the killing, too.
Whites really can't learn simple concepts like whites-killed-my-family-so-I'm-not-believing-them, can they?
"Sounds like not - very unfortunate, but again, not a surprise, because you're just not an intelligent person."
Again - not very credible coming from a white person. Whites restricted education for blacks - how can we believe you know what smart is? We don't even think whites are smart, so what are we supposed to do? Listen to someone dumb enough to think "All Men Are Created Equal" means "Let's Make Slaves!" and we celebrate it on the Fourth even though whites are rich and blacks are poor?
That sounds pretty stupid.
"I'm also terribly sorry that pointing out the reality of your limited intellect represents a "low blow", but it is what it is."
The limits of my intellect - because I didn't catch a murderer, who I didn't suspect of being a murderer, until after she'd murdered. And - generous soul that whites are - you aren't even giving me credit for stopping the whole thing when the white authorities had to search me out to crack the case.
Because the whites couldn't figure it out.
You know, like race and reparations - it's all so HARD!!!
I swear, whites are so bright and fair it's shocking.
"You do that whole "what-you-say-makes-me-feel-bad-even-though-it's-true-so-I'll-ignore-it" bit a lot, and I doubt you're perceptive enough to see the logical fallacy."
You never say anything true - you think Al Sharpton hurt blacks, not white people - that's crazy.
"Now you hate us."
No, I hated you before now. Long time. Picture me in diapers, with a permanent scowl, waiting for the day I could get online.
"Things don't have to be the way they are."
You CAN NOT have joined the reparations movement, did you?
"Respect, for the people that work hard and don't spend their time bitching and begging."
That's what whites have always wanted from slaves. Weird, huh? Even after it's over, they still say the exact same shit, in the exact same way, thinking the country's blacks will hear it different this time and it's going to work exactly the same way, with blacks just going to go along like whites could still make us do what you say.
It's insanity, but it's yours.
"And scorn for you, sure, because you'll live and die a hopeless, racist failure."
But not yet - and, at least, as long as I'm alive, I'll never have see-through, splotchy red blood poking through my sometimes almost yellow-to-grey skin, with blue and red veins peeking through like on Return To Planet Of The Apes or that looks like I better get to the tanning salon as soon as possible or else I'm simply worthless as a human being.
And I have a big dick and can dance,...
Just went out for a second - a friend of mine has been killed.
Gotta go!
In the local (for me) news this afternoon, Dorian Johnson, the original witness in the Mike Brown shooting, was recognized by police in Jefferson City as having an outstanding warrant from 2011 for stealing and also faces charges there from the same year for filing a false police report.
I think the police are dangerous and foolish but it also appears that worse icons for social justice than Brown and Johnson might be hard to find.
If it turns out that Johnson has a history of false reporting and is lying now about what he saw, how can people so vested in his story ever back up? Will Johnson ultimately be jailed?
Fools on every side of this mess.
"Just went out for a second - a friend of mine has been killed."
It wasn't me, Crack, honest!
Wait a second. Was your friend showing he was unarmed by holding his hands up?
Crack stands with Michael Brown and all the other Michael Browns!
Crack - when are you headed over to Ferguson to do your bit?
"Police Officer A is speaking to Man B. Man B is slicing the throat of Woman C. Woman C falls on the ground dead and Man B moves to Woman D to slice her throat."
Is Police Officer A actually Helen Keller?
"Whites can't even handle hearing, what blacks really think of them"
Crack. I always read what you write and respond to you. Sounds like you are the one who cannot handle hearing what whites really think you, do I scare you that much?
"And - an even better question - if a white racist has always indicated they don't care about black's interests, what makes them think we'll buy they care, now that Mexicans have entered the picture?"
I always wanted to ask you, crack, as a lack racist, do you are about my interests, the interests of a Russian Jew who immigrated to the states?
"So the problem is Al Sharpton isn't giving out advice to blacks on how best to cope with being pushed into ghettos and projects by whites?"
Who,pushed you into a ghetto? Which white man? Did I do it? As for projects, I am all for abolishing them, let's cut all government funding for housing, and thus allow th blacks to leave the projects. Do you agree with that? Fair enough? Maybe we can make the law that would make it illegal for,blacks to live in the projects, sounds like something you would support, right?
Post a Comment