I think Sharpton is a good man but I am inclined to believe that all 'men of the cloth' are con-men to one degree or another.
One just has to remember this... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-tawana-brawley-has-paid-1-percent-of-penalty And both his part, and his ongoing efforts on her behalf over the years.
"If he thought I was a con man, he would have invited me to be in his Cabinet" LOL! Good one, Rev. Sharpton.
Sharpton should certainly be encouraged to run in a Democratic primary in a Democratic district, where, hopefully, he will win, as AOC did. Then he can join "the Squad" as the face of the new Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has always hated corruption, which is why they dislike Trump so much. And here is a man without the slightest taint of corruption about him. Any suggestion to the contrary is pure racism.
Trump Forces Democrats, Media to Defend Al Sharpton. “I’m not surprised because the media and the Democrats have normalized antisemitism with their celebration and defense of anti-Semites like congressfolk Omar, Tlaib, and AOC. So why not Sharpton? It’s the next logical step.”
Al "Notso" Sharpton is a vile conman. The Crown Heights riot was a race riot that took place from August 19 to 21, 1991, in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, New York City. Black residents turned against Orthodox Jewish Chabad residents. The riots began on August 19, 1991, after two children of Guyanese immigrants were accidentally struck by one of the cars in the motorcade of RebbeMenachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of Chabad, a Jewish religious movement. One child died and the second was severely injured. In the wake of the fatal accident, black youths attacked several Jews on the street, seriously injuring several and killing an Orthodox Jewish student from Australia. Two weeks after the riot, a non-Jewish man was killed by a group of black men who mistook him for a Jew. We were always hoping that after World War II no Jew would ever be killed just for being Jewish, but this is what happened in the city of New York. In his eulogy at the funeral, the Rev. Al Sharpton referred to "diamond dealers" (a Jewish business) with a banner displayed at the funeral that said, "Hitler did not do the job." On the third day of the disturbances, Al Sharpton whipped up further violence. The marchers he led proceeded through Crown Heights carrying antisemitic signs and burning an Israeli flag. Rioters threw bricks and bottles at police; shots were fired at police and police cars were pelted and overturned, including the Police Commissioner’s car. Riots escalated to the extent that a detachment of 200 police officers was overwhelmed and had to retreat for their safety. On August 22, over 1,800 police officers, including mounted and motorcycle units, had been dispatched to stop the attacks on people and property. By the time the three days of rioting ended, 152 police officers and 38 civilians were injured, 27 vehicles were destroyed, seven stores were looted or burned, and 225 cases of robbery and burglary were committed. At least 129 arrests were made during the riots. Property damage was estimated at one million dollars. Twenty years after the riot, a Manhattan synagogue invited Sharpton to participate in a panel discussion marking the anniversary. Norman Rosenbaum, brother of the murdered Yankel Rosenbaum, was outraged, saying inviting Sharpton to speak was "an absolute disgrace" and that his "vile rhetoric incited the rioting." He added that Sharpton "did absolutely nothing then to improve black-Jewish relations — and nothing since."Sharpton finally expressed regret but only for some aspects of his involvement. In self-serving remarks he insisted that his marches were peaceful, although his language and tone "sometimes exacerbated tensions." In a 2019 speech to a Reform Jewish gathering, Sharpton said that he could have "done more to heal rather than harm". At thev time Coretta Scott King ripped him a new one telling him that "sometimes you are tempted to speak to the applause of the crowd rather than the heights of the cause, and you will say cheap things to get cheap applause rather than do high things to raise the nation higher". He appears to have learned nothing from her on point rebuke. Bob McManus: Trump is absolutely right about ‘con man’ Al Sharpton.
Despite his long history of being a raging bigot and hurling racist tropes at people of color, I get how trumpettes (especially the far right racist component of his base) believe its all just leftist snowflakery, and in fact he is the "least racist person on the planet". Not to mention America's favorite president.
PF Rule 2 Not only is that statement a violation of forum rules, it is patently absurd in the face of the TRUTH that 60 to 70 % of Jewish voters vote Democrat. Why can't certain righties post the truth on this forum and stop projecting as so many do so often?
There was little Sharpton could do in that dispute - as your link shows the black victim was a West Indian, not an American black. Sharpton led a march that ended the violence. Mind you he had been stabbed by a white guy just a few months earlier and asked the court to give his attacker clemency. He had absolutely nothing to do with the stabbing of Rosenbaum who, by the way, died as a result of medical negligence in Kings County Hospital. Had those lame brains done their job properly his life could have been spared. Interestingly, Rosenbaum's family was awarded $1.5 million for their loss. Cato's family was awarded only $400K. Strange how life is so much cheaper for some folks depending on their skin tone. As for who is the biggest con artist - no question that Trump is #1 in that regard.
You should report that to the mods. I suggest Lee S, we have recently had some discussion on this subject.
While the Democrats = anti-Semitism charge is ridiculous -- whether or not Jews vote Democratic -- so also is the Republicans = white supremacists. There are no doubt some of both in the ranks of both, and more who are ambivalent about racism or anti-Semitism where they should not be, but it's almost always a degradation of political debate to point out that your opponent is supported in some way by someone we all acknowledge is bad. That's different from pointing out that their policies may aid white racism or anti-Semitism. Also, I don't think that the quoted statement is a violation of Forum rules. Or should not be. As for the content of that statement: Both Democrats and Republicans have been, for many decades, uncritical supporters of the state of Israel. In fact, the ideological Left was an earlier supporter of Israel than the Right, among whom there probably lingered some genuine pre-war 'genteel' anti-Semites of the type that used to be absolutely common among the 'country club' types who supported the Republican Party. And historically, in most of the world, it's definitely been the Left, not at all the Right, who fought anti-Semitism. Things have changed. Among the Democrats, as they move Left, the voices of those -- American Muslims, politicized American Blacks, the Hard Left, many academics -- whose sympathies lie with the Palestinians, are becoming stronger. And even among those who still support Israel's "right to exist", criticism of the Israeli state, especially its policy of settling the Occupied Territories, has risen. (It's an astonishing fact that American Jews -- traditionally liberal and therefore not sympathetic to hardcore nationalism of any sort, even Jewish nationalism -- are now more critical of Trump's attitude to Israel than American Christians are.) On the Right, sympathy for any European power responding vigorously to attack by Third World radicals is the natural response. Israel's position as an American ally against the Soviet-leaning Arab powers during the Cold War cemented this. And there is a very strong current of Evangelical Christians, mainly Republican, who are pro-Zionist for their own reasons. However ... there is also a serious, if not numerous, strain of conservative thought which can be said to come close to anti-Semitism. Famously, William Buckley found anti-Semitism in Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran, two well-known conservative personalities. I personally think these people usually are simply not careful enough in their vocabulary, perhaps also inspired by desire not to bow to any form of poltiical correctness -- you can talk about 'the Cuban Lobby' or the negative influence of American Armenians on our Turkish policy, without any implication of genocidal intentions towards Cubans or Armenians. Not so with the Jews, whose history as a people makes them rightly sensitive to being seen as a coherent group, all members of which promote their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of us. There are other considerations which I won't go into here, explored in depth in Amy Chua's World On Fire, where she discusses 'market-dominant minorities'. However, this insensitivity can merge insensibly into toleration for outright anti-Semites, as it seems to have done in that originally-admirable website, The Unz Review , which stlll publishes some articles worth reading if you hold your nose at the smell coming from others.) In any case, very strong anti-Israeli feeling -- or the idea that the US should not treat Israel any differently than any other country, or any other democracy -- has a definite position on the Right. And because these people are clearly strong American patriots, even nationalists, in a way that the anti-Israelis on the Left most definitely are not, their views are actually, from a pro-Israeli point of view, more dangerous.
@Doug Thanks for your long and thoughtful post. This in marked contrast to the emotionalism shown by righties on the forum. There is much there which is worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, as with the post I criticized above, righties on this forum often call all lefties/progs or whatever "anti semite" and ascribes hatred or make the ridiculous claim of pushing for war on whites (funny isn't it = whites attempting to impose war on whites!). By contrast, I see those lefties/progs or whatever call certain rightie individuals such as Trump filled with hatred. I don't see them accusing all white righties of bigotry or whatever. Re the state of Israel, yes it was the left that initially supported Israel. No surprise considering the fact that many leftie scholars/advocates were Jewish. They fought anti semitism more than anyone else as you have noted. To this day, they still do. Log on to any leftie Jewish website such as Tikkun and see for yourself. Leftie Jews continue to be champions of peace and freedom. In fact many advocated a one state solution (which I have done on this forum numerous times) for Israel which would have promoted democratization in that country and solved its problem. Such a solution isn't necessarily a "pro Palestinian" or "anti Jewish" position. Instead, it is the only logical solution to the problems that exist there and which could promote peace and unity there and everywhere. Good of you to link to that site which shows that Jews are more critical of the bias shown in favor of Israel. It conclusively proves that lefties/progs are in no way anti semitic as Jews themselves affirm that viewpoint. This proves that the left is NOT anti semitic. Re Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran, I have quoted the former extensively on this forum many times. Not so for the latter as his historical revisionism could at times be questionable. I do respect his scholarship, especially since he was a literary scholar just like I am. But his knowledge of history, well, let us say it could be a matter of further discussion ... I cannot comment on Amy Chua or Unz I have am barely familiar with their stuff and prefer to comment on stuff I know fully well. The bottom line is that all too often Israel is not treated the way all nations should be treated. Every country should treat its minorities exactly the same with an equal protection clause in every constitution just as it is in ours. Of course, practice and theory all too often are not quite the same thing. And all too often we in the USA point the finger at others such as Iraq for failing to practice equality while ignoring the fact that we fail to practice equality domestically. While the USA was willing to invade Iraq to promote that equality (according to Bush), it has failed to do the same to Israel. Thus, it should come as no surprise that disparate treatment leads to charges of racism and discrimination. Further, no surprise that internationals point to the USA and condemn the presence of so many ghettos and police abuses of minorities. USA preoccupation with international events is what keeps us from focussing on our problems and in solving them (this is a matter Pat Buchanan has mentioned in the past). It is not anti semitic to point out that truth. Thus, I join with Buchanan and others in saying that we as a nation need to get the hell out of Israel and the Middle East. Let's solve our own problems first. Then if necessary, then we may possibly concern ourselves with what goes on overseas. If Trump and his ilk was as patriotic as they believe, they would stop exporting jobs, stop exporting trillions in tax dollars in military welfare overseas, stop acting as if any deviation from their politics is unpatriotic, and stop projecting their hostilities unto everyone else. Then we will be likelier to MAGA - and let's begin by making MAGA hats and shirts in the USA, not in China.
One last thought - what has all this ^ to do with Sharpton? Easy: sharpton called for unity among blacks and Jews: https://forward.com/fast-forward/38...wish-unity-crucial-to-fight-racism-and-trump/ Note that the source for this is the Zionist publication Forward and how Sharpton is surrounded by his Jewish friends. Contrary to the lies of the righties who hate him, Sharpton is viewed as a unifier among Jews and others in NY because of his peace and unity efforts.
Note how Hoosier makes an accusation in which he puts all Democrats together and accuses them of being anti-America. Precisely the type of thing I mentioned above. Thus, I will allow Doug to answer this accusation.
There is a powerful male drive to fight other males, especially those of different tribes than one's own. We can now do it on the internet without bloodshed, especially us older ones who wouldn't come off well in a physical fight. I generally don't have any interest in that, except to respond to rude people who need to be taken down a notch or two. My main interest is trying to change consciousness in a good direction (ie. in my direction). So I hope to influence thoughtful people on both the Left and Right. No one can properly analyze their own motivations, but I like to think I'm doing this to throw my featherweight of influence on the scales of history, which seem at the moment to be tipping in a very bad direction, and also to improve my own thinking by having to consider the views of other people who are intelligent and well-informed and yet, inexplicably, disagree with me. Plus gaining information provided by people who agree with me. (And you learn things which aren't about politics at all -- my knowledge of the AR15 has increased by 500% in the last week. I thought I knew all there was to know about this weapon because I fired a few thousand rounds out of its ancestor 50 years ago, and a few dozen out of my nephew's two years ago. But that was just practice, not theory, and you know the saying, "It may be all right in practice but it'll never work in theory".) I believe the most important issue in the world, both for the US and the world, is the course American foreign policy takes over the next decade or two. As it stands, we are headed for a collision with China, one which is unnecessary, and which may do incalculable harm to ourselves and others. We are like a gigantic aircraft carrier with a lot of momentum, headed in the same direction for seventy years, which now needs to change course. The problem is, we have to elect poiticians as a bundle of positions. I want to vote for someone with Major Gabbard's views on foreign policy, but not necessarily her views on domestic policy. There is not a unity between the two. And there is now a significant strand of thinking on the Right -- way way beyond the confines of the Buchanan-Sobran 'Old Right' group around American Conservative -- which feels the same way, and an even broader group in the base of the Right which is very open to feeling the same way if they were provided with the right leadership -- Trump fooled them into supporting him, in part, by hinting that he was not a captive of the bi-partisan Washington foreign policy establishment and would change course on this question. You see, my side doesn't trust your side on the question of foreign policy -- leave Israel aside -- because we think liberals are too soft in general, too willing to see the other guy's point of view, to make excuses for bad behavior, not only with respect to Black criminals in the US but with respect to Palestinian terrorists; and also were too soft on Communism in particular, because of a certain overlap in your and the Communists' political aims. (I'm not rendering judgement here on to what extent this view is or was justified, just saying how it is.) Your side has the opposite view: you believe conservatism's reflex on foreign policy is just to assert American national interests and if any other nation gets in the way, to bomb 'em into the stone age , especially if they're not white -- which conveniently will create a market for more bombs from the military-industrial-corporate complex which controls our leaders. Plus we're all religious fundamentalists who want to advance the date of Armageddon which has something to do with Israel. It's going to be hard for people from both camps to co operate, then. But what the hell, if Hitler and Stalin could sign a pact .... That's why I was so pleased to see bete noires from both sides -- Mr Soros and the Koch Brothers -- come together to found the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Anyway, I want to facilitate dialog, if that does not sound too pompous, between Leftists and Rightists on this issue. Calling all Leftists 'anti-Semitic' is no more valid than calling all Rightists 'white racists'. There is of course a grain of truth in both accusations, when applied to broad and variegated bases of both sides, but that's irrelevant. Amy Chua is a very smart lady and well worth reading. The Unz Review, as I said, has got lots of gold nuggets, but mingled with excrement. Joe Sobran as literary critic? Whoa ... I always enjoyed reading his newsletter while he was alive -- he was kind of a rightwing Murray Kempton, with definite political sympathies (congruent to my own) but always willing to take an independent view and criticize his own side when he thought it necessary, and not only on the Israel-as-51st-state question. (I still remember his roasting of Paul Johnson's attack on leftist intellectuals and in particular Johnson's ungallant dealing with Dorothy Parker.) And he definitely knocked me into agnosticism on the Shakespeare authorship question. We strongly disagree on the causes of problems for America's minorities "of color". But it's a separate issue. We might agree on some of the things we need to do domestically -- as I've said before, anyone from the South, as I am, knows that many 'social conservatives' are 'economic liberals'. But, again, a separate issue.
You haven't really researched the Democratic Party, have you? Here are a few names to get you started: Huey Long, Tammany Hall, Edmund Burke and Danny Solis.
