[Sky Captain]

When are people finally gonna wise up to his antics?
He and Jessie "hymietown" Jackson both. Racist bigots.

A double standard I suppose?

Note how the media covers this...

With Imus the headlines were:

Imus makes bigoted remark
Imus makes offensive statements

When you have Sharpton, the headlines are:

Sharpton 'accused' of bigotry

Hmmm...I'm sure there is nothing to learn from this...

• Sharpton says he was referring to atheist author, not Romney, in remark
• Reverend: Real believers in God will beat the "one Mormon" running for president
• Romney spokesman says "bigotry" toward any religion is unacceptable
• Mormons "don't believe in God the way I do," Sharpton says in own defense

[Dakarʒ]

I don't think that many people fall for his antics. I see a lot more people making fun of the guy than being supportive of him.

[Sky Captain]

Yet he has a HUGE following fellitiating him.(did I spell that right?)
End ever incident of "racism" he bellows and the media perks up to condemn his target.

Like the Tawny Brawley case.

Why is he even relevent anymore?

[Dakarʒ]

He gets ratings. That simple.

[BRussell]

Skycaptain, you never said what he said that was bigoted. Did he call Mormons nappy-headed hoes?

[Sky Captain]

What he said was bigoted. There I said it. And It's obvious. But apparently acceptable.

His new slogan should be: Al Sharpton. Doing his best to help keep the black man down.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

What he said was bigoted. There I said it. And It's obvious. But apparently acceptable.

His new slogan should be: Al Sharpton. Doing his best to help keep the black man down.

Haha, no I'm sorry, what I meant to say is "you never pointed out specifically what Sharpton said that was bigoted." I just don't see it. He was in a debate on religion vs. atheism, he was taking the religion side, presumably they were talking about religion and politics. Romney is Mormon. Sharpton said this:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."

Romney says Sharpton was accusing him of not believing in God. I doubt it; he was debating an atheist. The atheist is the one who doesn't believe in God.

[CleoW]

Sharpton really is a bigot, but this statement was not bigoted. I lol'ed at Sharpton asking Hitchens to prove God's non-existence. He's clearly pretty dumb and he showed that by defending faith by arguing that moral relativism is the only choice for an atheist and purporting a watered down design argument.

But Hitchens could have done a better job at defending the atheist position. Simply arguing that religious people "do bad things" isn't going to cut it.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

When are people finally gonna wise up to his antics?
He and Jessie "hymietown" Jackson both. Racist bigots.

A double standard I suppose?

Note how the media covers this...

With Imus the headlines were:

Imus makes bigoted remark
Imus makes offensive statements

When you have Sharpton, the headlines are:

Sharpton 'accused' of bigotry

Hmmm...I'm sure there is nothing to learn from this...

Everyone knows this but No one can say anything, meaning whites, because the blacks will bring up the old slavery guilt thing and how they are a minority deprived of civil liberties and are used as baton bashing practice by cops and on and on and on....

Blacks can say anything.

So whites automatically lose. So they keep quiet. They don't want their house picketed and have their lives ruined.

But you know all this. Or you would put a sign on your front lawn...RIGHT!

[lpkmckenna]

"Reverend" Sharpton is an idiot and everyone knows it. He didn't get laughed out of the Democratic primaries for nothing.

Sharpton (a guy "ordained" at 9 years old) making fun of someone else's religion?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Everyone knows this but No one can say anything, meaning whites, because the blacks will bring up the old slavery guilt thing and how they are a minority deprived of civil liberties and are used as baton bashing practice by cops and on and on and on....

Yeah, it's just so hard being white.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Haha, no I'm sorry, what I meant to say is "you never pointed out specifically what Sharpton said that was bigoted." I just don't see it. He was in a debate on religion vs. atheism, he was taking the religion side, presumably they were talking about religion and politics. Romney is Mormon. Sharpton said this:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."

Romney says Sharpton was accusing him of not believing in God. I doubt it; he was debating an atheist. The atheist is the one who doesn't believe in God.

so voting against someone because of their religion isn't bigoted?

Its the very definition of bigotry. Bigotry is not limited to racism.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

so voting against someone because of their religion isn't bigoted?

Its the very definition of bigotry. Bigotry is not limited to racism.

Except he most definitely did not say he was voting against him because of his religion. I'd like to see the full context, but they were having a debate about religion (Sharpton) vs. atheism (Hitchens). It sounds like they were talking about the religious beliefs of the various people running for president.

Look, I'm perfectly happy to believe Sharpton could say something bad. This just wasn't it.

But I have to ask: If voting based on religion is bigotry, what do you say about the tens of millions of people whose religious views influence their votes, and the thousands of politicians who speak about religion to appeal to them? The very defintiion of bigotry?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Except he most definitely did not say he was voting against him because of his religion. I'd like to see the full context, but they were having a debate about religion (Sharpton) vs. atheism (Hitchens). It sounds like they were talking about the religious beliefs of the various people running for president.

Look, I'm perfectly happy to believe Sharpton could say something bad. This just wasn't it.

But I have to ask: If voting based on religion is bigotry, what do you say about the tens of millions of people whose religious views influence their votes, and the thousands of politicians who speak about religion to appeal to them? The very defintiion of bigotry?

Voting has nothing to with this. It was his statement that was bigoted.

[Sky Captain]

I had it explained to me(I too was fooled yet again by the "media") that he made the statement against Atheists.
So he's bigoted against Atheists.
A leftist/socialist bigoted against Atheists. Go figure.

[Atomic Rooster]

Boy, am I glad I'm atheist. I don't have to worry about such trivial things as religious faerie tales and lie that I do so I can get elected for public office.

I would lie but then after I got elected I would tell the truth. Politicians are allowed to lie after all.

[Jawbone54]

[EDIT] All removed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."

Romney says Sharpton was accusing him of not believing in God. I doubt it; he was debating an atheist. The atheist is the one who doesn't believe in God.

Contrasting "those who really believe in God" with Romney certainly seems to suggest that Romney doesn't really believe in God. How do you read it another way?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Calling religious types believers in "faerie tales" is about the snobbiest, most condescending statement I've ever heard. I've personally tried my best, especially within the last few months, to not make sharp remarks against atheists, even when they make statements like yours. Couldn't you be a little bit more courteous?

This is even more amusing since every other thread in these forums makes a remark about Christians being condescending sheep, or something of that nature.

Because religion is evil Jawber. Priests are pedophiles. Nuns are bitches who tell little children they will burn in HELL FOREVER!!!!

I hope that is a sufficient reply to your post.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Because religion is evil Jawber. Priests are pedophiles. Nuns are bitches who tell little children they will burn in HELL FOREVER!!!!

I hope that is a sufficient reply to your post.

You forgot the fact that it's the opiate of the masses. GTFO of my atheism!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yeah, it's just so hard being white.

I know! I suffer so.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Contrasting "those who really believe in God" with Romney certainly seems to suggest that Romney doesn't really believe in God. How do you read it another way?

Sharpton was debating and responding to an atheist. He was saying "we, religious people, will vote against Romney, so we don't need you, Hitchens and the atheists, to do that."

[acash0902]

he is a double standard, self righteous racist.

i'd like him and the prosecutor to apologize for the wrongful conviction of those duke players first, then for him to shut his fat mouth

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Priests are pedophiles. Nuns are bitches who tell little children they will burn in HELL FOREVER!!!!

Atheists rape little boys and girls, marry bitches with huge asses, and tell children they're worm food. What's the diff?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Atheists rape little boys and girls, marry bitches with huge asses, and tell children they're worm food. What's the diff?

Link.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Sharpton was debating and responding to an atheist. He was saying "we, white people, will vote against Romney, so we don't need you, Sharpton and the black people, to do that."

That's bigotry.

Replace atheists with black people and Hitchens with Sharpton and said by a whitey.

Cake and it it too.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Atheists rape little boys and girls, marry bitches with huge asses, and tell children they're worm food. What's the diff?

We like big butts and we cannot lie?

[tie]

Is he really a bigot? Is there any better evidence? Myself, I get tired of scandals erupting over a one-time ambiguous verbal mistake. Trent Lott is obviously a bigot. Don Imus is probably not a bigot -- walking that line was his job. Sharpton -- ambiguous.

However, I've never paid any attention to Sharpton, nor to Imus. Is there a larger pattern I don't know about?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sounds like a kind of dumb comment, taken out of context.

If indeed he was addressing an atheist who was making a point along the lines that people who don't believe in God would be the ones to defeat Romney, and Sharpton responded that no, people who do believe in God will defeat him, then it (sort-of) makes sense. In a sort of dumbed-down, Al Sharpton kind of way, that is.

I'm inclined to agree with BRussel that this probably was the case, simply because some sort of "insult" of trying to say that Mormons don't really believe in God, makes no friggen sense what-so-ever.

Sounds like he misspoke, and since the whole Imus debacle, people have probably been monitoring his every word for something to be used as "payback".

This whole game of "Oh my! I'm soooo offended by what this person or that SAID" and throwing "bigot, homophobe, racist, etc." around over literally everything, is just so friggen lame, especially when people now monitor their political enemies' every word like hawks, waiting for every possible slip up so they can be just in time to be "offended" by it. It's long since gone beyond out of control.

I've said it before, and still firmly believe it: if the right thinks that adopting all the same crazy "everything offends me! ! Everyone I disagree with is ___ist" PC-whiner tactics that haven't done jack-diddly squat for the left all these years, will suddenly do wonders for the right, they need to think again. Weak, lame bullshit, is weak lame bullshit no matter which side takes it up for cheap political gain.

It must be coming up on an election year or something.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Sharpton was debating and responding to an atheist. He was saying "we, religious people, will vote against Romney, so we don't need you, Hitchens and the atheists, to do that."

I don't think so. In the debate, Hitchens was using Mormonism as an example of how religion can promote abhorrent ideas (racism in this case). Sharpton responded by pointing out that Martin Luther King was strongly motivated by religion, and went on to say the controversial quote about how "those that really believe in God will defeat him." Both from that context and from his use of the word "really" (one would not accuse atheists of pretending to be Christians), I think he intended the contrast to be with Mormons — he wanted to distance himself from the Mormon Church's very recent anti-black stance.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Link.

You want a link to affirm gross generalizations? I thought we were having fun with them. I can't seem to find a link for the Christian organization; NAMBLA.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

so voting against someone because of their religion isn't bigoted?

Its the very definition of bigotry. Bigotry is not limited to racism.

Is voting for someone because of their religion bigoted?

It is also the very definition of bigotry, because by doing so, one is by default voting against the other candidates because of their religion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is voting for someone because of their religion bigoted?

It is also the very definition of bigotry, because by doing so, one is by default voting against the other candidates because of their religion.

Wasn't that Snow-i's point?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

so voting against someone because of their religion isn't bigoted?

Its the very definition of bigotry. Bigotry is not limited to racism.

Here's what Romney has previously said about politics and religion:

"And I'm convinced that the nation -- that the nation does need -- the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."

So to recap: Sharpton didn't actually say anything about not voting for someone because of their religion. It was a misinterpreted quote. But Romney, in fact, has said exactly that, and very clearly: We need a religious person as president. Will the people who falsely said Sharpton was bigoted now turn around and say that, actually, it was Romney who was bigoted?

[Dakarʒ]

Ha.

[lpkmckenna]

Ok, time to weigh in...

When I evaluate politicians, I do evaluate their religious beliefs. I don't think "fanatically religious" people make good leaders, nor do I think members of "fanatical religions" make good leaders. As an example of the former: a Catholic who agrees with the Vatican on birth control; an example of the later: a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness.

That being said, if a politician respects the separation of church and state, that's usually good enough for me. The typical "political moderate" from a "mainstream religion" is pretty harmless. Bush may be a lousy President, but it's not because of his religion.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Sharpton was debating and responding to an atheist. He was saying "we, religious people, will vote against Romney, so we don't need you, Hitchens and the atheists, to do that."

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't think so. In the debate, Hitchens was using Mormonism as an example of how religion can promote abhorrent ideas (racism in this case). Sharpton responded by pointing out that Martin Luther King was strongly motivated by religion, and went on to say the controversial quote about how "those that really believe in God will defeat him." Both from that context and from his use of the word "really" (one would not accuse atheists of pretending to be Christians), I think he intended the contrast to be with Mormons — he wanted to distance himself from the Mormon Church's very recent anti-black stance.

I think you are both onto something here. Here's my 2 cents on the discussion .....

One must keep in mind that throughout European history there has never been much conflict between religion and white supremacy. In fact, they more often than not went hand in hand. And the Mormons are no exception to this. There are black Baptist denominations precisely because the Southern Baptists were virulently anti-black. There is an African Methodist Episcopalian (AME) denomination as a direct result of the racism of the Methodists. The Catholic Church supported slavery throughout much of its history. The list goes on and on as there are other denominations with a racist history/present as well. After all, the great Martin Luther King Jr. once noted that ....

The most segregated hour in America is 11 o'clock on Sunday morning.

And to be fair, one must note that there were several white denominations that were always abolitionist (though not always supportive of "equality") such as the Quakers, the Universalists (predecessors to the Unitarian Church), etc. So while the atheist that Sharpton was debating was correct in his assertion that people often do abhorrent things in the name of religion (e.g. slavery, rape, discrimination, flying planes into buildings, etc.) .... Sharpton was also correct in his assertion that religion often motivates those who do extraordinarily good things (e.g. MLK, Ghandi, etc.).

So the way I take it, when Sharpton said ....

As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in god will defeat him anyway. So don't worry about that. That's a temporary -- that's a temporary situation

... he was making the distinction, in general, between those who profess a belief in God yet espouse racist beliefs or support organizations which do so .... those those who profess a belief in God and do not do such things .... and those who do not profess a belief in God. And his point was that the second group could defeat Romney without the aid of the third. I don't think the statement was meant to comment on Romney's personal faith one way or the other. What I do find interesting is that despite all the hoopla over this "controversy", you can't find the actual transcript of the debate anywhere.

Now having said all that, Romney really needs to quit. Given the official doctrine of the Mormon Church, any African-American of sound mind would be well within the realm of reason to be suspect of him. He might be a good guy, but he belongs to a church with a history, not "ancient" history, but recent history of abject racism. Again this is nothing new, most predominantly white Protestant denominations are rooted in it. But most of them "officially" abandoned such positions decades ago. But the Mormon Church OTOH did not do so until 1978. Just a tidbit of Mormon doctrine .....

Protestant denominations in the early 19th century interpreted the Bible as implying that the black race was formed from Cain and Abel's descendents. The Curse of Ham was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice. The abolition movement caused a great deal of distress among Christians because they had to finally reject slavery as profoundly immoral -- a practice which the Bible accepted as a normal aspect of the culture of the Middle East. They had to wrap their minds around the fact that the Bible taught something that was apparently against the will of God. Beliefs of the inferiority of blacks died a slow death among the leading denominations: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.

However, the LDS church was an exception. The Pearl of Great Price is one of four source texts that are accepted by Mormons as divinely inspired and authoritative scripture --the "Standard Works." The Pearl had specifically prohibited the ordination of anyone who was black or who had even one distant black ancestor. Its teachings could not be easily altered.

Another inspired scripture, according to the LDS, is the Book of Mormon. It discusses the Lamanite race, and how they received dark skins and a degenerate status as punishment:

2 Nephi 5:21-23:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

In 2 Nephi 30:6, the the Book of Mormon as originally translated (or written; opinions differ) by Joseph Smith said that if Lamanites accepted the true gospel,

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

After 1981, the term "white and delightsome" was changed to read "pure" -- an unusual action for a book considered to be inspired by God in its original version. 5

3 Nephi 2:15 reads:

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

I mean let's keep it real here. We have a lot of angry white men who are perturbed with Sharpton in general, and here specifically for leading the effort to get Don Imus fired. Apparently they feel he should be entitled to refer to college educated female athletes who had just completed a "Cinderella story" basketball season ... not public figures by any stretch of the imagination .... as "nappy headed hos". And so they are looking for a little "payback". But to latch onto this issue with Mitch Romney, given the undeniable and documented racism of the Mormon Church, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. At best.

OAW

[Dakarʒ]

So you like Al Sharpton?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

So you like Al Sharpton?

Like or dislike isn't the issue. The issue is the facts involved in the situation. Or at least ... it should be. So IOW, I'd be happy to discuss any of the relevant points I made in my post that deal with what Sharpton said. What I won't do is get caught up in some kind of silly little popularity discussion about the man.

OAW

[Dakarʒ]

Here's a question: Do you think Al Sharpton is an asset or a detriment to african-americans.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Here's a question: Do you think Al Sharpton is an asset or a detriment to african-americans.

Clearly you are having reading comprehension issues. I'll ask you to review my previous comment and try again. If you still don't get it after that then nevermind.

OAW

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Clearly you are having reading comprehension issues. I'll ask you to review my previous comment and try again. If you still don't get it after that then nevermind.

OAW

No need to get condescending because you're afraid to answer the question.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Here's a question: Do you think Al Sharpton is an asset or a detriment to african-americans.

He shouldn't have to either embrace or condemn every African-American who opens his mouth. I'm sure there are some things Sharpton says that are fine, and other things that are dumb, and none of them generalize to an entire race.

Does Lou Dobbs speak for every white person? Dennis Kucinich? Are they assets to our race, or assess? The answer, I think, is that they don't speak for a race and they shouldn't be judged in that fashion.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

He shouldn't have to either embrace or condemn every African-American who opens his mouth.

You might want to when that person claims to be a voice for that race, yes.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is Mitt Romney an asset or detriment to whites?

Or more correctly, Mormons? I'm sure they'd have an opinion on him.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Does Lou Dobbs speak for every white person? Dennis Kucinich? Are they assets to our race, or assess? The answer, I think, is that they don't speak for a race and they shouldn't be judged in that fashion.

They don't try/claim to speak 'for the white man'. The same can't be said for figures such as Sharpton or Jackson.

[BRussell]

Dakar, I think Lou Dobbs claims to speak for the white middle class just as much as Sharpton claims to speak for blacks. So let's have it: Is Lou Dobbs an asset or detriment to your race? Or are you afraid to answer?

Sorry, but I just don't think it's fair to OAW to ask him for an up-or-down vote on every African-American with opinions on African-American politics.

I also think Sharpton gets a bit of a bad rap. Yeah, Tawana Brawley lied, and Sharpton supported her. On the other hand, the boys accused of raping the Central Park Jogger weren't lying, they were innocent and have now been exonerated. Does Sharpton get credit for that one? I also specifically remember seeing Sharpton criticizing rap music long before this recent Imus episode, but somehow the Imus thing quickly morphed in the media into a discussion of how racist Sharpton is for criticizing Imus but not rap. It was absurd.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Dakar, I think Lou Dobbs claims to speak for the white middle class just as much as Sharpton claims to speak for blacks. So let's have it: Is Lou Dobbs an asset or detriment to your race? Or are you afraid to answer?

I won't say if Dobbs is a detriment to my race since he doesn't claim to represent that, but as far as representing the interests of the middle class which he does claim to represent, I find I am usually in tune with him.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Sorry, but I just don't think it's fair to OAW to ask him for an up-or-down vote on every African-American with opinions on African-American politics.

Here's the thing. I the gist I got from his post was "Who cares what Sharpton said, because Romney has the potential to be a much bigger bigot." So I wanted to find out whether his claim has any motivation behind it (i.e., he likes Sharpton).

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I also think Sharpton gets a bit of a bad rap. Yeah, Tawana Brawley lied, and Sharpton supported her. On the other hand, the boys accused of raping the Central Park Jogger weren't lying, they were innocent and have now been exonerated. Does Sharpton get credit for that one? I also specifically remember seeing Sharpton criticizing rap music long before this recent Imus episode, but somehow the Imus thing quickly morphed in the media into a discussion of how racist Sharpton is for criticizing Imus but not rap. It was absurd.

And hey, I respect your opinion. I can't say I know Sharpton's past history very well, but I do think that in recent years he has become less of a asset and more of a burden. Both because of his racial views and his promotion to being one of the few 'media faces' of blacks.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I mean let's keep it real here. We have a lot of angry white men who are perturbed with Sharpton in general, and here specifically for leading the effort to get Don Imus fired. Apparently they feel he should be entitled to refer to college educated female athletes who had just completed a "Cinderella story" basketball season ... not public figures by any stretch of the imagination .... as "nappy headed hos". And so they are looking for a little "payback". But to latch onto this issue with Mitch Romney, given the undeniable and documented racism of the Mormon Church, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. At best.

In the spirit of "keeping it real," try to remember that Imus and Sharpton are being judged by their own words and actions, while you are saddling Romney with the guilt of his church's past actions.

I also think you have invented a special "timeline of guilt" for the Mormon Church, because they only changed their doctrine in the late 70s, while members of mainline Protestant churches are in the clear because they abandoned racism in the 50s and 60s. Gimme a break.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

In the spirit of "keeping it real," try to remember that Imus and Sharpton are being judged by their own words and actions, while you are saddling Romney with the guilt of his church's past actions.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now having said all that, Romney really needs to quit. Given the official doctrine of the Mormon Church, any African-American of sound mind would be well within the realm of reason to be suspect of him. He might be a good guy, but he belongs to a church with a history, not "ancient" history, but recent history of abject racism.

Now you're kicking the ball back over to the "bigoted comment" side of the debate, and scoring points for that team.

This is just as ignorant a way of looking at it, as would be stating, "Any American of sound mind would be well withing the realm of reason to suspect a Muslim candidate. He might be a good guy, but he belongs to a church with a history, not "ancient" history but recent history of antisemitism."

When you start going down this silly blanket generalizations and "guilt by association" road, utter stupidities abound.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

He shouldn't have to either embrace or condemn every African-American who opens his mouth. I'm sure there are some things Sharpton says that are fine, and other things that are dumb, and none of them generalize to an entire race.

Does Lou Dobbs speak for every white person? Dennis Kucinich? Are they assets to our race, or assess? The answer, I think, is that they don't speak for a race and they shouldn't be judged in that fashion.

Indeed.

OAW