Al Sharpton to Host TV Show

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
oh I do not think it much of a stretch to think there are a lot of White Americans angry that there is a Black Man in the White House,

[/quote]
.

Just like there are black people who resented a white President every four years. What’s your point? That there is still racism in the US? Well…I agree and unfortunately there probably will be for years to come. But that goes for every race![/quote]

I am not saying that all black people are racist, but IMO there is a lot og good reasons for blacks to be angry at whites. I remember town proudly proclaiming that all the blacks in town left before the sun went down, I remember a well maintained guard shack sitting on the Mason Dixon line , I have done my best to isolate the routes , I believe they were PA.state rt 43 and WV state rt 119. I am 53 and remember many incidents of Racism directed at Blacks, imagine what a 70 or 80 year old black person has seen.

I think we should try to over come any racism , but to act like blacks and whites are on equal footing is to pretend to be blind[/quote]

And can you imagine what a slave could have told us? What horrible conditions that they may have lived in and their treatment. But what does any of that have to do with 2011? We actually elected a black President (I wish he was a good one). That tells me that we’ve made great strides toward eliminating racism. And keep in mind that there are black people who hate whites. Believe it or not there is more black on white crime than white on black. And black people comprise only 12% of the population. So it works both ways sadly. Someday it will all be over but not for a while.[/quote]

When I was a lad , I had a Black Nanny who’s parents were slaves, Lottie Bell

42

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

44

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
watch the whole thing[/quote]

Good clip , I will see the movie , I how ever do not think that changing today’s definition of the word RACE will change people’s predjudices . Rather than hating a race people will hate an ethnicity or a Religion the list can go on and on

45

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

So being racist doesn’t mean discrimination against individuals? I can hate the black race but not discriminate?

Who is we and how have we done it then?

46

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

So being racist doesn’t mean discrimination against individuals? I can hate the black race but not discriminate?

Who is we and how have we done it then?[/quote]

yes you can Hate or be angry at a race, though I would think you lack rational :slight_smile: we are you , me and everyone and how we have done it ? we have done ? I did not say we did anything? I think you are being silly :slight_smile:

47

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So that means that you can call people who disagree with him racist?

I did not call any one that disagrees with me a racist, see how easy that is to do ?

48

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

So being racist doesn’t mean discrimination against individuals? I can hate the black race but not discriminate?

Who is we and how have we done it then?[/quote]

yes you can Hate or be angry at a race, though I would think you lack rational :slight_smile: we are you , me and everyone and how we have done it ? we have done ? I did not say we did anything? I think you are being silly :)[/quote]

You are talking in circles.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

So being racist doesn’t mean discrimination against individuals? I can hate the black race but not discriminate?

Who is we and how have we done it then?[/quote]

yes you can Hate or be angry at a race, though I would think you lack rational :slight_smile: we are you , me and everyone and how we have done it ? we have done ? I did not say we did anything? I think you are being silly :)[/quote]

You are talking in circles.[/quote]

so are you, that is my point

50

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

So being racist doesn’t mean discrimination against individuals? I can hate the black race but not discriminate?

Who is we and how have we done it then?[/quote]

yes you can Hate or be angry at a race, though I would think you lack rational :slight_smile: we are you , me and everyone and how we have done it ? we have done ? I did not say we did anything? I think you are being silly :)[/quote]

You are talking in circles.[/quote]

so are you, that is my point
[/quote]

No, I’ve been questioning your position. You’re the one responsible for us going in circles.

51

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
oh I do not think it much of a stretch to think there are a lot of White Americans angry that there is a Black Man in the White House,

[/quote]
.

Just like there are black people who resented a white President every four years. What’s your point? That there is still racism in the US? Well…I agree and unfortunately there probably will be for years to come. But that goes for every race![/quote]

I am not saying that all black people are racist, but IMO there is a lot og good reasons for blacks to be angry at whites. I remember town proudly proclaiming that all the blacks in town left before the sun went down, I remember a well maintained guard shack sitting on the Mason Dixon line , I have done my best to isolate the routes , I believe they were PA.state rt 43 and WV state rt 119. I am 53 and remember many incidents of Racism directed at Blacks, imagine what a 70 or 80 year old black person has seen.

I think we should try to over come any racism , but to act like blacks and whites are on equal footing is to pretend to be blind[/quote]

How have I changed from my original statement ?

52

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

Grammar is why I disregard most of your posts, man. Your shit is incredibly hard to read. It’s often very oddly spaced and without punctuation. You seem like a very strange/simple, albeit nice person.

Anyway, being angry at a race of people because of the actions of a subset of that race isn’t really rational (there’s a difference between rational and rationale. one’s rationale isn’t necessarily rational).

53

Sharpton’s ideals are politically loaded, he picks and chooses his argument, rather than fight genuine racism when it appears without regard for political outcome.

54

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I still think this is out of your grasp , but I will try and accommodate you. I think you get confused , the black lady is not angry at the white man from Amsterdam she is angry at his race , can you see the distinction?

I even think it goes a little deeper , besides the mistreatments that have happened, now you have a portion of the offending race trying to trivialize and discount the offenses.[/quote]

So, you can be angry at a person’s race, but not the people of that race?

And how have I trivialized anything?[/quote]

Yes to your first question and grammatically you should have been we

[/quote]

Grammar is why I disregard most of your posts, man. Your shit is incredibly hard to read. It’s often very oddly spaced and without punctuation. You seem like a very strange/simple, albeit nice person.

Anyway, being angry at a race of people because of the actions of a subset of that race isn’t really rational (there’s a difference between rational and rationale. one’s rationale isn’t necessarily rational).

[/quote]

I thank you , I would consider that constructive criticism , while being angry at a race may not be an intelligent action I personally think there is a reason for some racism. I did misspell Rationale and I agree that it is not rational in this case.

I think generations are taking care of Racism . I believe there will only be one race very soon.But the older people have to die out first.

I promise to start using a program to check my grammar, I have got better with spelling, I had a period of 25 years where I would read , but never write . when I got a computer 10 years ago I could misspell I or A thanks anyhow

55
56

sigh. Does EVERYTHING always have to be a racial issue?

I see no reason for some person in 2011 to be livid about something that happened in 1835 or even 1945. Those days are gone, dead, buried. Are people supposed to remain bitter about the past for all eternity? We now have a black president. Guess who is responsible for voting him in. Go ahead, guess.

Newsflash! Every nation, kingdom, tribe and so on practiced slavery for many thousands of years. Wasn’t it the European peoples (you know, those horrid monsters with pale skin) that abolished it before most anyone else?