Sharpton: GOP has Declared War on Blacks-Time to Fire Back

[Dusty]

I alluded to this several months ago. Trouble's just around the corner.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...LACKS-Sharpton

[Paslode]

Kind of goes along with Malik Shabazz comments.....

‘As we go into this election the New Black Panther Party is going to play a great role’
New Black Panther Leader Shabbaz: Whites Will Be Very, Very, Very Angry in November...Will Cling to Their God and Their Guns We Might Have To, Too

NBP Chairman: Shabazz
The white man cannot stop black people in this hour, even thought they have made them n****rs.
‘That black man that is on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’ proves that ‘a black man can accomplish what he will.’
‘The white man of America does not have one leader that they can put up against Barack Obama’ and ‘that is a heavy blow to the white ego.’
Obama will win the ‘black, brown, minority, gay’ and the white ‘MSNBC vote’
‘White males, conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party and gun-toters …don‘t believe that they should be ruled over by black people’
Michelle Obama ‘just crushes these white women’ with her superior beauty
‘George Zimmermans are going to be on the rise’.
People who hate Obama will ’cling to their God and their guns. We might have to, too. We gotta get ready fast’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blac...t-have-to-too/


But (according to post #244 on the Black Milita Thread) this is nothing more than publicity stunt by the inconsequential Rev. Al and Malik Shabazz. These stunts are being misread on the ground and if we ignore these people they will go away. The only way these people can succeed is 'If' people buy into to these narratives.

But their words do have meaning.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Entire post.

Paslode--

I respectfully recommend that you reread the post that you are referencing. If you take the time to do so, you will find that it does not mention the Reverend Al Sharpton. Nor is the phrase "publicity stunt" used.

Bluntly, IMO, if one is going to offer an alternative argument to a POV, one should display that some effort was made to understand that POV. Then again, as I pointed out last year, I do wonder if understanding differing viewpoints is your objective when it comes to discussing issues of race and racial politics on this BB.

Moreover, I do not think taking an approach that cobbles together bits and bytes from the blogosphere is a sustainable approach to discussing issues of race and racial politics in either their contemporary configuration or their historical contexts. Then again, this is the Age of Wikipedia in which everyone is a self proclaimed SME about everything. And goodness knows America is much better off for it.

[tonyz]

Then again, this is the Age of Wikipedia in which everyone is a self proclaimed SME about everything.

You mean like "Jailhouse" lawyers, armchair quarterbacks and some historians?

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

in which everyone is a self proclaimed SME about everything. And goodness knows America is much better off for it.

Sigaba,

I agree with a bit of your post. I don't believe a person can be a subject matter expert in an area without having spent enough time actively participating in day-to-day operations in that field. I don't believe a historian in military matters without having served in the military has nearly as much credibility as a former E-8 or Company commander who did the things he is talking about. It is the same in other subjects. I have a sister-in-law who will have her PhD in business and has spent no time leading a company or even a department. And I totally agree, America is not better off for it. Respectfully, Sir, I just find it odd the view is coming from you.

Sincerely,

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I alluded to this several months ago. Trouble's just around the corner.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...LACKS-Sharpton

That's ok, he's black, it's not racist diatribe when it's spoken by a black guy.
Now if he was a white guy......... he'd get a visit by the Secret service, FBI, TSA, DHS and nancy pelosi for making those statements.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Paslode--

I respectfully recommend that you reread the post that you are referencing. If you take the time to do so, you will find that it does not mention the Reverend Al Sharpton. Nor is the phrase "publicity stunt" used.

Bluntly, IMO, if one is going to offer an alternative argument to a POV, one should display that some effort was made to understand that POV. Then again, as I pointed out last year, I do wonder if understanding differing viewpoints is your objective when it comes to discussing issues of race and racial politics on this BB.

Moreover, I do not think taking an approach that cobbles together bits and bytes from the blogosphere is a sustainable approach to discussing issues of race and racial politics in either their contemporary configuration or their historical contexts. Then again, this is the Age of Wikipedia in which everyone is a self proclaimed SME about everything. And goodness knows America is much better off for it.

I agree with you on bones of what you said in Post #244, that being that not to embrace the fringe narrative and how we should look beyond the doctored sound bytes from media imbeds. But you lost me once you got to the misreadings, unfamiliarity with the tone and tempo Afro Centric issues. Frankly there is no excuse, what Rev. Al and the NBPP have been doing is wrong and it has been wrong for a very long, long time..

The NBPP wants to use the Zimmerman/Martin incident as an opportunity for publicity. It, and other fringe elements on the left and the right, want to stir the pot and to exploit the genuine concerns of many Americans. MOO, such efforts can only be successful if we buy into their narratives.

While you did not mention the Rev. Al by specific name, you did specify 'other fringe elements' with regards to those stirring the pot in Florida...one of which was the Rev. Al.

Rev. Al and The NBPP have a very long and extensive track record of showing up for nothing more than publicity and stoking the fires of rage. These events have time and time again resemble a circus that rivals that of PT Barnum Freck Show. Rev. Al and the NBPP don't show up to solve anything, they show up to grab the public's attention nothing more. That is a publicity stunt.

Rev. Al and the NBPP have been allowed to parade around because we have followed the logic that they are just misunderstood, silly and inconsequential, and if we just ignore them they will go away. Unfortunately, all these years of ignoring them hasn't worked and they are still actively involved in crimes such Hate Speech, Defamation, Threats, Harassment and interfering with investigations.

The moment they started yelling FIRE in a theater and hoping for a stampede, Rev. Al and the NBPP lost the status of misunderstood, silly and inconsequential.


Wrong is wrong, the time is long over due for a big hammer to come down hard and heavy on Rev. Al and the NBPP.

[Gypsy]

WWAD if he couldn't be pushing the race button? Oh, nothing.

[GratefulCitizen]

The first thing he should do is try to get gun control laws repealed.
Pretty hard to fire back otherwise.

Look at the demographics wherever gun control laws are strict.
It's almost like they're designed to disarm minorities.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

WWAD if he couldn't be pushing the race button? Oh, nothing.

Hair model?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Stingray

Sigaba,

I agree with a bit of your post. I don't believe a person can be a subject matter expert in an area without having spent enough time actively participating in day-to-day operations in that field. I don't believe a historian in military matters without having served in the military has nearly as much credibility as a former E-8 or Company commander who did the things he is talking about. It is the same in other subjects. I have a sister-in-law who will have her PhD in business and has spent no time leading a company or even a department. And I totally agree, America is not better off for it. Respectfully, Sir, I just find it odd the view is coming from you.

Sincerely,

Stingray--

Bluntly, there is nothing "odd" about my previous post--unless one misreads it. I have argued consistently that because no one owns the history, it is incumbent upon Americans to discuss the relationship between the past and the present in an intellectually sustainable manner. That is, I am of the view that a casual "helicopter approach" to the past that relies on the blogosphere is detrimental to a cogent discussion of the present.

Moreover, your evaluation of the credibility of military historians constitutes a profound misreading of my numerous posts on this BB in which (a) I've differentiated between expertise in military history and expertise in military science, and (b) I've made clear my view that theory is not practice.

Parenthetically, your supposition that only those who have been there and done that can be SMEs raises at least two controversial points. First, if one applies the logic of your argument consistently, African Americans' understanding of the historical and contemporaneous contexts of their everyday lives is inherently superior to those who are not African Americans. (And the same goes for women, Latinos, members of the working-classes, and other cohorts.)

While there are several trajectories of thought that enthusiastically agree with this sensibility, I don't know if this viewpoint is inherently beneficial to the health of American civilization. MOO, the goal of "out of many, one" will be increasingly difficult to achieve if one cohort after another another insists upon the primacy of its collective experiences and understanding.

Second, by your own logic, unless you yourself have "spent...time leading a company or a department," or you have successfully completed a graduate program in business, your own evaluation of your sister-in-law's work as a graduate student has limited credibility.*

My $0.02.

____________________________________
* If you strongly hold to the viewpoint that your sister in law's work is detrimental to America, then why not obtain a copy of her doctoral dissertation, read it, and then voice your objections during her defense? If nothing else, members of her committee will have a story to tell for years to come.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Stingray--

Bluntly, there is nothing "odd" about my previous post--unless one misreads it. I have argued consistently that because no one owns the history, it is incumbent upon Americans to discuss the relationship between the past and the present in an intellectually sustainable manner. That is, I am of the view that a casual "helicopter approach" to the past that relies on the blogosphere is detrimental to a cogent discussion of the present.

Moreover, your evaluation of the credibility of military historians constitutes a profound misreading of my numerous posts on this BB in which (a) I've differentiated between expertise in military history and expertise in military science, and (b) I've made clear my view that theory is not practice.

Parenthetically, your supposition that only those who have been there and done that can be SMEs raises at least two controversial points. First, if one applies the logic of your argument consistently, African Americans' understanding of the historical and contemporaneous contexts of their everyday lives is inherently superior to those who are not African Americans. (And the same goes for women, Latinos, members of the working-classes, and other cohorts.)

While there are several trajectories of thought that enthusiastically agree with this sensibility, I don't know if this viewpoint is inherently beneficial to the health of American civilization. MOO, the goal of "out of many, one" will be increasingly difficult to achieve if one cohort after another another insists upon the primacy of its collective experiences and understanding.

Second, by your own logic, unless you yourself have "spent...time leading a company or a department," or you have successfully completed a graduate program in business, your own evaluation of your sister-in-law's work as a graduate student has limited credibility.*

My $0.02.

____________________________________
* If you strongly hold to the viewpoint that your sister in law's work is detrimental to America, then why not obtain a copy of her doctoral dissertation, read it, and then voice your objections during her defense? If nothing else, members of her committee will have a story to tell for years to come.

Point! Game, Set, Match!

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Moreover, your evaluation of the credibility of military historians constitutes a profound misreading of my numerous posts on this BB in which (a) I've differentiated between expertise in military history and expertise in military science, and (b) I've made clear my view that theory is not practice.

No need to go all "Bluntly" on me. It isn't a personal attack. And lectures aren't effective at all online (even with your big words and all), unless you are the The Reaper.

You are correct. I have either misread or missed your post differentiating the two. I have not taken that from your many posts. Which I do read because your insight is different. That difference is critical to my post. For missing your distinction between the two, I apologize.

Parenthetically, your supposition that only those who have been there and done that can be SMEs raises at least two controversial points. First, if one applies the logic of your argument consistently, African Americans' understanding of the historical and contemporaneous contexts of their everyday lives is inherently superior to those who are not African Americans. (And the same goes for women, Latinos, members of the working-classes, and other cohorts.)

While there are several trajectories of thought that enthusiastically agree with this sensibility, I don't know if this viewpoint is inherently beneficial to the health of American civilization. MOO, the goal of "out of many, one" will be increasingly difficult to achieve if one cohort after another another insists upon the primacy of its collective experiences and understanding.

I do not disagree. My argument was focused around the difference between practice and theory

Second, by your own logic, unless you yourself have "spent...time leading a company or a department," or you have successfully completed a graduate program in business, your own evaluation of your sister-in-law's work as a graduate student has limited credibility.*

Yep, agree here as well if I were implying I was in fact a SME. I am not. I was stating what my preferred requirements are to be a true SME. And it does require practical experience. I have led both departments and companies. I do not have a graduate degree. Therefore my credibility would be limited if I were blogging away that I was the authority. I have hired those with graduate degrees who knew little about business. However, if I have to choose someone who has a graduate degree and no experience or an experienced professional, I take the experienced professional most of the time. The exception being if they are the wrong blood type for the company.



____________________________________
* If you strongly hold to the viewpoint that your sister in law's work is detrimental to America, then why not obtain a copy of her doctoral dissertation, read it, and then voice your objections during her defense? If nothing else, members of her committee will have a story to tell for years to come.

That is a fantastic idea. I had not thought of that. My brother would never talk to me again though, so for that reason alone I think I will pass. However, I do stick to my guns on the belief that a person is far less effective teaching what they only know in theory. I have had fantastic professors. The ones that made the most impact on me had real world experience. Just my .02.
That would make for a great story though.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

That is, I am of the view that a casual "helicopter approach" to the past that relies on the blogosphere is detrimental to a cogent discussion of the present.

Considering that (3) MSM NBC Journalists were fired over their reporting of the facts on the Martin Story I don't think the Blogs and bloggers are the sole source half assed news.

[Badger52]

Original CBS link RE Giffords & Palin
Fast-forwarded artistic license version:

During the election campaign, Al Sharpton placed (whoever) in the "crosshairs" of a "target list" of lawmakers he wanted to see beaten.

(Whoever) responded on FNC to Sharpton's "crosshairs" targeting, stating, "The way that he has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, when people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that," (whoever) added.

At this point, we don't know much about the suspected shooter, to be named later, or an alleged second suspect. It's unclear whether the act was influenced by a toxic overdose of vitriolic political discourse, [from Sharpton]...

I'm sure when the B-on-W hate-crime that can't be a hate-crime per the AG occurs, the main-stream rags will be all over it.