Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
No, I'm not ignoring the central message of the church. But the central message of the church and what the Rev. of that church teaches can and at times are 2 totally different things. If Rev. Wright had so many non-racist, non blaming, positive and not negative messages, why is no one showing them?
I still have yet to hear how this great Rev. Wright can go to Libya in 1984 with Farrakhan. What exactly was positive in that trip? Why not discuss how that trip positively affected his congregation?
But instead, ignore the question. Tell me I'm ignoring his "true" message.
Then when I show you a black man that IS uplifting, that gives men and women true hope and beliefs...... he's not black enough. He's not a true leader the urban minorities should follow. Instead, yo excuse and promote the Sharptons/Farrakhans/Wrights.
You're "discussions" are "I'm right.... you're wrong" I asked for your solutions that would work for everyone but you choose to refuse to even try that. Instead, you choose to walk away and refuse to have a true discussion with someone from a differing point of view.
You're right, there is no way to have a positive discussion because you refuse to answer questions, defend the leaders you believe promote the better message and pick and choose what you want to discuss and not the whole picture.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
<h3>.....I don't see Clarence Thomas</h3>, Tiger Woods, and many successful black men and women today <h3>living in the past and being hateful, resentful and poisoning</h3> the youths mind. I didn't see or hear of Thurgood Marshall doing it, Hank Aaron, the vast majority of black entertainers.... just those who thrive in impoverished communities that keep their audiences only if they keep the misery and hopelessness alive.
|
pan, you went off on me for posting that Thurgood Marshall was dead, but he and Clarence Thomas have certainly shown their angry sides, publicly.
I posted that Clarence Thomas is a POS, because he has acted like one. Did you consider Anita Hill....her motivation, at all? If you hold Thomas up as someone other than a lying POS, you have to, by default, discount the sworn testimony against him by Anita Hill in 1991, and her opinion in her op ed piece, last fall. In 1991, she was a Yale law grad, enjoyed a good reputation, and had a decent resume, in addition to her diploma.
Why do you buy the republican "Op", the usual character assassination that was mounted to demonize her, intimidate her, and discredit her testimony? She was not a freak, like "nothing to lose" Paula Jones....who was financed by wingers like Richard Mellon Scaife.
Could it not be that Hill was victimized by the harrassment, in the workplace, of Thomas, and because of that, was willing to risk her reputation by alerting the Senate judiciary committee about Thomas?
You're out there, pan....in a wierd area with some posters who ignore truckloads of shit and have some very fringe beliefs....
.....they think nothing of this.....
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail
Bush's long history of tilting Justice
The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice lawyer.
By Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
March 29, 2007
.....It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, <h3>no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters.</h3> U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.......
|
...are you sure this is where you want to be, pan? Is it okay, in your view, for a black man...or me, for that matter....to go into a batshit crazy rage in reaction to the info contained in the preceding quote box, or is playing things, "nicey", "nicey", the only correct conduct when nothing ever changes, except on the exterior....the veneer?
Oh, I forgot, there are only 4 black CEOs heading fortune 500 companies, because, in general, blacks need to strive to obtain "better education".
There are less than 25 Asian and female fortune 500 CEO's, combined....and it isn't a matter of education, is it? Maybe it's because they are not white anglo saxon males?