Think what you may of Al Sharpton but....

[Postman]

I love the mans guts and his "speaking truth to power" ethos. How can you not slap a high five all around when he comes up with phrases like the following...

"we all know that Republicans don't like Democrats. Know we know that Republicans just don't like democracy"
---on California Recall

"there's a non-military civil war going on in this country. From the Florida recount to the Texas redistricting to the Recall in California"

"Osama has more videos than a rock-star"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Al Sharpton is doing a fantastic job of representing the people who

count on him to represent them and making sure the DEMS know they cannot count on their votes unless they consider them in their legislation.

I'd break bread with the guy any day of the week.

[loudnclear]

32. Let's put together a list of "Sharp Attacks"

They would make wonderful bumper stickers and signs for any Dem's campaign.

Here is a starter:
"The rich PLAY in America; we WORK in America."

[ComerPerro]

73. I liked that one too

He has the best lines.

[ComerPerro]

2. One I liked from the last debate

"From the recount, to the redistricting, to the recall, what we have is a rejection of the will of the people"

Thats a paraphrase from memory, but the line was just great!

[Kolesar]

3. Do you think Al will fade from view once he drops out?

Doubtlessly there is going to be a winnowing of the field of candidates after the first few primaries, and I don't see Al getting much funding or attention thereafter. I would miss his wisdom and wit.

[ComerPerro]

5. Not likely

I think he will continue to be active. I wouldn't be suprised to see him endorse the candidate, depending on who it is.

[notadmblnd]

94. It is my hope that whoever

Wins the nomination, makes Al Sharpton a part of their team.

[Booberdawg]

4. Slap the Donkey!

[leftofthedial]

6. Sharpton has amazed and impressed me

throughout this campaign. I hope his energy, elequence and enthusiasm can be harnessed by the party.

[Character Assassin]

7. I think I could find some 'white interlopers' who don't share that opinion

No high fives from me for that camera-happy charlatan.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. MY sentiments exactly

about David Horowitz. :hi:

[SharonAnn]

26. Well there were hundreds of us at the Knoxville Truman Day

Dinner and I can tell you that Al rocked the room! He was great in the reception before the event, speaking at the dinner, and in the discussions after the dinner.

He impressed a lot of us people who just happen to be white, middle-class Americans. He also impressed the African Americans and Hispanics who were at the event.

Al Sharpton rocks!

[Character Assassin]

34. I think it's a mistake to equate the two

Two quite different people, and Horowitz shows evidence of actual rational thought at times.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. No he doesn't..a thought based on a lie is not rational

[noiretextatique]

98. ROTFLMAO

you have zero credibility if you believe that lunatic horowitz is ever 'rational.' he's a bigger race-baiter than sharpton ever was...just playing for a different team.

[IranianDemocrat]

8. Two words: Tawana Brawley.

eom

[DrWeird]

10. Al still thinks the cop did it.

And given how many people think OJ did it even though he was cleared by a jury, I don't have a problem with Al's position on Brawely.

[Character Assassin]

11. So the earth is flat, and man will never reach the moon, hmmm?

Given how many people think your OJ analogy is valid, I'd say you're alone.

[DrWeird]

35. Can you explain how it's not valid?

Or do you just want it to not be valid.

[sangh0]

36. No he can't

just as he can't explain how you're all alone, when you are not.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

48. Just as I said

he can't explain, so he resorts to personal insults. Typical CA.

[Character Assassin]

37. It was a bad analogy that doesn't hold up.

Are there plenty of suckers out there who think that OJ didn't do it because a bamboozled, ignorant jury got suckered by a defense team of PT Barnums who told them so? Sure. Is that even close to an equivalent to Sharpton's involvement or opinion in the Brawley case?

Nope.

[sangh0]

39. There are plenty of suckers

who believe what the media tells them, like "Sharpton is a racist"

[Character Assassin]

42. Correct.

He is more accurately described as a media whore racist.

Glad we could clear that up.

[sangh0]

43. So could you

"media whore racist"

But at least Sharpton is profiting financially. The media is, and like a good "media whore racist" you take the media's side

[Character Assassin]

47. Yeah, it's all one big, evil media conspiracy. Uh-huh.

But at least Sharpton is profiting financially.

Quite telling, for a supposed reverend.

The media is, and like a good "media whore racist" you take the media's side.

Sorry, I don't buy that there's some nefarious media conspiracy to paint Sharpton in a bad light. He does that well enough on his own, and has become quite proficient at it.

[sangh0]

52. fair und balanced. fair und balanced

Quite telling, for a supposed reverend.

typo. I meant "isn't"

But it's quite telling that you think Sharpton has benefited finacially. Why don't you tell us about how he has profited"? After all, his finances are public (released like all candidates are) and if Sharpton was rich, you could be sure the media would have reported that.

[Character Assassin]

54. That's your statement, not mine

But it's quite telling that you think Sharpton has benefited finacially.

No, it's quite telling that you would attempt to attribute that position to me when I haven't stated that it is. Typical.

Why don't you tell us about how he has profited"?

You are the one who made the statement "But at least Sharpton is profiting financially." So step on up to the plate and support your own words.

After all, his finances are public (released like all candidates are) and if Sharpton was rich, you could be sure the media would have reported that.

See above.

[sangh0]

59. YOU said it was "telling"

So what did my typo "tell" you?

[Character Assassin]

66. You didn't edit the correct post

So what did my typo "tell" you?

That you don't know how to edit.

[sangh0]

67. Avoiding the question.

I'm not surprised.

[Character Assassin]

70. I do tend to avoid irrelevancies.

I don't know if he's wealthy or not, despite your kindergarden attempts to attribute that opinion to me. It's not an issue here for anyone but you.

If he were wealthy, it would be quite telling.

[sangh0]

71. But you've managed to keep responding

on an issue you claim is irrelevant

How telling.

[noiretextatique]

99. are you still talking about horowitz

the media whore racist?

[DrWeird]

45. That doesn't even make sense.

There are people who think OJ didn't do it because the defense wrongfully tricked the jury into thinking he didn't do it?

Do you know what a custody seal is CA?

[Character Assassin]

50. Allow me to elaborate.

There are people who think OJ didn't do it because the defense wrongfully tricked the jury into thinking he didn't do it?

I saw the grandstanding, purposefully race-driven tactics of the defense team. I saw mountains of evidence either mishandled by the prosecution or at least neglected.

After hearing post-trial interviews with the jury and the reports of their deliberations, it was clear to me that they were collectively as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Those three factors combined lead me to the conclusion that their decision was incorrect, based on ignornace, and they were led to it by a bunch of high-priced clowns. Clowns doing what they were paid to do, but clowns nonetheless.

No trickery involved, just rubes listening to side-show barkers and going into the tent.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

72. LOL!

I just love the reasonable arguments you make. I'm so glad to see your arguments are so reasonable and persuasive that you have no need to engage in the lower forms of argument, like name-calling.

[Character Assassin]

77. It is impossible to argue when you give words meanings they don't have

Libertarianism isn't consveratism, something you either know and purposefully mischaracterize, or don't know, and yet still claim to be able to argue rationally.

It's one or the other, and both indicate intellectual dishonesty.

[sangh0]

80. Libertarianism *IS* conservatism

that's why the libertarians agree with the conservatives.

[Character Assassin]

82. Yawn.....

As long as you fail to understand that word's actually have meanings, your points remain irrelevant since no one else speaks your fantasy language.

[sangh0]

84. *Yawn*

That's what you said in your last post, but the libertarians are still Bush*-lite conservatives.

[Character Assassin]

87. You obviously are unable to comprehend the differences

Go ahead and detail exactly where they 'agree', genius.

I won't hold my breath.

[sangh0]

89. *Yawn*

Same argument, again and again.

One similarity is how both conservatives and libertarians seem to think that repetition makes their arguments more persuasive, when that only works with conservatives and libertarians.

[Character Assassin]

92. Obviously, you cannot back up your claim.

Anytime you're ready to actually attempt intellectual honesty and back up your ridiculous contentions, feel free.

[DrWeird]

58. did you also notice

how the DNA evidence was tampered with by the police?

How about when a racist lead investigator perjurs himself on the stand?

Aren't these valid points? Don't these cast reasonable doubt?

But I see your point.

It's OK to state your opinion that OJ did it, even though a jury cleared him. But it's egregious and terrible for Sharpton to believe a beaten, mutilated, raped teenage girl, even though a jury cleared the rapist. Funny how that sides with the white people.

[sangh0]

62. Did you also notice

that the double-standard bearers (believe the Pagones jury, but not the OJ jury) never respond to it?

Let's wait and see if CA can address this double-standard

[DrWeird]

63. Not really much to respond to.

Most people who get stuck in their own hypocritical catch 22 tend to just get bitter and shout their mouth off.

[Character Assassin]

65. If you've got something to say, come out and say it.

how the DNA evidence was tampered with by the police?

I saw plenty to indicate sloppy mishandling, but I don't buy their contention about purposeful tampering.

How about when a racist lead investigator perjurs himself on the stand?

I see. The one from the same police force whose officers Simpson would often have officers to his Rockingham mansion. The same LAPD whose events Simpson would attend. The same one who only once charged him in a litany of domestic abuse complaints. The same one that even up until the time Simpson fled in his Bronco, deferred to his celebrity status by allowing him to surrender voluntarily to save him the embarrassment of a public arrest.

Aren't these valid points? Don't these cast reasonable doubt?

They are valid points, and they don't don't cast reasonable doubts, IMO.

But I see your point.

It's OK to state your opinion that OJ did it, even though a jury cleared him. But it's egregious and terrible for Sharpton to believe a beaten, mutilated, raped teenage girl, even though a jury cleared the rapist. Funny how that sides with the white people.

If you think I'm racist, Sport, come right on out and say it and don't hide behind transparent attempts at implication.

[sangh0]

69. Why don't you start

Your answers demonstrate a deep desire to avoid the issues.

I saw plenty to indicate sloppy mishandling, but I don't buy their contention about purposeful tampering.

Intentional or not, the fact remains that the "evidence" was untrustworthy, a point you avoided responding to. Instead, you try to distract with the irrelevant issue of whether it was "tampered" or simply "mishandled"

The one from the same police force whose officers Simpson would often have officers to his Rockingham mansion. The same LAPD whose events Simpson would attend. The same one who only once charged him in a litany of domestic abuse complaints. The same one that even up until the time Simpson fled in his Bronco, deferred to his celebrity status by allowing him to surrender voluntarily to save him the embarrassment of a public arrest.

And here you have nothing to say about the *FACT* that the lead investigator was a racist and did commit perjury. Instead you distract with irrelevant info.

They are valid points, and they don't don't cast reasonable doubts, IMO.

And I like how you support your conclusion without any explanation of how valid is unreasonable.

If you think I'm racist, Sport, come right on out and say it and don't hide behind transparent attempts at implication.

And again, instead of addressing the issue, you get all huffy (after hurling insults at several people who have disagreed with you).

How about explaining why you believe the Pagones (white) jury but not the OJ jury?

[Character Assassin]

75. What would be the point?

Your answers demonstrate a deep desire to avoid the issues.

I can see how your inability to think would lead to that conclusion.

I saw plenty to indicate sloppy mishandling, but I don't buy their contention about purposeful tampering.

Intentional or not, the fact remains that the "evidence" was untrustworthy, a point you avoided responding to.

It wasn't 'evidence', it was evidence. If it was reliable or not was the issue.

Instead, you try to distract with the irrelevant issue of whether it was "tampered" or simply "mishandled"

I was responding to a point the poster made. Clearly that went way over your head.

The one from the same police force whose officers Simpson would often have officers to his Rockingham mansion. The same LAPD whose events Simpson would attend. The same one who only once charged him in a litany of domestic abuse complaints. The same one that even up until the time Simpson fled in his Bronco, deferred to his celebrity status by allowing him to surrender voluntarily to save him the embarrassment of a public arrest.

And here you have nothing to say about the *FACT* that the lead investigator was a racist and did commit perjury. Instead you distract with irrelevant info.

Your ignorance of what consitutes evidence and buidling a case is astounding. His history of involvement with the LAPD and their preferential treatment of him is irrelevant?

As to Fuhrman: The LA Times interviewed minorities with whom Fuhrman worked. What they found flies in the face of Cochran's comparison of Fuhrman to Hitler.

There are plenty of others here http://www.ukar.org/temp/klausn13.html who also opine differently, several of them black, including Vincent Bugliosi.

The Times said, "Sergeant Ed Palmer, an African-American who first met Fuhrman at the West LA station: "I am as shocked as anybody ... If Mark were a racist and especially as big a racist as he sounded on the tapes, I would have no trouble telling him he was the scum of the earth. But I really can't."

They are valid points, and they don't don't cast reasonable doubts, IMO.

And I like how you support your conclusion without any explanation of how valid is unreasonable.

Because, Einstein, of the other evidence that strongly support the case that he's guilty.

If you think I'm racist, Sport, come right on out and say it and don't hide behind transparent attempts at implication.

And again, instead of addressing the issue, you get all huffy (after hurling insults at several people who have disagreed with you).

The implication was made that I am a racist. I called the individual on that. You, again, utterly miss the point.

How about explaining why you believe the Pagones (white) jury but not the OJ jury?

I already have.

[sangh0]

83. And again you ignore the issues

It wasn't 'evidence', it was evidence. If it was reliable or not was the issue.

Right, and you still haven't commented on it's reliability, even though even you acknowledge that reliability is the issue.

I was responding to a point the poster made. Clearly that went way over your head.

You were trying NOT to respond to the point, which is why you still haven't said if the evidence was reliable or not.

Your ignorance of what consitutes evidence and buidling a case is astounding. His history of involvement with the LAPD and their preferential treatment of him is irrelevant?

And again you fail to address the issue, and instead use the personal attack.

His history of involvement with the LAPD and their preferential treatment of him is irrelevant?

Yes, it is. Either the evidence is reliable, or it's not. Either OJ did it, or he didn't. Prior actions/treatment (wrt to OJ) by the LAPD have nothing to do with whether or not he did it.

As to Fuhrman: The LA Times interviewed minorities with whom Fuhrman worked. What they found flies in the face of Cochran's comparison of Fuhrman to Hitler.

And many slave owners were nice to their slaves.

Again you avoid the issue, which has nothing to do with any comparison to Hitler. The issue is whether or not Furman is a racist. That is not disproven by pointing out instances where he treated a minority member fairly. In fact, it can't be disproven because you can't prove a negative ("I am not a racist"). Racism can't be disproven, but it can be proven. In Fuhrman's case, it was.

There are plenty of others here http://www.ukar.org/temp/klausn13.html who also opine differently, several of them black, including Vincent Bugliosi.

The Times said, "Sergeant Ed Palmer, an African-American who first met Fuhrman at the West LA station: "I am as shocked as anybody ... If Mark were a racist and especially as big a racist as he sounded on the tapes, I would have no trouble telling him he was the scum of the earth. But I really can't."


So what? Instead of arguing from fact, you've again avoided the issue by attempting to produce a "bandwagon effect", as it's known to propogandists. As if anything a LAPD sgt says could disprove what Fuhrman says on the tape.

Because, Einstein, of the other evidence that strongly support the case that he's guilty.

A clear sign you don't understand the idea of "reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt can exist even in cases where there is strong evidence to support a conviction. Confessions are widely considered to be the strongest of evidence (and some people have been executed in cases where a confession was the ONLY evidence) but many defendants have been acquited despite their confessions.

The implication was made that I am a racist. I called the individual on that. You, again, utterly miss the point

And again, you don't address the issue, which is how you can believe one jury, but not the other.

How about explaining why you believe the Pagones (white) jury but not the OJ jury?

I believe both.

I already have.

No, you haven't

[Character Assassin]

93. Again, you make utterly irrelevant points

And continue to empahsize tangential issues as though they were critical to the case.

It wasn't 'evidence', it was evidence. If it was reliable or not was the issue.

Right, and you still haven't commented on it's reliability, even though even you acknowledge that reliability is the issue.

So what? My comment was in regards to the claim of purposeful police tampering with the evidence, as opposed to sloppy handling. You are the only one obsessing with this point.

I was responding to a point the poster made. Clearly that went way over your head.

You were trying NOT to respond to the point, which is why you still haven't said if the evidence was reliable or not.

You evidently didn't read what I was responding to.

Your ignorance of what consitutes evidence and buidling a case is astounding. His history of involvement with the LAPD and their preferential treatment of him is irrelevant?

And again you fail to address the issue, and instead use the personal attack.

It's not a personal attack, and it's relevant to the case.

His history of involvement with the LAPD and their preferential treatment of him is irrelevant?

Yes, it is. Either the evidence is reliable, or it's not. Either OJ did it, or he didn't. Prior actions/treatment (wrt to OJ) by the LAPD have nothing to do with whether or not he did it.

They have everything to do with the contention that the police purposefully and with intest falsified or corrupted evidence against him.

As to Fuhrman: The LA Times interviewed minorities with whom Fuhrman worked. What they found flies in the face of Cochran's comparison of Fuhrman to Hitler.

And many slave owners were nice to their slaves.

Comparing the two is ridiculously inappropriate.

Again you avoid the issue, which has nothing to do with any comparison to Hitler. The issue is whether or not Furman is a racist. That is not disproven by pointing out instances where he treated a minority member fairly. In fact, it can't be disproven because you can't prove a negative ("I am not a racist"). Racism can't be disproven, but it can be proven. In Fuhrman's case, it was.

The issue is whether or not he tampered with evidence or otherwise effected the outcome of the investigation to suit some alterior motive. I see none that he did.

There are plenty of others here http://www.ukar.org/temp/klausn13.html who also opine differently, several of them black, including Vincent Bugliosi.

The Times said, "Sergeant Ed Palmer, an African-American who first met Fuhrman at the West LA station: "I am as shocked as anybody ... If Mark were a racist and especially as big a racist as he sounded on the tapes, I would have no trouble telling him he was the scum of the earth. But I really can't."


So what? Instead of arguing from fact, you've again avoided the issue by attempting to produce a "bandwagon effect", as it's known to propogandists. As if anything a LAPD sgt says could disprove what Fuhrman says on the tape.

Those quotes are quite factual.

Because, Einstein, of the other evidence that strongly support the case that he's guilty.

A clear sign you don't understand the idea of "reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt can exist even in cases where there is strong evidence to support a conviction. Confessions are widely considered to be the strongest of evidence (and some people have been executed in cases where a confession was the ONLY evidence) but many defendants have been acquited despite their confessions.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and are confusing two seperate issues.

The implication was made that I am a racist. I called the individual on that. You, again, utterly miss the point.

And again, you don't address the issue, which is how you can believe one jury, but not the other.

The evidence was overwhelming, in my opinion, in the Simpson case to favor a guilty verdict.

How about explaining why you believe the Pagones (white) jury but not the OJ jury?

I already have.

I believe both.

Goody.

[sangh0]

101. Still avoiding the issue. How cowardly

All you can do is say "the evidence was overwhelming" even though it was "mishandled".

[Character Assassin]

105. No, what's cowardly is purposefully misstating my argument

The blood/DNA evidence was mishandled, but I never referred to it as what was overwhelming.

What you clearly fail to understand is that I'm not saying the blood/DNA evidence was overwhelming, I saying that the amount of evidence other than the blood/DNA was overwhelming.

[sangh0]

107. You're still behaving cowardly.

The blood/DNA evidence was mishandled, but I never referred to it as what was overwhelming.

You haven't referred to ANYTHING specific that was "overwhelming". You've done nothing more than DECLARE "it was overwhelming" without providing any facts to support your opinion

What you clearly fail to understand is that I'm not saying the blood/DNA evidence was overwhelming, I saying that the amount of evidence other than the blood/DNA was overwhelming.

And again, you claim "it was overwhelming" without providing any facts to support your opinion.

[Character Assassin]

110. You've missed the point the entire time.

The blood/DNA evidence was mishandled, but I never referred to it as what was overwhelming.

You haven't referred to ANYTHING specific that was "overwhelming". You've done nothing more than DECLARE "it was overwhelming" without providing any facts to support your opinion.

That's because I'm not under cross-examination, and I'm not holding some lecture on the evidentiary nature of the case. The evidence is public record, it's all over the Internet, and it's not my job to detail to you the evidence that was involved beyond the blood/DNA.

What you clearly fail to understand is that I'm not saying the blood/DNA evidence was overwhelming, I saying that the amount of evidence other than the blood/DNA was overwhelming.

And again, you claim "it was overwhelming" without providing any facts to support your opinion.

The evidence is immediately available on the Internet, and you may review them at your leisure. I'm not going to fetch them for you, and I'm not interested in changing your opinion, so I'm not playing your little game.

[sangh0]

113. Another example of CA ducking the issue

It's "all over the Internet", but you have no links and can't even mention one specific part of that overwhelming evidence

[Character Assassin]

115. Oh, please. Try the link I posted in #93

Then try www.google.com

Ought to clear things right up, even for those who lack any motivation.

[sangh0]

116. You should try it sometime

Ought to clear things right up, even for those who lack any motivation

Still waiting for the overwhelming evidence

[Character Assassin]

119. It's a click away, at most.

I'm not here to do your footwork.

[sangh0]

120. You posted a Holocaust Denial website

No wonder you don't like Sharpton.

[Character Assassin]

121. Irrelevant to the bitter end, I see.

Is the information referenced valid and/or legitimate? The sources?

Let's see, direct quotations from Vincent Bugliosi, interviews from LEOs from the LA Times, quotations from Globe Magazine of the Boston Globe, direct transcipts from the trial itself, etc...

Yeah, total Nazis, those sources. There are none so blind, it seems....

[Isome]

78. O.J. trial... and Pagones civil suit?

His criminal trial and acquittal have nothing to do with Al Sharpton and the civil suit by Pagones, except that they're both Black defendants. That's a huge exception, and the credence given one jury's decision over the other is a big clue.

You wouldn't be the first progressive, color-blind, liberal, equal-opportunity-hating, lots-of-Black-friends-having, Black-neighborhood-residing, Black-school-attending, never-did-a-bad-thing-to-anyone person whose bigotry is just beneath the surface.

Black officers spoke well of Furhman? Awww' how sweeeet! There were Black people that spoke well of the late George Wallace, too. That doesn't change what people like George & Mark feel in their hearts, nor what they do or say when not in the company of those fawning Black friends of theirs.

(edited: for second thoughts from more careful reading)

[Character Assassin]

79. Obviously not edited enough

You wouldn't be the first progressive, color-blind, liberal, equal-opportunity-hating, lots-of-Black-friends-having, Black-neighborhood-residing, Black-school-attending, never-did-a-bad-thing-to-anyone person whose bigotry is just beneath the surface.

You wouldn't be the first one to harbor the conceit that I, or anyone else you know nothing about, can simply be dismissed with shopworn stereotypes that both do not apply and relieve you of having to actually address reality.

I harbor no bigotry except against fools.

Black officers spoke well of Furhman? Awww' how sweeeet!

What a quaint description.

There were Black people that spoke well of the late George Wallace, too.

Golly, that's awfully nice. But utterly irrelevant. Working with a partner as a homicide detective gives one a little more insight into the character of an individual than most walks in life, and I'm speaking from professional experience.

That doesn't change what people like George & Mark feel in their hearts, nor what they do or say when not in the company of those fawning Black friends of theirs.

"Fawning? Evidently you either didn't read the link or you don't know the meaning of the verb 'to fawn' but used it anyway.

[sangh0]

85. LOL

Golly, that's awfully nice. But utterly irrelevant.

Yep, some blacks speak well of Fuhrman, and that's relevant, but if they speak well of Wallace, it's irrelevant.

CA believes the Pagones jury, but doesn't believe the OJ jury, but the discrepancy is, you guessed it, IRRELEVANT!!

[Character Assassin]

90. Exactly like your posts

Yep, some blacks speak well of Fuhrman, and that's relevant, but if they speak well of Wallace, it's irrelevant.

Quite. Law enforcement officers who are partners are quite relevant. Until I see quotes from blacks who worked as closely with Wallace as those in the link I provided, they are irrelevant.

CA believes the Pagones jury, but doesn't believe the OJ jury, but the discrepancy is, you guessed it, IRRELEVANT!!

Yes, precisely like your opinion.

[sangh0]

102. LAPD partners

like the partners in other police forces, are not known for speaking ill of their colleagues, even if they deserve it.

[Character Assassin]

108. Really?

So, tell me, were you an LEO in L.A.? Have you ever been one anywhere?

[sangh0]

111. Next you'll argue that only the insane are qualified

to give psychotherapy.

BTW, several members of my family are or were police officers. Other members are in other branches of LE. My job also brings me in contact with many police offficers. And you might want to consider the possibility that, as a (fmr?) PO, you are biased.

IOW, you're no expert. Stop pretending you're so special, though it would be out of character.

[Character Assassin]

112. Hardly

Next you'll argue that only the insane are qualified to give psychotherapy.

What a stupid assumption.

BTW, several members of my family are or were police officers. Other members are in other branches of LE. My job also brings me in contact with many police offficers. And you might want to consider the possibility that, as a (fmr?) PO, you are biased.

No, I'm not biased.

IOW, you're no expert. Stop pretending you're so special, though it would be out of character.

I'm not particularly special, but I do at least know what I'm talking about from personal experience, and unless you've been there, not just heard about it, you don't know.

Those partners who were quoted were all his past partners, and given that he was a nationally despised figure at the time, they could have said anything negative about him, confirming the popularly held opinion of him with any number of details, with no repercussions stemming from such statements due to his pariah status. But they didn't.

That speaks volumes.

[sangh0]

114. You don't know what you're talking about

and I have that on the authority of several cops, Prosecutors, and judges. They have "been there", though I doubt you have.

And cops all over the nation laugh at your contention that there would be "no repercussions" from speaking badly of a partner to the media.

You're a joke. Now I even doubt you were even an LEO.

[Character Assassin]

118. You are unable to accept any info that varies from your preconception

and I have that on the authority of several cops, Prosecutors, and judges. They have "been there", though I doubt you have.

Been there, done that.

And cops all over the nation laugh at your contention that there would be "no repercussions" from speaking badly of a partner to the media.

Once again, since you refuse to either read what I write or seem simply to be unable and/or unwilling to understand it, this is an utter waste of time.

In probably the most highly charged, media-exposed case in the history of the US, with a nationally reviled figure near the center of it who ended up being forced to resign his job because of it, there was plenty of criticism of Fuhrman, and his former partners, to my experience, would not have suffered for commenting negatively on him. They could have done so. They did not do so, and in fact contradicted the claims against him.

You choose who you want to believe, it doesn't matter a whit to me.

You're a joke. Now I even doubt you were even an LEO.

Golly, that means so much to me, coming from someone with zero credibility in the first place.

[sangh0]

122. You have no experience

so your "in my experience" counts for nothing. People who are LEO's know that there's repercussions for talking badly about your partner.

[Character Assassin]

123. You can believe what you want to believe

People who are LEO's know that there's repercussions for talking badly about your partner.

I'm not suggesting otherwise, as should be obvious. But then, you refuse to honestly address what I actually do say, so it's pointless to take you seriously.

The circumstances were extraordinary, and none of the people cited were his partner, but rather his former partners.

But of course, you know that and continue to try and obfuscate things.

I'm not suprised.

[sangh0]

124. Even you admit it

but you keep trying to insist that there are "special cases".

There aren't. Talk badly about your partner and you're screwed by your colleagues, who will think you're a rat. Say it to the media, and then none of your colleagues will back you up.

Ask Serpico about it. Those were "special cases" too, but it didn't help him.

So please tell us when, in any time in American history, a cop told the media their partner was bad and suffered no repercussion for doing so?

The Abner Louima case? Dorismond?

[Character Assassin]

125. I admit you have a real problem with consistency

but you keep trying to insist that there are "special cases".

No, I haven't. A singular, special case, not a plurality of them. You can twist and dodge all you want, but it's transparent and, frankly, childish.

There aren't. Talk badly about your partner and you're screwed by your colleagues, who will think you're a rat. Say it to the media, and then none of your colleagues will back you up.

Again, I haven't disputed that. You're the one repeating the same thing over and over when no one is questioning its validity. You have no point relative to what I actually said, so why try to appear that you do?

Ask Serpico about it. Those were "special cases" too, but it didn't help him.

Irrelevant as to my comments.

So please tell us when, in any time in American history, a cop told the media their partner was bad and suffered no repercussion for doing so?

For the last time, I mentioned this one, single instance as unique, and no others, and I specifically indicated former partners, not a current one.

Your dishonesty in addressing what I actually say grows boring. You may have the last word.

The Abner Louima case? Dorismond?

[sangh0]

126. Proof that you're lying

You've already argued that, as a LEO, your experience shows that Furhman's partners could have spoken out without consequences. Now, you're claiming you have no experience with partners speaking badly to the media because it's never happened before.

[Character Assassin]

127. Proof that you cannot understand simple English

I guess that wasn't my last post after all.

You have a childish habit of trying to twist the words of others to deflect attention from your 'argument's lack of substance. You don't know what you're talking about, you refuse to read what's plainly written to you, and you constantly emphasize tangential points that no one is disputing.

Yes, my experience leads me to the conclusion that in this one, single, exceptional instance, his former partners could indeed have done so, as I have made crystal clear from the beginning.

Now, you're claiming you have no experience with partners speaking badly to the media because it's never happened before.

I see you're utterly unfamiliar with the words 'unique', 'exceptional' and 'singular'. Or, for that matter 'former'.

[sangh0]

128. More word twisting

Your claim to have experience with something you admit has never happened yet is pretty unpersuasive.

[Character Assassin]

129. Dodge, dodge, dodge your way, merrily down the thread....

I have experience in law enforcement, the attitude of LEOs, the environment in which LEOs must work and the conditions they work under, what is involved in working with a partner, the internal politics of law enforcement agencies and the dynamics of politically-charged cases.

I do not and have not claimed that I have had experience in such comments or actions having actually been made or taken, and I have clearly stated that the circumstances surrounding Fuhrman were unique.

Your charade is pointless.

[sangh0]

130. You have no experience

You even admitted that it has never happened before, ever.

If the circumstances surrounding Fuhrman were unique, then you have no experience with those circumstances.

[Character Assassin]

131. And you have nothing but transparent sophistry.

You even admitted that it has never happened before, ever.

Not to my knowldege, but so what? I am very familiar with the conditions in which it could.

If the circumstances surrounding Fuhrman were unique, then you have no experience with those circumstances.

I have a lot of experience in the environment and with the conditions in which those circumstance would or would not arise wherein such statements would be possible. Hence, I am able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that such actions could have been taken, even if they weren't, and have made this clear from the start.

You, conversely, have zero experience, and yet continue to babble about something you know nothing about.

[Forkboy]

133. I wish I had brought some popcorn for this exchange

[Isome]

95. Probably edited too much

...given the sparse content of your response.

All that's necessary to discern just-beneath-the-surface bigotry is to read the responses of posters to various issues or people. You've provided enough at this point.

Of course the praise of George Wallace by other Black people is relevant, wholly relevant. (By the by, this cop comaraderie, down in the trenches bullshit isn't a trump card. Among the people I was thinking of who spoke well of ol' dead George was his personal aide. You know, the one who was with him 24/7/365.) You'll always find a Black person with good things to say about a white person others know are racist. It's always been that way, the only one who sees it as surprising is you. Citing the words of the Black people who were fawning over Mark Furhman is to prove what? If those Black people say he's wonderful then what was said on tape shouldn't mean anything to other Black people? The sentiments he repeatedly expressed on tape in no way affected his attitude while on the job? What was said on that tape shouldn't be considered offensive?

That his Black co-workers were unaware his affinity for that word is only testament to Mark's ability to hide his true nature. People don't always wear white sheets nowadays, most of the time they just wear a mask of civility.

I'm not the best writer, but then I see from your posts that neither are you. However, I meant fawn. I meant there are Black people who see an opportunity to speak highly of a white person as a way to get in not only their good graces, but the good graces of those farther up the foodchain. I meant "fawning" Black friends.

[noiretextatique]

13. given abner louima got raped inside a police station

i don't have a problem with al either. that incident might have been a hoax, but it's not as if there no other incidents...and a long hisotry of incidents. i might understand the bitterness about brawley if no black people were ever beaten, tortured, raped and murdered by the police.

[ignoranceisstrength]

24. yep let's not pretend it doesn't happen

Whatever the Tawana Brawley incident was, let's keep in mind the facts that we know, and they aren't pretty.

[sangh0]

38. But don't you see?

Before Sharpton calls for an investigation (which is what he fought for in the Brawley case as well as the Louima, Dorismond, NJ Four, etc cases) Sharpton should first wait until the investigation is done, even if no investigation has been started or contemplated.

[noiretextatique]

97. yep...i see, and i remember ronnie settles

who was beaten to death and hung in a signal hill jail cell. it's not as if the signal hill police department was eager to 'investigate' either.

[yankeedem]

132. Hey, let's take that logic farther

I don't have a problem with cops beating Louima, his crimes were a hoax, but its not like no black people were ever guilty of what he was accused of.

Of course, the above is sarcasm, but it just goes to show you how racist and insensitive your comments are. Let's just destroy peoples lives because others of their race committed crimes.

Hey, it gets easy doesn't it?

I don't have a problem with the US bombing Iraq, their WMD's were a hoax, but its not like no Arabs were ever guilty of crimes against the US, so bombs away!!!!

[noiretextatique]

134. do you have a problem with them showing a broomstick up his ass?

it's a matter of proportion...something some of you don't seem to understand. in a country where racial profiling is considered an appropriate response, it's absurd to whine about the life of ONE white police officer, ad nauseum. THAT REALITY, whether you like it or not. what happened to him was tragic, and unjustified...well guess what? it's STILL happening in the reverse to people of color every single fucking day...like the people in IRAQ. what racist is AMERICA, and many of its inhabitants. this is why the officers who beat rodney king, on videotape no less, were still acquitted. YOU can keep you head in the sand all you like while pretending what happened to ONE PERSON is the same as what happened to thousands of people EVERY DAY. and keep ignoring that history also...the one that made it perfectly OK for the parents of those four little girls in birmingham to wait over FORTY YEARS for their justice.

[yankeedem]

136. Yawn

It's wrong for it to happen to ANYBODY. You excuse it when it happens to a white police officer. Why? Are you biased against police officers so much that they are guilty no matter what? That's the same logic that some LEO's use everyday to persecute people everyday. So you are no better than them.

Justice for some is justice for none.

[noiretextatique]

139. do you understand the word "proportion?"

and didn't i ALREADY say what what to THAT ONE POLICE OFFICER was not right, and was in fact a tragedy? what you an others are doing is taking RELATIVITY to an absurd and ridiculous level. one white man being wrongly accused is not the end of civilization as YOU know it, and no matter how much you whine about it. especially in THIS country where people of color are and have been ROUTINELY targetted, profiled, and many of whom have been beaten an murdered by police departments around the country. like my friend ronnie setttles, who who beaten and hung by members of the signal hill police department.

one could say, the GENERAL problem of police brutality, particularly as it relates to abuses against people of color, is more of problem than ONE POLICE OFFICER who was falsely accused...does that ring true to you? it's not either or, but rather BOTH AND, proportionately speaking.
comprehend...yet?

[Forkboy]

28. Two words

who cares

[theboss]

30. You don't care about libel and slander?

That's nice. I like a candidate who doesn't give a damn if innocent lives are ruined. It's all about face time, baby.

And if a few Jewish interlopers get killed along the way . . . more face time, baby.

[sangh0]

41. I don't care

about the media's opinion, particularly when they've proven how hostile they are to the interests of minorities.

It's all about face time, baby.

Which is why Sharpton has to resort to theatrics in order to ensure that the police investigates it's own crimes. If libel and slander are such big concerns of yours, then why aren't you indicting the media?

You know, the same media that tells you about Sharpton. You don't believe SHarpton because he lies and slanders, but you believe what the media says about Sharpton even though the media lies and slanders every day

[dsc]

81. The outcome of Sharpton's trial

is public record and devastating. The cop was treated as a public figure and still Sharpton lost. You can't blame the press here.

[sangh0]

86. I don't care.

MLK also broke the law. So did LBJ.

And yes, I can blame the press for it's crimes.

[birdman]

100. Comparing Martin Luther King to Sharpton

is a grotesque insult to Dr. King.

[sangh0]

104. MLK didn't think so

MLK spoke highly of the "boy preacher"

But I think MLK would be insulted by someone like you trying to speak for MLK.

[Cheswick2.0]

109. Amen

But then MLK, is not the MLK he used to be is he? No he is the one black activist people are allowed to admire. People forget what the media did to him in the 60s and 70s days.

I can never forget the gossip about his "affairs". I'll never forget the hateful invective thrown at him by otherwise rational white folks and I was just a kid at the time.

[dsc]

137. What if Sharpton had been sucessful in his quest

and that cop had gone to jail for something we now know he didn't do. Just what do you think prison would have been like for this cop? He would have been a racist, child raping cop. Just imagine. Sorry, either through incompetence or out right evil he tried to sentence an innocent man to being gang banged and probably killed. MLK did nothing of the sort.

[Isome]

138. if Sharpton had been sucessful in his quest...

He was successful in his quest to have the allegations investigated. That's why the Pagones wasn't convicted of the crime; luckily the system worked for him. I know one Lenel Geter (sp)who spent many years of his life behind bars as an innocent man.

_{That in no way implies that Pagones should be grateful or otherwise appreciative of any distress he suffered -- I have to say that before an overzealous nut responds to what they may wrongly infer from that post.}

I'm wondering why the police chief, or whomever, of Boston wasn't required to resign after issuing the order to stop, search, & detain all Black males at random after Charles Stewart murdered his wife. After all, a police chief guilty of such clear-cut malfeasance (the evidence didn't add up from the get go) proves he's not qualified. I suppose it's different if you're white though, as usual there are different standards in force.

[VermontDem2004]

91. So what?

He believed her. I suppose democrats aren't willing to give anyone a second chance, I believe everyone deserves a second chance if they screw up because everyone makes mistakes.

[noiretextatique]

9. sharpton has impressed me too

unfortunately, some are still more interested in shooting the messenger vs. listening to the message...not really surprising though, considering what the republicans were allowed to get away with in florida :eyes:

[Pastiche423]

12. I so hope Rev. Sharpton

will be in a highly visible place in our governement. We need his wisdom, wit and energy.

[laruemtt]

14. he's the candidate of my heart and soul.

i'm so sorry for america that we're not there yet to elect him president. or maybe i've just been brainwashed into thinking we couldn't do it. tawana brawley? hmmph. i've said it a million times if i've said it once - put sharpton's one "sin" up against any of these holier than thou hypocritical neocons, and there's absolutely NO contest. he's the real deal. too bad for our country the stakes are so high this time we can't gamble on what could be a truly enlightening experience for us all.

[eileen from OH]

15. Do a google search on "Steve Pagones"

A completely innocent man, who was completely, totally exonerated over the Brawley thing and whose life was ruined by Sharpton. Not only did Sharpton never retract his accusations (even faced with incontrovertible evidence), he's never acknowledged that he was wrong, he's never apologized and, even after losing a suit to Pagones, didn't pay up. "Friends" of Al finally ponied up.

Enjoy Al for the entertainment value but never forget that he is a total, unmitigated, headline-seeking asshole.

eileen from OH

[laruemtt]

17. thanks eileen.

i read the clarence page article and it was unfortunately enlightening. i feel clarence is usually pretty believable. this "glitch" in my memory must be due to all the fun i was having in the late 80s going through a messy D.

[birdman]

18. "total, unmitigated, headline-seeking asshole."

You're being far too kind.

He was willing to let an innocent man
go to prison as a racist child molestor
when he knew the charges were untrue.


He is a morally bankrupt criminal.

Nothing he says now will ever make that right.


No progressive person should ever associate themsleves
with this guy.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. the interesting thing about your posts

I have never once seen you show up on a thread where you could be positive about something or someone democratic. You seem only to post where you can be negative. Why is that?

[noiretextatique]

27. only in america

it took forty years to convict the people responsible for the birmingham bombing murders (four little black girls died) and the medgar evers murder. not to mention all the other murders that never got prosecuted...not to mention all the people (many of them black) who have been murdered by police officers.

i do feel for this one innocent officer, but it's not as if many guilty ones (rodney king's beaters, for example) don't routinely go free.

in the balance of things...i think sharpton's value outweighs his mistakes.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. "i think sharpton's value outweighs his mistakes."

Agreed!

[theboss]

31. People have died/lives have been ruined

In large part to his "mistakes" . . .

Sharpton is not MLK who had his human failings, but never hurt anyone. . .

He is not Jesse Jackson who has made misjudgments . . .

He is not Malcolm X who was a criminal and then repudiated his past. . .

He has made mistakes that gravely hurt others and has NEVER apologized for anything. That is not leadership.

[sangh0]

44. What a stupid remark

No has ever died because of Sharpton. The fact that you would make such a ridiculous charge (with nothing to back it up) shows how little real evidence there is against Sharpton.

[Catherine Vincent]

56. Who died?

[theboss]

61. 8 people

In 1995 Sharpton criticized the Jewish owner of a Harlem clothing store as a "white interloper." Weeks later, an arsonist torched the store, killing eight people.

Granted, Sharpton didn't light the match. But he creates an environment where these sorts of things happen. He is careless.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theboss]

76. I'm racist now?

The fact that I don't like Sharpton has nothing to do with race. I would think he was a weasel if he were green with orange ears.

Is it possible to dislike a black man without being a racist? I mean, I hate Michael Bolton (mainly for getting rick off dead black men). Does that mean I should join the Black Panthers?

[sangh0]

88. The fact remains

that you use "guilt by association" only against Sharpton, even though what Sharpton said and the fire were seperated by weeks.

I don't know what you are, but your argument is definitely racist. You don't like Bolton because of what Bolton does, but you hate Sharpton for what a deranged arsonist did weeks after Sharpton spoke.

[noiretextatique]

96. you can say much the same about BUSH

who is currently acting as president. sharpton made mistakes, and his presidential bid is all about LEADERSHIP. compare him to some white men, like bush (who smiles when talking about executing peopple) and cheney (too much to even mention), and see who is more moral. funny...you didn't do THAT in your post.

[loudnclear]

33. I don't think it is either true or proven true that he actually knew this.

I could be wrong but I think he was dupped also.

[sangh0]

46. As if you care about the innocent going to jail

the racist system sends scores of innocent black kids to jail, but you never complain about that. Not just that, but you are also willing to LIE about it and claim that Sharpton "knew" Pagones is innovent, which can't possibly be true because his statements about Pagones came BEFORE there had been an investigation.

He is a morally bankrupt criminal.

And you are morally bankrupt for accusing someone of a crime without ever specifying what crime and without presenting any facts to back you up. It's also cowardly, a sin Sharpton is definitely innocent of.

[yankeedem]

135. He didn't know Pagones was innocent

He also didn't know Pagones was guilty when he slandered him. As far as the "crime", it is slander, and Sharpton has already been convicted.

Call me racist if you want, I am not in the position that I have to prove myself to you. I would support Sharpton against Bush, but I would support just about anyone against Bush.

[candy331]

19. real motive for your bashing Sharpton?

Even thought you could not bring yourself to vote for him quit using the Tawana Brawley situation because it has a hollow ring.Give credit where it is due, this man is bringing energy to this party he has passion and conviction and is instrumental in keeping the other 8 candidates upbeat. If he has spoken a lie in the running bring it out but quit your lambasting this man to elevate your superior "altitude".

[birdman]

22. "hollow ring"

Making false accusations against an innocent person ?

Accusations that involved rape, child molesation
and racism.

And he knew none of it was true.

I'm sorry, how can you say you espouse progressive
princples and support this man ?

[sangh0]

49. Not true. YOU are making false accusations

Sharpton demanded a full investigation of the Brawley incident, and the only way to get the police to investigate their own was to create a scene. IOW, Sharpton took Brawley's case BEFORE an investigation had taken place and his goal was to make sure an investigation into BRAWLEY'S ACCUSATIONS was made.

And he knew none of it was true.

How could Sharpton KNOW that Pagones was innocent if the police refused to investigate? YOU are the one making false accusations.

[Creideiki]

20. I guess I believe in an open mind and forgiveness

Unfortunately, the man has more baggage than Reba Macintire (and that's a LOT of baggage).

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. he is great!..

[Hippo_Tron]

25. While I don't particularly care for Al...

I wish politicians who really spoke their minds would be taken seriously.

[fob]

51. You gotta do some justice to this line of his..

"there's a non-military civil war going on in this country. From the Florida Re- count to the Texas Re- districting to the Re- call in California, all done by the Re- publicans"

It's the Jesse Jackson-like sing-songy quality behind the conviction in his words that makes it so Re- memberable!

I am ABB, but lean toward Al because he pulls no punches, in fact he lands a fairly high percentage of jabs.

It has been mentioned here before, but the greatest idea I've heard in a long time is Al Sharpton for Press Secretary, if he doesn't get the nomination. (I know I said, IF and it should probably read WHEN, but until the day comes, anything is possible)

fob

[Isome]

74. Bash Bash Bash...

Al Sharpton was involved with Operation Breadbasket at a time when many of those here were either in the womb or wallowing in ignorance & apathy of the human suffering of their fellow Americans!

If Al was making oh' so much money illegally, the authorities would have been on him like stank on shit, and faster than you can say, "lock him up!" If Al was making oh' so much money legally, where the hell is it? Why isn't the whoring press tsk-tsking over his extravagant lifestyle?

Apologize for demanding an investigation into Tawana Brawley's allegations? Get the f*** outta' here!

Where was the outrage that none of the authorities, and none of the everyday citizens, apologized to all the Black men in Boston when Charles Stewart killed his wife and blamed it on the big black boogey-criminal, hiding just around the corner of every city block? Black men throughout the city were subjected to civil rights violations ranging from illegal search & seizure, to having to strip down to their underwear in front of women.

Where is the outrage that the five Black men in New York were convicted and served jail time for a rape they never committed, and no one has yet to apologize? In fact some people still insist they're guilty.

Where is the outrage that all the Amadou Diallo killers were exonerated?

Where are the apologies to Tyisha Miller's family that she was shot dead while sleeping or unconscious (she had a history seizures) in the car?

Where are the apologies for the Scottsboro Boys, who were chased from one end of the country to another, and none of the authorities saw fit to give them sanctuary, even after it was clear they weren't guilty?

Where are the apologies to all of the Arab-looking men who were beaten, had their property burned or trashed, or detained because after 9.11.01, anyone who is brown is a threat to white people? Where are the demands for apologies to them?

And, no one better say a damn word about the need for racial profiling! If that were the case, white men need to be stopped on a regular basis considering they fit the racial profile of Tim McVeigh & his friend Nichols, Richard Speck, Ivan Boesky, John Wayne Gacy, Sam Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, the WorldCom & Enron crime families, Ted Bundy, the Unabomber, etc. etc. If racial profiling is an effective tool for law enforcement, then white men & women should be stopped for DWW (driving while white), walking down the street, operating a business, entering a post office, etc., because they're just as likely to be a violent or white collar criminal!

Al has to apologize for the actions of killers, though he never suggested or condoned the use of violence? That may be your reality, but it bears no resemblance to the reality the rest of us live in.

[Cheswick2.0]

106. thank you , thank you for your wonderful answer

of course you know, these people will never re-examine their "angry white guy" brand of racism. I think I would fall off my chair if one of them actually came back with even a glimer of better understanding.

I was once stopped on the Jersey Turnpike and ticketed for DWABM (driving with a black man). I was the third of 3 cars in the far left lane (so the cop saw my passenger not me) and no doubt we were all speeding. The cop who chased me down said I was driving faster than the two cars ahead of me....HUH?
My friend (who I was living with at the time and was driving to an Opera audition for City Center)never said a word to me about why we were stopped until the end of the day. I didn't believe him until a few months later when I read what a problem racial profiling was on that particular stretch of road.

[noiretextatique]

117. a few more apologies missing

for the delayed (by over forty years) convinctions in the birmingham bombing murders and medgar evers murder, among others.

[buddhamama]

103. unabashed Progressive Liberal

Al is all right in my book! :thumbsup: