Al Sharpton, Professional Racist
Logically.
Story HERE.
What else did he mean?
I'm sure left-wing disinformationists will say, no, that's not what he said.
But he was intentionally vague so that it'd easily be inferred that that's what he meant.
Who talks like this, anyway?
“The intent to prove that Zimmerman did it because of his race, that is the legal threshold. Unless we change that legislation, we end up where we are in terms of the Trayvon Martin case. Clearly I’m disappointed. Clearly I’m sure the family is. But clearly the Justice Department can not go beyond the laws as is written. As we fight these fights and continue to fight from Staten Island to Ferguson, we must change the threshold that you qualify a civil rights case for, or we will keep having these moments of activism that end up with cases of being disappointing.”
7 comments:
Sentinel, with all respect, last week you claimed a television PSA was literally accusing the Prime Minister of drowning people. I hope you're just kidding with these bizarre, over-the-top interpretations.
Ummmm... Ok.
So, T.R., go ahead and interpret this for us. Please explain to us how Sharpton's legislation should be written. How do we make sure that (heh) moments of activism don't "...end up with cases of being disappointing."
Qualify Sharpton's position and deride the Sentinel through demonstrative dichotomy.
Indeed, I'd be interested in seeing how Terry interprets Sharpton's vague, ambiguous wording, whilst keeping in mind Sharpton's infamous, extreme racism towards whites.
In political propaganda operations, what matters is the effect of said propaganda on the masses, ie. what interpretation they'll have, and how they spread their impression of the propaganda.
No doubt Mr. Rudden knows this truth very well. Yet he pretends... But of course.
It's clear that Mr. Rudden is only here to attempt to discredit me. His efforts will work on those who would vote for the likes of Obama and Trudeau, but... those folks are generally hopeless anyway because they choose to not use their brains.
I'll let you make the response for me, Sentinel. As you yourself said, Sentinel:
"I'm sure left-wing disinformationists will say, no, that's not what he said."
Correct. That's NOT what he said.
"But he was intentionally vague so that it'd easily be inferred that that's what he meant."
So YOUR interpretation of Sharpton's statement - that he "wants non-blacks to just let blacks kills them"... (I'm quoting YOU here) is YOUR interpretation of what you INFER he MEANT.
Sort of like YOUR interpretation of that CBC PSA was that CBC was accusing Harper of drowning people.
Now, you may really, truly believe this stuff - that CBC was accusing Harper of murder, or that Al Sharpton "wants non-blacks to just let blacks kills them". I keep asking you that, and it usually sparks a tirade about my career as a covert agent of darkness.
But it's a fair question to ask a blogger who makes a statement. When you read Sharpton's statement, do you seriously, honestly believe he is stating that he ""wants non-blacks to just let blacks kills them"?
Seriously?
" I'd be interested in seeing how Terry interprets Sharpton's vague, ambiguous wording."
Certainly. There is a threshold - a series of legal tests or questions - that define whether or not a crime in the US should be prosecuted as a "hate crime" (just as there are legal tests to determine in Canada whether a crime should be prosecuted as first or second degree murder.
Al Sharpton is saying he acknowledges that the killing in question did NOT meet the legal standards for prosecution as a hate crime, and that his goal is to lower the threshold for prosecution.
Except in the most fevered of imaginations, it's really hard to read that as a call "for non-blacks to just let blacks kills them." Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.
Which leads me back to my question: do you truly believe that's what Sharpton was saying?
Post a Comment