Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

Originally, there were plenty of white slaves on the plantations.

Eric, you aint stoopid. Does Jackson really have so much influence over his apologists and supporters that they will adopt the most naive postures to pretend that he aint what he is? Whitlock told it like it is---but, then again, he's probably sum kinda racist, I spoze.

 

[carolinajazz]

Gilbert seems to have reacted as if James were obligated in some fashion to sign for the Cavaliers. That is certainly some type of ownership mentality.

...good point, Brow! And that's all I'm saying, too!

 

[Archie Moses]

I really get the difference between commenting on another person's putative forming of a comparison and making that comparison yourself. Apparently, you are not capable of such a distinction. That is not my problem.

Wow, dude. I didn't make the comparison, bro. Jackson did. If you don't see that, that's your problem not mine. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise or try and defend this clown. Don't try and snuff it, bro.

 

[Hopper]

Wow, dude. I didn't make the comparison, bro. Jackson did. If you don't see that, that's your problem not mine. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise or try and defend this clown. Don't try and snuff it, bro.

You're missin his point, Archie.

 

[Archie Moses]

You're missin his point, Archie.

I know, right?

 

[Hopper]

Well, if you say so.

 

[Gameface]

https://https://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5374799

Meanwhile, Stern also took action against Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert, fining him $100,000 for words that the commissioner described as "a little bit extreme."
Gilbert released a sharp-tongued statement shortly after James' announcement last Thursday, calling it "narcissistic" and "cowardly behavior." Later, Gilbert told The Associated Press in a phone interview that he felt James quit on the Cavs during the playoffs the past two years.
Even Rev. Jesse Jackson received a rebuke of sorts from Stern.
Jackson responded to Gilbert's remarks on Sunday by saying the Cavs owner sees James as a "runaway slave" and that Gilbert's comments put the player in danger. "He speaks as an owner of LeBron and not the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers," Jackson said in a release from his Chicago-based civil-rights group.
Stern said Jackson is a friend and ally to the league, but as with Gilbert, felt the reaction simply went too far.
"However well-meaning Jesse may be in the premise on this one, he is, as he rarely is, mistaken," Stern said. "And I would have told him so had he called me before he issued his statement, rather than this morning. But he is a good friend of the NBA and our players. Has worked arduously on many good causes and we work together in many matters."

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

Jesse Jackson could/should be a part of Obama's DoJ. Hard to spot the difference...well, it may just be that the government itself is now going for the prime racial shakedowns, leaving the prior standard-bearing minstrel clown as a mere sideshow or warm-up act these days.

As America gets more ridiculous, it's hard for even vermin like Sharpton or Jesse to keep up.

 

[One Brow]

Eric, you aint stoopid. Does Jackson really have so much influence over his apologists and supporters that they will adopt the most naive postures to pretend that he aint what he is? Whitlock told it like it is---but, then again, he's probably sum kinda racist, I spoze.

No, but I know how to give someone back what they dish out, from time to time. After years of hearing you use exactly that kind of reasoning to discuss all kinds of issues, how'd it feel being on the other end of that conversation for a change?

I don't think much of Jackson, but I don't think that highly of many people in political movements in general. They all play whatever cards they have much too fequently. The race card is overplayed, the security card is overplayed, the liberty card is overplayed, the Constitution card is over played, even the troops card is overplayed (and I am really fond of the last three in particular).

By the way, I heard Stern thought so negatively about what Jackson said, that he fined Jackson. No, wait, that was Gilbert. Stern ust be racist too, eh? No doubt we'll soon see a whole thread devoted to Stern's fine of Gilbert with a couple of pages of comments, right?

 

[One Brow]

Wow, dude. I didn't make the comparison, bro. Jackson did.

Actually, neither of you did.

I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise or try and defend this clown..

I don'[t recall trying to defend Jackson at all. I'm just talking about the contents of a quote at the beginning of this thread. Even the stupidest, most hyocritical people in the world will be correct once in a while, even if by sheer dumb luck. Not that I am saying every Jackson said was completely accurate, mind you. But it wasn't completely off-base, either.

 

[One Brow]

Jesse Jackson could/should be a part of Obama's DoJ. Hard to spot the difference...

We can always count on you to take a thread to a new level. Obama's about as close to Thomas Sowell as he is to Jesse Jackson, polically.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

Reverse the races, or simply make LeBron a white guy.

Suddenly, Jesse Jackson is off forming a lynch mob over randomly-placed a noose instead.

Jesse Jackson's theatricality is now a stand-up routine that borders on a minstrel show.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

We can always count on you to take a thread to a new level.

Mm. As opposed to you, of the VOR-typology, that pretends to analyze but instead often obviates data. A superiority complex for its own sake, without the attendant to content to make it worthy or true.

Comparing the tractates, I'd say that it wouldn't take much to improve the level of analytical ability on this thread. You don't need to gush about it, or even point it out.

Obama's about as close to Thomas Sowell as he is to Jesse Jackson, polically.

Empty statement. At best. Painful and laughable. As expected, then. Sowell is a decent economist, for one thing. He has far more in common, if we're going to stay in the racial-realm, purely, with Clarence Thomas than Obama.

Though, if you were arguing that politics, left/right, is a sideshow, I'd agree. But that's the same point about Jesse Jackson, the failed nominee for president.

Specific to Obama's mixed up (in more ways than...) racialist tendencies, the next time there's a white guy in the White House that went to a church run by black-hating racialists, you get back to me. The contrasts, between what whites can say or do and what "blacks" can say or do, is obvious. Contradictory in the extreme, and less manageable over time, as minorities achieve more and more power, without more Orwellian policy to go with that shift in primacy.

The masses thinking the "wrong" things is going to be the new shift in law-enforcement.

The DoJ, for one, is now a racial animal on both rhetoric and action, as seen with some of the moves made by Holder over the last year (dropping cases based on race, pursuing others because of race, and pushing for constitution-violating "hate crimes" laws, as a mere sampler).

As far as what Obama is generally, relative to what he can accomplish, just another globalist and puppet, pushing a mixture of Keynesian outsourcing, with open borders and socialist welfare plans that the country can't afford if it's to survive as a nation, sovereign.

All in all, not much different from Bush, then. Though the racial animus makes for a more disturbing personification of this country's future.

In the end, the fact that you can see truth in Jesse Jackson's latest plea for publicity and cash on race, but haven't noticed the barrage of racialist if not racist policy and advertising from Obama, tells me that you're not arguing honestly, or analytically.

A waste, that you seem to proud of. Oh well, carry on.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

well if the Imus situation thought us anything at least there wasn't any "nappy hair hoes" mentioned. That would be a national outrage.

 

[Hopper]

No, but I know how to give someone back what they dish out, from time to time. After years of hearing you use exactly that kind of reasoning to discuss all kinds of issues, how'd it feel being on the other end of that conversation for a change?

Well, Eric, I think your memory has done gone bad, eh? I know the records are gone now, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an instance of me arguing that the lack of evidence provides support for the truth of a proposition. The exact opposite is true, actually. I routinely object to the pretense that: "Unless and until you can prove my position wrong, it must be accepted as right, regardless of my evidence," which pretense can be found regularly on this board.

Jackson wants to make a positive insinuation about Gilbert's motivations, one which Gilbert denies and which denial is consistent with both his own and Jackson's own comments on this affair. Jackson can attempt to support his claims with evidence, but why should he even bother? His followers will accept his assessment at face value with no further analysis.

By the way, I heard Stern thought so negatively about what Jackson said, that he fined Jackson. No, wait, that was Gilbert. Stern ust be racist too, eh? No doubt we'll soon see a whole thread devoted to Stern's fine of Gilbert with a couple of pages of comments, right?

Say what!? Stern did NOT fine Gilbert for bein "racist," and he clearly called out Jesse (whom he obviously has no authority to fine) in the process. Stern could be wrong too, I give you that, but "could be wrong" is no evidence for the claim that he "is wrong."

 

[Hopper]

Even if Jesse Jackson has decided that his new calling is to defend all NBA players, regardless of color, from oppressive owners, a truly admirable undertaking, no doubt, he can do so without resort to racial insinuations about slave-masters, "runaway slaves," and "plantations." But, of course, that approach just wouldn't really fit in with Jackson's primary agenda.

 

[One Brow]

Mm. As opposed to you, of the VOR-typology, that pretends to analyze but instead often obviates data. A superiority complex for its own sake, without the attendant to content to make it worthy or true.

When was the lasttime I brought volumes of data into a thread to analyze/obviate anything? You can't even form a decent mischaracterization.

Comparing the tractates, I'd say that it wouldn't take much to improve the level of analytical ability on this thread.

Fell free to improve it, then. Substanceless comparisons to an unrelated topic like the DoJ do not add to the analysis of what Jackson may have said or meant.

Empty statement. At best. Painful and laughable. As expected, then. Sowell is a decent economist, for one thing.

I certainly can't comment on Sowell's capabilities as a prefessional economist. As a writer, he is prone to simplistic logic, covering over details in the service of making a point, and engaging in a host of fallicies. This does not distinguish him from the ast marjority of political commenters, at any rate.

He has far more in common, if we're going to stay in the racial-realm, purely, with Clarence Thomas than Obama.

How perceptive of you to note that a right-wing spokesman is closer politically to a right-wing judge than to a center-right President. You must have won many gold stars for that level of analysis.

Specific to Obama's mixed up (in more ways than...) racialist tendencies, the next time there's a white guy in the White House that went to a church run by black-hating racialists, you get back to me.

You mean, none of GW's Texas pastors ever spouted racial rhetoric in the past 40 years? When you can point to an Obama policy, position, or statement that is attributable to Jeremiah Wright, get back to me. Until then, your are merely attempting to slander by association, which is the level of discourse to which I referred earlier. At least archie Moses and Hopper have the integrity to address the faults of person they which to discredit. You can't even must that degree of honesty.

The contrasts, between what whites can say or do and what "blacks" can say or do, is obvious. Contradictory in the extreme, and less manageable over time, as minorities achieve more and more power, without more Orwellian policy to go with that shift in primacy.

As the power balance of the races continues to shift closer to equality, the extremists become gradually more marginalized. How long has it been since Jackson was a significant player in the politcal arena, much less Al Sharpton? The buttons that were pushable on one generation no longer work on the next, but some button-pushers never lose their owld habits. And the world continues to rotate.

The DoJ, for one, is now a racial animal ...

I have seen nothing that indicates you have the knowledge or insight to say why the DoJ behaves as it does.

... pushing for constitution-violating "hate crimes" laws,

If they actually violated the Constitution, they would be repealed. Sure, the hate crime laws in your imagination probably violates the Constitution in your imagination, but in reality, not.

In the end, the fact that you can see truth in Jesse Jackson's latest plea for publicity and cash on race, but haven't noticed the barrage of racialist if not racist policy and advertising from Obama, tells me that you're not arguing honestly, or analytically.

I'm sure it tells you that. That would be much easier than actually challenging your own viewpoint.

 

[One Brow]

Well, Eric, I think your memory has done gone bad, eh? I know the records are gone now, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an instance of me arguing that the lack of evidence provides support for the truth of a proposition. The exact opposite is true, actually.

What "truth" did I claim a lack of evidence supported? All I did was discount a history of engaging in a certain type of behavior as indicating that this particular example was engaging in that type of behavior. You used positions like that on a regular basis.

I routinely object to the pretense that: "Unless and until you can prove my position wrong, it must be accepted as right, regardless of my evidence," which pretense can be found regularly on this board.

So do I. I don't recall ever insisting that you believe Jackson was not playing the race card in his statement. I did object to Archie Moses claiming Jackson was making a comparison that he did not seem to have made, but I never said Archie Moses had to adopt an opinion on Jackson's intent.

His followers will accept his assessment at face value with no further analysis.

Followers follow.

Say what!? Stern did NOT fine Gilbert for bein "racist,"

I don't recall saying he did.

and he clearly called out Jesse (whom he obviously has no authority to fine) in the process.

He has the authority to reduce his future dealing with Jackson. He indicated he would not be reducing his future dealing with Jackson.

Stern could be wrong too, I give you that, but "could be wrong" is no evidence for the claim that he "is wrong."

Personally, I think Stern handled the situation reasonably.

 

[Hopper]

With 2814 in on the game now, this is gittin kinda good, I think. Imma start a new thread in general discussion just to see if anyone wants to pursue these general topics in more depth.

 

[Hopper]

Is Jason Whitlock simply an "Oreo?"

Some have suggested that he is, based upon such escapades as this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ZQXaXmCW4

Anyone here have an opinon on this and/or related topics?