David Duke hasn't changed from 20 years ago. Neither has Al Sharpton. Kind of my point. They are both anti-Semitic race hustlers. As for your request for seeing a link of Sharpton refusing to acknowledge the hoax. Here it is.
From now on, you may want to look stuff up before you accuse people of being full of it. Please, set aside your emotionalism and investigate instead. It makes for a far more interesting conversation.
He didn't say that he didn't think it was a hoax.
He's taking the GWB/Cheney route and going with the "based on what I knew then..."
So if you buy that from Bush n Co, surely you can believe when Reverend Al Sharpton says so as well.
There were a number of interesting tid-bits in that video clip as well, particularly the nugget about the Central Park 5, and the criticism he got about that only to find years later that he was ABSOLUTELY right on that one. Think his critics were phased by that one bit? I highly doubt it. Then there's the nugget about the Duke Lacrosse situation, his critics saying he shouldn't have gotten involved in that situation. He never got involved in that situation, showing that his critics are just on auto-pilot with their emotions and assumptions. I mean, the man is just hated by a certain segment of the white population. Period, doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do.
With that said, I can understand why some would claim he's unapologetic. You see, his critics want to see him prostrate, on his his knees, and the Reverend will never give them that satisfaction, EVER. And he shouldn't. Historically it's been a position that whites prefer to have blacks in, submissive. That's why today they have a major problem with black protests, perceiving it as some unseemly animalistic rage, when white protest is seen as normal and just. I believe you know this too.
Anyway, do you have a link to where Brawley herself said it was a hoax? I'd be interested to see that as well.
Thanks.
First off, let me apologize. I checked to find where Brawley apologized and all I could find was where she has started to pay for damages caused by her accusations. This is probably why I got confused. Anyway, error noted.
Now, I can't help but notice you are changing the topic a bit. Sharpton does the same thing of course. Asked about Tawana Brawley, Sharpton brings up every other topic he wants to. I noticed he didn't bring up his role in the Crown Heights murder as he helped stoke violence against the Jewish community.
I don't know what Sharpton exactly said about the Central Park 5 but a quick google search certainly showed that Sharpton was being misleading when he claims he had nothing to do with the Duke Le Crosse case. He certainly spoke about it. He was hardly hiding under a rock when the Le Cross accusations were being hurled.
Also, whites don't have a problem with black protests. You have never heard a white person say that blacks have no right to protest. What you have heard are people (white and black) showing sympathy for the victims of the protests. The store owners who's livelihoods have been looted and burned to the ground. I understand, in terms of rhetoric, it is advantageous to conflate looting with protests but it's hardly fair.
You find a parallel between Al Sharpton's Tawana Brawley argument with George W. Bush's argument that he was just going on the information that he had. So I have to ask. Did you defend Bush on the same grounds that you are now defending Sharpton? I think I know the answer to that.
Lastly, Sharpton is good at playing three card monty with the truth. As we saw with the clip I linked, Sharpton tends to mislead, lie, obfuscate and dance around any question he doesn't want to answer. He was asked what he thought about his role in the Tawana Brawley case with 20/20 hindsight. He never answered that question of course.
In actuality, Al Sharpton is just a race hustler with a horrible track record of accomplishment. Luckily, despite the deep pools of racial unrest, most people seem to know this.
