Marion Barry Rant about Tom Sherwood

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- and Donald Sterling once made donations to liberal democrats and was nominated by the NAACP for a civil rights award- so should we look the other way towards his racist comments the way you suggest we ignore Barry's bigotry?

24 years of racist bigotry? Decades of public corruption? Violations of DC hate speech laws within the last few years??

C'mon! How big of a hipocrit are you? Why are you trying so hard to defend someone who has damage our city as much as Barry has??

Apparently we have a new tradition in which we compare anyone we don't like to Donald Sterling. I actually shouldn't say "we", because this is not my tradition. Rather, it seems limited to reading comprehension-challenged blowhards. Every poster who has acknowledged positive aspects to Barry had also agreed that there are negative aspects. I understand that you do not want your one-dimensional image of Barry to be complicated by facts that don't fit your preferred narrative. One dimension is probably enough of a challenge for you in any case. But, why are do you mischaracterizing the views of those of us capable of observing more than one dimension? Is this an accidental result of your inability to read simple English, or an intentional distortion that is simply your style of argument?

Oh please - spare us the drama. It's obvious: Donald Sterling is under attack for his racist comments; Marion Barry has repeatedly made racist comments - just like Sterling. It has nothing to do with "anyone we don't like" now does it?

And sterling isn't an elected leader - he just a rich guy who bought a team.

On the other hand, Barry is part of our city's leadership. His job is to represent the people. Do you honestly think someone who repeatedly makes racist comments is a suitable representative of D.C.'s citizens? Seriously?

Would you vote for him if he were in he mayors race? Serious question - would you? Because you certainly seem to admire him and go to great lengths to defend his record of public service to our city.

Why should I respond to someone who repeatedly ignores what I have to say? I'll waste my time on something more productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- and Donald Sterling once made donations to liberal democrats and was nominated by the NAACP for a civil rights award- so should we look the other way towards his racist comments the way you suggest we ignore Barry's bigotry?

24 years of racist bigotry? Decades of public corruption? Violations of DC hate speech laws within the last few years??

C'mon! How big of a hipocrit are you? Why are you trying so hard to defend someone who has damage our city as much as Barry has??

Apparently we have a new tradition in which we compare anyone we don't like to Donald Sterling. I actually shouldn't say "we", because this is not my tradition. Rather, it seems limited to reading comprehension-challenged blowhards. Every poster who has acknowledged positive aspects to Barry had also agreed that there are negative aspects. I understand that you do not want your one-dimensional image of Barry to be complicated by facts that don't fit your preferred narrative. One dimension is probably enough of a challenge for you in any case. But, why are do you mischaracterizing the views of those of us capable of observing more than one dimension? Is this an accidental result of your inability to read simple English, or an intentional distortion that is simply your style of argument?

The fact that he once fought against racism only makes his own personal racism all the more loathsome. Like a campaigner against pedophilia who turns out to be a pedophile himself. That's what Marion Barry is.

Yep - like the judge or police officer caught in a criminal act, Barry shoul - of all people, know better than to continually make racist comments about people in the very city he's elected to lead. And it isn't even white people he's bigoted against; it's minorities and new immigrants! No amount of supposed civil rights work in the 60s makes up for his continued, unapologetic racism today.

Stop making excuses for racists.

Lol who's making excuses? At the end of the day you reap what you sow. Marion Barry is not on anybody's Honorable Guest list, nobody's inviting him on their talk show or rushing to publish his memoirs. He's been a big-mouthed jerk for many years and no one wants anything to do with him, which is coincidentally why he flicked off on Tom Sherwood, because HBO is planning to portray him as such. Similarly, Donald Sterling is getting his just desserts. Forget the NBA, he made millions as a slum lord discriminating against and even displacing decent people who's only "crime" was being poor and a minority. Neither of these purported prejudiced pricks is loving life right now in case you hadn't noticed and I say GOOD.

[Anonymous]

Barry employed a huge number of people who were otherwise unemployable

[jsteele]

Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who published a four-book set titled "The International Jew". Yet, he revolutionized mass production and made cars affordable for the first time by the American middle class. Should we view him one dimensionally through his anti-Semitism, or is a more complex and nuanced approach appropriate?

Many, if not most, people who have achieved great things also have great flaws. A number of those that held it "self-evident, that all men are created equal" were slave-owners.

Barry is a complicated figure. Simplistic views of him fall far short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barry employed a huge number of people who were otherwise unemployable

and who bloated the city bureaucracy, gave DC the moniker "Dysfunctional City", resulted in the non-delivery of basic city services and poor public schools, and led to the District's insolvency and the imposition of the federal control board.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who published a four-book set titled "The International Jew". Yet, he revolutionized mass production and made cars affordable for the first time by the American middle class. Should we view him one dimensionally through his anti-Semitism, or is a more complex and nuanced approach appropriate?

Many, if not most, people who have achieved great things also have great flaws. A number of those that held it "self-evident, that all men are created equal" were slave-owners.

Barry is a complicated figure. Simplistic views of him fall far short.

Wait, let me get this right: you are comparing Barry to the framers of the Constitution and even to Henry Ford?!

More like Mayor Rob Ford!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who published a four-book set titled "The International Jew". Yet, he revolutionized mass production and made cars affordable for the first time by the American middle class. Should we view him one dimensionally through his anti-Semitism, or is a more complex and nuanced approach appropriate?

Many, if not most, people who have achieved great things also have great flaws. A number of those that held it "self-evident, that all men are created equal" were slave-owners.

Barry is a complicated figure. Simplistic views of him fall far short.

Wait, let me get this right: you are comparing Barry to the framers of the Constitution and even to Henry Ford?!

More like Mayor Rob Ford!

Comparing him to them in terms of having both good and bad aspects. That may be too complex for you to understand. Another example, if you want to stick to mayors, is Richard J. Daley. He was corrupt, stole elections, ordered the beating of protesters, yet is remembered fondly. His sons certainly didn't suffer from his shortcomings.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- and Donald Sterling once made donations to liberal democrats and was nominated by the NAACP for a civil rights award- so should we look the other way towards his racist comments the way you suggest we ignore Barry's bigotry?

24 years of racist bigotry? Decades of public corruption? Violations of DC hate speech laws within the last few years??

C'mon! How big of a hipocrit are you? Why are you trying so hard to defend someone who has damage our city as much as Barry has??

Apparently we have a new tradition in which we compare anyone we don't like to Donald Sterling. I actually shouldn't say "we", because this is not my tradition. Rather, it seems limited to reading comprehension-challenged blowhards. Every poster who has acknowledged positive aspects to Barry had also agreed that there are negative aspects. I understand that you do not want your one-dimensional image of Barry to be complicated by facts that don't fit your preferred narrative. One dimension is probably enough of a challenge for you in any case. But, why are do you mischaracterizing the views of those of us capable of observing more than one dimension? Is this an accidental result of your inability to read simple English, or an intentional distortion that is simply your style of argument?

Oh please - spare us the drama. It's obvious: Donald Sterling is under attack for his racist comments; Marion Barry has repeatedly made racist comments - just like Sterling. It has nothing to do with "anyone we don't like" now does it?

And sterling isn't an elected leader - he just a rich guy who bought a team.

On the other hand, Barry is part of our city's leadership. His job is to represent the people. Do you honestly think someone who repeatedly makes racist comments is a suitable representative of D.C.'s citizens? Seriously?

Would you vote for him if he were in he mayors race? Serious question - would you? Because you certainly seem to admire him and go to great lengths to defend his record of public service to our city.

Why should I respond to someone who repeatedly ignores what I have to say? I'll waste my time on something more productive.

I need no response.

As for Barry's history of racist comments - and your attempts to minimize them - well, you decide. Apparently, his bigotry is somehow, some way, justified by something he did in the 60s.

If that's your position, then so be it. And - btw - nice job ignoring what I have said repeatedly in this thread:

- Barry is an unrepentant bigot and an elected leader of our city. That is not OK with me. And you?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who published a four-book set titled "The International Jew". Yet, he revolutionized mass production and made cars affordable for the first time by the American middle class. Should we view him one dimensionally through his anti-Semitism, or is a more complex and nuanced approach appropriate?

Many, if not most, people who have achieved great things also have great flaws. A number of those that held it "self-evident, that all men are created equal" were slave-owners.

Barry is a complicated figure. Simplistic views of him fall far short.

Wait, let me get this right: you are comparing Barry to the framers of the Constitution and even to Henry Ford?!

More like Mayor Rob Ford!

Comparing him to them in terms of having both good and bad aspects. That may be too complex for you to understand. Another example, if you want to stick to mayors, is Richard J. Daley. He was corrupt, stole elections, ordered the beating of protesters, yet is remembered fondly. His sons certainly didn't suffer from his shortcomings.

Wrong analogy. I am certainly no admirer of Mayor Daley the Elder (though son "Richie" was pretty good). However, despite the shady politics and the black eye of the '68 convention, Chicago was known as the "city that works." No one could EVER say that about Washington, DC under Barry, when DC was known as "Dysfunctional City."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- and Donald Sterling once made donations to liberal democrats and was nominated by the NAACP for a civil rights award- so should we look the other way towards his racist comments the way you suggest we ignore Barry's bigotry?

24 years of racist bigotry? Decades of public corruption? Violations of DC hate speech laws within the last few years??

C'mon! How big of a hipocrit are you? Why are you trying so hard to defend someone who has damage our city as much as Barry has??

Apparently we have a new tradition in which we compare anyone we don't like to Donald Sterling. I actually shouldn't say "we", because this is not my tradition. Rather, it seems limited to reading comprehension-challenged blowhards. Every poster who has acknowledged positive aspects to Barry had also agreed that there are negative aspects. I understand that you do not want your one-dimensional image of Barry to be complicated by facts that don't fit your preferred narrative. One dimension is probably enough of a challenge for you in any case. But, why are do you mischaracterizing the views of those of us capable of observing more than one dimension? Is this an accidental result of your inability to read simple English, or an intentional distortion that is simply your style of argument?

Oh please - spare us the drama. It's obvious: Donald Sterling is under attack for his racist comments; Marion Barry has repeatedly made racist comments - just like Sterling. It has nothing to do with "anyone we don't like" now does it?

And sterling isn't an elected leader - he just a rich guy who bought a team.

On the other hand, Barry is part of our city's leadership. His job is to represent the people. Do you honestly think someone who repeatedly makes racist comments is a suitable representative of D.C.'s citizens? Seriously?

Would you vote for him if he were in he mayors race? Serious question - would you? Because you certainly seem to admire him and go to great lengths to defend his record of public service to our city.

Why should I respond to someone who repeatedly ignores what I have to say? I'll waste my time on something more productive.

I need no response.

As for Barry's history of racist comments - and your attempts to minimize them - well, you decide. Apparently, his bigotry is somehow, some way, justified by something he did in the 60s.

If that's your position, then so be it. And - btw - nice job ignoring what I have said repeatedly in this thread:

- Barry is an unrepentant bigot and an elected leader of our city. That is not OK with me. And you?

Not ok with me, Barry is both a continuing embarrassment and a political liability to DC. Whether DC ever becomes a state is debatable. However, one thing is clear: statehood won't even be conceivable until at least 50 years after the ex-Mayor-for-Life has gone on to be the Mayor-for-EternalLife!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who published a four-book set titled "The International Jew". Yet, he revolutionized mass production and made cars affordable for the first time by the American middle class. Should we view him one dimensionally through his anti-Semitism, or is a more complex and nuanced approach appropriate?

Many, if not most, people who have achieved great things also have great flaws. A number of those that held it "self-evident, that all men are created equal" were slave-owners.

Barry is a complicated figure. Simplistic views of him fall far short.

Wait, let me get this right: you are comparing Barry to the framers of the Constitution and even to Henry Ford?!

More like Mayor Rob Ford!

Comparing him to them in terms of having both good and bad aspects. That may be too complex for you to understand. Another example, if you want to stick to mayors, is Richard J. Daley. He was corrupt, stole elections, ordered the beating of protesters, yet is remembered fondly. His sons certainly didn't suffer from his shortcomings.

Wrong analogy. I am certainly no admirer of Mayor Daley the Elder (though son "Richie" was pretty good). However, despite the shady politics and the black eye of the '68 convention, Chicago was known as the "city that works." No one could EVER say that about Washington, DC under Barry, when DC was known as "Dysfunctional City."

So, you recognize both the good and bad in Daley. Why won't you do that for Barry!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who published a four-book set titled "The International Jew". Yet, he revolutionized mass production and made cars affordable for the first time by the American middle class. Should we view him one dimensionally through his anti-Semitism, or is a more complex and nuanced approach appropriate?

Many, if not most, people who have achieved great things also have great flaws. A number of those that held it "self-evident, that all men are created equal" were slave-owners.

Barry is a complicated figure. Simplistic views of him fall far short.

Wait, let me get this right: you are comparing Barry to the framers of the Constitution and even to Henry Ford?!

More like Mayor Rob Ford!

Comparing him to them in terms of having both good and bad aspects. That may be too complex for you to understand. Another example, if you want to stick to mayors, is Richard J. Daley. He was corrupt, stole elections, ordered the beating of protesters, yet is remembered fondly. His sons certainly didn't suffer from his shortcomings.

Wrong analogy. I am certainly no admirer of Mayor Daley the Elder (though son "Richie" was pretty good). However, despite the shady politics and the black eye of the '68 convention, Chicago was known as the "city that works." No one could EVER say that about Washington, DC under Barry, when DC was known as "Dysfunctional City."

So, you recognize both the good and bad in Daley. Why won't you do that for Barry!

You mention Barry's early civil rights work. I'll concede the point, although many veterans of the struggle say Barry's role suffers from much self-aggradizement. But please name any good that Barry did as mayor, other than unintentionally usher in the control board.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm... incipient Alzheimer's?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You mention Barry's early civil rights work. I'll concede the point, although many veterans of the struggle say Barry's role suffers from much self-aggradizement. But please name any good that Barry did as mayor, other than unintentionally usher in the control board.

Barry's first term, while not perfect, was pretty good. Here is what the Washington Post says about it:

"With City Administrator Elijah B. Rogers imposing stringent spending controls, the city's bloated payroll was trimmed by 10 percent, largely through attrition, and finances were cleaned up to the point where the city's books could be audited successfully for the first time in history.

Downtown construction boomed -- 70 new buildings were begun or completed during Barry's first term -- and the mayor prided himself on helping developers cut through red tape and secure permits."

Moreover, Barry didn't inherit a well-run, financially-sound government. Walter Washington left him a mess. It may sound hard to believe now, but the Washington Post actually endorsed Barry for his first three terms. Barry used the city government as a jobs program and today that is considered a huge negative in many quarters. But, it's impact on providing jobs for DC's black residents helped create a black middle class that previously didn't exist. A huge number of people were housed, educated, and employed thanks to his efforts. Today, those benefits are eclipsed by the other side of the coin: bloated, inefficient, government. But, the positive impact on people's lives was real.

Make no mistake, Barry's promise and early success was undermined by his addictions and personal failings. He went on to gain a well-earned reputation for incompetence and corruption. He is justifiably criticized for those shortcomings. But, we should recognize that there is more to him than that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Barry used the city government as a jobs program and today that is considered a huge negative in many quarters. But, it's impact on providing jobs for DC's black residents helped create a black middle class that previously didn't exist. A huge number of people were housed, educated, and employed thanks to his efforts. Today, those benefits are eclipsed by the other side of the coin: bloated, inefficient, government. But, the positive impact on people's lives was real.

So he padded the public payroll with his cronies and supporters, and those people benefited until the (other people's) money ran out and the city had become broke and totally dysfunctional. Awesome! You know the same logic applies to thieves. Stealing must not totally bad because of all the positive impact that stolen money has on their lives, right?