Quote:It's not about the case. I don't care about the case. I care about my nations leadership and their inflammatory rhetoric structuring and justifying class warfare. The case is just an example of Mr. Holder's hypocrisy in shining the glaring lens of racism, when it suits him. It's about hypocrisy. Mr. Pinkney's article is titled "âAmerica: "A Nation of Cowards?" written a week after Eric Holder's speech. Coincidence? I think not.
There go the goalposts again. First, we get a link to an article about a case, and how it's disgraceful that we heard nothing from the press about it, despite Holder's comments: prima facie hypocrisy. Then, it's that the discussion was "buried" in the NYT (and every other media that covered it) and it's about race generally. Now it's not about the case at all, which you don't care about. What exactly is the point of all this, then? If you wanted to open up a general discussion on race, you sure picked a funny way to do it.
Could you perhaps cite another example of Mr. Holder's supposed hypocrisy? I'm really unconvinced by this first one, so maybe context would help.
Of course Mr. Pinkney's article is about Eric Holder's speech. Who was suggesting otherwise? (Edit: I suppose my comments could be interpreted that way, my apologies for the ambiguity.) The meaning of my comment was that he apparently hadn't bothered to read the whole thing, since it's about a very superficial gloss of it (probably just a hearing of the stir over the term "cowards"). This seems clear from the way he criticises Holder using points and people that Holder himself uses in the speech he is purportedly criticizing.
Also, this would be race warfare, not class warfare.
-Jester