Reason.tv

Why You Should Support Reason: Al Sharpton Edition

|

We're looking for 500 new donors to help Reason keep bringing you the very best in libertarian journalism, whether it's in print, online, or in video.

Our pitch is pretty simple: There's no other place you're going to see a clip like this bit featuring Al Sharpton at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Approximately 30 seconds. Footage by Meredith Bragg and Alexander Manning; edited by Meredith Bragg.

Help us out now with a tax-deductible donation.

NEXT: Last Week's Top 5 Hits at Reason.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. that was friggin’ awesome

  2. I’ll donate $100 if Gillespie slaps Al Sharpton in the face…hard…with a pocket Constitution.

    1. I’ll donate $500 for three throws if Nick can get Al Sharpton to sit in a dunk tank.

      -jcr

  3. Wait! You still need 500 doners even though the “water line” is over 75% up the torch? Tricky Nick, very tricky!

  4. We’re looking for 500 new donors to help Reason keep bringing you the very best in libertarian journalism, whether it’s in print, online, or in video.

    You know, I would, but I got ticked off by your negative reporting of Ron Paul and your shameful rehashing of some Methuselah-old “newsletters”… so, no thanks.

    1. Not to mention all those Obama votes.

  5. maybe if you offered him a few bucks he would have signed it, I’ve heard he’s quite flexible once he’s been well lubricated.

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/…..more-18370

  6. You know, I would, but I got ticked off by your negative reporting of Ron Paul and your shameful rehashing of some Methuselah-old “newsletters”… so, no thanks.

    What are journalists supposed to do when they come across a story like that? Suppress it?

    1. They should treat it just like they did the stories on other candidates, like Obama’s wacky reverend, or John Edwards love child, or Obama’s association with ACORN, or Obama’s association with radical Marxist terrorists.

      You get the idea.

    2. Re: Mike Laursen,

      What are journalists supposed to do when they come across a story like that? Suppress it?

      They already reported on them a long time ago and treated the story with the same professionalism they treated everything else – EXCEPT that they rehashed the same story during the campaign just because some New Republic upstart made a fuss about them, seeing shades of racism where there were none.

      1. And Reason completely knew about the issue before it became “a story like that” and didn’t consider it a big deal until they decided it would offend their cocktail party buddies.

  7. Hell, I read it and I didn’t sign it.

  8. Along perhaps the same lines, perhaps Reason would like to show their chops by discussing the defensible (and not defensible) parts of this OldViralEmail. Drudge linked to a story of a TN trooper who was due ToBeReeducated for accidentally sending that out.

    1. Have you contributed to the Reason Webathon yet? Not clicking on your goddamned links unless you do so. Offer still stands — I’ll click on one of your stupid links for every dollar you contribute.

    2. What has this blog come to when I can’t direct a few choice swear words at Lonewacko without being scolded by a spam filter.

    3. Deal stands: For every dollar you contribute to the Reason Webathon, I’ll click on one of your golderned, stupid links. Otherwise, STFU.

    4. WTF?

      Is 24AheadDotCom capable of making an intelligent comment?

  9. They should treat it just like they did the stories on other candidates, like Obama’s wacky reverend, or John Edwards love child, or Obama’s association with ACORN, or Obama’s association with radical Marxist terrorists.

    Let’s take Obama’s wacky reverend, for example. Obama sat in a pew and listened to him, which implies some level of approval of what he said. Ron Paul’s name was on those newsletters; he was responsible for their content.

    1. Re: Mike Laursen,

      Ron Paul’s name was on those newsletters; he was responsible for their content.

      I don’t disopute that – what I take issue with is the fact that innuendo was flinged around that the content of the articles was obertly racist in nature, and then point the finger at Ron Paul. One would have to stretch the meaning of the concept to absurd levelws or simply be intellectually dishonest to find racism in those articles.

      1. Quote from Ron Paul: “I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines,” he said, adding he wanted to “make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it’s obviously wrong.”

        So, Dr. Paul himself considered the newsletter content racist.

        1. I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines[…]

          He said he repudiates everything that IS written along those lines, not that WAS written. He was careful to insinuate the writtings were indeed racist, because they were NOT.

          Did you read them, by any chance?

          1. Yup. And his repudiation doesn’t solve the problem. It showed (a) that he is a racist or (b) doesn’t have control of his own people or just didn’t give a hoot about what what was done under his name. (a) is a more severe accusation than (b), but (b) could be seen as reflecting upon his ability to be chief executive of the United States.

  10. So the big question now is whether or not Reason will post all the names of the donors where we can peruse them at the end of the webathon.

  11. If I recall correctly, the web form had a checkbox asking if the donor wanted his or her name to be listed.

  12. Obviously the Reverend Sharpton meant he had not read that particular booklet, which may have contained a copy of the Constitution and who knows what else. He was merely exercising restraint lest he be made to appear more foolish and corrupt than he actually is.

    1. Thanks Al Sharpton’s Spokesperson for missing the humor in this post and pointing out the obvious.

    2. If you really are Sharpton’s spokesperson, you must be using some serious antidepressants or sleeping pills or something. I don’t see how one could survive it otherwise.

    3. “He was merely exercising restraint lest he be made to appear more foolish and corrupt than he actually is.”

      Actually, this sentence is gold.

  13. “Al Sharpton’s Spokesperson” is the only educated comment I have read so far. The rest sound like their authors would sign *anything* if the cover says it’s the Constitution. Talk about being stupid.

    I can’t believe Reason chose to showcase this particular video, I was going to contribute, but now I’m having second thoughts.

  14. “Footage by Meredith Bragg and Alexander Manning” and, err, me, who was chasing Sharpton with Alex.

  15. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  16. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.