Rev. Al Sharpton to Explore Presidential Bid

OC · 01-03-2003, 10:49 PM

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...1030969&Ref=AR

The Rev. Al Sharpton announced Friday that he will form a presidential exploratory committee, saying he is probably more qualified than any other Democrat seeking the White House.

"I am running for president to finally put the issues concerning most Americans on to the front burner," the 48-year-old civil rights activist said in a statement.

He expects to file papers with the Federal Elections Committee on Jan. 21, spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger said.

"I'm qualified, probably more qualified than any other person who is expected to be on the Democratic ticket for 2004, because I actually have a following and I speak for the people," said Sharpton, who has never held public office.

Preparing for the campaign, Sharpton criss-crossed the country last year giving speeches and wrote a book titled "Al on America" that was released in October. In the book, the black leader said presidential politics has become "an exclusive club for white males, of a certain income, of a certain age."

Sharpton unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for Senate in 1994 and the party's mayoral nomination in 1997.

As head of the civil rights group National Action Network, Sharpton has been considered a polarizing figure by many. But he has moderated his positions in recent years, aligning himself more closely with the party establishment.

-OC

**nickel** · 01-03-2003, 10:55 PM

he's gotta be f*ckin kidding

i loathe the guy. he stands for everything he takes stands against.

**johnnymk** · 01-04-2003, 02:47 AM

He is a joke and a half, but so was Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

**bachviet** · 01-04-2003, 08:36 AM

Jay Leno will have tons of fun if Al Sharpton really runs for President in 2004.

**sbp** · 01-04-2003, 09:14 AM

Sharpton has been weighing in on issues over the past few months and surprisingly has done better than expected.

Sharpton knows he is not going to win. He wants to influence the positions and policies of the Democratic Party ala Jesse Jackson.

**Burzhui** · 01-04-2003, 10:25 AM

and i quote my friend on this one

"If i have to pick between Bush and Sharpton, i'm packing my bags and leaving this country"

**nickel** · 01-04-2003, 11:18 AM

he can go now if he wants

who would your friend like to see as President of the US?
please don't say Hilary Clinton

**Burzhui** · 01-04-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by nickelback
he can go now if he wants
who would your friend like to see as President of the US?
please don't say Hilary Clinton

Bill again, that'd be sweet

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 01-04-2003, 12:49 PM

I'd like Bill again. Of the current set of candidates I'll take Edwards.

**hoon** · 01-04-2003, 04:48 PM

More Bush please.

Clinton is responsible for the N. Korea problem we are having now.

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 01-04-2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by hoon
Clinton is responsible for the N. Korea problem we are having now.

Wow, I didn't realise that Clinton somehow urged the North Koreans to invade South Korea in the late 40's. Funny how a small child could somehow make that happen.

**Jenny** · 01-04-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Burzhui
and i quote my friend on this one

"If i have to pick between Bush and Sharpton, i'm packing my bags and leaving this country"

Good, let him leave. Just like Alec Baldwin threatened to do if Bush got elected. I haven't heard anything about him leave... If Bush gets re-elected, maybe he really WILL leave this time, and he can take you & your friend with him.

**hoon** · 01-04-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Wow, I didn't realise that Clinton somehow urged the North Koreans to invade South Korea in the late 40's. Funny how a small child could somehow make that happen.

Yes he did. Not many people know that. Clinton then waited until he was president to set up an agreement that the North Koreans would not honor. Clinton and his administration set up, in 1994, a deal with North Korea under which it agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons in return for aid in the construction of two advanced light-water nuclear reactors.

.....and he we are.

**bachviet** · 01-04-2003, 10:00 PM

Clinton is all talk and no back bone to do $hit against anybody. That's why the terrorists especially Bin Laden thought that they could attack and got no retaliation! Bill didn't do $hit against Iraq back in 1998 when it violated the agreement! North Korea thought that it could jerk Bush around like it did to Clinton!

**eSDee** · 01-05-2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by hoon

Yes he did. Not many people know that. Clinton then waited until he was president to set up an agreement that the North Koreans would not honor. Clinton and his administration set up, in 1994, a deal with North Korea under which it agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons in return for aid in the construction of two advanced light-water nuclear reactors.

.....and he we are.

A Texas Troll.

**eSDee** · 01-05-2003, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by bachviet
Clinton is all talk and no back bone to do $hit against anybody. That's why the terrorists especially Bin Laden thought that they could attack and got no retaliation! Bill didn't do $hit against Iraq back in 1998 when it violated the agreement! North Korea thought that it could jerk Bush around like it did to Clinton!

I wonder how many of you will be backing up Bush in 20 years when the numbers are finally out showing how many civilians are killed in order to satisfy the so called "anti terrorist war". War is not always the answer, and this is coming from a US Army Veteran. The US has enough strength that we don't need to use our troops to go in and DIE to satisfy the appetite of any warmonger. Follow blindly if you will, but just remember the blood of our troops is on your hands as well.

**hoon** · 01-05-2003, 08:05 AM

I am also an Army veteran. The only thing you did was call me a name. I do not expect anything less than that from a fellow veteran, considering that most of the people I served with were idiots. My point is still valid.

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 01-05-2003, 09:00 AM

I think not. Clinton didnt put us in any current situation with NOrth Korea. If you want to blame anyone blame Truman for going into NOrth Korea. I don't honestly know what you expected Clinton to do in the 1990's to prevent them developing nuclear weapons.

If he hadn't helped them build their infrastructure then there would be more starving and cold people in the world. THen again, I guess hawkish republicans dont care about stariving and cold people in the third world so long as they have plenty of gas for their SUV and hot water in their showers back home.

**hoon** · 01-05-2003, 09:05 AM

I guess people in N. Korea are not starving now and that they don't rely on U.N aid.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=366462

**sbp** · 01-05-2003, 09:31 AM

U.S. to maintain N. Korean food aid
"The Bush administration plans to continue humanitarian food shipments to North Korea in the new year, U.S. officials said, despite Pyongyang's continued belligerence in pursuit of its nuclear ambitions."

There goes that conclusion Canta. :p

S. Korea Readies Plan to End Standoff With North
North Korea lied for years under the previous plan to give up its nuclear programs. Now some want to give them goodies? Fsck these appeasing lamers!

Wonder how many American and other countries civilians would be killed while appeasers wait for a new set of kneespads.

Not doing anything led to 9/11.

Now the Democratic presidential hopefuls are criticizing Bush's foreign policy. These Democrats think by bashing Bush on national security and bsing saying he hasn't done enough is going to get them votes. Pathetic.

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 01-05-2003, 09:45 AM

I guess people in N. Korea are not starving now and that they don't rely on U.N aid.

I guess you didn't see that I typed 'more' in my sentence. Typical, some people only want to see what they want to see.

"The Bush administration plans to continue humanitarian food shipments to North Korea in the new year, U.S. officials said, despite Pyongyang's continued belligerence in pursuit of its nuclear ambitions."

I never said they werent still giving them aid. I don't like how they are using aid as a carrot on a stick. If you want to help them for humanitarian reasons then do that, but don't help them for political reasons than later label it humanitarian.

We both know that if they continue to lie to us and persist in nuclear weapons development we will still help them: we are afraid of unstable countries with nuclear weapons. We will give them food for no other reason than to keep the country stable and 'controlable.' IF we cut they off of aid then they can get rather unpredictable.

**eSDee** · 01-05-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by hoon
I am also an Army veteran. The only thing you did was call me a name. I do not expect anything less than that from a fellow veteran, considering that most of the people I served with were idiots. My point is still valid.

Hah! I called you a troll because you have like 2 posts, and you come in with pistols blazing. This is the behavior of a troll, whether you know it or not, troll.

You're doing a good job of spreading the idea of veterans being idiots. Perhaps you should stfu and spew your poison elsewhere.

**johnnymk** · 01-05-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco

Hah! I called you a troll because you have like 2 posts, and you come in with pistols blazing. This is the behavior of a troll, whether you know it or not, troll.

You're doing a good job of spreading the idea of veterans being idiots. Perhaps you should stfu and spew your poison elsewhere.

Since when is telling the truth about Slick Willy poison?

**hoon** · 01-05-2003, 02:48 PM

So, I can't have an opinion in this forum unless I have a zillion posts?
besides......
Instead of addressing what I said, you just simply tried to insult me. Twice. Real classy...

**bachviet** · 01-05-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco

I wonder how many of you will be backing up Bush in 20 years when the numbers are finally out showing how many civilians are killed in order to satisfy the so called "anti terrorist war". War is not always the answer, and this is coming from a US Army Veteran. The US has enough strength that we don't need to use our troops to go in and DIE to satisfy the appetite of any warmonger. Follow blindly if you will, but just remember the blood of our troops is on your hands as well.

If we don't do $hit after 9/11 like the first WTC attack, what do you think Bin Laden going to do? Is he going to stop? If we don't retaliate when we are attacked, more attacks will come!

**~~Cantacuzene~~** · 01-05-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by bachviet

If we don't do $hit after 9/11 like the first WTC attack, what do you think Bin Laden going to do? Is he going to stop? If we don't retaliate when we are attacked, more attacks will come!

I dont think anyone was arguing that we should do nothing. We are all agreed that SOMETHING has to be done, but what that something is happens to be up to interpretation and debate.

Also, you use an exclaimation point as if what you are saying is an absolute truth. Chances are they will attack again despite the fact we are doing things.

**eSDee** · 01-05-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by hoon
So, I can't have an opinion in this forum unless I have a zillion posts?
besides......
Instead of addressing what I said, you just simply tried to insult me. Twice. Real classy...

Of course you can have an opinion. Just don't be a dick about it. You have to have atleast 100 posts to do that

**eSDee** · 01-05-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by johnnymk

Since when is telling the truth about Slick Willy poison?

I didn't see any linkage so I'm taking it as just an opinion. You know how it works.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I dont think anyone was arguing that we should do nothing. We are all agreed that SOMETHING has to be done, but what that something is happens to be up to interpretation and debate.

Also, you use an exclaimation point as if what you are saying is an absolute truth. Chances are they will attack again despite the fact we are doing things.

Thanks Canta you said it well. I think that we can agree, a lot of the decisions that are being now are going to change the world forever. We definitely can't be nonchalant about them. War should be the last resort.

**bachviet** · 01-05-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

I dont think anyone was arguing that we should do nothing. We are all agreed that SOMETHING has to be done, but what that something is happens to be up to interpretation and debate.

Also, you use an exclaimation point as if what you are saying is an absolute truth. Chances are they will attack again despite the fact we are doing things.

If Clinton would have gone after Bin Laden after WTC 1 or USS Cole, 9/11 might not happen.