RIP MLK

http://s15.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2Q6FHOC29RARJ2VBPTGMU3ZOWW

^^^one of his best speeches

what's sad is that so many people dont even know why its a holiday

You'd be surprised to know that he wasn't primarily for the rights of blacks. His motivation was bridging the gap between the working class and the rich. In fact, it was the subject of most of his speeches for the last three years of his life. Suspiciously, those speeches have been poorly documented and you'd be lucky to find a transcript.

That is an excellent speech, Martin Luther King J.R. was a great man and his loss was a tragic loss to this nation and this planet.

HE'S DEAD?

Today is one of the few holidays that make sense. Most of the rest seem hollow and empty to me. Martin Luthor King, Jr. was one of the few great heroes in history.

Numbermind said:

His motivation was bridging the gap between the working class and the rich. In fact, it was the subject of most of his speeches for the last three years of his life.

Well, if you think about it, most forms of bigotry, when taken down into their basic building blocks, are really due to culture shock (culturism if you will). And class warfare is probably one of the main causes of cultural scisms, so it makes sense.

Danarchy said:

Luthor

omg evil

Dude that's ridiculous. Blaming republicans that is. Democrats are just as racist if not more. USING the minorities for their own gains. Especially the NAACP, the PAID blacks. They sure are about black rights aren't they? Especially when the papers were calling Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell Aunt Jemimah and Uncle Tom. Yea, they sure had a lot to say about that didn't they...

Shut up.

Republicans use the minorities for their own gains.

AndrewB said:

Republicans use the minorities for their own gains.

Uh and since when do democrats not?

The argument should be that, as political parties, they are equally insensitive, power-mongering fucktards.

Ultraviolet said:

The argument should be that, as political parties, they are equally insensitive, power-mongering fucktards.

Case closed.

Ralphis said:

Dude that's ridiculous. Blaming republicans that is.

Well I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't to blame as well (*cough*Lieberman*cough*Tipper Gore*cough*), but if you think about it, most laws having to do with rights between the late 50s and 1980 gave us MORE rights (from the civil rights laws to unbanning pornography). But since 1980, it seems there have been more restrictions on rights than there have been any gain on them. There was the censorship of music in the late 80s/early 90s, there was the act banning gay marriage, there's the FCC tightening it's control, and many other things. All this since the "glory days" of Reagan. I think we're headed into another dark ages...like the 40s and 50s.

Hmm...what was this thread about again? Oh yeah, some weatherman got fired in Nevada cause he called him Martin Luther Coon live on the air. Stupid bastard.

Ralphis said:
Dude that's ridiculous. Blaming republicans that is. Democrats are just as racist if not more. USING the minorities for their own gains. Especially the NAACP, the PAID blacks. They sure are about black rights aren't they? Especially when the papers were calling Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell Aunt Jemimah and Uncle Tom. Yea, they sure had a lot to say about that didn't they...

Shut up.

you don't exactly *get* racism do you?

Republicans, conservatives and constitutionalists always find themselves on the defensive in regard to civil rights issues. No matter what they do, will do or have ever done, the left, Democrats and contrarians demonize them as racists.

By demonizing Republicans and conservatives the left can continue to impose the big lie, which will be accepted as gospel by minorities, whom Democrats believe "owe" them.

Anyone remember the 100th birthday party of former segregationist Strom Thurmond? Trent Lott oozed flattery and camaraderie and said that it might have been a good thing if Thurmond had become president when he ran in 1948.

I don't like Trent Lott, mostly for reasons having to do with public policy and his limp-wristed behavior as a Senate majority leader. He should have known better because the politically correct police just wait for Republicans to say dumb things and Lott spoon fed them. One more time Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

After a little research (Scuba induced), I discovered Lott was a Democrat when he was a young guy making foolish statements at the University of Mississippi. According to most internet sources, you would be hard-pressed to find a single Republican in any Southern school of that era.

As far as republicans making large strides on a civil right movement, let's go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall we Scuba? Let's look at the way the senate voted.

"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Neither political party, however, has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for African-Americans happen. Changing times and the efforts of blacks themselves, plus the thousands of electronic pictures blazing across the screens on national television, finally brought it home to white America that injustices were being done to their brethren who happened to be black.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.

The Democrats and the press can continue to make a big deal of Lott's statement spoken to honor Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. Like George Wallace and others, Thurmond and Lott grew as men. They grew out of their times and their situation. They apologized for their former beliefs and they acted on that change of heart and have done so time and time again.

Democrats do themselves no good by taking credit for the civil rights movement or for legislation that came out of it. If they do that, they also must take the blame for the failures of the policies of dependence which they created and which choked the life out of the African-American culture and family life.

If African-Americans ever do vote for Republicans or conservatives, I hope they do so because they finally realize that though conservatives don't have all the answers, they do have enough faith in people to allow them the freedom to find the answers for themselves.

It's too bad people's interpretations of King though. He was a great man, but too many people use him as a weapon. For example, I was minding my own buisness in the computer lab today, and for no reason some older african-american kid comes up and starts calling me stupid. Then he takes my mouse until I can tell him who Martin Luther King is. Then I have to recite parts of the I Have A Dream Speech. Then I have to listen to how he's a proud NAACP member, but lost his member card. Then I had to tell him I dont have a KKK membership card. Then I have to tell him I dont have any swastikas tatooed on me. Then he makes fun of me for sucking at virtual pool. Yeah :/

Remember that back in the day, most racists were Dixiecrats. They voted Democrat and they belonged to the party, but they disagreed with the northern democrats on civil rights (this stems from the civil war, when both parties were broken up into north and south factions). My grandpa, (who helped the fight for civil rights and is now a socialist) was a democrat back then and he didn't mind the fact that the souther states almost always voted for democrat presidents, but it always left a bad taste in his mouth that those Dixiecrats were pretty much all pro-slavery.

Then came a time, starting in the late 70s, when the Dixiecrats started to become Republicans (though some have yet to switch side *cough*Zell Miller*cough*), and thus the Neocons were born. See, I really don't care either way about regular Democrats or Republicans. Both parties disagree with me on an equal amount of issues it seems, and I find them both very dull. But it's this faction of Neocons that worry me. They hold they still hold onto the old ideals of the Southern Democrats: racism, extreme nationalism, and rampant fundamentalism. I really don't like how this country is trending in that direction.

Hell, I think it would be best for the moderate Reps to try to distance themselves from the Neocons as much as possible. The difference in ideaologies is so great, I don't really see how they can say they are in the same party.

insertwackynamehere said:

It's too bad people's interpretations of King though. He was a great man, but too many people use him as a weapon. For example, I was minding my own buisness in the computer lab today, and for no reason some older african-american kid comes up and starts calling me stupid. Then he takes my mouse until I can tell him who Martin Luther King is. Then I have to recite parts of the I Have A Dream Speech. Then I have to listen to how he's a proud NAACP member, but lost his member card. Then I had to tell him I dont have a KKK membership card. Then I have to tell him I dont have any swastikas tatooed on me. Then he makes fun of me for sucking at virtual pool. Yeah :/

WTF

If I were you, I'd have just punched him in the face.

Danarchy said:

WTF

If I were you, I'd have just punched him in the face.

While screaming "FUCK OFF TARBABY SPEARCHUCKER JUNGLEBUNNY!"

Ralphis said:

...they also must take the blame for the failures of the policies of dependence which they created and which choked the life out of the African-American culture and family life.

What the Fuck are you talking about?

He's probably talking about P. Diddy.

Ralphis said:


If African-Americans ever do vote for Republicans or conservatives, I hope they do so because they finally realize that though conservatives don't have all the answers, they do have enough faith in people to allow them the freedom to find the answers for themselves. [/B]

Considering how red your current leader's neck is, you're either on a lot of drugs, or totally ignorant. What something was is not always what it is. The republican party is not run by normal human beings with decent reasononing capabilities. It is run by a puppet with a below-normal IQ (allegedly, GWB's IQ is around 91), and some very frightening ideas that benefit the rich and the insane (Israel's current government). Considering that, iirc, most african americans - let alone most americans in general - are not rich, let alone Jewish Zionist, Bush and his puppeteers really are very poor leaders and poorer representatives of your nation - ESPECIALLY in the front of civil rights, considering the voting scandals in his previous election.

Ralphis, if you support the Republicans, good for you. But it doesn't mean you're right, and if anything, it demonstrates that on this topic, you really don't totally know what the hell you're talking about - except for the fact that politicians are corrupt, which is a given.

Politics suck. It's all about making whatever party you're part of the best. Bleh. I doubt when George Washington and co. were making this country that they wanted to have it run by people who barely care about the PEOPLE in america. The party system sucks. I think we should do what the ancient Greeks did - instead of voting on a leader to make decisions, we should just all decide ourselves. I think that would work a lot better.

From where did you attain your Phd in political science may I ask?

lerner said:

I think we should do what the ancient Greeks did

Hell yes - slaves, women and immigrants don't get a vote, what rights you have depends on how much property you own, and decisions are made based on how persuasive some demagogue happens to be on any particular day. relevant link

Also, the Greeks didn't have one single nation through most of their ancient history, just city states (which were easy to run democraticly because they were rather small). They were unified once, but it was more of a republic and it fell apart rather quickly, then along came Alexander with his military dictatorship. After his death, it was ruled by a single king (I think) before it was conquered by the Romans. So I guess you don't know your history either. :P

Danarchy said:

So I guess you don't know your history either. :P

If you're talking to me here, then his reference was clearly to the Athenian democracy that arose in the 6th and 5th centuries, and it seemed most relevant to give a brief mention to the shortcomings and limitations of that.

Grazza said:

If you're talking to me here, then his reference was clearly to the Athenian democracy that arose in the 6th and 5th centuries, and it seemed most relevant to give a brief mention to the shortcomings and limitations of that.

5th and 6th centuries? I'm pretty sure Greece was a democracy before Rome fell.

BC

If you refer to "5th century Athens" in the context of ancient Greek history, it is taken to mean 5th century BC. Sorry for not clarifying though.

Actualy, that was aimed at lerner as a kind of addendum to your post.

Yeah, Athens was a democracy. Every adult male citizen was allowed to vote on every issue. But there were many other city states that had different governments. I think Sparta was a dictatorship. I'm just being anal here. :P