Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Snaggletiger on August 15, 2013, 09:41:58 AM
-
This piece is from early July. I just saw a blurb about this in this mornings local paper because they discussed the issue in a County Commission meeting Tuesday. I googlized it to find a little more in depth write up. BTW, this is out of Ft. Myers, Florida and not our beloved Lee County. Thoughts?
The president of the Lee County, Fla. chapter of the NAACP has petitioned the Lee County Commission to remove a portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, claiming it symbolizes racism.
The painting that the NAACP’s James Muwakkil finds so offensive has hung in the Lee County Commission chambers for years. The county was named for the late military hero 22 years after the close of the war between the states, according to The Washington Times.
“That painting is a symbol of racism. It’s a symbol of divisiveness, and it doesn’t unify Lee County. It divides Lee County,†Muwakkil said in a letter, the Fort Meyers News-Press reported.
Muwakkil’s petition will force a public hearing on the issue, according to Commissioner Larry Kiker.
“I would be looking for thoughtful conversation based upon the historical value and why it was put there to begin with, mainly because I don’t know too much about it,†Kiker told the News-Press.
Virginia assisted Lee County in obtaining a suitable Lee painting — in 1939, according to the News-Press.
Lee’s position with the Confederate Army had nothing to do with his position on slavery, and everything to do with his loyalty to Virginia.
In an 1856 letter to his wife, Lee wrote, (ACCORDING TO WHAT SOURCE)“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.â€
He also supported the efforts of his wife and daughter to maintain an illegal school for slaves on their plantation and petitioned slave owners to allow slaves to volunteer for the army, saying he could make soldiers out of any human being with arms and legs, according to Wikipedia.
Despite Lee’s history, every now and then the local NAACP chapter petitions the county to take some action regarding the painting. The last time was in 2007, when it asked the commission to hang a painting of President Abraham Lincoln near Lee’s. The measure failed.
-
:facepalm:
-
That's it.
I'm starting white history month.
-
I'm not a history buff....but I am pretty buff....so I really didn't know those things about General Lee. But the fact that the NAACP protests his portrait as a symbol of racism, tells me they've done even less research than I have on the man.
-
I have no objection to this. Lee is a part of our nation's history and the county was named after him. It would seem that is the primary reason that the portrait is there.
If the county did not bear his namesake, I may feel differently.
How would the county leaders and citizens feel about adding a portrait of MLK as a compromise? How would you guys feel about them adding this? That's a better question.
-
Bo and Luke Duke wept
-
Bo and Luke Duke wept
I always wanted to do Daisy on the hood of the General Lee
-
How would the county leaders and citizens feel about adding a portrait of MLK as a compromise? How would you guys feel about them adding this? That's a better question.
Why? Why must any compromise be met?
If I want to promote communism and therefore want a symbol of one of its most secret supporters, I might hang a pic of MLK.
-
I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy cork-soakers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes... like yourselves.
-
That's it.
I'm starting white history month.
Well I heard we have 11- AA-1 Hispanics-0 Asians-0
-
Why? Why must any compromise be met?
If I want to promote communism and therefore want a symbol of one of its most secret supporters, I might hang a pic of MLK.
Really? And you really believe this?
-
Really? And you really believe this?
It is the gospel truth. Funded by, trained by, supported by and driven by communists.
-
I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy cork-soakers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes... like yourselves.
Can you believe the mouth on this guy.
-
It is the gospel truth. Funded by, trained by, supported by and driven by communists.
While there is no denying that there were, at least, "former" communist supporters that were a part of King's SCLC but its own constitution forbade communism. I do not beleive that King was a communist but we all know that there are sometimes strange bedfellows in political movements.
-
strange bedfellows
Did MLK like to gangbang chicks?
-
I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy cork-soakers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes... like yourselves.
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/thetruman/FarginWar-1.jpg)
-
While there is no denying that there were, at least, "former" communist supporters that were a part of King's SCLC but its own constitution forbade communism. I do not beleive that King was a communist but we all know that there are sometimes strange bedfellows in political movements.
(http://mlpg.co/arc/q/raw/aspirant/cute_quest/src/1355531670525.gif)
-
MLK was a gay Indian wrestler
-
MLK was a gay Indian wrestler
Fuck you , Michael Louis Kingston was good people.
-
Did MLK like to gangbang chicks?
More often than you realize. Ask Jackie Kennedy.
-
More often than you realize. Ask Jackie Kennedy.
Don't know this story and if I have heard I have forgot.
-
Don't know this story and if I have heard I have forgot.
So a rabbi, a black and a midget walk into a mosque holding hands.......
clicky the linky
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jackie-kennedy-believed-martin-luther-153530
-
So a rabbi, a black and a midget walk into a mosque holding hands.......
clicky the linky
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jackie-kennedy-believed-martin-luther-153530
Oh snap. Had not heard about these tapes.
-
Wow! So, MLK had a dream of many white women in his hotel room?
-
Don't know this story and if I have heard I have forgot.
King was killed by his own people. Martyred. Why?
Because J. Edgar had damning evidence of his less than circumspect ways, including photos and videos of the sainted reverend bedding blonde, white women.
He had to go. Knew he had to go. Was willing to die (or at least get wounded) for the cause. It's why he made the prophetic speeches about his impending death.
He was no more, no less than Jesse or Al. He just didn't live long enough to soil his legacy with the dirt that would have been slung or with his own dirty words and deeds.
-
Wow! So, MLK had a dream of many white women in his hotel room?
Don't we all?
-
King was killed by his own people. Martyred. Why?
Because J. Edgar had damning evidence of his less than circumspect ways, including photos and videos of the sainted reverend bedding blonde, white women.
He had to go. Knew he had to go. Was willing to die (or at least get wounded) for the cause. It's why he made the prophetic speeches about his impending death.
He was no more, no less than Jesse or Al. He just didn't live long enough to soil his legacy with the dirt that would have been slung or with his own dirty words and deeds.
Oprah says you're a bad man.
-
Oprah says you're a bad man.
Just in Zurich
-
Oprah says you're a bad man.
I hate her for silencing Dave Chappelle.
After signing the contract, dave looked forward to returning to his rural ohio home to spend some time with his family before hunkering down to begin work on show's highly anticipated third season.
but dave was haunted by a secret. one that only he was aware of, and one he couldn't share with anyone, lest his comedy empire crumble.
He knew that at the same time he was signing his record-setting deal, there was a secret cabal of powerful african-american leaders from the business, political, and entertainment industries working together to ensure that the third season of chappelle's show would never happen.....Oprah
-
The internet is obviously a dangerous place to research one of the most revered and important figures in American history.
-
The internet is obviously a dangerous place to research one of the most revered and important figures in American history.
Whaaat?
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/300x/8572188.jpg)
BTW, the information on Marxist Luther King comes from way before the Internet. But it's not the picture the media wants painted so the truth remains buried.
-
Whaaat?
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/300x/8572188.jpg)
BTW, the information on Marxist Luther King comes from way before the Internet. But it's not the picture the media wants painted so the truth remains buried.
Some people will only believe what they want to be true. There is much more evidence of the good things that MLK did than that of his extramarital affairs, communist ties, etc.
I'm not saying that ALL of the negative is untrue. I'm just saying that I believe that it's overblown and that he did more good than harm.
-
Whaaat?
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/images/300x/8572188.jpg)
BTW, the information on Marxist Luther King comes from way before the Internet. But it's not the picture the media wants painted so the truth remains buried.
Speaking of them suppressing the people, where has bottomfeeder been? Did he accidentally set the time lock on his off the grid fortress of solitude?
-
Some people will only believe what they want to be true. There is much more evidence of the good things that MLK did than that of his extramarital affairs, communist ties, etc.
I'm not saying that ALL of the negative is untrue. I'm just saying that I believe that it's overblown and that he did more good than harm.
Forgive me while I vehemently disagree.
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/25/3d/253de32ba00c84d5cf1b7e51d71ff4e3.jpg?itok=XFJ3fsiN)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2010/03/75541205resize.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Nagin2June2006.jpg/220px-Nagin2June2006.jpg)
(http://rhrealitycheck.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/repgwenmoore-375x250.jpg)
(http://v002o.popscreen.com/eGRoeWZoMTI=_o_lil-eazy-e---coming-from-compton-the-game-diss.jpg)
I could go on for days.
Want to talk about academic performance in American schools pre-1963?
Rabble.Rouser.
Period.
-
Some people will only believe what they want to be true. There is much more evidence of the good things that MLK did than that of his extramarital affairs, communist ties, etc.
I'm not saying that ALL of the negative is untrue. I'm just saying that I believe that it's overblown and that he did more good than harm.
And it is pretty head in the sand of you to NOT research these links. If even one is true, then his good deeds are tarnished.
If communism was the end goal of one of the most charismatic American figures of the 20 century, then were his good deeds just groundwork for a weaker nation? These questions should be asked. Especially since every piece of affirmative action legislation we have today was based on the cause and effect of his life teachings.
Now I am not saying that equality is wrong. I am just discussing the man that so many put on a pedestal!
And with that in mind, why would I want to hang his portrait anywhere as a compromise. Sounds to me like more racial bullying!
-
Forgive me while I vehemently disagree.
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/25/3d/253de32ba00c84d5cf1b7e51d71ff4e3.jpg?itok=XFJ3fsiN)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2010/03/75541205resize.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Nagin2June2006.jpg/220px-Nagin2June2006.jpg)
(http://rhrealitycheck.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/repgwenmoore-375x250.jpg)
(http://v002o.popscreen.com/eGRoeWZoMTI=_o_lil-eazy-e---coming-from-compton-the-game-diss.jpg)
I could go on for days.
Want to talk about academic performance in American schools pre-1963?
Rabble.Rouser.
Period.
Disagree with what? What does posting a bunch of pics of other African Americans have to do with my assertion that MLK is one of the most revered and important figures in American history?
I get that you don't like him. Fine. But do you really not think that he helped to shape the foundation of the equal rights movement? Do we at least agree that equal rights is a good thing?
-
I like Splenda
-
Eleanore Roosevelt was a big dyke
-
Disagree with what? What does posting a bunch of pics of other African Americans have to do with my assertion that MLK is one of the most revered and important figures in American history?
I get that you don't like him. Fine. But do you really not think that he helped to shape the foundation of the equal rights movement? Do we at least agree that equal rights is a good thing?
I do think he helped shape it. I also think he was NOT the saintly person portrayed. I think he was very flawed and had an agenda that is counter to the best interests of the country as a whole. I think he was communist/socialist.
I think his actions made things worse. Quotas, forced integration, stupid ass things like REQUIRING neighborhoods to be racially diverse are offensive to me. Section 8, which allows people who cannot afford homes to move into neighborhoods, treat the property with disrespect and drive property values down for their neighbors is abhorrent to me. Laws that say my organization MUST accept anyone regardless of their race, gender or sexual proclivities offend me deeply. Requirements that I MUST rent my house to this person or that person regardless of my personal feelings toward that person's ethnicity or orientation piss me off.
I believe in the natural order of things. Like capitalism. Without rabble-rousing race baiters who flow from the King lineage racial issues would be resolved on their own. People can make up their own minds who they want to associate with, who they want to live near, who they want to worship with without the intervention of the government. Would be a lot more peaceful.
I have no respect for King or the movement he led. It was rooted in communism/socialism and promotes nothing but inequality. No, I don't think the civil rights movement was a great and glorious thing. At all.
-
I do think he helped shape it. I also think he was NOT the saintly person portrayed. I think he was very flawed and had an agenda that is counter to the best interests of the country as a whole. I think he was communist/socialist.
I think his actions made things worse. Quotas, forced integration, stupid ass things like REQUIRING neighborhoods to be racially diverse are offensive to me. Section 8, which allows people who cannot afford homes to move into neighborhoods, treat the property with disrespect and drive property values down for their neighbors is abhorrent to me. Laws that say my organization MUST accept anyone regardless of their race, gender or sexual proclivities offend me deeply. Requirements that I MUST rent my house to this person or that person regardless of my personal feelings toward that person's ethnicity or orientation piss me off.
I believe in the natural order of things. Like capitalism. Without rabble-rousing race baiters who flow from the King lineage racial issues would be resolved on their own. People can make up their own minds who they want to associate with, who they want to live near, who they want to worship with without the intervention of the government. Would be a lot more peaceful.
I have no respect for King or the movement he led. It was rooted in communism/socialism and promotes nothing but inequality. No, I don't think the civil rights movement was a great and glorious thing. At all.
How do you feel about gays?
-
How do you feel about gays?
He loves the fags.
-
Don't agree with the gay thing at all. Think it's a genetic defect (and as such can be cured).
But as long as it's not forced on me, I don't much care what they do. Don't think it should be done in public. Disgusts me to see two guys kissing or holding hands while walking down the street. Since most girl-girl never meets the fantasy standards and one usually LOOKS like a short, fat justin beiber I don't care much to see that either.
Don't think it should be promoted as simply "an alternative lifestyle" and given credibility.
Other than that... whatever.
-
Disagree with what? What does posting a bunch of pics of other African Americans have to do with my assertion that MLK is one of the most revered and important figures in American history?
I get that you don't like him. Fine. But do you really not think that he helped to shape the foundation of the equal rights movement? Do we at least agree that equal rights is a good thing?
You're an idiot....
-
:popcorn:
-
It's not hard to understand someone defending their own.
-
You're an idiot....
I think we can have honest and open debate without resorting to name-calling. But, you are entitled to your opinion jackass.
-
I think we can have honest and open debate without resorting to name-calling. But, you are entitled to your opinion jackass.
Apparently, he pissed off Tappy
-
I think we can have honest and open debate without resorting to name-calling. But, you are entitled to your opinion jackass.
I'm sorry. I must have ventured onto aufambly by mistake and stumbled upon your lost vagina.
Listen shit for brains - How many times is kaos going to have to explain it to you before it sinks in? You're not gettin' it I'm afraid. The "good things" you've been fed aren't so. A womanizing Marxist who under the guise of equal rights and peaceful protests knew exactly how to incite riots and agitate communities. You want a real black role model to ooooh and ahhhh over ? Try BTW, GW Carver or statesman Frederick Douglas. They were worthy. Agitators and rousers are not heros. The Kennedy's pushed civil rights legislation more than MLK. He simply put on a good show.
-
I'm sorry. I must have ventured onto aufambly by mistake and stumbled upon your lost vagina.
Listen shoot for brains - How many times is kaos going to have to explain it to you before it sinks in? You're not gettin' it I'm afraid. The "good things" you've been fed aren't so. A womanizing Marxist who under the guise of equal rights and peaceful protests knew exactly how to incite riots and agitate communities. You want a real black role model to ooooh and ahhhh over ? Try BTW, GW Carver or statesman Frederick Douglas. They were worthy. Agitators and rousers are not heros. The Kennedy's pushed civil rights legislation more than MLK. He simply put on a good show.
Thank you for telling me who my black heroes should be. I'll try to look up these cats and educate myself.
-
What about Gary Coleman?
-
I'm sorry. I must have ventured onto aufambly by mistake and stumbled upon your lost vagina.
Listen shoot for brains - How many times is kaos going to have to explain it to you before it sinks in? You're not gettin' it I'm afraid. The "good things" you've been fed aren't so. A womanizing Marxist who under the guise of equal rights and peaceful protests knew exactly how to incite riots and agitate communities. You want a real black role model to ooooh and ahhhh over ? Try BTW, GW Carver or statesman Frederick Douglas. They were worthy. Agitators and rousers are not heros. The Kennedy's pushed civil rights legislation more than MLK. He simply put on a good show.
My kid has peanut allergies. Screw GW Carver, it's all his fault. On Saturdays I have to drive through Alabama A&M football traffic to get to Lowes. Somehow Booker T is to blame, screw him too. And Frederick Douglas? He looked like a black Karl Marx. That makes him a commie.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjUVoOFDmzHk9HMzohgnKRyURZlkDA30YHS6w0SO8y8rZoPScS)
(http://hoodedutilitarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Karl-Marx1.jpg)
-
So...who wants a mustache ride?
-
This thread is abhorrent.
First of all, I could list about a thousand "communists" from that era. It's call McCarthyism. And guess who was behind it moreso even than McCarthy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#J._Edgar_Hoover_and_the_FBI
In Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, historian Ellen Schrecker calls the FBI "the single most important component of the anti-communist crusade" and writes: "Had observers known in the 1950s what they have learned since the 1970s, when the Freedom of Information Act opened the Bureau's files, 'McCarthyism' would probably be called 'Hooverism.'"[18] FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was one of the nation's most fervent anti-communists, and one of the most powerful.
Secondly:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp
Although the FBI did conduct surveillance on Martin Luther King and two Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) associates who were former Communist party members (Stanley D. Levison and Jack O'Dell), the Bureau was unable to uncover any credible evidence of active participation or funding between the Communist party and the SCLC. As David Garrow chronicled in his exhaustive study of Martin Luther King and the SCLC:
While King continued his criticism of the [Kennedy] administration, the Kennedys were in private consternation about FBI reports that American Communist party leaders were claiming that old ally Stanley Levison was the number one advisor to Martin Luther King. In fact, the reports said, word in the party had it that Levison was writing many of King's most important speeches. Though the FBI's informants had no dependable information that Levison was still loyal to the party's commands, they did know that he continued to give it modest financial support even after severing direct ties. The FBI suspected that Levison's 1955 departure from party activity might have been a cover, and that Levison's friendship with King might be a secret assignment undertaken at the behest of American Communists and their Soviet sponsors.
The FBI's assertions provoked fear in [Attorney General] Robert Kennedy and his closest assistants. Within several weeks time, two courses of action were decided upon. First, electronic surveillance of Levison would be instituted to monitor both his advice to King and any telephone contacts with Soviet or Communist agents. Second, those in the Kennedy administration who had some personal acquaintance with King all would warn the civil rights leader that he ought to end his relationship with Levison immediately. King would also be warned about Jack O'Dell, the man Levison had brought in manage the SCLC's New York office. O'Dell had been involved with the Communist party throughout the 1950s, and his public record of such associations could be used against King and SCLC.
On several occasions during the spring, Robert Kennedy and his assistants warned King about Levison and O'Dell, without being specific about the allegations. Each time the warnings were voiced to King, he listened quietly, thanked the speaker for his concern, and said that he was not one to question the motives of people in the movement, certainly not one so selfless as Stanley Levison. As King explained, how could he give credence to such vague allegations, coming from who knew where, when Levison had a proven track record of five years of honest counsel? If the administration had anything more specific to offer, King would gladly listen, but until then, he would not doubt one of his closest friends.
The FBI kept up its round-the-clock surveillance of Stanley Levison throughout the spring and summer. The wiretaps detected no contacts with Communist agents. Though his ties to the party were now in the past, such evidence of his final disengagement did not persuade FBI officials, who continued to suspect that Stanley Levison might be a Soviet agent exerting substantial influence on the civil rights movement through his close friendship with Martin King.
Late in October serious controversy broke when several conservative newspapers ran almost identical front-page stories detailing the Communist party ties of SCLC staff member Jack O'Dell. The FBI-planted stories reported that the thirty-nine-year-old O'Dell not only had a public record of past association with the "CP," but in fact still served as a "concealed member" of the party's national committee. The Bureau hoped that this exposé would so embarrass King that the supposed Communist mole would be purged.
After several days, King issued a statement saying that O'Dell had resigned from the SCLC. While King's statement carefully noted that the SCLC had accepted the resignation, "pending further inquiry and clarification," those in the know, including the FBI, were aware that O'Dell remained with SCLC as head of its New York office. The FBI reasoned that King's deceptiveness in retaining O'Dell indicated that the civil rights leader was insensitive to the dangers of Communist subversion, as well as dishonest.
At King's request, O'Dell prepared a private letter explaining his political past. O'Dell stated in the letter that while he had previously supported the Communist party program, "quite awhile before" joining SCLC, he had concluded that his prior belief that "democratic reformation of the South required a Communist movement in the South" was incorrect and "mistaken. I no longer hold such a viewpoint, and neither do I have any Communist affiliation," O'Dell told King. Satisfied with that statement, [attorney Clarence] Jones advised King that O'Dell's supposed "interim resignation" could be set aside, and that O'Dell could remain with SCLC because he "has no present communist affiliation whatsoever."
On the morning of June 30 [1963], the Birmingham News, relying upon information leaked by the FBI, revealed that Jack O'Dell was still on SCLC's payroll and working in its New York office despite King's claim that O'Dell had resigned. [Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights] Burke Marshall again pressed King to cut all ties with O'Dell and Levison. Reluctantly, King gave in and acted on the first request. He wrote to O'Dell, in a letter primarily intended for Marshall's consumption, that the "temporary resignation" of the preceding November now was being made permanent. Although SCLC had not discovered "any present connections with the Communist party on your part," the continuing allegation that O'Dell was a secret member of the the CP's national committee was a damaging one, and "in these critical times we cannot afford to risk any such impressions."
Ralph Abernathy, who succeeded King as president of the SCLC after the latter's assassination in 1968, also disclaimed ties between the SCLC and the Communist party in his autobiography:
We assumed that, though filled with malice toward us, [FBI director J. Edgar Hoover] was a rational man who was merely misinformed about our ultimate aims. If we could disabuse him of his belief that we were Communists or else willing pawns of the international Communist conspiracy, perhaps he would call off his dogs.
The idea that we could reason with such people was naive. Nevertheless, at the time it seemed the best course of action to follow. So, while Martin kept an appointment in Baltimore, Andy Young and I flew to Washington to meet with Hoover's representative, Deke DeLoach, to see if we couldn't explain our aims and achieve some sort of truce.
It was a waste of time and money. DeLoach was not a man who could really speak for Hoover, and we spent most of our time trying to answer charges he was unwilling to admit the FBI had made. We assured him that Martin was not a Communist, that Communists did not control the SCLC and that we had no desire to tear down American society. We pointed out that even in the SCLC's constitution it states very clearly that "No member of this organization shall be a communist nor a communist sympathizer." All we wanted, we said, was equal protection under the law; the right to enjoy the full privileges of American citizenship.
Toward the end of the interview we realized that he was playing an elaborate and patronizing game with us, treating us with a strict courtesy that barely hid his contempt. We left more frustrated than when we had arrived. Not only would the FBI not cease and desist, they would not even talk to us about the matter.
Essentially one dude in the SCLC, not named Martin Luther, was accused of being a former advocate of the Communist party.
If one dude peripherally associated with King being vaguely formerly associated with a form of government other than capitalism in your mind negates anything positive derived from desegregation and equal treatment of African Americans as human beings as a whole...you're an asshole.
A more coherent version of the story than anything said in this thread so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmH_iL-e8LY
(I can't find the clip of the entire segment, but as a side note, this show is great.)
Anyway, all that said, before this thread went off the rails, I agreed. Robert E. Lee as a political figure is not inherently racist, and any protest or "compromise" is stupid and whitewashing American history.
-
This thread is abhorrent.
Blah blah blah, whitewashed BS, falsehoods
So King didnt attend the communist retreat with rosa parks where the bus boycott was laid out for them?
Guess rosa best take that photo of her, king and the communists out of her OWN DAMM MUSEUM.
-
What about Gary Coleman?
He has short arms
-
(http://operationkino.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/the-campaign-poster-zach-galifianakis.jpg)
I've heard that this guy is a Commiunist...because he has Chinese pugs.
-
My kid has peanut allergies. Screw GW Carver, it's all his fault. On Saturdays I have to drive through Alabama A&M football traffic to get to Lowes. Somehow Booker T is to blame, screw him too. And Frederick Douglas? He looked like a black Karl Marx. That makes him a commie.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjUVoOFDmzHk9HMzohgnKRyURZlkDA30YHS6w0SO8y8rZoPScS)
(http://hoodedutilitarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Karl-Marx1.jpg)
Yes. That's exactly the same thing.
If you can't win the argument with facts, do it with patronizing I guess.
Those three guys were innovators and thinkers. Compared to them MLK did jack shit.
Anyone care to defend his sex parties and the irony of his title?
-
Fuck all of you idiotic, jack-assed, shit-for-brains morons. I got my black role models, and there's nothing you can say to make me change them.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJe9HqjRiDWkKfTZ7m4hNeY8yI8H4Y8Xu0XgLcrP4id9BMRT7D)
(http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/091104/precious_L.jpg)
(http://chattycathiechatters.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/et_1600369c.jpg?w=640)
(http://penndems.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/bill-clinton.jpg)
-
This thread is abhorrent.
First of all, I could list about a thousand "communists" from that era. It's call McCarthyism. And guess who was behind it moreso even than McCarthy?
If one dude peripherally associated with King being vaguely formerly associated with a form of government other than capitalism in your mind negates anything positive derived from desegregation and equal treatment of African Americans as human beings as a whole...you're an asshole.
Finally someone in this thread who comes with facts from somewhere other than the National Enquirer. This post has soul my man.
-
Fuck all of you idiotic, jack-assed, shit-for-brains morons. I got my black role models, and there's nothing you can say to make me change them.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJe9HqjRiDWkKfTZ7m4hNeY8yI8H4Y8Xu0XgLcrP4id9BMRT7D)
(http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/091104/precious_L.jpg)
(http://chattycathiechatters.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/et_1600369c.jpg?w=640)
(http://penndems.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/bill-clinton.jpg)
ET was not black...he was full blooded Cherokee Indian.
-
ET was not black...he was full blooded Cherokee Indian.
Damn, I bet he has laid into some of that tax free cigarette and casino money.
-
So, should they take down the General Lee portrait or not?
-
So, should they take down the General Lee portrait or not?
Stay on topic please.
-
So, should they take down the General Lee portrait or not?
(http://www.motoringartist.com/Dukes-of-Hazzard-General-Lee-Painting.jpg)
-
(http://www.motoringartist.com/Dukes-of-Hazzard-General-Lee-Painting.jpg)
:bugs:
-
Finally someone in this thread who comes with facts from somewhere other than the National Enquirer. This post has soul my man.
So now a documented speech on economic opinion is National Inquirer material?
“One day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America?’ And when you begin to ask that question, you’re raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.â€
— Dr. Martin Luther King, “Where do We Go from Here?†SCLC Presidential Address, Aug 16, 1967.
-
Yes. That's exactly the same thing.
If you can't win the argument with facts, do it with patronizing I guess.
Those three guys were innovators and thinkers. Compared to them MLK did jack shoot.
Anyone care to defend his sex parties and the irony of his title?
Biggest problem is some people don't recognize a joke.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LpixxhJ04Fg/UOCGz3I1iuI/AAAAAAAANkQ/GIrzr0uQgy8/s1600/409427_464808833576388_1741531777_n.jpg)
-
Biggest problem is some people don't recognize a joke.
Most don't when it's bad.
It was more a response to wiregrass' smartassed comments that started the whole pow wow (racist I know) which were idiotic. I've still yet to see him support his side with anything other than his own garbage rhetoric and Chizads Wikipedia and snopes articles. If facts fly in the face of the picture perfect angelic image of MLK he was spoon fed, then that's his issue.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LpixxhJ04Fg/UOCGz3I1iuI/AAAAAAAANkQ/GIrzr0uQgy8/s1600/409427_464808833576388_1741531777_n.jpg)
He holds his beer like a girl. :facepalm:
-
Most don't when it's bad.
It was more a response to wiregrass' smartassed comments that started the whole pow wow (racist I know) which were idiotic. I've still yet to see him support his side with anything other than his own garbage rhetoric and Chizads Wikipedia and snopes articles. If facts fly in the face of the picture perfect angelic image of MLK he was spoon fed, then that's his issue.
I just don't understand why there can't be an exchange of ideas and political beliefs without a barrage of insults.
I get it that some people don't understand or can't see the positives that MLK or even Obama may have contributed--because they refuse to see the trees in the forest. That's understandable because some of us can't look beyond our pre-conceived notions about a particular race, culture, etc. But, until we get past that, there will be no common ground.
-
I just don't understand why there can't be an exchange of ideas and political beliefs without a barrage of insults.
I get it that some people don't understand or can't see the positives that MLK or even Obama may have contributed--because they refuse to see the trees in the forest. That's understandable because some of us can't look beyond our pre-conceived notions about a particular race, culture, etc. But, until we get past that, there will be no common ground.
Not a matter of "preconceived notions about race, culture"
It's a matter of real agendas, real purpose, actual intent behind events that are spun differently.
MLK was a socialist/communist as is Obama. They are part of the same master plan that was conceived by socialists and has been implemented for years. It's the long-view plan and it banks on white guilt.
I'm sorry, but there IS no common ground.
-
Most don't when it's bad.
It was more a response to wiregrass' smartassed comments that started the whole pow wow (racist I know) which were idiotic. I've still yet to see him support his side with anything other than his own garbage rhetoric and Chizads Wikipedia and snopes articles. If facts fly in the face of the picture perfect angelic image of MLK he was spoon fed, then that's his issue.
Snopes & Wikipedia = "garbage rhetoric".
Your one link to a British tabloid that claims Jackie Kennedy didn't care for MLK and thought he was a sexual deviant, which is completely unrelated to anything I posted, invalidates those lib'ruhl propaganda sites Snopes & Wikipedia.
:facepalm:
And when did you guys suddenly become such huge fans of the Kennedy's where their opinions and accounts are Gospel truths? And are we saying her husband had no sexual indiscretions? What the fuck does any of this have to do with Communism?
-
I just don't understand why there can't be an exchange of ideas and political beliefs without a barrage of insults.
Fuck you
-
fudge you
You see?
-
(http://joshuakahnrussell.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/mlk-communist.png)
Monteagle Tennessee. Look it up.
(http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/media/MLK_Communist.jpg)
Fact.
-
(http://joshuakahnrussell.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/mlk-communist.png)
Monteagle Tennessee. Look it up.
(http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/media/MLK_Communist.jpg)
Fact.
Thats just national inquirer stuff. The man was perfect. Get over it.
-
Welp. Someone made a photoshop of him with word "Communist" on it.
Can't dispute that hard evidence.
And let me just say, even IF he were a communist, (which he was not, unless you use some loose redneck interpretation that helping a disenfranchised race of people to be equal in the eyes of the law), who really gives a fuck? What does that mean exactly that is so threatening? Rand Paul is associated with some pretty radical motherfuckers in favor of anarchy and in some cases neo-Confederacy, which I imagine you would have no problem with whatsoever. Those are forms of government other than Capitalism. It makes everything Rand Paul stands for invalid? And he actually could be more of a threat to Capitalism considering A) He's not dead and B) He's actually running for office.
Point being...what's YOUR point?
-
Eleanore Roosevelt was a big dyke
A real rug muncher!
-
While MLK is a mortal man, how anyone would reach so far as to label him a communist is beyond me. Am I the only one who sees the commonality in labeling MLK a commy and Obama a socialist without any shred of evidence?
-
So now a documented speech on economic opinion is National Inquirer material?
Have you read the rest of that speech, or just that one portion?
But regardless of what he went on to say in that speech (which was denouncing Communism as an answer to our country's woes, BTDubs), how about we look at Communism for what it is - a political and economic theory. Communism is not inherently evil; we just have a knee-jerk reaction that it is thanks to prominent American politicians who tied the concept of Communism to dictatorships that killed millions of people (think Mao's China and the Soviet Union). It's certainly up for debate whether Marx's concept of Communism would inevitably have to include aspects of a military dictatorship in order to succeed, but these "evil regimes" are not representative of the basic ideals of Communism.
Not only should we look at what Communism actually is, but we should look at the period in which all of this occurred. During the 1950's and 1960's, there were still many, many people who thought that Communism could work if it was done properly. Communism had not yet been truly proven to be untenable at that point in time, and it was much more common to have Communist ideals then than it is now. So even if MLK, Jr. were truly a Communist, or even just influenced by Communist ideals, it wasn't that out of the ordinary in that time period. Especially when you consider that the Communist party was practically the only party trying to advocate equal rights for awhile (this NPR read (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194) is a great overview of this).
Aside from all of the above, how did Communism truly factor into MLK, Jr.'s stances? The man never openly advocated for a Communist system. Although he mentioned Communism in one speech (and then shortly thereafter explained that it wasn't the solution), and although he surrounded himself with those who were arguably Communist, his positions were advanced by referencing the Bible and Christian doctrines. So what is the argument here? That if MLK, Jr. had lived and continued to be successful politically, we would have went down a slippery slope of Communism? Ignore what he actually said and did during his life, and instead presume to know what he would have done had he been given more time?
-
ET was not black...he was full blooded Cherokee Indian.
Who said anything about E.T.? That's Harriet Tubman, my nurra.
-
A real rug muncher!
Looked like a big lesbian mule.
-
Have you read the rest of that speech, or just that one portion?
But regardless of what he went on to say in that speech (which was denouncing Communism as an answer to our country's woes, BTDubs), how about we look at Communism for what it is - a political and economic theory. Communism is not inherently evil; we just have a knee-jerk reaction that it is thanks to prominent American politicians who tied the concept of Communism to dictatorships that killed millions of people (think Mao's China and the Soviet Union). It's certainly up for debate whether Marx's concept of Communism would inevitably have to include aspects of a military dictatorship in order to succeed, but these "evil regimes" are not representative of the basic ideals of Communism.
Not only should we look at what Communism actually is, but we should look at the period in which all of this occurred. During the 1950's and 1960's, there were still many, many people who thought that Communism could work if it was done properly. Communism had not yet been truly proven to be untenable at that point in time, and it was much more common to have Communist ideals then than it is now. So even if MLK, Jr. were truly a Communist, or even just influenced by Communist ideals, it wasn't that out of the ordinary in that time period. Especially when you consider that the Communist party was practically the only party trying to advocate equal rights for awhile (this NPR read (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194) is a great overview of this).
Aside from all of the above, how did Communism truly factor into MLK, Jr.'s stances? The man never openly advocated for a Communist system. Although he mentioned Communism in one speech (and then shortly thereafter explained that it wasn't the solution), and although he surrounded himself with those who were arguably Communist, his positions were advanced by referencing the Bible and Christian doctrines. So what is the argument here? That if MLK, Jr. had lived and continued to be successful politically, we would have went down a slippery slope of Communism? Ignore what he actually said and did during his life, and instead presume to know what he would have done had he been given more time?
Yes I've read it. Whether he is labeled one or not, he favored ideas that are considered very alinsky-esque. Such as social engineering, wealth redistribution, affirmative action and reperations. Getting bogged down into the sementics of it all doesn't take away from the simple principle that he was in favor of these ideas.
50 billion dollars in reperations to blacks - that was the proposal he pushed. In 1961 that was a huge sum of money especially seeing as how they were a very small portion of the population.
Full fledged Stalin commie hell bent on destroying anything in its way? No. But he was not the perfect prophet who walked on water he is made out to be by most. He had huge ideological and character flaws that are just not talked about mainstream. That's all I'm trying to say. Those things are a big deal to me.
-
Have you read the rest of that speech, or just that one portion?
But regardless of what he went on to say in that speech (which was denouncing Communism as an answer to our country's woes, BTDubs), how about we look at Communism for what it is - a political and economic theory. Communism is not inherently evil; we just have a knee-jerk reaction that it is thanks to prominent American politicians who tied the concept of Communism to dictatorships that killed millions of people (think Mao's China and the Soviet Union). It's certainly up for debate whether Marx's concept of Communism would inevitably have to include aspects of a military dictatorship in order to succeed, but these "evil regimes" are not representative of the basic ideals of Communism.
Not only should we look at what Communism actually is, but we should look at the period in which all of this occurred. During the 1950's and 1960's, there were still many, many people who thought that Communism could work if it was done properly. Communism had not yet been truly proven to be untenable at that point in time, and it was much more common to have Communist ideals then than it is now. So even if MLK, Jr. were truly a Communist, or even just influenced by Communist ideals, it wasn't that out of the ordinary in that time period. Especially when you consider that the Communist party was practically the only party trying to advocate equal rights for awhile (this NPR read (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123771194) is a great overview of this).
Aside from all of the above, how did Communism truly factor into MLK, Jr.'s stances? The man never openly advocated for a Communist system. Although he mentioned Communism in one speech (and then shortly thereafter explained that it wasn't the solution), and although he surrounded himself with those who were arguably Communist, his positions were advanced by referencing the Bible and Christian doctrines. So what is the argument here? That if MLK, Jr. had lived and continued to be successful politically, we would have went down a slippery slope of Communism? Ignore what he actually said and did during his life, and instead presume to know what he would have done had he been given more time?
-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus.
-
50 billion?
http://youtu.be/Rs6kT_0H1MI
-
Have you all gone berserk? Can't you see that man is a ni?
-
-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus.
I think you should let it be.
-
http://thebest404pageever.com/swf/peckursit.swf
-
Yes I've read it. Whether he is labeled one or not, he favored ideas that are considered very alinsky-esque. Such as social engineering, wealth redistribution, affirmative action and reperations. Getting bogged down into the sementics of it all doesn't take away from the simple principle that he was in favor of these ideas.
50 billion dollars in reperations to blacks - that was the proposal he pushed. In 1961 that was a huge sum of money especially seeing as how they were a very small portion of the population.
Full fledged Stalin commie hell bent on destroying anything in its way? No. But he was not the perfect prophet who walked on water he is made out to be by most. He had huge ideological and character flaws that are just not talked about mainstream. That's all I'm trying to say. Those things are a big deal to me.
These things really do not matter any more. The leftists have stronghold on the government and the ONE has pushed that anytime you don't agree with the minority, you are automatically wrong and a racist. I used to think MLK had a squeaky clean agenda, until recently when documents and accounts of the history became available.
MLK did a great thing for 10% of the population of this country. The pedestal upon which he is placed is a leftist hoax. He did not save this country form the devil. He did not deliver us from economic ruin. He did not heal the sick. He was just a man. Yet with the advent of leftist white guilt, he has been thrust upon an fabricated pedestal. And as such, there is no way his portrait should hang as a "compromise" in any way. How ridiculous was that statement to begin with anyway!
-
-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus.
Capitalism? Creationism? Fundamentalism? Evangelism? Puritanism? Dogmatism? Theism? Republicanism? Imperialism? Militarism? Pacifism? Colonialism? Jingoism? Pragmatism? Idealism? Multiculturalism? Skepticism? Determinism? Fanatisism? Journalism? Alcoholism? Voyeurism? Dwarfism? Hypnotism? Magnetism? Exorcism? Organism? Jism?
Oh, BTDubs, he wasn't a Communist.
-
(http://joshuakahnrussell.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/mlk-communist.png)
Monteagle Tennessee. Look it up.
(http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/media/MLK_Communist.jpg)
Fact.
What else could there possibly be to do in Monteagle, Tn on this night? The communist party was probably the only party in town. I don't blame him one bit.
-
These things really do not matter any more. The leftists have stronghold on the government and the ONE has pushed that anytime you don't agree with the minority, you are automatically wrong and a racist. I used to think MLK had a squeaky clean agenda, until recently when documents and accounts of the history became available.
MLK did a great thing for 10% of the population of this country. The pedestal upon which he is placed is a leftist hoax. He did not save this country form the devil. He did not deliver us from economic ruin. He did not heal the sick. He was just a man. Yet with the advent of leftist white guilt, he has been thrust upon an fabricated pedestal. And as such, there is no way his portrait should hang as a "compromise" in any way. How ridiculous was that statement to begin with anyway!
Not only is this post wrong, it's racist.
-
What else could there possibly be to do in Monteagle, Tn on this night? The communist party was probably the only party in town. I don't blame him one bit.
And it look like they let him sit up front.
-
And it look like they let him sit up front.
It wasn't a party bus.
-
Yes I've read it. Whether he is labeled one or not, he favored ideas that are considered very alinsky-esque. Such as social engineering, wealth redistribution, affirmative action and reperations. Getting bogged down into the sementics of it all doesn't take away from the simple principle that he was in favor of these ideas.
50 billion dollars in reperations to blacks - that was the proposal he pushed. In 1961 that was a huge sum of money especially seeing as how they were a very small portion of the population.
Full fledged Stalin commie hell bent on destroying anything in its way? No. But he was not the perfect prophet who walked on water he is made out to be by most. He had huge ideological and character flaws that are just not talked about mainstream. That's all I'm trying to say. Those things are a big deal to me.
I agree...I'm not saying that I find most of MLK, Jr.'s political and economic stances ideal, but I also don't think they're full-blown Communist.
For example, yes, MLK, Jr. did advocate for wealth distribution. But he did so as a means to attempt to correct the inequality among races in America. Was that the most proper way to go about it? Maybe, maybe not...I have a problem with reparations, and I have a problem with continued affirmative action, but the fact is that he proposed this as a solution to a problem, not necessarily as a way to continue forever and ever. In that same speech you cited, he referenced the usefulness of capitalism, but thought that we should have a "synthesis" of the two.
Also, keep in mind what was going on during this time frame. America was not the ideal capitalistic free market. Our economy was already in somewhat of a redistributive mode in which massive amounts of tax money were going to corporations so as to supply materials for the Vietnam War. Tax money went to paving roads to white neighborhoods and improving white schools, but not to black neighborhoods and schools. While this is not a redistribution of wealth as we think of today, where money is given equally to everyone, it certainly was a redistribution of wealth that was not in line with the ideals of free market capitalism. Money goes to white people, and we call it free market capitalism. MLK, Jr. advocates sending money to black people, and we call it Communism.
-
http://thebest404pageever.com/swf/peckursit.swf