«

»

King Size Deception

For a hundred and fifty years now the democrats have perpetuated a sham, namely that they have been responsible for and have been a friend to African Americans and their pursuit of equality. Understanding that their support was essential for any consistency in holding power, they, along with a willing MSM as co conspirators have revised the history books and promulgated the lie that every gain, every aspect of their development and growth is a direct result of a concerted effort by the left, and in direct opposition to a racist GOP, who want now and forever to keep the black man down.

Given that all this fly’s in the face of the facts and history, it is remarkable to me that they have been able to get away with this nonsense for so long, proving the old adage that if you repeat a lie long enough.

I bring this up because today our president dedicated the opening of the new MLK memorial.

Thousands of people gathered Sunday to give the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial a proper dedication on the National Mall after its opening in August.
—-
President Obama saluted Dr. King as a man who “stirred our conscience” and made the Union “more perfect,” rejoicing in the dedication of a monument memorializing the slain civil rights leader’s life and work.

Before I get too far into the rant, I wanted to throw out this question, given that MLK never held public office, never wrote, initiated, or was instrumental in getting any equal rights legislation passed, or even motivated any movement of substance by his writings, is his station in life and his fame warranted?

For my own self (and others might feel differently) I have no problem giving him his due. Maybe praising him as a great man is a stretch, he had his failings (like all of us) and was clearly mortal, but his message is what I always focus on.

Probably because I was around (although too young to connect the dots) in the 60’s, the marches, the using of fire hoses and dogs, the segregation, the busings, the whole struggle for equal rights was in my life time.

It seems like such simple concepts, we judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, and all citizens are afforded the same liberties and the same protections under the law (that is why Lady Justice is blindfolded, symbolizing objectivity and impartiality).

It is a bit troubling to me in that a president who has not promoted King’s ideals or his vision for a color free society was present at the dedication. For the guy that transcended race and was going to usher in a new era of race equality, he has been as divisive as any leader we have had, ranking right up their with Woodrow Wilson. From his ,”They acted stupidly”, to overseeing a racially motivated Justice Dept. who turns a blind eye to ACORN abuses and Black Panther intimidation, to allowing too many of his minions in Congress who make outrageous claims without so much as a repudiation.

The Bible says that all are God’s children, deserving of his grace, Dr. King took that a step farther and believed all Americans, regardless of race, are deserving of the same Constitutional protections and freedoms. It is an important message, deserving of an important monument.

132 comments

No ping yet

  1. InsipiD says:

    For a hundred and fifty years now the democrats have perpetuated a sham, namely that they have been responsible for and have been a friend to African Americans and their pursuit of equality.

    Nice.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13

      
  3. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15

      
  4. InsipiD says:

    Not what I was thinking, but I know stupidity when I see it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  5. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

      
  6. InsipiD says:

    White supremacists are Republicans and the Republicans pander to them? News to me, but then I guess I don’t have the clarity of observing it from the outside.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. CM says:

    150 years ago they pretended they were responsible for equality for African Americans? 140 years ago? 130? 120? 110? 100? 90? 80?
    Can you provide examples?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  8. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13

      
  9. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

      
  10. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  11. richtaylor365 says:

    Can you provide examples?

    Did you bother to read the link I provided in the post? I can provide others if you like.

    If only blacks weren’t all so stupid huh.

    Gee, is that what you took from the post? Really?

    I can just see the headlines if he didn’t attend:

    Another colossal disconnect on your part, I did not say he shouldn’t attend, of course he should attend, he is the president. My comment had to do with a president presiding over the event , honoring a man who’s vision and principles were nothing like his.

    “Obama snubs MLK memorial, confirms Dems as party of racists’.

    Pretty stupid comment, but you knew that anyway. It is not racist to foment and perpetuate mis information, it is just dishonest, after all, only liberal Democrats supposedly care about the Black community anyway, right?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  12. Kimpost says:

    I don’t know, but this post wasn’t one of your better ones, rich. I’m kind of struggling to see your main point. But as far as I can tell, you are suggesting that:

    a) “Democrats together with the MSM have been distorting history for the last 150 years.”

    One can’t help to wonder what the elaborate plan looked like from the start, and how it has been executed?

    b) “MLK wasn’t important, because he didn’t hold office. Besides, he was a Republican.”

    Could it not be possible that some (lots of) people saw MLK as a (or even the) spiritual leader of the Civil Rights Movement? As such his importance was, well… huge. As for the claims of MLK being a Republican here’s a politifact article debunking that claim for you.

    c) “The Southern Strategy was a Republican plan to help southern blacks.”

    Laughable! But I’ve noticed that CM already has addressed the Southern Strategy.

    d) “Obama should not have been given the honour of attending the Memorial since he’s a divisive racist.”

    Obama is the first black president of the United States since… forever. It would have been strange not to attend. He would have been hammered by the media if he would have turned such an invitation down. And rightly so…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  13. Seattle Outcast says:

    This is pretty much how we know you don’t know your American history or culture. I’ll give you a pass for just being ignorant on the subject and getting all your information from TV and the movies.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  14. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

      
  15. CM says:

    LOL, ok then. You know best.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  16. Biggie G says:

    “Democrats together with the MSM have been distorting history for the last 150 years.”

    Let me make it easy for you. All you need to do is change one word and you will get the whole point Rich was trying to make.

    “Democrats together with the MSM have been distorting history OF the last 150 years.”

    Didn’t Joy Behar just tell Herman Cain that the Republicans have been horrible to black people for hundreds of years? That shows an embarrassing lack of historical perspective.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Biggie G says:

    Pretended? While you may disagree with the opinions in Rich’s link, the facts are there. American history is clear. The slaves were freed by a Republican. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed by Republicans. The segregationists were Democrats. The Jim Crow South was run by Democrats for 100 years.

    So, did they “pretend” for all that time so they could implement the Southern Strategy and stop letting the Democrats have all the fun?

    I will admit that the parties have changed, neither party is the same as it was 100 years ago.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  18. Kimpost says:

    For a hundred and fifty years now the democrats have perpetuated a sham, namely that they have been responsible for and have been a friend to African Americans and their pursuit of equality.

    That’s what Rich told us. The democrats have been perpetuating a sham for 150 years. It’s not about democrats of today re-writing 150 year old history. At least that wasn’t what he suggested. I suspect that his 150 year claim is connected to the creation of the republican party somehow, but I really don’t know. Needless to say I think it’s ridiculous.

    Didn’t Joy Behar just tell Herman Cain that the Republicans have been horrible to black people for hundreds of years? That shows an embarrassing lack of historical perspective.

    Perhaps she did. I rarely watch the view. If she indeed said that, she’s a fool. But then again, who the fuck is Joy Behar?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  19. Biggie G says:

    First of all, your link doesn’t say much. It gives 2 examples and lots of vague talk about “codewords.”

    Second, I highly doubt that true white supremacists support either major party. If they get involved in politics at all, they probably support some fringe party. Do the real hate groups in your country supports the main parties or do they hold one seat from some fringe party in some backwater province?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Biggie G says:

    http://http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/SCARTOONS/car1860.html

    Okay, you win. 150 years ago, the Democrats weren’t covering up shit. They were all in.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

      
  22. richtaylor365 says:

    I don’t know, but this post wasn’t one of your better ones, rich

    Apparently. I was trying to write something about a man I admire and respected, whose ideals of racial equality and of Americans living in color blind society was not only noble but something obtainable, but somehow all this got overlooked.

    a) “Democrats together with the MSM have been distorting history for the last 150 years.”

    There wasn’t much of a MSM media back then, but from the civil rights laws from the 1860s, up until those of the 1960’s, a pattern of Democrat foot dragging is clear. They have portrayed themselves as the champions of civil rights and black empowerment for decades when the facts do not bear them out.

    b) “MLK wasn’t important, because he didn’t hold office. Besides, he was a Republican.”

    To think that both you and CM could so mis represent my post, it is incredible to me. I posed a question of “Are there any of you that feel this way”, then clearly went out of my way to say that I DON’T feel that at all, but believe that he is worthy of the credit due to him, it’s like you read only half the post of ignored the other half. I can only conclude that I swung and missed on my true intentions. It is also interesting that of all the information in that link I provide, the one thing you glommed on to was that MLK was a Republican.

    c) “The Southern Strategy was a Republican plan to help southern blacks.”

    I believe “The Plan” was to give to black people that which should be given to them, equal protection under the law.

    d) “Obama should not have been given the honour of attending the Memorial since he’s a divisive racist.”

    No, of course he should have attended, he is the president. I was only voicing dissatisfaction that the president has been so un MLK like and would have preferred he adhere more towards what MLK wanted in all people. I did say he was divisive, now please show me where I called him a racist, or are you being provocative, throwing that term around like many libs do as if it really does not mean what it is supposed to mean?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. richtaylor365 says:

    I read your link. It was woeful.

    I have others i can provide, but they will no doubt “be woeful” too.

    I’m really surprised that you’ve aligned yourself with such rubbish.

    What part is “rubbish”, or is it all rubbish, and how so?

    That’s a reasonably obvious conclusion to draw from the evidence.

    OK, then as I said to Kimpost, I just have really failed in articulating my true feeling on the matter, can’t win them all.

    but can you say that the country as a whole would agree?

    I would never presume to speak for anyone but myself, but really, isn’t using the yardstick of “the whole country would agree” an exercise in futility? I bet there are many folks out there that would agree with me that Obama being divisive wrt race relations.

    Way to grow that tent Rich:

    Actually, I think the tent is growing. Would you care to make a wager on whether Obama will pull the same percentages of black voters as he did last time? Last time I checked a black man was (in some polls) the leading contender of GOP presidential hopefuls. The last election provided us with a stellar crop of Black hopefuls for the future. Probably the guy that has the most momentum of all as a future presidential hopeful is Allen West. Nothing turns on a dime and I never said that the change would take place over night, but more black people are recognizing the false bill of goods the dems have been peddling, they want the same things everyone wants-a chance at the American dream, to take a big bite out of the prosperity apple, and at least in my lifetime the dems have been more of a hindrance to them in this area.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  24. hist_ed says:

    For a hundred and fifty years now the democrats have perpetuated a sham, namely that they have been responsible for and have been a friend to African Americans and their pursuit of equality

    Sorry Rich, but you have one thing glaringly wrong which some above alluded to. For about 75 of those 150 years, the Democratic Party was quite open about its racism. Read a little about Woodrow Wilson and his ideas about race (He loved “Birth of a Nation”, said it was “history written with lighting” and “terribly true”-this was a film in which the Klan were the heroes and blacks during Reconstruction the villains). It’s only after World War Two that some northern Democrats started jumping on the civil rights bandwagon. But the “solid South” at the time referred to the Democratic Party. Bull Conner, Wallace and all the other villains of the Civil Rights Era were all Democrats. It was George Wallace, a Democrat, who yelled “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inauguration as governor of Alabama in 1963.

    It was the Republicans who freed the slaves, Republicans that tried to grant them rights after the Civil War with Reconstruction, and Republicans that formed the backbone of the early civil righs movement. During all this time, most Republicans have held that the government should not discriminate because of race.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  25. CM says:

    I’m not then one claiming they pretended when they clearly didn’t. The facts in your first paragraph are inarguable. Why try to claim the Dems weremaking out that they were for equality when they made no such claim?

    I will admit the parties have changed

    Exactly, so why bother pretending they didn’t?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  26. CM says:

    I have others i can provide, but they will no doubt “be woeful” too.

    Only if they tell half the story as well.

    What part is “rubbish”, or is it all rubbish, and how so?

    It’s clearly a cherry-picked narrative. Michael Moore would be proud. For a start she pretends that the Southern Strategy was about something other than what it has been admitted to be about. Does she assume that people will just accept her ‘truth’ and look no further?

    OK, then as I said to Kimpost, I just have really failed in articulating my true feeling on the matter, can’t win them all.

    I’m struggling to see how it’s not the logical conclusion. If it’s not because they are a stupid race, then what is it?

    I would never presume to speak for anyone but myself, but really, isn’t using the yardstick of “the whole country would agree” an exercise in futility? I bet there are many folks out there that would agree with me that Obama being divisive wrt race relations.

    Your claim is very bold, so bold that I would assume it’s a very widely held view to be able to justify. I would be interested in how widely-held the view is.

    whether Obama will pull the same percentages of black voters as he did last time?

    That’s not going to tell us much about the attractiveness of the Republican Party to blacks who hven’t voted Republican before.

    Last time I checked a black man was (in some polls) the leading contender of GOP presidential hopefuls.

    Does the polling include non-Republicans?
    Playing the devil’s advocate, isn’t it the Dems who put up blacks for the black vote? Isn’t it the ideas that matter?

    The last election provided us with a stellar crop of Black hopefuls for the future. Probably the guy that has the most momentum of all as a future presidential hopeful is Allen West.

    I wonder what they make of Frances Rice and her charge that the Dems are just a bunch of racists keeping the black man down. I wonder if they want to help grow the party on that basis.

    Nothing turns on a dime and I never said that the change would take place over night, but more black people are recognizing the false bill of goods the dems have been peddling, they want the same things everyone wants-a chance at the American dream, to take a big bite out of the prosperity apple, and at least in my lifetime the dems have been more of a hindrance to them in this area.

    Well, it will be interesting to see if this narrative brings more blacks over the Republican Party. It’s not exactly a new narrative though, how can it told differently (aside from Southern Strategy revisionism and cherry picking)? Personally, I would think that too many blacks would see that for what it is and continue to either vote Dem or not at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  27. CM says:

    Sorry Rich, but you have one thing glaringly wrong which some above alluded to. For about 75 of those 150 years, the Democratic Party was quite open about its racism.

    Exactly what I’ve been trying to point out. In addition to the fact that the Republican narrative starts getting selective from about the late 50′s, or sometimes just ends abuptly. Before that though, I’m sure many present day Dems would have been Republicans.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  28. InsipiD says:

    You’re gone for a week and think coming back and telling us that we’re racists is an appropriate return. Maybe you should’ve stayed gone.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  29. AlexInCT says:

    I’m not sure that many Republicans would agree with this narrative, or see a need or logic behind denigrating or attempting to downplay MLK.

    My problems with MLK are the hard to disprove assertions that he was a communist and enamored with that crap. If he was a white Italian from the same village my grandfather came from and even a relative, I would still have a problem with that.

    People like you seem to want to imply people like me have a problem with color/race, when the only color we have a problem with are the reds or the watermelons – which are reds hidding behind green – so you can avoid having to admit that our argument is legitimate.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  30. AlexInCT says:

    I have others i can provide, but they will no doubt “be woeful” too.

    Is that your attempt to be nice and still point out CM only considers those that he agrees with as acurate and of value, but then calls others on it when they do the same to him?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. Seattle Outcast says:

    That would be about the time that the MSM started to control the narrative. Coincidence?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  32. richtaylor365 says:

    Sorry Rich, but you have one thing glaringly wrong which some above alluded to. For about 75 of those 150 years, the Democratic Party was quite open about its racism.

    Ah, OK, I see where I erred, allow me to fix it:

    “For several decades now the democrats have perpetuated a sham, namely that from the time of The Reconstruction Era until the present, spanning about a hundred and fifty year time frame, they have been responsible for and have been a friend to African Americans and their pursuit of equality”.

    Read a little about Woodrow Wilson and his ideas about race

    I am familiar with Woodrow Wilson, even including him as an example in the original post.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. richtaylor365 says:

    It’s clearly a cherry-picked narrative.

    You know, that does absolutely nothing to refute it’s claims, all narratives are cherry picked to a degree, what I asked was real simple, the author made a number of claims wrt to civil rights legislation from The Reconstruction era period on, and linked the dems to a number of anti black movements over the years (along with other claims about the Republicans being responsible for A,B,C, and D) are ANY of these claims not factual?

    If it’s not because they are a stupid race, then what is it?

    I think it is a combination of lots of things (probably deserving of a post in of itself) but what it is NOT is that they are a stupid race, very classy of you to go “there” though.

    Your claim is very bold, so bold that I would assume it’s a very widely held view to be able to justify. I would be interested in how widely-held the view is.

    I don’t think it is very bold at all and i would assume that many hold this view, but again, I only speak for myself.

    That’s not going to tell us much about the attractiveness of the Republican Party to blacks who hven’t voted Republican before.

    OK, but that was not the target demographic discussed, was it? The wager was this, will he pull the same percentages of black voters as he did the last time? If a black voter who voted Obama the last time, now votes for a GOP candidate this time, can’t we assume that that voter in now in the GOP tent at least temporarily? Sure, more has to be done to keep him there and to attract more black voters, I’ve never disputed that, but again, baby steps.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. richtaylor365 says:

    Yeah, probably, although, tbh, I find the whole “cherry picking” argument so incredibly weak, and adds nothing to the debate. My purpose was only to show that I had many other “woeful” links to bolster the first “woeful” link, so maybe by pure preponderance they might get some credibility, wishful thinking.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Poosh says:

    But then again, who the fuck is Joy Behar

    Joy Behar is a female presenter of USA’s hit women’s show ‘The View’ (?). Thus she has probably more influence than any politician or newspaper. Probably. It’s the equivalent of the UK’s “Loose Women” where female presenters discuss women things.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Poosh says:

    It is incredible how some people could have misinterpreted this post. Especially given the end.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. Kimpost says:

    The way to grow the tent in my view is to promote ideas. You won’t do that by promoting largely pointless and often even distorted history. MLK was not a republican. He wasn’t a democrat either, but his political leanings certainly were more progressive than they were conservative.

    But that’s not important. Nor is it important that the GOP in part was founded as a counterpart to the racist democratic party. That’s history. I have no problem pointing that out as a historical fact, but none of that matters in regards to politics of today. The democrats aren’t the same as they were then. Nor are the republicans. This critique reminds me of those who criticize Planned Parenthood because of Margaret Sanger and her belief in eugenics. Since that’s not what Planned Parenthood is about today, it all becomes an exercise in futility.

    I regard none of the two major parties of today as racist in any way shape or form. They are absolutely not only *not racist*, but they are both *anti-racist*, actively seeking out racism.

    Many things changed the parties into what they have become today. The Civil Rights Movement is a major one. Since new progressive democrats were quick to embrace the Civil Rights Movement the republicans felt that they needed to counter that. Unfortunately they chose a dumb and racist way of doing this. The southern strategy wasn’t pretty, and republicans are still hurting (wrt to race), because of it. I have little doubt that that time will heal, though, and republicans will be able to make up ground. I think that it’s a sad state of affairs that 90% of blacks vote for one party. That just can’t be healthy in any vibrant democracy.

    How are the two parties handling race today? That’s the key question, in my mind. I believe that affirmative action sometimes is warranted, but not too often. I also believe in society safety nets, i.e. the welfare state. I can debate the degree, but not the principle. Anyway, some republicans (albeit only a few) think that these types of programs are all racist, which is ridiculous. Affirmative action is an infringement yes, but it can be worthy. We just need to remember to scrap the program when race (or gender) equality no longer is an issue. As for now, racism still exists, so we need to act accordingly.

    Meanwhile we need to stop pulling the racist label. Republicans don’t oppose the expansion of the welfare state to keep the black man down, they do it because of fiscal principles. Democrats don’t promote new welfare programs to gain voting blocs, they do it to help people in need. Politicians of both parties generally mean well. Obama is not a divider by heart. You might think he is one because of his policies, but thinking that he’s truly racist is utterly ridiculous.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  38. Kimpost says:

    Yes they were…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  39. Seattle Outcast says:

    That show has influence? I don’t really know – I’m asking.

    My opinion of “The View” is that it’s little more than a handful of squabbling idiots blathering on about crap that they either don’t understand or is of no importance.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Seattle Outcast says:

    Racism exists, but the only racism that is addressed is racism by white people. As Chris Rock pointed out, the most racist people in the country are “old black people”, and I’d say that you can scrap the “old” part of that category.

    This is the issue that gets everyone but liberals pissed off – the lopsided response to racism, which Obama personally engages in to judge by the evidence of his words and (lack of) action.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  41. Poosh says:

    It seems astounding that right-wingers and the Republican party can be associated with racism so heavily, and that so many blacks have been manipulated and duped into believing this. Especially since it’s such a raw fact that the KKK were a semi-military wing of the Democrat party who targeted blacks and right-wing republicans for death and violence. It’s a disconnect from facts and history.

    But if you consider how the left operate and the ideology they follow, it’s not too difficult to understand.

    The false identification of Hitler and the Nazi party with “right wingers” did wonders for this lie. In fact it was a conservative, perhaps Churchill himself, who claimed Hitler was “right wing” in order to convince the Left in parliament to vote for war against Hitler (as the left were reluctant due to Hitler being a fellow-traveler). Now look at post-marxist or critical theory (Adorno in particular), the bread and butter theories that the Left is built upon, and what do they tell you? Marx was wrong because the superstructure was not just kept in place via material circumstances, but CULTURAL circumstances. The answer is obviously to CONTROL THE CULTURE. Which is why from universities to the entertainment industry you get leftist (and what in America, since the 60s, you now call ‘liberal’ though right-wingers are actually real liberals in the classic sense) and liberal ideals and memes (spelling?) disseminated into culture. That’s why you see so many of the students at the OWS crap btw, do you *really* think they’re thinking for themselves? They’re not even given the option. And that’s why a show like Glee, that has far more influence than even your president, engages in attacks on conservative figures, even though it’s meant to be a teen’s show.

    However the original Marxist idea of “freeing the workers” and overthrowing capitalism has been hallowed out, and the aim has become simply achieving power (and imo it’s become something that can fill in the void that the death of religion has created) – which is why, using these tools and methods, “Republicans are the racist party” despite facts and history, is considered “true” and general knowledge. The Democrats and left encourage blacks and coloured people to define themselves by their SKIN COLOUR (ironically), but, in a two-pronged sort of way, make sure right-wingers are labeled racist because they have prejudices based on skin-colour. The Democrats need to create as many fixed and reliable minorities as possible, in this case ‘blacks’ because they know how to consistently get their vote: vote for us, cause the republicans kept you as slaves. And they have, not just cultural, but easy ways of making people accept this, after all, given Hitler was “right wing”, this is intuitive.

    Right-wingers, Republicans and conservatives do not register skin-colour, generally. The idea that skin colour should in any way be linked to your identity is repellent to most of us. It’s the country you’re loyal to, and that which you have it inside your self to be, that is relevant to us. However democrats etc have no such qualms (with some exceptions, as there are some good democrats and liberals to be fair), but in general the left need to enforce this notion that “skin colour is what you are” (which is actually racist and essentialist but never mind, this is the exact charge they level at the right), because it creates a reliable and predictable voting block, that you can take to the bank.

    If you are a leftist drone, of course, you’re not really aware of the theory you unwittingly are engaging in, as you’re just as much a dupe as anyone else. You’re more interested in the whole “ooh, I’m not a racist! I’m a liberal! Woooop!” emotions and prestige you get.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  42. Poosh says:

    It must do. I don’t know the rating. But I recall information and media studies lessons informing us that very few people are directly connected to politics or active political thought. Newspaper circulation is very low. Far more people, I would assume, watch ‘The View’ than watch the news. In addition I read somewhere that Fox News, despite being the no. 1 news channel in terms of viewership, have quite a small audience compared to the population of the USA.

    The View may be talking a load of crap, but lots of people are watching it. And throw enough mud on the wall, and it sticks.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. Poosh says:

    In addition Rich, MLK Jr’s niece claimed/confirmed he was a republican.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  44. richtaylor365 says:

    You won’t do that by promoting largely pointless and often even distorted history

    The post was not about tent growing or “distorted history”, both you and CM took it down that primrose path, it was in fact about the MLK memorial dedication, about the man, my admiration for him, and how this president (in my opinion) has not embodied the true sentiments and principals that Dr. King espoused.

    I have no problem pointing that out as a historical fact, but none of that matters in regards to politics of today.

    You are a champion of the obvious, nobody said that it does.

    Anyway, some republicans (albeit only a few) think that these types of programs are all racist, which is ridiculous.

    Hmm, could not a cogent argument be made that some democrats are the real racists because they do not think black people can make it on their own without government assistance? Aside from the clear strategy of keeping the status quo going (keeping the poor blacks in slums, in shitty school systems, in areas where liberals have run the inner cities for decades with no demonstrable changes in conditions, with the war on poverty still going on, trillions spent and more folks are living in poverty status then ever before), could not the dems keeping the poor blacks locked in the very boxes of dependency the dems made (and are motivated by power to maintain) be interpreted as racist?

    but thinking that he’s truly racist is utterly ridiculous.

    Yes, and claiming I said he was a racist is even more utterly ridiculous, and contemptible.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  45. Seattle Outcast says:

    Ever explain to someone that fascists are actually far left and the incestuous sister of marxists? They won’t believe it, even if you give them a point by point comparison and explain that Nazi is short for “National Socialists”.

    A far better example of the far right would be the Pope or Jerry Falwell.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. Poosh says:

    One of the only movies I’ve seen with a viable “anti-right wing” message, is actually Robocop, oddly enough. It makes a fair point.
    Poosh recently posted..DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORONMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. CM says:

    People like you seem to want to imply people like me have a problem with color/race

    I’ll only judge you on what you write.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  48. CM says:

    Who have I called a racist?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  49. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  50. AlexInCT says:

    I’ll only judge you on what you write.

    Same. And so far I am batting a lot better than you are.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. CM says:

    That doesn’t even make any sense.

    Where did I imply that “people like you” have a problem with color/race? Let’s work this through.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  52. CM says:

    You know, that does absolutely nothing to refute it’s claims, all narratives are cherry picked to a degree, what I asked was real simple, the author made a number of claims wrt to civil rights legislation from The Reconstruction era period on, and linked the dems to a number of anti black movements over the years (along with other claims about the Republicans being responsible for A,B,C, and D) are ANY of these claims not factual?

    I gave you a glaring example – The Southern Strategy. It’s like I didn’t though.

    Of course all narratives are cherry-picked, that’s why they’re narratives and not reality. Reality is always more complicated. However people with an axe to grind do everything they can to simplify things to sell their message.

    The main point is – is the Democratic Party of the last 40 years the same as the Democratic Party before approximately 1965. This narrative is attempting to suggest they were no different, that the current Party is a natural progression from the past. But to conclude that you’ve got to do some serious ignoring and twisting.

    I think it is a combination of lots of things (probably deserving of a post in of itself)

    I’d certainly be interested in reading that.

    but what it is NOT is that they are a stupid race,

    Ok good. As I say, I’d certainly be interested in how the argument goes.

    very classy of you to go “there” though.

    No less ‘classy’ than your chosen ‘facts and history’ from someone who has no obvious desire to be even remotely honest.

    I don’t think it is very bold at all and i would assume that many hold this view, but again, I only speak for myself.

    It’s probably very difficult to know. How could the comparison be done? I would imagine historically blacks have just had to accept the President they got, and didn’t even consider the issue of whether they were ‘divisive’. If that’s the case it probably says good things about how things have progressed.

    OK, but that was not the target demographic discussed, was it?

    The issue is whether the Republican Party is attractive to blacks. A lower black turnout for Obama would have to be matched by a larger turnout for the Republicans, otherwise it’s simply disillusionment with Obama rather than an actual preference for Republican policies or the candidate.

    If a black voter who voted Obama the last time, now votes for a GOP candidate this time, can’t we assume that that voter in now in the GOP tent at least temporarily?

    Yes. But a lower black vote for Obama by itself isn’t sufficient.

    Sure, more has to be done to keep him there and to attract more black voters, I’ve never disputed that, but again, baby steps.

    One way would be to run in the opposite direction of someone like Frances Rice. Her whole campaign is based on grand allegations of racism. An argument about how grand allegations of racism is wrong (against the Republican Party) doesn’t have to rely on making a grand allegation of racism. It’s the equivalent of the playground “no, you are”. It’s at Alex’s level. Which is why I was surprised it came from you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  53. CM says:

    Is that your attempt to be nice and still point out CM only considers those that he agrees with as acurate and of value, but then calls others on it when they do the same to him?

    Good grief. The holes are glaringly obvious to anyone even remotely awake. I’m not attempting to own “the face of facts and history” here, just pointing out how incredibly weak and biased the source is.

    Yeah, probably, although, tbh, I find the whole “cherry picking” argument so incredibly weak, and adds nothing to the debate.

    I find it an incredibly strong argument. If the premise is flawed, the rest doesn’t hold water. If you’re going to consider something “the face of facts and history” you need to be better. Unless of course you’re just addressing an audience of people who don’t care.

    My purpose was only to show that I had many other “woeful” links to bolster the first “woeful” link, so maybe by pure preponderance they might get some credibility, wishful thinking.

    You’ve got further links to demonstrate that, for example, the Southern Strategy wasn’t what has since been admitted to by some of the people involved? That, for the first 90 of your 150 years the Democrats “perpetuated a sham, namely that they have been responsible for and have been a friend to African Americans and their pursuit of equality.”? That the Democrat Party of today is as racist as it was before the Civil Rights movement?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  54. Seattle Outcast says:

    OK, who else wanted and ED-209 of their very own?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. CzarChasm says:

    MLK was not a republican.

    Wow, it’s deja vu all over again. The same know-it-all declarative statements that contradict MLK’s own family members’ account of their history from a guy separated by oceans, culture and ideology from any first-hand knowledge whatsoever, and who will refuse to accept truth when it’s offered year after year after year, as long as it doesn’t comport with his preconceived conclusions. Nothing ever changes. His blinders are surgically implanted.

    Martin’s niece has a bone to pick with you Kimpost:

    Go to about 1:30 if you want to skip that slimy Republican’s “I Have A Dream” passage of the speech he’s giving. Dr. Alveda King will pick that bone with you starting about there.

    This critique reminds me of those who criticize Planned Parenthood because of Margaret Sanger and her belief in eugenics. Since that’s not what Planned Parenthood is about today, it all becomes an exercise in futility.

    The futility is trying to get you to recognize and accept truth when it’s shown to you. See, you might have a point in the above quote, except for one small, little insignificant factoid: The highest honor that Planned Parenthood bestows upon its most highly-revered practitioners of infanticide is The Margaret Sanger Award to this very day! And guess whose name is at the very top of their list of recipients? Yep, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the first Margaret Sanger Award winner in 1966. Just listen to the pap they spew about Sanger in their little blurb about King’s award:

    1966
    The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sparked the conscience of the nation as he courageously and selflessly gave direction to the early civil rights movement in the United States. Resisting bigotry, inspiring women and men worldwide, and advancing social justice and human dignity, he also lent his eloquent voice to the cause of worldwide voluntary family planning. Both he and Margaret Sanger challenged unjust laws, cruel social customs, and blind prejudice that still hold people in ignorance, poverty, and despair. Mrs. Coretta Scott King delivered her husband’s acceptance speech on his behalf, saying, “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. … Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by non-violent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.”

    Margaret Sanger wanted nothing more than to load the Baby Martin King and all of his family and melanin-enriched brothers and sisters into a friggin’ OVEN, and obviously Miss Coretta missed that little tidbit of Planned Parenthood history, or maybe she was in as deep a denial mode as you are Kimpost, about just who and what Planned Parenthood was about, is still about, and will always be about – a cabal of beyond-racist genocidal maniacs. Even today audiotapes recording PP employees helping an undercover journalist set up a large donation to be used ONLY for aborting black babies can heard from several different cities and states with just a cursory search. Oh look, here’s an excerpt of a transcript from the Idaho investigation now:

    Idaho representative: Autumn Kersey, director of development

    Idaho donor: The abortion—I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

    PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

    Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

    PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

    Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

    PP Rep: Understandable, understandable.

    Idaho donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college

    PP Rep: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

    And if you go to the page where I got that excerpt, you’ll notice that Dr. Alveda King fully supports the exposé done by Lila Rose, James O’Keefe and LiveAction.org.

    Planned Parenthood targets its abortion mills in black neighborhoods to this day. Black females account for 14% of all pregnancies in this country, but a whopping 30% of all abortions. But eugenics is just a worn out old right-wing mantra with no basis in fact today, right Kimpost?

    You wouldn’t believe that MLK was a Republican if he himself rose from the dead and told you personally that he was. You wouldn’t believe that Margaret Sanger’s genocidal racism still permeates the halls and infanticidetoriums of every PP abortion mill in the world, even when PP’s #1 award is still named after her to this day. No, to admit either of those things you’d have to possess a scintilla of intellectual honesty, as well as the ability to speak out against your leftist, racist, genocidal, global cohorts, and that just ain’t gonna happen.

    Yep, deja vu all over again. When you have a daughter, if you don’t abort her first, you can name her Margaret Sanger Kimpost and pay homage to the left’s racist history.

    CC

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  56. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  57. CzarChasm says:

    Yep. I just posted a video of her saying that exact thing in a reply thread above. Kimpost had already seen it, as has CM, though it’s been awhile. But the declarative statements to the contrary when the family history as told by Dr. Alveda King often and very publicly is just what one should expect from either of these two. They don’t have an intellectually honest bone in their bodies.

    CC

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  58. Poosh says:

    not after it malfunctioned…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  59. CM says:

    In addition Rich, MLK Jr’s niece claimed/confirmed he was a republican.

    Again, that’s dishonest unless you consider the context. Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist. Near the end of his life he spoke about the economic ills of capitalism and when he was killed he was supporting sanitation workers on strike in Memphis. In his final letters he called for an end not only to imperialism but also to the economic imperialism of capitalism and so on. capitalism and so on. African American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin served as King’s main advisor and mentor throughout his early activism. Rutin’s support of democratic socialism, and his former ties to the Communist Party USA caused many white and African-American leaders to demand King distance himself from Rustin.

    How does fit with the Republican Party ideals of today?
    Not very well.
    Which is why when people like Glenn Beck attempt to appropriate MLK it makes people feel physically ill.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  60. CM says:

    Yeah I know, the heading alone (“King Size Deception”) should have been a clue that there was nothing of controversy here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  61. Poosh says:

    I assume their response is “she’s a crazy christian” she would say that, she’s lying.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  62. AlexInCT says:

    Where did I imply that “people like you” have a problem with color/race? Let’s work this through.

    Erm, I was replying to your comment that you would judge me on what I wrote and I said I would do thes ame. English much?

    Anyway, you have repeatedly said, on posts on this thread of all things, that republicans – coming from you meaning anyone more conservative than Lenin or Mao, I presume – by association are all racists too.

    And I do have a problem with color CM: I despise collectivists (red) and watermellons (collectivists masquerading as environmentalists hence the red middle and green outer shell). Other than that I do no problems with colors. And the only race I have a problem with is “Amazing Race” which just sucks ass.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  63. richtaylor365 says:

    Rich, I think it’s a real shame that you relied on a source that is so heavily biased, written by a person who’s whole motivation is to paint an entire party as fundamentally racist.

    Considering that the purpose of the post and what I talked about 90% of the time, was the intrinsic value and meaning of Dr. King’s beliefs, his goal of a color blind society and equality under the law for all Americans, the nobility of that goal, and how in my opinion our president was not adhering to those goals and precepts. Yet, the two of you managed to ignore all of that and focus on one line with a link provided, and turned it all around to make it about “distorted history” , how political parties morph over the years, and how I should be ashamed of myself for even linking to something that was not even the meat and potatoes of the post, that to me is the real shame.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  64. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  65. Poosh says:

    None of that, if you are telling the truth which is not a given, makes him a socialist. Plenty of conservatives and capitalists support strikes and oppose “economic imperialism”. A lot of what Bush did can be described as “socialistic”, so you know… unless you can show me MLK Jr demanded the means of production be controlled by the state… Republicans talk about the economic ills of capitalism all the time. You’ll have to do better than that. MLK was a product of his right-wing republican father, and JESUS, as far as I’m concerned. He hanged out with, and had a mentor in a socialist who was also interested in civil-rights for african-americans, which is probably the PRIMARY CONNECTION in their relationship. not socialism.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  66. CM says:

    When have Kimpost or I ever dismissed anything anyone said on the basis that they’re “crazy Christian” Poosh? For fuck’s sake.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  67. Poosh says:

    That’s true. The Democrats have a senator I believe who is an ex-KKK member. But he’s changed his ways.

    You’d think *if* one party had an ex KKK member it would be the Republicans though!

    AMIRIGHT???

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  68. CM says:

    None of that, if you are telling the truth which is not a given, makes him a socialist.

    LOL. Far less than that gets one called a socialist among other things (here and elsewhere). Unless the rules have all suddenly changed. You can’t have it both ways.

    Anyway, it’s even more complicated because terms of such as ‘socialist’ aren’t quite the same now either. Everything needs to be seen in context before a comparison is able to be made. That’s if we want to be honest anyway.

    Plenty of conservatives and capitalists support strikes and oppose “economic imperialism”.

    They must do a lot of hiding. I haven’t heard anyone here support any strikes or oppose economic imperialism, or talk of “social justice” in positive terms. And apparently this is a moderate lot of right-wingers, a good cross-section.

    A lot of what Bush did can be described as “socialistic”,

    Such as?

    unless you can show me MLK Jr demanded the means of production be controlled by the state

    Plenty of people don’t demand that but are deemed to be socialists.

    Republicans talk about the economic ills of capitalism all the time.

    Can you give me some examples. Something to balance out the 2356468986 comments about how all the economic problems are created by government and that’s fact, goddamit?

    You’ll have to do better than that.

    Right back at you.

    MLK was a product of his right-wing republican father, and JESUS, as far as I’m concerned.

    That’s nice, but reality suggests there were many more influences. Ghandi being another.

    He hanged out with, and had a mentor in a socialist who was also interested in civil-rights for african-americans, which is probably the PRIMARY CONNECTION in their relationship. not socialism.

    On what evidence do you base that? Why isn’t Obama afforded the same benefit of the doubt with respect to his associations?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  69. CM says:

    I find it exceptionally odd that any former member of the KKK, no matter how ‘reformed’ would be elected to anything, on any platform.

    You’d think *if* one party had an ex KKK member it would be the Republicans though!

    How so?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  70. CM says:

    Erm, I was replying to your comment that you would judge me on what I wrote and I said I would do thes ame. English much?

    I don’t get your ‘batting’ comment. You’re judging me better than I’m judging you? What does that even mean?

    Anyway, you have repeatedly said, on posts on this thread of all things, that republicans – coming from you meaning anyone more conservative than Lenin or Mao, I presume – by association are all racists too.

    I said no such thing.

    The ARGUMENT that blacks have all just been fooled into voting Democrat is obviously potentially racist because it would seem to assume that they’re too dumb to know any better.

    Unless there’s a better explanation, which apparently there is. I’m yet to hear it. I understand it involves a lot of media brain-washing. I hope there is substantially more though, as that’s not really much better (it would still rely on a reasonably high level of stupidity).

    That is not even remotely close to saying that Republicans are all racists. That you would think that it is the same, let alone close, suggests you’re not paying any attention.

    And I do have a problem with color CM: I despise collectivists (red) and watermellons (collectivists masquerading as environmentalists hence the red middle and green outer shell). Other than that I do no problems with colors.

    Yes you don’t need to keep explaining your metaphor. You’ve already explained it 1000 times already. Are you waiting for applause? Sorry, although I can see how it works, I don’t think it’s particularly clever.

    And the only race I have a problem with is “Amazing Race” which just sucks ass.

    I vote for that!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  71. CM says:

    Come on InsipiD, defend your accusation?

    Where did I call you all racists (in response to an opening post relying on a link which says that Dems are racists)?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  72. CM says:

    I believe “The Plan” was to give to black people that which should be given to them, equal protection under the law.

    Rich, you should really read that 1970 Times piece I linked to. The mea culpas in the mid 1990′s confirm it wasn’t about that at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  73. Kimpost says:

    That wasn’t my intention. So if I read you wrong I apologize for it. It’s just that I reacted to what I saw as a drive-by assassination of the democratic party, as well as for something similar in regards to MLK (being dismissive and offering praise).

    That totally blurred your message. At least it did to me.

    I missed this earlier.

    Hmm, could not a cogent argument be made that some democrats are the real racists because they do not think black people can make it on their own without government assistance? Aside from the clear strategy of keeping the status quo going (keeping the poor blacks in slums, in shitty school systems, in areas where liberals have run the inner cities for decades with no demonstrable changes in conditions, with the war on poverty still going on, trillions spent and more folks are living in poverty status then ever before), could not the dems keeping the poor blacks locked in the very boxes of dependency the dems made (and are motivated by power to maintain) be interpreted as racist?

    Yes it could, but then again you could also say that if you don’t support affirmative action you are a racist refusing to help the black man to come to equal terms.

    Of course, I don’t think either is true. It’s a question of lending a helping hand (by speeding up the natural process) for most proponents. And it’s a question of unfairness for most opponents.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  74. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  75. CM says:

    Exactly. You could make a cogent argument that both Parties (in their current forms) are racist, for different reasons. Doesn’t mean it’s true though. People can legitimately support the Democratic Party and not be racist (and be proud that they overcame their racist past). People can legitimately support the Republican Party and not be racist (and be proud of the historical accomplishments).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  76. Poosh says:

    I honestly can’t be arsed. But I will say that Obama has shown a pattern of hanging out with real socialists and racists, and suggesting he has socialist leaning in public (spread the wealth!) – which demonstrates a lot, RATHER than purely hanging out with ONE socialist.

    And then there is Obama’s actual, you know, behavior and stirring of class warfare. Did MLK stir up class warfare? No.

    Then, there is also, that well hidden interview, on radio, from 2001 where Obama is quite clearly a socialist clearly demanding the constitution be changed to allow redistribution of wealth.

    I don’t want to respond, but quickly, if you want to know a conservative right winger who has highlighted the ills of capitalism and even fought it, the name SARAH PALIN comes to fecking mind. But I won’t expect you to be aware of that. She’s just a dumb broad right? AMIRIGHT?
    Poosh recently posted..DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORONMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  77. Kimpost says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  78. Kimpost says:

    [27 October 1960]
    [Reidsville, Ga.]

    [King]: I understand from very reliable sources that Senator Kennedy served as a great force in making the release possible. [gap in tape] I think a great deal of Senator Kennedy, I have met him and I’ve talked with him on three different occasions since the nomination and I think a great deal of him. But I would not, at this point, endorse any candidate because of the non-partisan position that I follow.

    That’s as close to an endorsement you’ll get from a non-partisan.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  79. CM says:

    I honestly can’t be arsed. But I will say that Obama has shown a pattern of hanging out with real socialists and racists, and suggesting he has socialist leaning in public (spread the wealth!) – which demonstrates a lot, RATHER than purely hanging out with ONE socialist.

    Seems like you can arsed (so long as it’s not backing up accusations huh). MLK only hung out with ONE, and he wasn’t even a ‘real’ socialist? By what standard?
    ‘Spreading the wealth’ is about tax levels. The Republicans want to ‘spread the wealth’ just to a slightly lesser degree.

    And then there is Obama’s actual, you know, behavior and stirring of class warfare. Did MLK stir up class warfare? No.

    I wasn’t suggesting Obama is anything like MLK, I was simply asking where the differences might lie in assumptions about personal influences. But you’ve provided nothing, so I assume it’s a guess/hunch?

    I think this whole ‘class warfare’ attack thing is pretty weak. What is he proposing that is any different to the platform he stood on, or Democratic values in general about tax? Why is it ‘warfare’? Why can it not just be a different view on how society should be financially structured?
    It seems so flimsy that any way you wish to financially structure society could be called ‘class warfare’ to one ‘class’ or another.

    I don’t want to respond, but quickly, if you want to know a conservative right winger who has highlighted the ills of capitalism and even fought it, the name SARAH PALIN comes to fecking mind. But I won’t expect you to be aware of that. She’s just a dumb broad right? AMIRIGHT?

    Does the “AMIRIGHT?” indicate that this a comedy routine?

    Ok I’ll search out what Palin has said about the ills of capitalism. You’re right, I wasn’t aware of it. Thanks for the push in the right direction…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  80. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  81. richtaylor365 says:

    . I haven’t heard anyone here support any strikes or oppose economic imperialism, or talk of “social justice” in positive terms.

    I’ll take a crack at that, prefaced by the the usual disclaimer that it depends on your definition or inferences taken by “social justice”. I don’t support strikes, feeling that this is more extortion then bargaining in good faith, for most I would support firing the lot and starting over.

    But examples of social justice with a right thinking twist are ubiquitous and we have talked about many of them here. I’ll give you 3 right off the top of my head:
    1) The plight of the inner city dwellers and their almost imprisonment like condition, trapped in an unsafe environment with broken schools and broken infrastructure, all the while supervised by liberals who have been entrenched in the inner cities for decades. I would say that is pretty much the poster child for social injustice.
    2)The plight of the average taxpayer, who is not rich, works hard for every dime and does what he must to support his family, yet, every time he turns around Obama has his hand out for more redistribution of his wealth, however meager that is. You can lump the small business man into this mix, the guy that works 80+ hour work weeks, and struggles every day to make his idea or dream a reality, yet, between the EPA, Obamacare, and Sarbanes-Oxley (along with tax code that could sink the Queen Mary) he has no idea whether he will be able to grow his business, or will even be in business next year.
    3) and lastly, the handling and manipulation of debt. Where is the inherent fairness in allowing anyone to run up massive amounts of debt, then excuse that debt, either in the form of credit card, home mortgage, or student loans? How is it fair to make one person pay for something but another, give it to him for free? Social justice (fairness) dictates that all are treated the same way, and on the flip side, all have the same responsibilities, no special treatment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  82. Poosh says:

    I didn’t want to add anything but to add on from Rich, the reason you haven’t heard any of us support a strike is probably because the people here haven’t supported that SPECIFIC strike. That doesn’t mean we don’t support striking IF one feels it appropriate. You can be opposed to all the wars going on right now, but that doesn’t mean you don’t support war. I mean, why do I feel I have to explain this? And as for social justice, well, Thatcher herself believed in a welfare state. Maybe not the one you have in mind, but a welfare state nonetheless.

    There are, in regard to student loans, I don’t know about the American right wing chaps here, but in Britain there are some British conservatives that think higher education should be free – with no loans, obviously, involved – which use to be the case in the UK.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  83. CM says:

    I would agree that it depends on the definition of “social justice”. I think the wikipedia entry is just fine.

    Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.

    That’s exactly what I believe “social justice” is about. That’s how I understand MLK meant it to.

    Rich, taking your three examples in turn:

    1. How does the Republican Party, using the concepts described above, believe using “social justice” can improve the lot of those inner-city poor? In a different way to the Democrats obviously.

    2. I keep being told that the average taxpayer is a myth because half of all Americans don’t pay tax ;-) Anyway, again, using concepts of “social justice” as above, how does the Republican Party seek to “right the balance”?

    3. I don’t agree that “Social justice (fairness) dictates that all are treated the same way”. I agree with the definition above, that social justice is about taking action to try and provide everyone with the same opportunities. Perhaps the whole current capitalist system which relies so heavily on debt and promotes it accordingly could be put under the microscope.

    That doesn’t mean we don’t support striking IF one feels it appropriate.

    Ok from here on I’ll look out for the examples of right-wingers on this board supporting strikes then. And discussing the effects of economic imperialism (rather than mocking others for daring to suggest that capitalism has some pretty bad flaws).
    I didn’t support the Iraq invasion but I supported the action in Libya.

    in Britain there are some British conservatives that think higher education should be free

    They’d certainly be the exception to the rule though wouldn’t they. Is it Conservative Party policy? Even remotely close to being so?

    Look, I understand the conservative argument about not providing special treatment to anyone, because then anyone has an equal shot. I wish reality was like that, but it’s patently not. Thus, the concept of “social justice” exists. So long as “incidental inequalities appear”, the concept will exist and people will continue to try and put it into action.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  84. richtaylor365 says:

    Wow, I had no idea, given that definition you provided, how out of whack something innocuous as “social justice” could get so mangled after the progressives had their shot at it. For the record, that is NOT what I think social justice is, so the rest of my answer will be couched in my context, not yours.

    You asked what the GOP should do on these issues, I don’t speak for the GOP, conservatives in general or even this blog, only for myself.

    1) A proper and thorough answer would probably take more time since this is a complex issue, but for the sake of a timely response I will cover just 3 areas, and all of these involve removing the liberal hierarchy firmly entrenched in the inner cities, give them the boot, and bring in some new blood. Starting with the school system, revamp it entirely, from the overpaid school board on down, reward successful teachers with extra pay and fire the dead wood, open up charter schools wherever the parents deem them necessary, demand a certain standard of achievement and get teachers focused on that. Revamp the welfare system so that out of wedlock births are not financially rewarded, require drug testing for all government assistance recipients, require a certain level of hours worked (even if it’s picking up trash on the highway or scrubbing the gym floor) for unemployment recipients, and give tax credits to any businesses that open and hire from the inner city. Establish empowerment zones, locally owned businesses that hire locals, and provide incentives (tax relief, city contracts, and expedited permit approvals). And get the police back to patrolling and enforcing the law there, people need to feel safe in their community.

    2) A fairer simpler tax code, where everyone pays something and no one gets tax credits when they don’t pay taxes to begin with. A number of GOP candidates (even the older ones like Steve Forbes) has proposed their own tax revamping plans. Lower the corporate tax rate and lower the marginal tax rates for everyone that actually pays taxes. For those that don’t, institute a tax bracket for them, something that requires them to give in to the system like the rest of us, including say a work program where if they can’t afford their tax burden, they can donate their time at a shelter to some place that serves the indigent in their area.

    3) While I agree in equal opportunity, I do not subscribe to the notion of assuring equal outcome, and any system that works to that end is flawed. It is an impossibility in a free market capitalist system, there will always be winners and losers, otherwise it’s not really free, is it? A civilized society ceases to function when people are not responsible for their actions, or if society rewards certain actions with some and punishes others. Capitalism involves risk and reward, remove either and it is not capitalism anymore.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  85. CM says:

    What part is “rubbish”, or is it all rubbish, and how so?

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act would NOT have passed had many Democrats not voted for it. The reason the percentages are disproportionate is because there were a lot of “Dixiecrats” at the time (people like Thurman, Miller) who were more traditional, conservative democrats. Where does Rice discuss that?

    Most of the Civil Rights movements and organisations that got it going, the sit-ins and so on, were done by more left-leaning groups like the SNCC . Indeed, the reason King’s name is known at all is because of the works of these brave civil rights advocates and lawyers and so on. Where does Rice discuss that?

    Thurmond wrote his constituents, “[W]e are now witnessing the whirlwind sowed years ago when some preachers and teachers began telling people that each man could be his own judge in his own case.” Another, even more prominent conservative said it was just the sort of “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.” That was Ronald Reagan, the governor of California, arguing that King had it coming.
    King was the man who taught people they could choose which laws they’d break–in his soaring exegesis on St. Thomas Aquinas from that Birmingham jail in 1963: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. … Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.” I understand Reagan said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Where does Rice discuss any of that?

    I have read that conservatives – both under Democratic and Republican banners – hated King’s doctrines. Hating them was one of the litmus tests of conservatism at the time. What looks today obviously like transcendent justice looked to conservatives then like anarchy. The conservative response to King was to demonize him in the ’60s, but to ignore that today.

    But again the big example that blows her narrative out of the water is the admission that the Southern Strategy was aimed at getting white folks in the south angry as hell and voting accordingly. What did Goldwater say? “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.” Something like that. Where does Rice discuss any of that?

    That was the Republican Party employing a tactic of explicit racism. It worked and the South has voted heavily Republican ever since. The party still enjoys those fruits today (it was for more than “a generation”). To ignore that in any assessment is ridiculous. Particularly if we’re looking at the current state of the two parties. What legacy do the Democrats enjoy from their history of explicit racism?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  86. CM says:

    How has it been mangled? What was the definition before it was mangled? It’s King’s version of “social justice” that ultimately matters in this discussion. And it clearly differs markedly to the conservative definition. Which doesn’t assist an argument that what King stood for is consistent with the current Republican Party.

    To be honest I think the definition is fairly well understood and entrenched. The Wiki definition seems to me to be right. It probably doesn’t assist any discussion to use the term to mean something different. Probably better to use a different term, which would also go some way to avoid the whole ‘cynically appropriating MLK’ accusation. I remember seeing Beck go on about MLK’s “social justice” but it didn’t seem to bear any resemblance to what MLK said at all. Quite the opposite.

    1. I like the majority of this. Although I do wonder where these teachers will come from. And I’m still far from convinced that welfare is a “reward” for a baby born out of wedlock. Not sure how rewarding it is for mothers to be walked out on by the guy who decides he doesn’t want to be a Dad after all….but that’s another discussion. None of that would seem to be consistent with King’s “social justice”.

    2. Sure, sounds good, but again I’m not sure that King would be into it, from a “social justice” standpoint.

    3. I also don’t “subscribe to the notion of assuring equal outcome”. I agree that “and any system that works to that end is flawed”. However I do subscribe to the notion of seeking to provide equal opportunity though, which is quite different. People still need to use the opportunity to get the outcome. That’s certainly what King seems to have been about.

    It is an impossibility in a free market capitalist system, there will always be winners and losers, otherwise it’s not really free, is it? A civilized society ceases to function when people are not responsible for their actions, or if society rewards certain actions with some and punishes others. Capitalism involves risk and reward, remove either and it is not capitalism anymore.

    I agree with all of that. But it also relies (and rather fundamentally) on a level/equal starting position, otherwise it’s obvious who has the best shot at being a winner and who has a a greater chance of being a loser (i.e. the system is rigged). What you say relies on that premise of equal opportunity. We disagree on the best way of ensuring the best chance of that opportunity being equal.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  87. CM says:

    King began to speak of the need for fundamental changes in the political and economic life of the nation. Towards the time of his murder, King more frequently expressed his opposition to the war and his desire to see a redistribution of resources to correct racial and economic injustice.[94] Though his public language was guarded, so as to avoid being linked to communism by his political enemies, in private he sometimes spoke of his support for democratic socialism. In one speech, he stated that “something is wrong with capitalism” and claimed, “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”[95]

    King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected “traditional capitalism,” he also rejected Communism because of its “materialistic interpretation of history” that denied religion, its “ethical relativism,” and its “political totalitarianism.”[96]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr

    I cannot see how he would be in the Republican Party of today. Sounds pretty close to what Obama is accused of.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  88. richtaylor365 says:

    How has it been mangled?

    When that definition involves ,”a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution”, sorry but when I hear stuff like that, the hairs on the back of my neck start to tingle. I guess I focus more on the “justice” aspect of it. Justice to me incorporates fairness and equity, taking stuff from the have’s and giving it to the have not’s solely to balance some social ledger is wrong, can’t subscribe to that. Now I understand that part of my tax dollars go to welfare programs, I have no problem with that, I want the helpless, the sick and infirm, those that can’t fend for themselves, I want them taken care of, civilized societies do that. But this to me smacks of ,”At the end of the day government will cut the pie, divvying everything up equally between the masses”.

    None of that would seem to be consistent with King’s “social justice”.

    I thought you were asking my opinion, not my interpretation of what I think Dr. King would advocate, was I wrong?

    However I do subscribe to the notion of seeking to provide equal opportunity though, which is quite different. People still need to use the opportunity to get the outcome.

    Yes, but understand the obvious, equal opportunity does not in any way shape or form translate into equal outcome, never has. Myself and Steve Jobs could be afforded the exact same education and opportunities, but where he will go on to greatness, I won’t (or didn’t), that is the way the system works, not everyone has the same abilities, drives or determinations to be successful. We want those that pursue excellence to reach it, no all will and not all even want to work that hard.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  89. richtaylor365 says:

    I cannot see how he would be in the Republican Party of today.

    Wait a minute, weren’t you the one that said political parties morph back and forth, that was then/this is now, and that conditions/beliefs in the past were different then today so correlations between the two should not be drawn?

    Given the times he lived in, how black people in general were treated and viewed by white America , and how the laws did not provide for the equal protections that they do today, I understand (if not condone much of it) where he was coming from. But espousing that stuff today:

    Sounds pretty close to what Obama is accused of.

    Again, different times.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  90. CM says:

    When that definition involves ,”a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution”, sorry but when I hear stuff like that, the hairs on the back of my neck start to tingle.

    Well then you certainly shouldn’t be claiming anything even resembling “social justice”, because that’s what it is. You don’t have to agree with it to acknowledge what it means. I think MLK was intelligent enough to realise that issues about equality and opportunity extended far beyond race. You can make all the equal-race legislation you like, but by itself it’s going to do little to assist those chronically disadvantaged in a variety of ways. Which is why he was about far more than race. Which is why it’s strange to hear people like Beck attempt to appropriate his ideals. The last thing Beck wants is “social justice”. It’s what he and others are trying to fight against, because they don’t see it as any kind of solution.

    Justice to me incorporates fairness and equity, taking stuff from the have’s and giving it to the have not’s solely to balance some social ledger is wrong, can’t subscribe to that.

    Well it’s a bit of a circular argument then because without doing that large sections of society start a long way behind the start line, which isn’t fair or equitable in a race to determine winners and losers.

    But this to me smacks of ,”At the end of the day government will cut the pie, divvying everything up equally between the masses”.

    Again, who says the pie is to be equally divided between the masses. I certainly don’t agree with that. I doubt King did. It’s certainly consistent with “social justice”. That would be pretty much pure communism you’re talking about.

    I thought you were asking my opinion, not my interpretation of what I think Dr. King would advocate, was I wrong?

    I thought we were talking about how King’s “social justice” would be consistent with the Republican Party of today. I asked what the Republican Party would do to advance those “social justice” ideals of Kings.

    Yes, but understand the obvious, equal opportunity does not in any way shape or form translate into equal outcome, never has.

    Of course not. I would never suggest that it would. it just provides people with the same chances to take the opportunities. There are already a host of inherent personal advantages and disadvantages we’re all born with (i.e. some people are always going to have a low IQ, some are always going to have a high IQ, some are going to be born with deformities, or learning disorders). “Social justice” theory says there are other disadvantages where assistance can be given to shunt someone to the starting line so at least they’ve got an equal chance as someone without that disadvantage. As opposed to that person at the start line without the disadvantage expecting to have the head-start and claiming it’s unfair to have to start at the same place? That certainly would sound more like an ‘entitlement mentality’ to me.

    We want those that pursue excellence to reach it.

    Yep, so do I. I’d rather the losers be those who failed to take the opportunities, rather than be disproportionately represented by those who had fewer.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  91. CM says:

    Wait a minute, weren’t you the one that said political parties morph back and forth, that was then/this is now, and that conditions/beliefs in the past were different then today so correlations between the two should not be drawn?

    Not sure about back and forth. Or that they do it as a matter of course. But it’s inarguable that the Democrats and the Republicans moved positions. The Dems dropped their racist past and lost their largest voting block (racist Southern white folk) as a result. The Republicans (by their own admission) swooped in and made a pitch for that voting block and secured it.

    When I say MLK wouldn’t be in the Republican Party today, I mean he wouldn’t be a member. For a start, he had a policy of not being drawn in to endorse either party (he was above party politics I guess we could say). But if he still held the beliefs he held back then (about “social justice” etc) then can anyone honestly suggest that the Republican Party of today would be the best fit?

    Again, different times.

    The concept of “social justice” isn’t different though. As I said, he was about far more than equal protection for blacks under the law. He was about “sharing the wealth” and even talked about the moral basis for preferential treatment policy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  92. richtaylor365 says:

    Well then you certainly shouldn’t be claiming anything even resembling “social justice”, because that’s what it is.

    Hey, I warned you ahead of time that I was not going to use your definition, but mine.

    Well it’s a bit of a circular argument then because without doing that large sections of society start a long way behind the start line, which isn’t fair or equitable in a race to determine winners and losers.

    What I was referring to were those that either quit the race mid stream or finished but didn’t like their results so they now want all the participant to get gold medals. I don’t know, maybe we have a different definition of “starting line”, mine involves all kids getting a relatively (knowing that is an impossibility) equal education from K thru 12. Once they all graduate, all on relatively equal footing, then the race begins and they are on their own to go as far as their initiate, drive, and creativity will take them, no more social engineering rigging the race.

    I thought we were talking about how King’s “social justice” would be consistent with the Republican Party of today. I asked what the Republican Party would do to advance those “social justice” ideals of Kings.

    I guess I misunderstood

    You said:

    I haven’t heard anyone here support any strikes or oppose economic imperialism, or talk of “social justice” in positive terms.

    And I gave you 3 social justice (from my perspective) examples that we have talked about right here, i was not injecting Dr. King into the mix.

    “Social justice” theory says there are other disadvantages where assistance can be given to shunt someone to the starting line so at least they’ve got an equal chance as someone without that disadvantage.

    YYYEEEAAAHHH…………..but, only to the starting line, not through the whole race. Kids with learning disabilities of some other special needs, yes, we help those as much as we can. But kids with natural low IQ’s, low motivation, or no initiative, we provide the tools for them to get the education (whether they work for it or not), but once graduated, they must fend for themselves and either look for work or decide on their own they want to apply themselves and go to college. We don’t support these people anymore

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  93. Mississippi Yankee says:

    That member was Robert Byrd (D) WV and when he died last year he was the oldest and longest severing member of congress EVER!

    He freely admitted to have been not only a member of the KKK but was also a Klegal. That is a lawyer and council for that organization.

    Robert Carlyle Byrd (born Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr.; November 20, 1917 – June 28, 2010) was a United States Senator from West Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Byrd served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010. He was the longest-serving senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.

    Wiki is your friend.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  94. CzarChasm says:

    Why does she fail to mention that MLK Snr switched his support to Robert Kennedy (after being arrested in Atlanta and Robert Kennedy telephoned the judge and helped secure King’s released)? What she says contradicts that.

    Why didn’t Kimpost mention that he switched? You’re asking me why Alveda King didn’t mention it when my entire response was predicated on Kimpost’s unequivocal, declarative statement that, “MLK wasn’t a republican.” If he had stated that he switched parties from Republican to Democrat, I wouldn’t have responded at all. Ask your bud what’s up, not me.

    And where does Alveda contradict that he switched parties? She says only one thing about him being a Republican. She says, “My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican.” She didn’t say “throughout his lifetime” or “was a lifetime Republican.” The only statement she contradicts is Kimpost’s, and that’s the only reason I challenged his statement and used the video to do it.

    They don’t have an intellectually honest bone in their bodies.

    Right back at ya sunshine.

    What have I said that’s intellectually dishonest? I supplied evidence from family members concerning MLK’s Republican roots, and provided links proving that Margaret Sanger’s memory is still a huge part of Planned Parenthood, which flies directly in the face of what Kimpost said. Nothing dishonest about anything I said at all, intellectually or otherwise.

    The only intellectually dishonest commentary that I’ve seen about Planned Parenthood or MLK in this thread comes from the two of you, so I’ll pose the question I have to either or both of you to wrestle with until it ties your brains in knots:

    If Margaret Sanger’s racist, eugenicist ideology is irrelevant, insignificant, or otherwise not a part of today’s Planned Parenthood, why does Planned Parenthood continue to name their highest award for “reproductive rights” after Margaret Sanger? Why do they lie about who and what she was when they hand out that award, as quoted in my previous post from their own website when they compared Sanger to MLK in saying that, “Both he and Margaret Sanger challenged unjust laws, cruel social customs, and blind prejudice that still hold people in ignorance, poverty, and despair”?

    Might we find some of Sanger’s challenges to “unjust laws, cruel social customs and blind prejudice” in any of the following of her published writings?

    From Black Genocide.org’s, “The Truth About Margaret Sanger:”
    While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

    Come up with an honest, rational answer to those couple of questions, and maybe I’ll retract my blanket statement that you don’t have an intellectually honest bone in your bodies. I won’t hold my breath though, and predict that instead, you will continue with the 100% intellectually dishonest meme of deflecting the American left’s pitiful racist history onto conservatives and Republicans. Prove me right, or prove me wrong. It’s totally up to you two.

    CC

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  95. Kimpost says:

    MLK Senior openly switched parties. MLK Junior never did. He wasn’t outspoken about his party affiliations. As far as I’ve been able to see he seemed quite progressive on workers rights. But regardless he mostly tried to further his goals on racial equality. He spoke with JFK as well as with Nixon, but he just got more attention from the Kennedy camp.

    When Alveda in an ad states that MLK Jr was a republican, then the ad is being dishonest. Even if he ever voted republican, which he might have done, claiming him is wrong. Democrats shouldn’t claim him either.

    EDIT: Fuck me you’re right. She actually says “during his lifetime”. Sure she does that in front of a banner that states that “Martin Luther King Jr was a republican”, but that might also be factual, since it doesn’t rule out other affiliations. That’s actually so clever, that it’s kind of funny. But funny aside, claiming him is still not right.

    When it comes to Sanger’s eugenics, it seems like she was a promoter of negative eugenics. And if that’s true, then that’s disgusting, and Planned Parenthood should denounce her. Why they haven’t is beyond me. Either they think she wasn’t in spite of her own words, or they are just being silly proud. Anyway, and here’s where we disagree, none of that means that Planned Parenthood aren’t doing good today. They are not all about running abortion mills. Not in my book.

    Perhaps the mechanics are the same as they are behind some of the founding fathers? They were slave owners for Christ’s sake, yet many hold them in high regard. Different times have different values. Eugenics were, if not generally accepted in the early 1900′s, then still fairly common.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  96. Poosh says:

    Prior to WW2 a lot of Leftist intellectuals were pro-eugenics. It’s not quite as big a deal as people make out.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  97. AlexInCT says:

    Well, I just happen to think that Alveda was (and is) wrong.

    Hah haha haha…

    This reminds me of that scene in the Rodney Dangerfield movie “Back to School” where he tells Kurt Vonnegut he is canceling the check because Vonnegut’s paper on Vonnegut only netted him a C- and that the professor told him it was mediocre work that didn’t understand what Vonnegut was about…

    Thanks for the laugh Kimpost.

    For all it is worth, I do not believe MLK was a republican but he certainly sounds like a communist.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  98. balthazar says:

    Well seeing as how PP does (performs or pays for) about 25% of all the abortions in the US. Most of them for low income minorities, I’d say they are falling right in line with Margie Sanger’s Ideals.

    Oh and it doesnt take long to look up the statistics do it yerself.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  99. Kimpost says:

    Sure, if you believe that they are doing it to off negroes. I don’t. Again, I’m just not crazy enough.

    As for the stats, I don’t know what your “pays for” caveat entails, but here goes. I’ll use Wiki for convenience, but the numbers are referenced.

    In 2009, Planned Parenthood provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total), 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35% of total), 1,830,811 cancer related services (16% of total), 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10% of total), 332,278 abortion services (3% of total), and 76,977 other services (1% of total), for a total of 11,383,900 services. The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  100. balthazar says:

    Thats 3% of the services THEY provide, IE PAP smears, STD testing so of course its small when you put it in that context. Its not 3% of the amount of total abortions performed. They like to reference that figure because they lump all thier services into it. They basically do 25% of the total abortions that happen in the US.

    But thats a good effort on trying to say I have my facts wrong when in fact your referencing a totally different figure. Too bad it failed.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  101. balthazar says:

    Oh and take a look at this if you think she wasnt for offing “negros”. Yeah your not crazy enough, just more willing to say shit without knowing what your talking about.

    http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  102. CM says:

    Sorry but Aleveda isn’t the same person as MLK, and she’s fronting for a group led by a woman who’s sole purpose appears to be to label the Democratic Party as racist. To the point where the rest of the group’s board resigned, and Republicans started running the other way. This is pretty much the exact opposite of the kind of stuff MLK was into. So it doesn’t say much for her understanding. Particularly when she makes statements that are either verifiably false (MLK Snr started supporting the Dems) or intentionally worded in a vague way so as to be dishonest.

    The Dangerfield example here would be anyone claiming MLK was a Republican even in the face of him making it clear that he wasn’t affiliating himself with either party as a matter of policy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  103. CM says:

    Still waiting Poosh.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  104. CM says:

    Yep, I knew about him thanks. Doesn’t mean it’s not still exceptionally odd that he was considered to be of relevance at all over the last 40 years.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  105. CM says:

    I think when we strip away all the crap we’re closer on this than we realise.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  106. AlexInCT says:

    At the tame the “Racist” label was a terminal one. Republicans feared beingfalsly accused of being racist far more than they wanted to tell the truth. Some still suffer from that even today. Lucky for us Team Obama has done a bang up job of finally making sure this dispicable practice no longer is taken seriously outside the elftoid circles anymore.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  107. CM says:

    What have I said that’s intellectually dishonest? I supplied evidence from family members concerning MLK’s Republican roots, and provided links proving that Margaret Sanger’s memory is still a huge part of Planned Parenthood, which flies directly in the face of what Kimpost said. Nothing dishonest about anything I said at all, intellectually or otherwise.

    There appears to be no evidence beyond Alveda’s shilling for an anti-Democratic Party activist group (which somehow claims charitable status for not being partisan – explain that, someone??).
    There IS evidence that MLK Jnr wasn’t a Republican (at least as at 1960), because he said “But I would not, at this point, endorse any candidate because of the non-partisan position that I follow.” Is there evidence that he disregarded that non-partisan position and followed one party of the other? Obviously
    There IS evidence that MLK Snr was a Republican for at least some part of his life, before he switched to support Robert Kennedy.
    And support for the Republicans before the Southern Strategy is a different thing to support for the Republicans during and after the Southern Strategy. So that context is important.
    So all in all, yes, I would say that claiming “MLK Jnr was a Republican” soley on the basis of that Alveda activity-group video is intellectually dishonest.

    The only intellectually dishonest commentary that I’ve seen about Planned Parenthood or MLK in this thread comes from the two of you

    Your turn to explain where the intellectual dishonesty is.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  108. Kimpost says:

    Hey relax. I misread the stats, thats all. My very quick Wiki check was too quick, and too stupid. I promise that I didn’t try to mislead out readers here. ;)

    It wasn’t my first mistake, and it probably won’t be my last.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  109. CM says:

    I can hardly make sense of that. It certainly doesn’t seem to explain the chasm between the narrative and the evidence.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  110. Kimpost says:

    She? We are talking about Planned Parenthood today

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  111. CM says:

    Those stats are still important as they make it clear that abortions are a very small part of what Planned Parenthood actually does. Judging by what people say about it here, I would have assumed it was a significant part (like 50%+).

    The part of the argument I don’t understand is where education is apparently the same as coercion. Where is the coercion? Where is the evidence that black women are being made to have abortions against their wishes? If they are, that would be deplorable. But, as always, were is the evidence? Unless, again, people are trying to claim that education equals coercion. In which case, that’s a deplorable lack of logic and rationality.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  112. CM says:

    Balthazar, you sure you got the right link? I don’t think that says what you think it does. Can you perhaps point me to the part which suggests she was into “offing negros”.

    It certainly makes the following statement from Blues appear to be completely ridiculous:

    Margaret Sanger wanted nothing more than to load the Baby Martin King and all of his family and melanin-enriched brothers and sisters into a friggin’ OVEN,

    From wiki:

    Sanger wrote, “we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”[77] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[72] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  113. Manwhore says:

    There is no doubt that the black community has been screwed left, right and center for the last 250 years. I think this post is a moot point because it sides with a political party, which inherently has no self interest in social issues. sure, at the time, maybe the Republicans championed civil rights and fought the “Dixiecrats” for the black voting populous.

    It’s more relevant that the black community, organized by MLK, Rosa Parks, and others, fought peacefully and hard to have the right to be treated as equal people. Regardless of political alignment (at the time) they might have just sided with the most expedient party who was willing to sway votes in the house and congress.

    I guess the question comes down to whether someone would have been on the side against human rights based on political affiliation. I’d like to think I would see through the shit, and if some are beating blacks like meat, I’d side with the other party. Same with Latinos, etc.

    What astounds me is that people seem to still believe this is partisan. I don’t give a flying fuck about partisan (I think rich even said this in rebuttal) I care that it happened. I would not want to live in an ugly world where black people had separate entrances, separate water fountains, and separate lives. America is not that place (to me).

    Luckily, we’ve come a long way from that, and hopefully defeated racism in our time. No need to lay blame on a party, we’ve taken that baby step forward to equality, elected the very same person to the highest office that wouldn’t have been able to walk through the same establishment as whites 50 years prior.

    We should all thank ourselves for this achievement. he could suck as a president, but no one can deny the American dream can happen for anyone. We are still a beacon for a free and equal society, if we want it.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  114. balthazar says:

    Yiour right CM it is important they use STD tests to hide the fact they perform about 25% of the abortions in the US. Its sheer fucking propagandizing on their part. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Have you been to a PP office? I have, they put even more fear into an already stressful and scary situation.

    They tell these people that if they have this kid their life is over, they will be lucky to graduate high school/college, wont be able to keep thier job because of all the work a baby is. Its damn near criminal.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  115. balthazar says:

    Sanger founded planned parenthood. If you think they dont follwer her idead and read he papers and letters you are kidding yourself.

    YOU mentioned Sanger and i showed you a link that actually has what she wrote.

    CM you need to read more carefully.

    “Sanger reiterated the need for black ministers to head up the project in a letter to Clarence Gamble in Dec. 1939, arguing that: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

    If you read the letter she wrote, its is patently obvious she was a racist and was looking to off the black man. The NYU article tries to gloss it over and “taken out of context” Its not, if you read alot of her private letters its plain how she feels about Black people.

    Educate yourself.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  116. balthazar says:

    This page has some of the quote and attributes them to the papers and articles in which they appeared. Take a look and read the articles, its pretty fucking sickening.

    http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  117. AlexInCT says:

    My bet is that what you call the narrative is the evidence and vice versa, so I understand the confusion. My point, if you allow a simple poker metaphor, was simple: up until Team Obama started bluffing on every damned hand – by accusing others of being racists whenever they pointed out that the emperor was naked – and people finally started calling his bluffs instead of folding, that “racist” bluff was a sure winner. In short, republicans of a decade or more ago, and doubly so for each decade you go back before that, where so worried about being accused of being racists, practically always just to shut them up and even when they where 100% right, that they backed down or kept from articulating the facts every time. You may want to pretend this isn’t so, but it sure as hell is. At least Obama did finally give us some better race relations after overplaying that racists card so much that it no longer has the effect it used to. I laud him for that even if that was never his intention.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  118. AlexInCT says:

    Sorry but Aleveda isn’t the same person as MLK, and she’s fronting for a group led by a woman who’s sole purpose appears to be to label the Democratic Party as racist.

    Erm, to me they sure as hell are racists, and I have a feeling, mostly based on your posts here, that if she was fronting for a group trying to make republicans out as racists you would be just fine with it.

    This is pretty much the exact opposite of the kind of stuff MLK was into.

    I am certain MLK wasn’t into anything that the demcorats have done to blacks in the last 4 decades eaither, but I doubt you can even see or admit it if you do.

    The Dangerfield example here would be anyone claiming MLK was a Republican even in the face of him making it clear that he wasn’t affiliating himself with either party as a matter of policy.

    Actually MLK said he was non affiliated because he was under investigation by the FBI under direction from the Kennedys. He was covering his ass by claiming neutrality, since saying he was against a Kennedy would have resulted in a world of hurt for him.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  119. Kimpost says:

    Sanger founded planned parenthood. If you think they dont follwer her idead and read he papers and letters you are kidding yourself.

    That’s pretty much what I’m saying, yes. And I think that it’s crazy talk to think otherwise. Frankly, I just wish that everyone could see that. Conspiracies are almost always wrong…

    They tell these people that if they have this kid their life is over, they will be lucky to graduate high school/college, wont be able to keep thier job because of all the work a baby is. Its damn near criminal.

    And again, I’m sure there are anecdotal evidence that supports your thesis (I’ve seen some). CC shared another horrible example. But I’m not swallowing that the organisation is a nigger killing machine. It’s too big an organisation. And it does too much good.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  120. Kimpost says:

    Honestly Alex, sometimes you I find you arguing just for the sake of things. I didn’t respond to this earlier because I thought you were joking, but apparently not…

    You’ve clearly stated that you think that MLK Jr. was a communist, and you repeat that even in the post I’m responding to now. Yet you choose to quibble with me because I think that Alveda was/is wrong? What’s wrong with you?

    :)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  121. AlexInCT says:

    You’ve clearly stated that you think that MLK Jr. was a communist, and you repeat that even in the post I’m responding to now

    .

    I still believe that it is higly probable that he was a communist.

    Yet you choose to quibble with me because I think that Alveda was/is wrong?

    I do not care if MLK was a republican or not. I was pointing out the obvious: that a relative saying so is dismissed because that doesn’t fit the left’s narrative that all republicans are racist and hence MLK could never be one of them, and the argument is then posed that he was non affiliated because he was being pressured to back a Kennedy when it is obvious he certainly was no democrat. My two points – he was probably a communist sympathizer and claimed to be neutral to avoid the wrath of the Kennedys – are not mutually exclusive.

    What’s wrong with you?

    Eh, nothing that running circles around liberals and their crazy ideas doesn’t solve.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  122. Kimpost says:

    I’m not dismissing her. I’m evaluating the evidence as I see it, of which her testimony is just one piece.

    Look, MLK Jr. being a republican to the extent of him really being one, just does not fit. Apparently not according to you either, because you suspect that he was a communist.

    I’m not disputing that he might have voted or even endorsed republicans – ever. And I’m left, am I not, according to you? I’ve clearly stated in this thread that I think that republicans are anti-racist, yet you think that my presence in this thread is about me thinking that republicans are racists? It’s just silly…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  123. CM says:

    Erm, to me they sure as hell are racists, and I have a feeling, mostly based on your posts here, that if she was fronting for a group trying to make republicans out as racists you would be just fine with it.

    No Alex I wouldn’t. Neither of the mainstream political parties are racist. Both Kimpost and I have already stated that we don’t think the Republican Party is racist. The two mainstream parties just have quite different ideas about how to assist people – both make sense on their own terms. Anyone saying either of the parties was racist would make me question their ability to assess the whole situation rationally and honestly. Just because YOU think an entire party is racist, doesn’t mean I do. But I shouldn’t have to say that really.

    I am certain MLK wasn’t into anything that the demcorats have done to blacks in the last 4 decades eaither, but I doubt you can even see or admit it if you do.

    Such as? What have they done that is contrary to what he believed/preached? Remember, it doesn’t matter what you believe, it’s what he believed.

    Actually MLK said he was non affiliated because he was under investigation by the FBI under direction from the Kennedys. He was covering his ass by claiming neutrality, since saying he was against a Kennedy would have resulted in a world of hurt for him.

    Not sure I buy that. He was in a “world of hurt” anyway. Neutrality makes perfect sense. If he’d picked a side it would have severely constrained everything from that point on. Got any evidence?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  124. CM says:

    Honestly I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone older than about 13 who claims victory on the basis of tying themselves up in knots and making a whole lot of shit up. And yet you do it repeatedly.

    that a relative saying so is dismissed because that doesn’t fit the left’s narrative that all republicans are racist and hence MLK could never be one of them

    Neither Kimpost and I clearly share that supposed narrative. So, as usual, your argument is screwed because your premise is flawed. Not affilating with one party or the other makes sense on every single level. It doesn’t require anything else.

    Ridiculous.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  125. CM says:

    Yiour right CM it is important they use STD tests to hide the fact they perform about 25% of the abortions in the US. Its sheer fucking propagandizing on their part. Thanks for pointing that out.

    That’s just so loony-tunes it’s difficult to know how to respond. How exactly do they ‘hide’ behind that STD test stat? And why pick STD tests? That’s still just a third.

    Have you been to a PP office? I have, they put even more fear into an already stressful and scary situation.

    The organisation doesn’t exist in NZ (although we have a similar one) and I haven’t had the need to visit during visits to the US.

    They tell these people that if they have this kid their life is over, they will be lucky to graduate high school/college, wont be able to keep thier job because of all the work a baby is. Its damn near criminal.

    I’m with Kimpost. You’d need a lot more than anecdotal evidence to be remotely convincing on this.

    As Kimpost brilliantly said “Conspiracies are almost always wrong…”.
    And yet so many people are so ready to believe almost anything on the weakest of evidence.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  126. CM says:

    Unfortunately for your argument you provided a link which provides the context around the sentence you’re trying to use as evidence. It seems to clear to me that what she meant was that she didn’t want it to SEEM like this was the white race trying to exterminate the black race. Not that it WAS. That makes perfect sense. But based on the rest of the piece, your interpretation makes almost no sense.

    This passage has been repeatedly extracted by Sanger’s detractors as evidence that she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will. From African-American activist Angela Davis on the left to conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza on the right, this statement alone has condemned Sanger to a perpetual waltz with Hitler and the KKK. Davis quoted the incendiary passage in her 1983 Women, Race and Class, claiming that the Negro Project “confirmed the ideological victory of the racism associated with eugenic ideas.” D’Souza used the quote to buttress erroneous claims that Sanger called blacks “human weeds” and a “menace to civilization” in his best-selling 1995 book The End of Racism. The argument that Sanger co-opted black clergy and community leaders to exterminate their own race not only gives Sanger unwarranted credit as a remarkably cunning manipulator, but also suggests that African-Americans were passive receptors of birth control reform, incapable of making their own decisions about family size; and that black leaders were ignorant and gullible.

    So an argument could be made that your theory relies on the black leaders being stupid and easily led.

    Seems to me that rather than being the type who wants to wipe out a race she was much more the paternalist type of racist who believes that white race have a duty to help the less-inteligent black race. Ironically, your theory is obviously not inconsistent with that thinking.

    I’ll have a look at the quotes, however it’s already clear that quote-mining / cherry-picking forms a big part of the campaign against her.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  127. CM says:

    My bet is that what you call the narrative is the evidence and vice versa, so I understand the confusion.

    That’s your narrative but it’s not supported by the evidence ;-)

    up until Team Obama started bluffing on every damned hand – by accusing others of being racists whenever they pointed out that the emperor was naked

    Obama officials have accused people of being racist in response to criticism over his performance? Can you give me, say, three examples?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  128. Poosh says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ

    Pretty much a combination of most of what has been stated above put into 18 glorious minutes.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  129. CzarChasm says:

    So all in all, yes, I would say that claiming “MLK Jnr was a Republican” soley on the basis of that Alveda activity-group video is intellectually dishonest.

    So now it’s intellectually dishonest of me to believe a family member of a famous person’s personal history over that of a Wiki-bot wandering the interwebs in a failed search for a cogent thought? Got it. What a brainless dweeb.

    CC

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  130. CzarChasm says:

    I watch everything Alphonzo Rachel puts out. Dude’s a helluva drummer and bass player too. Good link. Thanks for it.

    CC

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  131. CM says:

    Absolutely it’s intellectually dishonest to put forward a single member of the King family speaking in a political advert for a very anti-Democrat group as being sufficient evidence that “MLK was a Republican”. But I notice you’ve again ignored what’s actually been written and simply repeated yourself. Did you accidentally miss the reasons I gave for the accusation in the preceeding four paragraphs, as well as the question I posed at the end?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  132. CM says:

    A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

    If that’s true, you guys need to re-direct your energies into saving born-again Christians, Evangelical Christians, and Catholics from the genocide. Presumably they’re being forced into it as well. I bet they aren’t all black.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      

Comments have been disabled.