You Racist Bastages

[Vandy Vol]

So now a documented speech on economic opinion is National Inquirer material?

Have you read the rest of that speech, or just that one portion?

But regardless of what he went on to say in that speech (which was denouncing Communism as an answer to our country's woes, BTDubs), how about we look at Communism for what it is - a political and economic theory.  Communism is not inherently evil; we just have a knee-jerk reaction that it is thanks to prominent American politicians who tied the concept of Communism to dictatorships that killed millions of people (think Mao's China and the Soviet Union).  It's certainly up for debate whether Marx's concept of Communism would inevitably have to include aspects of a military dictatorship in order to succeed, but these "evil regimes" are not representative of the basic ideals of Communism.

Not only should we look at what Communism actually is, but we should look at the period in which all of this occurred.  During the 1950's and 1960's, there were still many, many people who thought that Communism could work if it was done properly.  Communism had not yet been truly proven to be untenable at that point in time, and it was much more common to have Communist ideals then than it is now.  So even if MLK, Jr. were truly a Communist, or even just influenced by Communist ideals, it wasn't that out of the ordinary in that time period.  Especially when you consider that the Communist party was practically the only party trying to advocate equal rights for awhile (this NPR read is a great overview of this).

Aside from all of the above, how did Communism truly factor into MLK, Jr.'s stances?  The man never openly advocated for a Communist system.  Although he mentioned Communism in one speech (and then shortly thereafter explained that it wasn't the solution), and although he surrounded himself with those who were arguably Communist, his positions were advanced by referencing the Bible and Christian doctrines.  So what is the argument here?  That if MLK, Jr. had lived and continued to be successful politically, we would have went down a slippery slope of Communism?  Ignore what he actually said and did during his life, and instead presume to know what he would have done had he been given more time?

[Vandy Vol]

ET was not black...he was full blooded Cherokee Indian.

Who said anything about E.T.?  That's Harriet Tubman, my nurra.

[Godfather]

A real rug muncher!

Looked like a big lesbian mule.

[GH2001]

Have you read the rest of that speech, or just that one portion?

But regardless of what he went on to say in that speech (which was denouncing Communism as an answer to our country's woes, BTDubs), how about we look at Communism for what it is - a political and economic theory.  Communism is not inherently evil; we just have a knee-jerk reaction that it is thanks to prominent American politicians who tied the concept of Communism to dictatorships that killed millions of people (think Mao's China and the Soviet Union).  It's certainly up for debate whether Marx's concept of Communism would inevitably have to include aspects of a military dictatorship in order to succeed, but these "evil regimes" are not representative of the basic ideals of Communism.

Not only should we look at what Communism actually is, but we should look at the period in which all of this occurred.  During the 1950's and 1960's, there were still many, many people who thought that Communism could work if it was done properly.  Communism had not yet been truly proven to be untenable at that point in time, and it was much more common to have Communist ideals then than it is now.  So even if MLK, Jr. were truly a Communist, or even just influenced by Communist ideals, it wasn't that out of the ordinary in that time period.  Especially when you consider that the Communist party was practically the only party trying to advocate equal rights for awhile (this NPR read is a great overview of this).

Aside from all of the above, how did Communism truly factor into MLK, Jr.'s stances?  The man never openly advocated for a Communist system.  Although he mentioned Communism in one speech (and then shortly thereafter explained that it wasn't the solution), and although he surrounded himself with those who were arguably Communist, his positions were advanced by referencing the Bible and Christian doctrines.  So what is the argument here?  That if MLK, Jr. had lived and continued to be successful politically, we would have went down a slippery slope of Communism?  Ignore what he actually said and did during his life, and instead presume to know what he would have done had he been given more time?

Yes I've read it. Whether he is labeled one or not, he favored ideas that are considered very alinsky-esque. Such as social engineering, wealth redistribution, affirmative action and reperations. Getting bogged down into the sementics of it all doesn't take away from the simple principle that he was in favor of these ideas.

50 billion dollars in reperations to blacks - that was the proposal he pushed. In 1961 that was a huge sum of money especially seeing as how they were a very small portion of the population.

Full fledged Stalin commie hell bent on destroying anything in its way? No. But he was not the perfect prophet who walked on water he is made out to be by most. He had huge ideological and character flaws that are just not talked about mainstream. That's all I'm trying to say. Those things are a big deal to me.

[Godfather]

Have you read the rest of that speech, or just that one portion?

But regardless of what he went on to say in that speech (which was denouncing Communism as an answer to our country's woes, BTDubs), how about we look at Communism for what it is - a political and economic theory.  Communism is not inherently evil; we just have a knee-jerk reaction that it is thanks to prominent American politicians who tied the concept of Communism to dictatorships that killed millions of people (think Mao's China and the Soviet Union).  It's certainly up for debate whether Marx's concept of Communism would inevitably have to include aspects of a military dictatorship in order to succeed, but these "evil regimes" are not representative of the basic ideals of Communism.

Not only should we look at what Communism actually is, but we should look at the period in which all of this occurred.  During the 1950's and 1960's, there were still many, many people who thought that Communism could work if it was done properly.  Communism had not yet been truly proven to be untenable at that point in time, and it was much more common to have Communist ideals then than it is now.  So even if MLK, Jr. were truly a Communist, or even just influenced by Communist ideals, it wasn't that out of the ordinary in that time period.  Especially when you consider that the Communist party was practically the only party trying to advocate equal rights for awhile (this NPR read is a great overview of this).

Aside from all of the above, how did Communism truly factor into MLK, Jr.'s stances?  The man never openly advocated for a Communist system.  Although he mentioned Communism in one speech (and then shortly thereafter explained that it wasn't the solution), and although he surrounded himself with those who were arguably Communist, his positions were advanced by referencing the Bible and Christian doctrines.  So what is the argument here?  That if MLK, Jr. had lived and continued to be successful politically, we would have went down a slippery slope of Communism?  Ignore what he actually said and did during his life, and instead presume to know what he would have done had he been given more time?

-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus.

[WiregrassTiger]

50 billion?

[Snaggletiger]

Have you all gone berserk?  Can't you see that man is a ni?

[WiregrassTiger]

-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus.

I think you should let it be.

[AWK]

http://thebest404pageever.com/swf/peckursit.swf

[CCTAU]

Yes I've read it. Whether he is labeled one or not, he favored ideas that are considered very alinsky-esque. Such as social engineering, wealth redistribution, affirmative action and reperations. Getting bogged down into the sementics of it all doesn't take away from the simple principle that he was in favor of these ideas.

50 billion dollars in reperations to blacks - that was the proposal he pushed. In 1961 that was a huge sum of money especially seeing as how they were a very small portion of the population.

Full fledged Stalin commie hell bent on destroying anything in its way? No. But he was not the perfect prophet who walked on water he is made out to be by most. He had huge ideological and character flaws that are just not talked about mainstream. That's all I'm trying to say. Those things are a big deal to me.

These things really do not matter any more. The leftists have stronghold on the government and the ONE has pushed that anytime you don't agree with the minority, you are automatically wrong and a racist. I used to think MLK had a squeaky clean agenda, until recently when documents and accounts of the history became available.

MLK did a great thing for 10% of the population of this country. The pedestal upon which he is placed is a leftist hoax. He did not save this country form the devil. He did not deliver us from economic ruin. He did not heal the sick. He was just a man. Yet with the advent of leftist white guilt, he has been thrust upon an fabricated pedestal. And as such, there is no way his portrait should hang as a "compromise" in any way. How ridiculous was that statement to begin with anyway!

[AUChizad]

-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus.

Capitalism? Creationism? Fundamentalism? Evangelism? Puritanism? Dogmatism? Theism? Republicanism? Imperialism? Militarism? Pacifism? Colonialism? Jingoism? Pragmatism? Idealism? Multiculturalism? Skepticism? Determinism? Fanatisism? Journalism? Alcoholism? Voyeurism? Dwarfism? Hypnotism? Magnetism? Exorcism? Organism? Jism?

Oh, BTDubs, he wasn't a Communist.

[WiregrassTiger]

Monteagle Tennessee.  Look it up.



Fact.

What else could there possibly be to do in Monteagle, Tn on this night? The communist party was probably the only party in town. I don't blame him one bit.

[WiregrassTiger]

These things really do not matter any more. The leftists have stronghold on the government and the ONE has pushed that anytime you don't agree with the minority, you are automatically wrong and a racist. I used to think MLK had a squeaky clean agenda, until recently when documents and accounts of the history became available.

MLK did a great thing for 10% of the population of this country. The pedestal upon which he is placed is a leftist hoax. He did not save this country form the devil. He did not deliver us from economic ruin. He did not heal the sick. He was just a man. Yet with the advent of leftist white guilt, he has been thrust upon an fabricated pedestal. And as such, there is no way his portrait should hang as a "compromise" in any way. How ridiculous was that statement to begin with anyway!

Not only is this post wrong, it's racist.

[dallaswareagle]

What else could there possibly be to do in Monteagle, Tn on this night? The communist party was probably the only party in town. I don't blame him one bit.

And it look like they let him sit up front.

[WiregrassTiger]

And it look like they let him sit up front.

It wasn't a party bus.

[Vandy Vol]

Yes I've read it. Whether he is labeled one or not, he favored ideas that are considered very alinsky-esque. Such as social engineering, wealth redistribution, affirmative action and reperations. Getting bogged down into the sementics of it all doesn't take away from the simple principle that he was in favor of these ideas.

50 billion dollars in reperations to blacks - that was the proposal he pushed. In 1961 that was a huge sum of money especially seeing as how they were a very small portion of the population.

Full fledged Stalin commie hell bent on destroying anything in its way? No. But he was not the perfect prophet who walked on water he is made out to be by most. He had huge ideological and character flaws that are just not talked about mainstream. That's all I'm trying to say. Those things are a big deal to me.

I agree...I'm not saying that I find most of MLK, Jr.'s political and economic stances ideal, but I also don't think they're full-blown Communist.

For example, yes, MLK, Jr. did advocate for wealth distribution.  But he did so as a means to attempt to correct the inequality among races in America.  Was that the most proper way to go about it?  Maybe, maybe not...I have a problem with reparations, and I have a problem with continued affirmative action, but the fact is that he proposed this as a solution to a problem, not necessarily as a way to continue forever and ever.  In that same speech you cited, he referenced the usefulness of capitalism, but thought that we should have a "synthesis" of the two.

Also, keep in mind what was going on during this time frame.  America was not the ideal capitalistic free market.  Our economy was already in somewhat of a redistributive mode in which massive amounts of tax money were going to corporations so as to supply materials for the Vietnam War.  Tax money went to paving roads to white neighborhoods and improving white schools, but not to black neighborhoods and schools.  While this is not a redistribution of wealth as we think of today, where money is given equally to everyone, it certainly was a redistribution of wealth that was not in line with the ideals of free market capitalism.  Money goes to white people, and we call it free market capitalism.  MLK, Jr. advocates sending money to black people, and we call it Communism.

[AWK]

http://thebest404pageever.com/swf/peckursit.swf