[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]If it helps, think of King as a black version of Bill Clinton. Talented, charismatic, opportunistic, morally conflicted.
[/quote] :no-no: :no-no: That is a very bad comparison. More like think of Bill Clinton trying to be a white version of MLK.
Save the label of ‘opportunistic’ for your posts on Jessie Jackson, who always was more what you post above than MLK could be.
Even MLK, was weary of Jessie in the early days. Not just because of fear of a younger smarter and more handsome man taking over the fold, but Jessie was a little hot head.
[quote]And maybe Jesus isn’t really the son of God. [/quote] Blasphemy!!! I’m certain that Joseph had same thought.
Oh, I doubt that Action Jackson was ever morally conflicted. I think he’s perfectly happy just being Jesse.
Wouldn’t it be irritating if Jesus wasn’t really divine, and yet people tried to pressure you into worshipping him every year anyway? Same with Martin King.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Oh, I doubt that Action Jackson was ever morally conflicted. I think he’s perfectly happy just being Jesse.
Wouldn’t it be irritating if Jesus wasn’t really divine, and yet people tried to pressure you into worshipping him every year anyway? Same with Martin King.[/quote]
I don’t think that MLK or anyone else thinks he’s divine. But he did inspire a nation and walk the walk for change. Does it really irk you to have one day to celebrate someone who actually earned it, in spite of his flaws?
[quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Oh, I doubt that Action Jackson was ever morally conflicted. I think he’s perfectly happy just being Jesse.
Wouldn’t it be irritating if Jesus wasn’t really divine, and yet people tried to pressure you into worshipping him every year anyway? Same with Martin King.[/quote]
I don’t think that MLK or anyone else thinks he’s divine. But he did inspire a nation and walk the walk for change. Does it really irk you to have one day to celebrate someone who actually earned it, in spite of his flaws?[/quote]
peoples praise personalities who have flaws IF they have been honest about it.
not the 2 faced whore shagging type who preaches good conduct in the daytime,pretending to be holier than thou.
actually you were right that Clinton shouldn’t be compared with MLK,at least Clinton came clean on his private business…I’ll leave MLK the benefit of the doubt coz he might just have done the same had he had enough time to live
did your view change concerning “pastors are different than priests when it comes to kiddies fiddling” approach you had…I’d be glad if i had enlightened you somehow
well he couldn’t get too cocky about the whole thing publicly,a married man getting a BJ from his secretary has to somewhat look repentant…very different attitude he had with the boys when he went to the club-house the following day…smug is the word we’re looking at
[quote]However, does that mean academics, historians, the general public etc. should not look into the personal lives of famous Americans of different colors for fear of being labelled a racist? It has been the post Watergate culture that has been responsible for the media and authors looking into private lives of public people, but yet when people go after sacred liberal icons, many liberals act like hypocrites. Many seem to have no problem discussing Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, the philandering of JFK, RFK, LBJ etc., the many affairs of Alexander Hamilton, but MLK is taboo? [/quote] What’s the point of discussing the private life of a public person. The older I get, the more I wonder what is it with America’s obsession to know what’s going on behind closed doors? Is it this need to compare ourselves? Or do we need to know because we have had a string of dishonest leaders so we need to pry into their lives to know if what they are saying is ‘truth’? Or are we a nation of gossip mongers? Personally I don’t really give two flying fucks if MLK had sex with Monica Lewinsky’s grandma on her paternal side. What WOULD bother me is if MLK was preaching integration because he could make a profit from it.
[quote]
Shame on people for using the racist label and that includes MT and Jdsmith.[/quote]
I never got that Jdsmith and MT were applying the racist label because MLK’s philandering was brought into question.
I suspect that if King hadn’t died when he did, he would have gone on to become just another political figure. Possibly people would be hearing about him today, and shrugging their shoulders the way we do with Teddy Kennedy or Fidel Castro.
As fascinating as anybody’s personal / public life is, I’d rather focus on King’s actual effect on the world. I suppose the main thing is stirring up political pressure for desegregation. The “received view” is that this was a wholly good thing. Me, I believe people ought to enjoy the right of free association, meaning that if someone doesn’t wish to employ, lodge, etc. a member of a certain race, he shouldn’t have to. King took away my freedom.
During the “Civil Rights” movement, whites were assured that there would never be such a thing as what we now call “affirmative action.” Well, this turned out to be a lie, and we have King to thank for that too.
So black schools were worse than white ones. Whose fault was that? Whites, for making more money than blacks, and wanting to spend it on their own kids? Or blacks, for turning everything they touch into a little piece of Africa? Now that they’ve exported black problems into white schools, I guess we know the answer.
Thank you, “Dr.” King, for making possible our culture of drug-dealing and gang-rape. By looking so dashing in your suit, you’ve paved the way for generations of ghetto kids with “jailin’ pants” and Chicago Bulls / “No Snitch” / FUBU clothing. If your group had just worn stuff like that originally–“truth in advertising” and all that–you could have saved us all some trouble.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]I suspect that if King hadn’t died when he did, he would have gone on to become just another political figure. Possibly people would be hearing about him today, and shrugging their shoulders the way we do with Teddy Kennedy or Fidel Castro.
As fascinating as anybody’s personal / public life is, I’d rather focus on King’s actual effect on the world. I suppose the main thing is stirring up political pressure for desegregation. The “received view” is that this was a wholly good thing. Me, I believe people ought to enjoy the right of free association, meaning that if someone doesn’t wish to employ, lodge, etc. a member of a certain race, he shouldn’t have to. King took away my freedom.
During the “Civil Rights” movement, whites were assured that there would never be such a thing as what we now call “affirmative action.” Well, this turned out to be a lie, and we have King to thank for that too.
So black schools were worse than white ones. Whose fault was that? Whites, for making more money than blacks, and wanting to spend it on their own kids? Or blacks, for turning everything they touch into a little piece of Africa? Now that they’ve exported black problems into white schools, I guess we know the answer.
Thank you, “Dr.” King, for making possible our culture of drug-dealing and gang-rape. By looking so dashing in your suit, you’ve paved the way for generations of ghetto kids with “jailin’ pants” and Chicago Bulls / “No Snitch” / FUBU clothing. If your group had just worn stuff like that originally–“truth in advertising” and all that–you could have saved us all some trouble.
You’re saying it’s ok for hotels or firms to refuse service or employment based on race? Woah, that’s about the ugliest, most racist thing I’ve heard on this board in a LOONG time.
Hmmm, well you don’t have to hang out with people you do not want to associate with, but denying anyone a room, or a job, etc based soley on their race?
Hmmm…are you sure you can’t clarify this a bit more SJ?
Hmmm, well you don’t have to hang out with people you do not want to associate with, but denying anyone a room, or a job, etc based soley on their race?
Hmmm…are you sure you can’t clarify this a bit more SJ?[/quote]
What’s to clarify? But there is a bit of irony in his complaint. While King was working on taking away his right to free association (as if King had some personal agenda against him ) King was working on getting people the right to choose whether or not they could exercise their right to practice free association.
I assume that “freedom of association” ought to include the freedom to live together in communities of the same race, should people so desire. Thanks to King, this is now illegal insofar as it involves explicit race-based discrimination in housing. (One woman was recently prosecuted for advertising for a “Christian” renter.) The same applies to schools and workplaces. Why shouldn’t I have the freedom to refuse to deal with you (or vice versa)?
Apparently the argument that carried the day was not so much King’s sermonizing, but the threat of rioting Negroes. (Didn’t someone just post Kipling on the payment of Dane-geld?)
You’re saying it’s ok for hotels or firms to refuse service or employment based on race? Woah, that’s about the ugliest, most racist thing I’ve heard on this board in a LOONG time. [/quote]
Well, Screamin’ Jesus hasn’t been regularly active on the boards for a while, so you have to let him catch up on his average for spewing racist bullshit.
Fortunately, forumosa.com isn’t held to having to accept posters despite their race, age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or the sounds their knuckles make as they drag along the floor, so thankfully our civil rights don’t have to be compromised in order to tolerate “people” like him.
That’s an interesting double-standard, don’t you think? The topic: King, good or bad? If I support King, or oppose him for some tangential reason such as his sex life, that seems to be okay. But if I oppose his basic political aims, that’s wicked and out-of-bounds.
Is there any essential difference between what I said, and what the Dalai Lama is asking for? (Basically, for the Chinese to stop their practices of “ethnic swamping,” and leave Tibet for the Tibetans.) People should have the right to decide what kind of society they want to live in, not have a certain (in this case ethnically mixed) model imposed upon them.
If not for King, the U.S. could have been more like Japan–a single “people” living in their own state. (With others tolerated as guests, no doubt.) Or each state could have decided on its own stance viz. the race question. What we got, basically amounts to a legal mugging–a permanent underclass which must forever be placated with government funds.
Now I do understand the black political position. Hell, if I were black, I’d probably demand the same things. That’s the problem–our interests fundamentally conflict. The more of a presence blacks have in the lives of whites, the worse off whites tend to be. I suppose it is wicked of me to say so.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]
Now I do understand the black political position. Hell, if I were black, I’d probably demand the same things. That’s the problem–our interests fundamentally conflict. The more of a presence blacks have in the lives of whites, the worse off whites tend to be. I suppose it is wicked of me to say so.[/quote]
So, that’s why you’re over here? Please keep writing your manifesto as it’s giving me lots of laughter while I pack.
Well, now I know that whites can play a vicitm card also.
:bravo: :bravo:
Nicely written. I was very informed by your information. So thanks.
As for the whole post, you sum it up in the last part “makes him all the more human”. Ridiculous but that’s life, humans must see the ‘faulty’ side of another human in order to get pass their own insecures , out of jealousy or fear of their (the famous) personal power.
I’m certain that Joseph had same thought.
) King was working on getting people the right to choose whether or not they could exercise their right to practice free association.