Obama pandering on MLK day

[thanatos144]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K7zg_pS-R0&feature=player_detailpage]PJTV: ZoNation: MLK Legacy Belongs to the Nation, Not Just Democrats - YouTube[/ame]

The actual video

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a "Republican", no matter how many times you guys repeat it.

 

[clevergirl]

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a "Republican", no matter how many times you guys repeat it.

For you to make that claim is likewise BS. The claim, as you call it, was started by his niece. It is to date impossible to prove which party, if any, he was affiliated with or voted for. He was publicly critical of the Kennedy's- of course they were the power brokers during the height of the civil rights movement. A movement supported during King's activist years by republicans, NOT democrats- so logic follows that his niece may be on to something.

some King facts.

snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a "Republican", no matter how many times you guys repeat it.

For you to make that claim is likewise BS. The claim, as you call it, was started by his niece. It is to date impossible to prove which party, if any, he was affiliated with or voted for. He was publicly critical of the Kennedy's- of course they were the power brokers during the height of the civil rights movement. A movement supported during King's activist years by republicans, NOT democrats- so logic follows that his niece may be on to something.

some King facts.

snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights movement. So did Northern Democrats.

Southern Republicans most certainly did NOT support the Civil Rights movement. Neither did Southern Democrats. It was a regional thing, not a party thing.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was led by Socialists and Communists, not "Republicans".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: a higher percentage of southern Republicans in the House and the Senate voted against the Civil Rights and Voting acts than did Democrats.

 

[thanatos144]

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a "Republican", no matter how many times you guys repeat it.

For you to make that claim is likewise BS. The claim, as you call it, was started by his niece. It is to date impossible to prove which party, if any, he was affiliated with or voted for. He was publicly critical of the Kennedy's- of course they were the power brokers during the height of the civil rights movement. A movement supported during King's activist years by republicans, NOT democrats- so logic follows that his niece may be on to something.

some King facts.

snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights movement. So did Northern Democrats.

Southern Republicans most certainly did NOT support the Civil Rights movement. Neither did Southern Democrats. It was a regional thing, not a party thing.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was led by Socialists and Communists, not "Republicans".

Kennedy wasnt a southern democrat asshole and he voted against civil right like all dems did many times.

 

[Glensather]

Um...
MLK wasn't a Republican. He wasn't a Democrat either. He was an activist. All he wanted was Civil Rights for blacks.

After that, he was planning on marching to D.C. to convince Washington to institute a "Redistribution of Wealth" policy to "Help the Poor".

Wait a minute. Redistribute Wealth? "Help" the poor? Now who does that sound like...

 

[thanatos144]

LMAO such revisionist history.

 

[Glensather]

His most audacious plan was a forerunner of today's Occupy Movement. By 1968, King was preparing to lead a "Poor People's Campaign" to Washington. A coalition of poor blacks, Native Americas, Latinos and whites from Appalachia would occupy Washington and force the government to take money spent on Vietnam and use it instead to combat poverty. The campaign muddled on after King's assassination, but quickly fell apart without his leadership.

In a documentary entitled "Citizen King," the leader is shown speaking to a church audience, as he prepared his nonviolent army of poor people for Washington.

"It didn't cost the nation a penny to open lunch counters. It didn't cost the nation a penny to give us the right to vote," he said. "But it will cost the nation billions to feed and house all of its citizens. The country needs a radical redistribution of wealth."

Why conservatives call MLK their hero - CNN.com

 

[thanatos144]

Lmao cnn

 

[JakeStarkey]

thanatos posts and the Board rocks with laughter

 

[Katzndogz]

King was undoubtably a republican because the democrats were too racist to accept him. The south was controlled by democrats. Then they were called Dixiecrats. In the 60s, the democrats embraced the civil rights movement and somehow assumed a mantle of always being for civil rights when they were the ones fighting the hardest against them. It was Lyndon Johnson who is responsible for the modern democrat. It was Bobbie Kennedy, as attorney general, who ordered Hoover to have an FBI investigation into Martin Luther King, Jr, and his communist connections. Yes, the Kennedys.

It's part of the democrat revision of history.

Why Did The South Turn Republican? - Matthew Yglesias - The Atlantic

 

[Katzndogz]

Um...
MLK wasn't a Republican. He wasn't a Democrat either. He was an activist. All he wanted was Civil Rights for blacks.

After that, he was planning on marching to D.C. to convince Washington to institute a "Redistribution of Wealth" policy to "Help the Poor".

Wait a minute. Redistribute Wealth? "Help" the poor? Now who does that sound like...

It sounds like someone Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy would investigate for ties to the communist party. Which is what happened.

 

[JakeStarkey]

King was undoubtably a republican because the democrats were too racist to accept him. The south was controlled by democrats. Then they were called Dixiecrats. In the 60s, the democrats embraced the civil rights movement and somehow assumed a mantle of always being for civil rights when they were the ones fighting the hardest against them. It was Lyndon Johnson who is responsible for the modern democrat. It was Bobbie Kennedy, as attorney general, who ordered Hoover to have an FBI investigation into Martin Luther King, Jr, and his communist connections. Yes, the Kennedys.

It's part of the democrat revision of history.

Why Did The South Turn Republican? - Matthew Yglesias - The Atlantic

Your revision of history is fallacious, and makes the board rock with laughter.

You are not a conservative, merely a radical reactionary loony.

 

[clevergirl]

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a "Republican", no matter how many times you guys repeat it.

For you to make that claim is likewise BS. The claim, as you call it, was started by his niece. It is to date impossible to prove which party, if any, he was affiliated with or voted for. He was publicly critical of the Kennedy's- of course they were the power brokers during the height of the civil rights movement. A movement supported during King's activist years by republicans, NOT democrats- so logic follows that his niece may be on to something.

some King facts.

snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights movement. So did Northern Democrats.

Southern Republicans most certainly did NOT support the Civil Rights movement. Neither did Southern Democrats. It was a regional thing, not a party thing.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was led by Socialists and Communists, not "Republicans".

How about you cite your claim with name and party affiliation going back to the first bill on CR and then the subsequent bills and how they were voted on and the changes (pork) added. How about you actually do some work on your opinions before stating them as facts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

For you to make that claim is likewise BS. The claim, as you call it, was started by his niece. It is to date impossible to prove which party, if any, he was affiliated with or voted for. He was publicly critical of the Kennedy's- of course they were the power brokers during the height of the civil rights movement. A movement supported during King's activist years by republicans, NOT democrats- so logic follows that his niece may be on to something.

some King facts.

snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights movement. So did Northern Democrats.

Southern Republicans most certainly did NOT support the Civil Rights movement. Neither did Southern Democrats. It was a regional thing, not a party thing.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was led by Socialists and Communists, not "Republicans".

How about you cite your claim with name and party affiliation going back to the first bill on CR and then the subsequent bills and how they were voted on and the changes (pork) added. How about you actually do some work on your opinions before stating them as facts.

Ok.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

 

[clevergirl]

Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights movement. So did Northern Democrats.

Southern Republicans most certainly did NOT support the Civil Rights movement. Neither did Southern Democrats. It was a regional thing, not a party thing.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was led by Socialists and Communists, not "Republicans".

How about you cite your claim with name and party affiliation going back to the first bill on CR and then the subsequent bills and how they were voted on and the changes (pork) added. How about you actually do some work on your opinions before stating them as facts.

Ok.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

There were 94 southern democrats who voted- there were 10 southern republicans. In other words there existed a democratic stronghold in the south. But I digress...you only proved my point and I note you failed to go all the way back-

the first Civil Rights Act, in 1866- was passed by republicans. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower’s presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative program that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.


Your insipid insinuation that republicans were a party against civil rights is only proof of your idiocy.

from your link:

Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (a republican) took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.


further reading

On August 29, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law. One of the main goals of the act was to help ensure that all African-Americans were ensured their right to vote. It set up the Civil Rights Commission to monitor civil rights abuses. Unfortunately, the bill lost a lot of its teeth due to opposition from southern Democrats. The resulting bill was not universally lauded as many such as Ralph Bunche felt it was worthless in achieving its aims. However, it became the first of many bills and measures to help fight against Jim Crow laws and anti-voting actions in the South.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How about you cite your claim with name and party affiliation going back to the first bill on CR and then the subsequent bills and how they were voted on and the changes (pork) added. How about you actually do some work on your opinions before stating them as facts.

Ok.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

There were 94 southern democrats who voted- there were 10 southern republicans. In other words there existed a democratic stronghold in the south. But I digress...you only proved my point and I note you failed to go all the way back-

the first Civil Rights Act, in 1866- was passed by republicans. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower’s presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative program that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 doesn't have anything at all to do with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was also overwhelmingly supported by Northern Democrats.

Your insipid insinuation that republicans were a party against civil rights is only proof of your idiocy.

I made no such "insinuation". In fact, I clearly stated that it was not a partisan divide, but a geographical one. Which I also pretty clearly backed up with facts.

from your link:

Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (a republican) took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.


further reading

On August 29, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law. One of the main goals of the act was to help ensure that all African-Americans were ensured their right to vote. It set up the Civil Rights Commission to monitor civil rights abuses. Unfortunately, the bill lost a lot of its teeth due to opposition from southern Democrats. The resulting bill was not universally lauded as many such as Ralph Bunche felt it was worthless in achieving its aims. However, it became the first of many bills and measures to help fight against Jim Crow laws and anti-voting actions in the South.

I don't know what that has to do with anything we're talking about.

 

[jgarden]

I do find it odd he keeps finding days named after republicans for his spewing hate.

Is "thanatos" holding Obama personally responsible for placing MLK Day on January 21st, or for arranging that January 20th, the day for which presidents are constitutionally obligated to take the oath of office, fall on a Sunday?

 

[JakeStarkey]

For you to make that claim is likewise BS. The claim, as you call it, was started by his niece. It is to date impossible to prove which party, if any, he was affiliated with or voted for. He was publicly critical of the Kennedy's- of course they were the power brokers during the height of the civil rights movement. A movement supported during King's activist years by republicans, NOT democrats- so logic follows that his niece may be on to something.

some King facts.

snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights movement. So did Northern Democrats.

Southern Republicans most certainly did NOT support the Civil Rights movement. Neither did Southern Democrats. It was a regional thing, not a party thing.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was led by Socialists and Communists, not "Republicans".

How about you cite your claim with name and party affiliation going back to the first bill on CR and then the subsequent bills and how they were voted on and the changes (pork) added. How about you actually do some work on your opinions before stating them as facts.

clevergirl, that is merely your allusion and assertion. It means nothing until YOU give us the evidence because those are YOUR suggestions.