If MLK were alive today the rightwingers would call his a race hustler

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Quick:

If The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, what would HE be saying?

"Would you all stop judging each otherbased off of color of skin instead of content of character. Also, can we stop these laws that are based off race and go based off of people's actions instead"

I guess you never read:

A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Testament-Hope-Essential-Writings-Speeches/dp/0060646918]Amazon.com: A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (9780060646912): Martin Luther King, James M. Washington: Books[/ame]

Said one reviewer from June 2001-

This is a thought-provoking collection. I was fascinated by King's strong critique of that part of the white Christian establishment which opposed his movement. It is also intriguing to read that, apart from the Bible, King would choose Plato's "Republic" if he were to be marooned on the proverbial desert island with only one book. Also noteworthy is the emergence of King's multi-faith, global vision of humanity.

What?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV70doYkvZ0&feature=related]Martin Luther King I have a dream - YouTube[/ame]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Let's not forget either that ALL minorities benefit from affirmative action mostly Asians. You never hear about anyone attacking them for affirmative action tho. Weird huh?

Bullshit. You hear it all the time. Especially in business and education.
Benefit? A matter of reflection clarity. On the surface - sure. but like I said - dependence removes one shackle while placing on another.
It is grossly unfair that better qualified candidates are turned down purely because they are not a certain race...hmm....sound familiar?

You have nothing to support that bullshit you are talking

Well...if you do not believe what I said (that you highlited) then obviously you are either not living in the real world, or are too young to know anything about how the world works.
Here's a nickel kid [flip] go get yourself some bubble gum.

 

[Salt Jones]

And lets stop pretending that MLK would be against Affirmative Action. He also recognized that the playing field between whites and blacks were not the same field. He also said "It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."

He was talking about the lack of opportunity that blacks have in the free market. So stop pretending

Affirmative action was a necessary evil in post Civil Rights America

You could pass laws that blacks have equal rights and opportunity but the next step would have been for employers to say..." I don't care...I will find an excuse not to hire blacks"

Affirmative action meant that if you wanted to get government contracts you had to meet certain demographic objectives.

I'm going to say I disagree that it was necessary. The one industry in which there wasn't racism was sports. Specifically college sports. Funny how that is also the most racially diverse industry in the world. I think that Affirmative action attacked the problem in exactly the wrong way, and here is why.

If you wanted a government contract and wanted to meet the quota but you didn't like a specific minority, you went out and hired your token (fill in the minority). Qualification wasn't important because you hired whoever came in first. That is a discredit to the (insert minority) guy that went to college or improved himself to the point that he was worthy of a job. You may or may not have hired him. You might have just hired the worst guy out there, you didn't know. What happens next, because you believe (insert minority plural here) to be inferior or unworthy is the bum that you hired only confirms your suspicion about (insert minority plural here).

On top of that, who the hell are we to tell a business owner that they must hire anyone, race, sex, creed, or whatever? That's not going to fix the problem. Why not just mandate that every (insert privileged group) be friends with (insert minority)? It was a "quick" solution, that judging by the the statistics, hasn't really increased the standard of living of minorities.

Its not popular to say because affirmative action was so popular but I believe it was an utter failure.

Mike

This is the mindset of the white conservative. Not knowing the history or facts of a subject isn't a reason to not opine. "If I hear it enough it must be true".

For your education:

There, in 1966, the tournament's final year at the on-campus site, the entire ACC community confronted profound change when Billy Jones stepped onto the court. With little fanfare or conflict, he "made history by being the first Negro ever to play in an ACC tournament," according to Jack Horner of the Durham Morning Herald.

The moment, and even the name of the ACC's pioneering black player, were soon lost to common memory. Charles Scott, the North Carolina All-American who played in the Olympics and in the National Basketball Association, is popularly believed to be the man who broke the color barrier in ACC basketball. But he was not the first African-American to play in the league. Nor was he the second, or even the third. Maryland's Julius (Pete) Johnson and Duke's Claiborne both played varsity basketball in 1966-67, a year ahead of Scott.

Jones, a Maryland native, broke the color barrier among major, historically white schools in the South when he played for the Maryland Terrapins during the 1965-66 season. He was soon eclipsed by the player known as "The Great Scott," just as N.C. State's new RBC Center has overshadowed smaller, older Reynolds Coliseum.

Few of today's players and fans can imagine a lily-white ACC. Even fewer realize how slowly the conference came to grips with a changing racial landscape. The more conservative Southeastern Conference accepted African-American players later than the ACC, with Perry Wallace breaking the ice at Vanderbilt in 1967-68. Yet the SEC sought black recruits quickly--seven years after Wallace's graduation, Alabama won a league title with an all-black starting five.

Crossing the line | News Feature | Independent Weekly

Of course there was "no racism in sports, specifically college sports"?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Affirmative action was a necessary evil in post Civil Rights America

You could pass laws that blacks have equal rights and opportunity but the next step would have been for employers to say..." I don't care...I will find an excuse not to hire blacks"

Affirmative action meant that if you wanted to get government contracts you had to meet certain demographic objectives.

I'm going to say I disagree that it was necessary. The one industry in which there wasn't racism was sports. Specifically college sports. Funny how that is also the most racially diverse industry in the world. I think that Affirmative action attacked the problem in exactly the wrong way, and here is why.

If you wanted a government contract and wanted to meet the quota but you didn't like a specific minority, you went out and hired your token (fill in the minority). Qualification wasn't important because you hired whoever came in first. That is a discredit to the (insert minority) guy that went to college or improved himself to the point that he was worthy of a job. You may or may not have hired him. You might have just hired the worst guy out there, you didn't know. What happens next, because you believe (insert minority plural here) to be inferior or unworthy is the bum that you hired only confirms your suspicion about (insert minority plural here).

On top of that, who the hell are we to tell a business owner that they must hire anyone, race, sex, creed, or whatever? That's not going to fix the problem. Why not just mandate that every (insert privileged group) be friends with (insert minority)? It was a "quick" solution, that judging by the the statistics, hasn't really increased the standard of living of minorities.

Its not popular to say because affirmative action was so popular but I believe it was an utter failure.

Mike

This is the mindset of the white conservative. Not knowing the history or facts of a subject isn't a reason to not opine. "If I hear it enough it must be true".

For your education:

There, in 1966, the tournament's final year at the on-campus site, the entire ACC community confronted profound change when Billy Jones stepped onto the court. With little fanfare or conflict, he "made history by being the first Negro ever to play in an ACC tournament," according to Jack Horner of the Durham Morning Herald.

The moment, and even the name of the ACC's pioneering black player, were soon lost to common memory. Charles Scott, the North Carolina All-American who played in the Olympics and in the National Basketball Association, is popularly believed to be the man who broke the color barrier in ACC basketball. But he was not the first African-American to play in the league. Nor was he the second, or even the third. Maryland's Julius (Pete) Johnson and Duke's Claiborne both played varsity basketball in 1966-67, a year ahead of Scott.

Jones, a Maryland native, broke the color barrier among major, historically white schools in the South when he played for the Maryland Terrapins during the 1965-66 season. He was soon eclipsed by the player known as "The Great Scott," just as N.C. State's new RBC Center has overshadowed smaller, older Reynolds Coliseum.

Few of today's players and fans can imagine a lily-white ACC. Even fewer realize how slowly the conference came to grips with a changing racial landscape. The more conservative Southeastern Conference accepted African-American players later than the ACC, with Perry Wallace breaking the ice at Vanderbilt in 1967-68. Yet the SEC sought black recruits quickly--seven years after Wallace's graduation, Alabama won a league title with an all-black starting five.

Crossing the line | News Feature | Independent Weekly

Of course there was "no racism in sports, specifically college sports"?

So..umm....good story and all...but WTF does this have to do with the persons post you quoted???

 

[Salt Jones]

I'm going to say I disagree that it was necessary. The one industry in which there wasn't racism was sports. Specifically college sports. Funny how that is also the most racially diverse industry in the world. I think that Affirmative action attacked the problem in exactly the wrong way, and here is why.

If you wanted a government contract and wanted to meet the quota but you didn't like a specific minority, you went out and hired your token (fill in the minority). Qualification wasn't important because you hired whoever came in first. That is a discredit to the (insert minority) guy that went to college or improved himself to the point that he was worthy of a job. You may or may not have hired him. You might have just hired the worst guy out there, you didn't know. What happens next, because you believe (insert minority plural here) to be inferior or unworthy is the bum that you hired only confirms your suspicion about (insert minority plural here).

On top of that, who the hell are we to tell a business owner that they must hire anyone, race, sex, creed, or whatever? That's not going to fix the problem. Why not just mandate that every (insert privileged group) be friends with (insert minority)? It was a "quick" solution, that judging by the the statistics, hasn't really increased the standard of living of minorities.

Its not popular to say because affirmative action was so popular but I believe it was an utter failure.

Mike

This is the mindset of the white conservative. Not knowing the history or facts of a subject isn't a reason to not opine. "If I hear it enough it must be true".

For your education:

There, in 1966, the tournament's final year at the on-campus site, the entire ACC community confronted profound change when Billy Jones stepped onto the court. With little fanfare or conflict, he "made history by being the first Negro ever to play in an ACC tournament," according to Jack Horner of the Durham Morning Herald.

The moment, and even the name of the ACC's pioneering black player, were soon lost to common memory. Charles Scott, the North Carolina All-American who played in the Olympics and in the National Basketball Association, is popularly believed to be the man who broke the color barrier in ACC basketball. But he was not the first African-American to play in the league. Nor was he the second, or even the third. Maryland's Julius (Pete) Johnson and Duke's Claiborne both played varsity basketball in 1966-67, a year ahead of Scott.

Jones, a Maryland native, broke the color barrier among major, historically white schools in the South when he played for the Maryland Terrapins during the 1965-66 season. He was soon eclipsed by the player known as "The Great Scott," just as N.C. State's new RBC Center has overshadowed smaller, older Reynolds Coliseum.

Few of today's players and fans can imagine a lily-white ACC. Even fewer realize how slowly the conference came to grips with a changing racial landscape. The more conservative Southeastern Conference accepted African-American players later than the ACC, with Perry Wallace breaking the ice at Vanderbilt in 1967-68. Yet the SEC sought black recruits quickly--seven years after Wallace's graduation, Alabama won a league title with an all-black starting five.

Crossing the line | News Feature | Independent Weekly

Of course there was "no racism in sports, specifically college sports"?

So..umm....good story and all...but WTF does this have to do with the persons post you quoted???

Another example.

Read their post, then reread my post and then figure it out.

 

[daveman]

No, it's 2011 but what's your point? We aren't in the same decade?

Do you think the nation is in the same condition it was fifty years ago?

I don't.

No, and I know we arent in the 60's and no things arent the same as the 60's but again, what is your point?

Predicting Dr. King's reactions to a society that didn't exist when he was alive is pointless.

 

[daveman]

No, it's 2011 but what's your point? We aren't in the same decade?

Do you think the nation is in the same condition it was fifty years ago?

I don't.

In 1960 was the nation the same way it was 50 years before then? No, but using your logic we can say that the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s were irrelevant because the nation in 1960 wasn't the same way it was in 1910.

You know, saying random shit is not logic.

I can tell what I said went over your head. Most everything I say does. That's because you're not very bright.

 

[daveman]

"Get out of Afghanistan." "Get out of Iraq." "44th in the world for infant mortality: WTF?"

I doubt it.

44th in the world because we actually keep statistics. Babies who die out in the desert and are left for the jackals don't get counted.

Why is it that libs can't ever use real data? Ever? There's the baby thing..and then there's the op. Let's resurrect a dead leader, plop him in a fake scenario, and pretend that our political adversaries would react in a heinous way to it.

Use some real information once in your lives, please. Make a point with a *gasp* FACT. Try dealing in reality.

Oh wait, then you'd be right wing. My bad.

The funny thing is that you never stated one fact but demand facts from others. 44th in the world is a fact.

Do all nations collect statistics in the same way?

Hint: No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt it.

44th in the world because we actually keep statistics. Babies who die out in the desert and are left for the jackals don't get counted.

Why is it that libs can't ever use real data? Ever? There's the baby thing..and then there's the op. Let's resurrect a dead leader, plop him in a fake scenario, and pretend that our political adversaries would react in a heinous way to it.

Use some real information once in your lives, please. Make a point with a *gasp* FACT. Try dealing in reality.

Oh wait, then you'd be right wing. My bad.

The funny thing is that you never stated one fact but demand facts from others. 44th in the world is a fact.

Do all nations collect statistics in the same way?

Hint: No.

The organizations who release this material and their opinions count, daveman.

Yours don't.

44th? WTF? Is this the great U.S. health care system you are always bragging on? WTF?

 

[Liability]

The funny thing is that you never stated one fact but demand facts from others. 44th in the world is a fact.

Do all nations collect statistics in the same way?

Hint: No.

The organizations who release this material and their opinions count, daveman.

Yours don't.

44th? WTF? Is this the great U.S. health care system you are always bragging on? WTF?

What makes you think the "organizations . . . and their opinions count?"

 

[daveman]

The funny thing is that you never stated one fact but demand facts from others. 44th in the world is a fact.

Do all nations collect statistics in the same way?

Hint: No.

The organizations who release this material and their opinions count, daveman.

Yours don't.

44th? WTF? Is this the great U.S. health care system you are always bragging on? WTF?

If all nations do not collect statistics in the same manner, the aggregated statistics are meaningless.

But that doesn't stop people with an agenda from using them to push that agenda.

In fact, it's lying.

 

[daveman]

Do all nations collect statistics in the same way?

Hint: No.

The organizations who release this material and their opinions count, daveman.

Yours don't.

44th? WTF? Is this the great U.S. health care system you are always bragging on? WTF?

What makes you think the "organizations . . . and their opinions count?"

He agrees with them.

Remember, leftists see what they believe. Facts and logic need not apply.

 

[Liability]

The organizations who release this material and their opinions count, daveman.

Yours don't.

44th? WTF? Is this the great U.S. health care system you are always bragging on? WTF?

What makes you think the "organizations . . . and their opinions count?"

He agrees with them.

Remember, leftists see what they believe. Facts and logic need not apply.

While your answer is the correct answer, Fakey would (naturally) disagree. But it would be funny to see what his answer would be (i.e., what his next false pretense would be if he had the nadz to try to answer the question).

 

[daveman]

What makes you think the "organizations . . . and their opinions count?"

He agrees with them.

Remember, leftists see what they believe. Facts and logic need not apply.

While your answer is the correct answer, Fakey would (naturally) disagree. But it would be funny to see what his answer would be (i.e., what his next false pretense would be if he had the nadz to try to answer the question).

I'm sure his rebuttal will be well-thought-out, with exhaustive research and credible citations.

Or it'll just be his usual pouting and feet-stamping.

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman is the living proof that the far hard right can't argue your their points, only demonize, rather poorly, their opponents. Remember that I am not a liberal and daveman is not a conservative, merely a hard right wacky reactionary.

The experts and their opinions count. daveman's comments on this page clearly demonstate why his comments are a mere waste of all our time. He is nothing worthwhile at all to say about this subject.

 

[daveman]

daveman is the living proof that the far hard right can't argue your their points, only demonize, rather poorly, their opponents. Remember that I am not a liberal and daveman is not a conservative, merely a hard right wacky reactionary.

The experts and their opinions count. daveman's comments on this page clearly demonstate why his comments are a mere waste of all our time. He is nothing worthwhile at all to say about this subject.

Yup, I called it:

"Or it'll just be his usual pouting and feet-stamping."

Jake, how does it feel to be so predictable?

 

[Sky Dancer]

daveman is the living proof that the far hard right can't argue your their points, only demonize, rather poorly, their opponents. Remember that I am not a liberal and daveman is not a conservative, merely a hard right wacky reactionary.

The experts and their opinions count. daveman's comments on this page clearly demonstate why his comments are a mere waste of all our time. He is nothing worthwhile at all to say about this subject.

True. All he does is make cracks about "liberals". No debate or discussion. Just off topic comments, like the one I'm making now, LOL.

 

[JakeStarkey]

daveman is the living proof that the far hard right can't argue your their points, only demonize, rather poorly, their opponents. Remember that I am not a liberal and daveman is not a conservative, merely a hard right wacky reactionary.

The experts and their opinions count. daveman's comments on this page clearly demonstate why his comments are a mere waste of all our time. He is nothing worthwhile at all to say about this subject.

Yup, I called it:

"Or it'll just be his usual pouting and feet-stamping."

Jake, how does it feel to be so predictable?

Ah, daveman once again stamps his feet and pouts with red-rimmed eyes. Such a silly goof.

 

[daveman]

daveman is the living proof that the far hard right can't argue your their points, only demonize, rather poorly, their opponents. Remember that I am not a liberal and daveman is not a conservative, merely a hard right wacky reactionary.

The experts and their opinions count. daveman's comments on this page clearly demonstate why his comments are a mere waste of all our time. He is nothing worthwhile at all to say about this subject.

True. All he does is make cracks about "liberals". No debate or discussion. Just off topic comments, like the one I'm making now, LOL.

Why do you insist on lying all the time?

 

[daveman]

daveman is the living proof that the far hard right can't argue your their points, only demonize, rather poorly, their opponents. Remember that I am not a liberal and daveman is not a conservative, merely a hard right wacky reactionary.

The experts and their opinions count. daveman's comments on this page clearly demonstate why his comments are a mere waste of all our time. He is nothing worthwhile at all to say about this subject.

Yup, I called it:

"Or it'll just be his usual pouting and feet-stamping."

Jake, how does it feel to be so predictable?

Ah, daveman once again stamps his feet and pouts with red-rimmed eyes. Such a silly goof.

You're even incapable of originality, aren't you?

Meanwhile, yet another opportunity to back up your claims with credible evidence has come and gone.