Martin Luther King: Never Forget Everything Hitler did was Legal

[The T]

No, he was nothing like you, fake.

Hey, crazy lady! You drinking flopple tonight?

TRY to divert much Starkey? PHONY.

 

[Pheonixops]

Gotta love the.....you know, Martin Luther King was a Republican

While they hounded him as a commnist while he was alive

And it was his father that was a Republican. As in Martin Luther King Sr.

Not Martin Luther King Jr. Who voted for Democrats.

The only reason his father was a Republican, by the way, was because of Lincoln.

That's a pretty good reason.

"Martin Luther King was a Republican. The original March on Washington was organized mostly by black Republicans. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965 were passed mostly by Republicans. And it is Republicans who have remained true through the years to Dr. King's call to judge men by the content of their character.

Read more: Blog: Martin Luther King Was Republican

There were Liberal Republicans back then who supported the Civil Rights movement but the conservative Republicans like limbaugh's hero William F. Buckley were against it and arguing for white supremacy. Since you were lauding the Liberal republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Acts, how do you feel about one of the fathers of the new conservative movement opposition to the Civil rights Acts?
Goldwater and Civil Rights | ThinkProgress

 

[Jroc]

In the future, I highly recommend you understand what someone is saying before you call them stupid and demonstrate you have no clue what they are saying. Because it's obvious to someone even as foolish as me that the OP didn't bring up the quote because he thought MLK Jr was agreeing with Hitler. The point was obviously, that just because governments and "leaders" do something that is legal doesn't mean it's morally right.

Much like our current government. Which is doing many things which could arguably be called legal, which are completely immoral.

Your argument would make perfect sense IF 2nd Amendment were a member of the left. However, he is not a member of the left and he has shown himself to be a member of the right over and over. It would be illogical to expect 2nd Amendment to post something that is condemning the right for establishing unjust laws.
And that is exactly what MLK was doing: CONDEMNING THE RACIST FOR ESTABLISHING UNJUST LAWS!
I STAND BY MY ORIGINAL POST.

I was unaware that being a member of the right or left somehow invalidated the truth that just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's morally right.

You can stand by your post if you want all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he wasn't arguing that Hitler was correct. Quite the opposite.

it could be taken the wrong way by some. I understood it as you did, but I also understand the outrage. Me? I would never use Hitler and MLK in the same breath. it's unseemly

 

[Jroc]

And it was his father that was a Republican. As in Martin Luther King Sr.

Not Martin Luther King Jr. Who voted for Democrats.

The only reason his father was a Republican, by the way, was because of Lincoln.

That's a pretty good reason.

"Martin Luther King was a Republican. The original March on Washington was organized mostly by black Republicans. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965 were passed mostly by Republicans. And it is Republicans who have remained true through the years to Dr. King's call to judge men by the content of their character.

Read more: Blog: Martin Luther King Was Republican

There were Liberal Republicans back then who supported the Civil Rights movement but the conservative Republicans like limbaugh's hero William F. Buckley were against it and arguing for white supremacy. Since you were lauding the Liberal republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Acts, how do you feel about one of the fathers of the new conservative movement opposition to the Civil rights Acts?
Goldwater and Civil Rights | ThinkProgress

OMG what a moron you are. You have no concept of reality. it's because of brainwashed people like you that this country is so screwed up

 

[Pheonixops]

You stupid bastard, the comment MLK made was not a comment agreeing with Hitler. IT WAS JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Yes, we know.

So what's your point?

Did you also know that MLK had the Deacons for Defense and Justice march alongside his rallies with shotguns? Did you know that MLK was mostly a Libertarian?

He was a "Libertarian" with these beliefs below?

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, “If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.” King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.

"No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. "

"Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O'Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed."

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism. "

"King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." He believed that Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater's positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."

King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."
Myths of Martin Luther King ? LewRockwell.com

Thanks for the laugh!!!

 

[Jroc]

And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it. don't just set out to do a good job. Set out to do such a good job that the living, the dead or the unborn couldn't do it any better.

If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well. If you can't be a pine at the top of the hill, be a shrub in the valley. Be be the best little shrub on the side of the hill.

Be a bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If you can't be a sun, be a star. For it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be the best of whatever you are.

The Seattle Times: Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Pheonixops]

That's a pretty good reason.

"Martin Luther King was a Republican. The original March on Washington was organized mostly by black Republicans. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965 were passed mostly by Republicans. And it is Republicans who have remained true through the years to Dr. King's call to judge men by the content of their character.

Read more: Blog: Martin Luther King Was Republican

There were Liberal Republicans back then who supported the Civil Rights movement but the conservative Republicans like limbaugh's hero William F. Buckley were against it and arguing for white supremacy. Since you were lauding the Liberal republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Acts, how do you feel about one of the fathers of the new conservative movement opposition to the Civil rights Acts?
Goldwater and Civil Rights | ThinkProgress

OMG what a moron you are. You have no concept of reality. it's because of brainwashed people like you that this country is so screwed up

Thanks for the laugh; a moron who can't even refute my points calling me a moron!
Was William F. Buckley in favor of the Civil Rights movement? Was he marching arm in arm with MLK Jr.?
"National Review's Smears of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has stated publicly and on television that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are among his heroes for practicing peaceful, civil disobedience against government, in the true spirit of libertarianism, Buckley's National Review expressed nothing but contempt (and worse) for Dr. King. Complaining bitterly about the King national holiday, an unsigned National Review editorial on October 28, 1983 remarked that "it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. (The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets)." Thus, if the neocons at National Review had their way, there would have been no protests against unequal treatment of blacks under the law in the 1960s.

Even worse, the editorial goes on to say that since Dr. King was supposedly such a bum and a loafer, "Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual." That would be more acceptable to Buckley and his fellow neocons, says the editorial. "

National Review's Support for White Supremacy

In an early, August 1957 editorial National Review asked the question of whether "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally . . . " "The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race." It is "almost certain" that this was written by Buckley. To bolster its case for White supremacy in the South (and presumably in the North as well), the editorial cited unnamed "statistics" that supposedly proved "median cultural superiority of White over Negro . . ."

"Universal suffrage (i.e. ending government interferences with the right to vote by blacks) would be harmful to "the claims of civilization," said the editorial. The same editorial also praised the actions of the British government in Kenya for basing its discriminatory policies on its perception of "qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes," or "between civilization and barbarism . . ." After all, a March 1960 National Review editorial intoned, "in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded" and any attempt to argue this point is mere "demagoguery." Ah, that Buckley had a magical touch with the English language, did he not?"
National Review?s Bigoted Rants ? LewRockwell.com

putz!

 

[Jroc]

There were Liberal Republicans back then who supported the Civil Rights movement but the conservative Republicans like limbaugh's hero William F. Buckley were against it and arguing for white supremacy. Since you were lauding the Liberal republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Acts, how do you feel about one of the fathers of the new conservative movement opposition to the Civil rights Acts?
Goldwater and Civil Rights | ThinkProgress

OMG what a moron you are. You have no concept of reality. it's because of brainwashed people like you that this country is so screwed up

Thanks for the laugh; a moron who can't even refute my points calling me a moron!
Was William F. Buckley in favor of the Civil Rights movement? Was he marching arm in arm with MLK Jr.?
"National Review's Smears of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has stated publicly and on television that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are among his heroes for practicing peaceful, civil disobedience against government, in the true spirit of libertarianism, Buckley's National Review expressed nothing but contempt (and worse) for Dr. King. Complaining bitterly about the King national holiday, an unsigned National Review editorial on October 28, 1983 remarked that "it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. (The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets)." Thus, if the neocons at National Review had their way, there would have been no protests against unequal treatment of blacks under the law in the 1960s.

Even worse, the editorial goes on to say that since Dr. King was supposedly such a bum and a loafer, "Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual." That would be more acceptable to Buckley and his fellow neocons, says the editorial. "

National Review's Support for White Supremacy

In an early, August 1957 editorial National Review asked the question of whether "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally . . . " "The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race." It is "almost certain" that this was written by Buckley. To bolster its case for White supremacy in the South (and presumably in the North as well), the editorial cited unnamed "statistics" that supposedly proved "median cultural superiority of White over Negro . . ."

"Universal suffrage (i.e. ending government interferences with the right to vote by blacks) would be harmful to "the claims of civilization," said the editorial. The same editorial also praised the actions of the British government in Kenya for basing its discriminatory policies on its perception of "qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes," or "between civilization and barbarism . . ." After all, a March 1960 National Review editorial intoned, "in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded" and any attempt to argue this point is mere "demagoguery." Ah, that Buckley had a magical touch with the English language, did he not?"
National Review?s Bigoted Rants ? LewRockwell.com

putz!

Fake quotes. Neither Goldwater or Buckley were racists. They believed in the liberty of the individual. "almost certain" he said this? as long as this undergrad college student says "almost certain" it must be true...you're an idiot

 

[Pheonixops]

OMG what a moron you are. You have no concept of reality. it's because of brainwashed people like you that this country is so screwed up

Thanks for the laugh; a moron who can't even refute my points calling me a moron!
Was William F. Buckley in favor of the Civil Rights movement? Was he marching arm in arm with MLK Jr.?
"National Review's Smears of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has stated publicly and on television that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are among his heroes for practicing peaceful, civil disobedience against government, in the true spirit of libertarianism, Buckley's National Review expressed nothing but contempt (and worse) for Dr. King. Complaining bitterly about the King national holiday, an unsigned National Review editorial on October 28, 1983 remarked that "it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. (The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets)." Thus, if the neocons at National Review had their way, there would have been no protests against unequal treatment of blacks under the law in the 1960s.

Even worse, the editorial goes on to say that since Dr. King was supposedly such a bum and a loafer, "Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual." That would be more acceptable to Buckley and his fellow neocons, says the editorial. "

National Review's Support for White Supremacy

In an early, August 1957 editorial National Review asked the question of whether "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally . . . " "The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race." It is "almost certain" that this was written by Buckley. To bolster its case for White supremacy in the South (and presumably in the North as well), the editorial cited unnamed "statistics" that supposedly proved "median cultural superiority of White over Negro . . ."

"Universal suffrage (i.e. ending government interferences with the right to vote by blacks) would be harmful to "the claims of civilization," said the editorial. The same editorial also praised the actions of the British government in Kenya for basing its discriminatory policies on its perception of "qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes," or "between civilization and barbarism . . ." After all, a March 1960 National Review editorial intoned, "in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded" and any attempt to argue this point is mere "demagoguery." Ah, that Buckley had a magical touch with the English language, did he not?"
National Review?s Bigoted Rants ? LewRockwell.com

putz!

Fake quotes. Neither Goldwater or Buckley were racists. They believed in the liberty of the individual. "almost certain" he said this? as long as this undergrad college student says "almost certain" it must be true...you're an idiot

Where's your proof that they are supposedly "fake" quotes? I cited my sources how about you idiot? where are your citations to refute the above quotes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think Dr. King (whom I once met when I was a lad) might have been implying that a tyrannical dictatorial mad man needn't break the law to achieve his radical, totalitarian agenda goals.

Through the skillful use of propaganda and charisma and manipulation of the people.

In that regard, Hitler and Obama are similarly effective.

King was saying that the far right in America would do what Hitler did while hiding behind the law, also. Quite wise.

I completely disagree with you, Jake.
What King was implying was that the racist states had done exactly the same thing that Hitler did. Hitler made it legal to arrest and punish the Jews. The southern states made it legal to arrest and punish blacks for marching for civil rights.

And that Southern (and American) far right reactionary conservatism would do the same if it could to all minorities it hated.

We see reactionary conservatism today condemning women, minorities, Hispanics, gays, and so forth.

The reactionaries are the enemies of an unified country.

 

[Jroc]

King was saying that the far right in America would do what Hitler did while hiding behind the law, also. Quite wise.

I completely disagree with you, Jake.
What King was implying was that the racist states had done exactly the same thing that Hitler did. Hitler made it legal to arrest and punish the Jews. The southern states made it legal to arrest and punish blacks for marching for civil rights.

And that Southern (and American) far right reactionary conservatism would do the same if it could to all minorities it hated.

We see reactionary conservatism today condemning women, minorities, Hispanics, gays, and so forth.

The reactionaries are the enemies of an unified country.

I used to think you where at least halfway intelligent that was a mistake you're a complete and utter clueless idiot

 

[koshergrl]

Fake is just an unoriginal troll. The only reason he has rep is because he smarms in the tavern.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I completely disagree with you, Jake.
What King was implying was that the racist states had done exactly the same thing that Hitler did. Hitler made it legal to arrest and punish the Jews. The southern states made it legal to arrest and punish blacks for marching for civil rights.

And that Southern (and American) far right reactionary conservatism would do the same if it could to all minorities it hated.

We see reactionary conservatism today condemning women, minorities, Hispanics, gays, and so forth.

The reactionaries are the enemies of an unified country.

I used to think you where at least halfway intelligent that was a mistake you're a complete and utter clueless idiot

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

No, for once Jake is right. The non-Libertarian/TeaParty backbone of the Republican Party are as hate fueled as the Democrats are victim-fueled. There's a reason why Democrats can pull the race card and half succeed every time.

I can't wait to see you all hauled off to FEMA camps.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a neo-con, Jroc, which is halfway to a brown shirt.

I completely disagree with you, Jake.
What King was implying was that the racist states had done exactly the same thing that Hitler did. Hitler made it legal to arrest and punish the Jews. The southern states made it legal to arrest and punish blacks for marching for civil rights.

And that Southern (and American) far right reactionary conservatism would do the same if it could to all minorities it hated.

We see reactionary conservatism today condemning women, minorities, Hispanics, gays, and so forth.

The reactionaries are the enemies of an unified country.

I used to think you where at least halfway intelligent that was a mistake you're a complete and utter clueless idiot

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fake is just an unoriginal troll. The only reason he has rep is because he smarms in the tavern.

Smiles at CrazyLady, pats her on the shoulder, gives her bread crumbs for the pigeons, steps around her and keeps on walking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

King was saying that the far right in America would do what Hitler did while hiding behind the law, also. Quite wise.

I completely disagree with you, Jake.
What King was implying was that the racist states had done exactly the same thing that Hitler did. Hitler made it legal to arrest and punish the Jews. The southern states made it legal to arrest and punish blacks for marching for civil rights.

And that Southern (and American) far right reactionary conservatism would do the same if it could to all minorities it hated.

We see reactionary conservatism today condemning women, minorities, Hispanics, gays, and so forth.

The reactionaries are the enemies of an unified country.

Jake, the Democrat Party was the Party of the KKK and held up Ike's Civil Rights Bill, which was identical to the one LBJ would pass 7 years later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservatives, like you, in both parties in the South. were segregationists, lynchers, and held up both Ike's and LBJ's programs.

You can't hide, son, from your neo-McCarthyism. You and Koshergrl and the rest are out there for all to see.

Your problem, kid.

 

[HenryBHough]

Jake, the Democrat Party was the Party of the KKK and held up Ike's Civil Rights Bill, which was identical to the one LBJ would pass 7 years later.

That sound you're hearing is Shakey Jakey changing "Ommmmmmm" to drown out the truth he doesn't want to hear.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Someone needs to open a new can of evil people that the deranged can make ridiculous comparisons to Obama,

if only to relieve the tedium.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I completely disagree with you, Jake.
What King was implying was that the racist states had done exactly the same thing that Hitler did. Hitler made it legal to arrest and punish the Jews. The southern states made it legal to arrest and punish blacks for marching for civil rights.

And that Southern (and American) far right reactionary conservatism would do the same if it could to all minorities it hated.

We see reactionary conservatism today condemning women, minorities, Hispanics, gays, and so forth.

The reactionaries are the enemies of an unified country.

Jake, the Democrat Party was the Party of the KKK and held up Ike's Civil Rights Bill, which was identical to the one LBJ would pass 7 years later.

You're referring to the party of Zell Miller, not the party of Barack Obama.