Booster4324 Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I don't live in 'Bama so I don't care what he said. I am more worried by Chuckies comments. http://online.wsj.com/article/APc348686b7cc849ed8c9d04b29af85273.html So do you have a history of mental problems or are you a serious drug user?
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Yep. He had some large flaws. But I don't know about "motivat[ing] the opponents of equality" as much as the supporters of civil rights. Bigots would hate whoever was among the leadership. Despite the nonviolence message, in many cities a few days or weeks after MLK left there were riots/unrest. I don't blame him personally for this, nor to a large degree,the rioters.If the political system that claimed to be democratic denied me the right to vote and other freedoms, I'd pick up a GD flamethrower! So who was being denied the right to vote in 1968? The right to vote act was passed in 1965. Rioters could care less about voting, it's about destruction and a free TV.
Peace Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 So who was being denied the right to vote in 1968? The right to vote act was passed in 1965. Rioters could care less about voting, it's about destruction and a free TV. The protests were about segregation, prejudice, and hatred. The system was still very much broken and people were angry. The riots could share blame on both sides. You had overzealous racist police and unruly mob mentality. Back to jboys absurd point that MLK was Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton for a moment, this continues to be insane. Philandering and personal flaws didn't make MLK into a race-baiting, riot-inciting, extortionist like those guys. King was a leader with a message of peace. HE was unafraid to lead peaceful protests against a society dead-set against inclusion of black people in its culture. He went to jail for that. And he he engaged in dialog with both black and white leaders in a respectful and powerful way. Certainly his assassination elevated him to martyr but even during his life, his shadow was long. Jesse Jackson had a moment where people took him seriously and then he weakened to personal ambition. Al Shaprton has just always been a huckster.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 The protests were about segregation, prejudice, and hatred. The system was still very much broken and people were angry. The riots could share blame on both sides. You had overzealous racist police and unruly mob mentality. The "protests" [riots] where about segregation? Where was their segregation in 1968? The riots where mostly in the Northeast and California anyway with no history of segregation. Hatred? yeah that will bring on the love-bust a window, steal a TV and set fire to the building.
Chef Jim Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) The "protests" [riots] where about segregation? Where was their segregation in 1968? The riots where mostly in the Northeast and California anyway with no history of segregation. Hatred? yeah that will bring on the love-bust a window, steal a TV and set fire to the building. This thread's all about the music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh5ogOH82Aw Edited January 20, 2011 by Chef Jim
Peace Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 The "protests" [riots] where about segregation? Where was their segregation in 1968? The riots where mostly in the Northeast and California anyway with no history of segregation. Hatred? yeah that will bring on the love-bust a window, steal a TV and set fire to the building. So wait, you're picking 1968, the year that King was assassinated, and pegging that single year as the time when there was no segregation and no one had a reason to riot? 1968 generally marks the end of the civil right movement's epoch but there was still a lot of anger, resentment, and segregation (if not in the form of school busing, than its many other forms), wouldn't you agree? When King was assassinated, it spurred a lot of anger. That anger poured into destructive riots. I believe you think I'm defending those riots. I'm not. But I also think you're too quick to discount the rioter's real and justified anger. Some combination of that real and justifiable anger mixed with a thuggish and misguided mentality to start the riots. But one of the spices in that pot was a racist power base of whites. The Rodney King riots were a similar powder keg explosion. White cops beat a black guy senseless in an area where there was a lot of resentment towards police already. That served to ignite a festering anger and a bunch of bad people rioted in a wholly unproductive way.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 "First spot we hit was the liquor store, I finely got all that alcohol I can't afford" Perfect.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 So wait, you're picking 1968, the year that King was assassinated, and pegging that single year as the time when there was no segregation and no one had a reason to riot? 1968 generally marks the end of the civil right movement's epoch but there was still a lot of anger, resentment, and segregation (if not in the form of school busing, than its many other forms), wouldn't you agree? When King was assassinated, it spurred a lot of anger. That anger poured into destructive riots. I believe you think I'm defending those riots. I'm not. But I also think you're too quick to discount the rioter's real and justified anger. Some combination of that real and justifiable anger mixed with a thuggish and misguided mentality to start the riots. But one of the spices in that pot was a racist power base of whites. The Rodney King riots were a similar powder keg explosion. White cops beat a black guy senseless in an area where there was a lot of resentment towards police already. That served to ignite a festering anger and a bunch of bad people rioted in a wholly unproductive way. Read the whole tread. I did not "pick" 1968, uconn did, and he specificly blamed the riots[looting to me] on being denied the right to vote
Gary M Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 So do you have a history of mental problems or are you a serious drug user? The problem in Arizona was the guy was never taken seriously, and may have been let loose because his mom worked for the county. Anything Chuckie proposes will make it harder for every one to get a gun.
Rob's House Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 So wait, you're picking 1968, the year that King was assassinated, and pegging that single year as the time when there was no segregation and no one had a reason to riot? 1968 generally marks the end of the civil right movement's epoch but there was still a lot of anger, resentment, and segregation (if not in the form of school busing, than its many other forms), wouldn't you agree? When King was assassinated, it spurred a lot of anger. That anger poured into destructive riots. I believe you think I'm defending those riots. I'm not. But I also think you're too quick to discount the rioter's real and justified anger. Some combination of that real and justifiable anger mixed with a thuggish and misguided mentality to start the riots. But one of the spices in that pot was a racist power base of whites. The Rodney King riots were a similar powder keg explosion. White cops beat a black guy senseless in an area where there was a lot of resentment towards police already. That served to ignite a festering anger and a bunch of bad people rioted in a wholly unproductive way. Busing was a very destructive measure that was intended to combat segregation. Many cities like Richmond have never recovered from the damage that was done as a result.
Gene Frenkle Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Anything Chuckie proposes will make it harder for every one to get a gun. That would be terrible! I mean guns should be easy to get, right?
UConn James Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Read the whole tread. I did not "pick" 1968, uconn did, and he specificly blamed the riots[looting to me] on being denied the right to vote I did? Hmm.... Would you care to highlight where I wrote that? You're aware that riots/unrest (and to clarify, "unrest" is a broad distinction) occurred before 1968, right? You mistake yourself that I'm defending that rioting, or the LA riots. Note that I confined my remarks to while MLK was alive, not what happened after he was killed.
Peace Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Busing was a very destructive measure that was intended to combat segregation. Many cities like Richmond have never recovered from the damage that was done as a result. Yes, my brain was ahead of itself. School busing was one of the forced solutions to segregation. It was a nightmare solution to a nightmare problem. Forcing desegregation was never going to be smooth and the first bunch of kids to do it were bound to have a tough time.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) You can't really expect an honest appraisal of the man, any more than one can expect an honest appraisal of George Washington. What we revere is the myth and simplification / five-second soundbyte of some of his public words and deeds, not who he really was. By necessity, that gets lost when a mythical/archetypal figure is created. Yep. He had some large flaws. But I don't know about "motivat[ing] the opponents of equality" as much as the supporters of civil rights. Bigots would hate whoever was among the leadership. Despite the nonviolence message, in many cities a few days or weeks after MLK left [which would be 1968] there were riots/unrest. I don't blame him personally for this, nor to a large degree, the rioters. If the political system that claimed to be democratic denied me the right to vote and other freedoms, I'd pick up a GD flamethrower!Back to the topic, tho, this governor is exactly the type of individual who creates a dangerous sidetrack for the Republicans. To broaden their base, they need to stop being the party of the Crazy Baptist Minister and focus on the economy/jobs, defense/national security, cutting spending and taxes, and balancing the budget. Whenever they've gone off their core and gotten sidetracked into religious and social issues, they've lost at the voting booth. People want good governance --- not good religio-moralizers. I did? Hmm.... Would you care to highlight where I wrote that? You're aware that riots/unrest (and to clarify, "unrest" is a broad distinction) occurred before 1968, right? You mistake yourself that I'm defending that rioting, or the LA riots. Note that I confined my remarks to while MLK was alive, not what happened after he was killed. I assumed by "left" you meant killed. Not just went elsewhere. Edited January 20, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage
Gary M Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 That would be terrible! I mean guns should be easy to get, right? Yes they should. Are you afraid of guns? A New York state pistol permit is the hardest to get,no need for huckie to make it harder. We need to put nuts in the nut house and criminals behind bars.
Peace Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I assumed by "left" you meant killed. Not just went elsewhere. That's a far cry from saying that in 1968, blacks didn't have the right to vote. He's just saying that there was a lot of anger over being denied rights, including that one.
UConn James Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Now you're bending over backwards to mistake my meaning. I didn't mean "after MLK left" in the spiritual / when he died sense. That would be obvious to most people who can read without putting words into other peoples' mouths. I mean, after he left (and in some cases, while he was still in town) Albany, Birmingham, Montgomery to Selma.... This was at a time when the de facto Jim Crow practices were still going on in the early to mid 60s. I don't blame them for causing unrest, disobeying police and crowding the jails. They were fighting against bigoted unfair laws with a lot less verve than I would. The riots near and after he was killed stemmed more from economics/poverty and Vietnam than the overarching civil rights era. And anyway, this is the typical PPP thread where it starts talking about one thing and then drifts. As I've written before here, Alan Alda's Republican Senator Vinick character on "The West Wing" wrapped up my general thoughts on religion's place in governing: And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you but a lot of them will. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So, every day until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question anyone has on government, But if you have a question on religion, please... go to church. Now, this wasn't a situation where the governor was tip-toeing about a religious issue to gain votes. He was speaking out of ranks and from the heart, which is a very good strategy if a person's goal by the end of the speech is to end up putting their foot in their mouth. But I guess this governor figures it'll work for him. And it being Alabama where they love their preacher-politicians, it probably will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulk3hDwxnmg Edited January 20, 2011 by UConn James
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Now you're bending over backwards to mistake my meaning. I didn't mean "after MLK left" in the spiritual / when he died sense. Then make that clear. It could be "left the world" or "left town" depending on context and the only referance you provided was "there where riots".
Rob's House Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Yes, my brain was ahead of itself. School busing was one of the forced solutions to segregation. It was a nightmare solution to a nightmare problem. Forcing desegregation was never going to be smooth and the first bunch of kids to do it were bound to have a tough time. Not only that, it had unintended consequences. Eventually white people with money moved out of the city because they weren't working and earning all this money to send their kids to a school where they'd be under constant assault so they moved out to the county. Then the black people with money moved out for the same reason, and the only people left were poor people. The result was a city with a murder rate in the top 10 in the nation per capita for decades to come. Edited January 20, 2011 by Rob's House
Peace Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Not only that, it had unintended consequences. Eventually white people with money moved out of the city because they weren't working and earning all this money to send their kids to a school where they'd be under constant assault so they moved out to the county. Then the black people with money moved out for the same reason, and the only people left were poor people. The result was a city with a murder rate in the top 10 in the nation per capita for decades to come. I don't know that there was a better way. Artificially keeping people down and then removing the barrier was never going to be easy. And it's still not. I am anti-affirmative action but setting African Americans so far back from the starting line will take forever to cure, if the cure ever comes.
Recommended Posts