Liberal Protests

[Just Jack]

Can you guarantee server availability? I've seen the Tom-Bot's source code and it's pretty intense. We need to know if the Bot is working or Jack's off all the time?

The Jack-bot would always be up and ready to go.

[B-Man]

It turns out the “March for Science” scheduled to happen later this month is nothing more than another progressive experiment in identity politics. It’s like the Women’s March, but with science!

The event is scheduled for April 22nd and there’s already a battle for dominance among leadership. Bill Nye is often held up by the left for his politics but he’s being pushed aside for a leadership role in the march because after all, he’s a white male.

 

 

 

Heat Street reports:

March for Science Organizers Don’t Want Bill Nye as Leader Because He’s a ‘White Male’

 

The March for Science is having a tough time deciding whether the march should focus on “diversity and inclusion” or health and climate policy.

 

 

(more…)

[TH3]

It turns out the “March for Science” scheduled to happen later this month is nothing more than another progressive experiment in identity politics. It’s like the Women’s March, but with science!

 

The event is scheduled for April 22nd and there’s already a battle for dominance among leadership. Bill Nye is often held up by the left for his politics but he’s being pushed aside for a leadership role in the march because after all, he’s a white male.

 

 

 

Heat Street reports:

 

 

 

 

 

March for Science Organizers Don’t Want Bill Nye as Leader Because He’s a ‘White Male’

 

The March for Science is having a tough time deciding whether the march should focus on “diversity and inclusion” or health and climate policy.

 

(more…)

Kinda like the recent health care push by the GOP was nothing more than an excercise in right wing idea bankruptcy?

[Tiberius]

White is purity

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-nivea-white-is-purity-ad-20170405-story.html

[DC Tom]

Kinda like the recent health care push by the GOP was nothing more than an excercise in right wing idea bankruptcy?

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.9.

[Tiberius]

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.9.

How is that wrong?? A tax cut disguised as "health care reform"?

 

Pretty right on. Take off the partisan blinders for awhile

[DC Tom]

How is that wrong?? A tax cut disguised as "health care reform"?

 

Pretty right on. Take off the partisan blinders for awhile

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're not trying to make a point, you're just a jerk.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.9.

[Tiberius]

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're not trying to make a point, you're just a jerk.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.9.

How is that wrong?? A tax cut disguised as "health care reform"?

Pretty right on. Take off the partisan blinders for awhile

[DC Tom]

 

How is that wrong?? A tax cut disguised as "health care reform"?

Pretty right on. Take off the partisan blinders for awhile

 

[This is an automated response.]

 

Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.9.

[B-Man]

Tom,

 

do you have a bot about posting idiotic articles that are in no way related to the thread

 

see Gator's enlightening Nivea post (#924) that has nothing to do with liberal protests..............

[Tiberius]

Tom,

 

do you have a bot about posting idiotic articles that are in no way related to the thread

 

see Gator's enlightening Nivea post (#924) that has nothing to do with liberal protests..............

This is why you read right wing propaganda, it's because you are stupid.

 

And I though the Nivea thing was funny

[B-Man]

BUT OF COURSE: Whites Banned From ‘Black Lives Matter’ Event in Philadelphia.

The new anti-racism is nearly indistinguishable from the old racism.

[reddogblitz]

BUT OF COURSE: Whites Banned From ‘Black Lives Matter’ Event in Philadelphia.

 

 

 

The new anti-racism is nearly indistinguishable from the old racism.

Martin Luther King let white people March with him.

[DC Tom]

Martin Luther King let white people March with him.

 

Martin Luther King would be derided as an Uncle Tom and a Republican these days.

[reddogblitz]

Martin Luther King would be derided as an Uncle Tom and a Republican these days.

True, that whole judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin wouldn't fly so we'll these days.

[Azalin]

True, that whole judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin wouldn't fly so we'll these days.

 

It certainly doesn't fly with Meathead. Take it from me.

[richstadiumowner]

 

Martin Luther King would be derided as an Uncle Tom and a Republican these days.

 

Martin Luther WAS a Republican when he was alive.

 

He knew the Dems own slavery the KKK and all the racist laws

 

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s."

Edited April 6, 2017 by richstadiumowner

[Doc Brown]

 

Martin Luther WAS a Republican when he was alive.

 

He knew the Dems own slavery the KKK and all the racist laws

 

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s."

 

You're right that the Dems are the origin of the KKK, but Martin Luther Jr. never had a party affiliation. The confusion came when his niece assumed he was a Republican and said so in 2008, but later retracted that in 2013 assuming he was because his father was and as you said many black people were Republicans before the mid 60's. His son and daughter said his father never chose sides and his quotes back it up. He actually pushed for democratic socialism near the end of his life.

 

Here's what he wrote in a letter in 1956

 

I am not taking any public position in this election. In private opinion I find something to be desired from both parties. The Negro has been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican Party. The Democrats have betrayed us by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the southern dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed us by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of conservative right wing northerners. This coalition of southern dixiecrats and right wing northern Republicans defeats every move toward liberal legislation in Congress. So we confront the problem of choosing the lesser of two evils. At this point I might say however, that I feel that the Negro must remain an independent voter, not becoming unduly tied to either party. He should seek to vote for the party which is more concerned with the welfare of all the people.

 

Here's what he wrote in his 1964 autobiography before the election although he never officially endorsed LBJ:

 

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

 

 

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

 

Here's what he said about JFK in same 1964 autobiography

 

I had to conclude that the then known facts about Kennedy were not adequate to make an unqualified judgment in his favor. I do feel that, as any man, he grew a great deal. After he became president I thought we really saw two Kennedy’s -a Kennedy the first two years and another Kennedy emerging in 1963. He was getting ready to throw off political considerations and see the real moral issues. Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964. But, back at that time, I concluded that there was something to be desired in both candidates.

 

Here's what he said in a 1966 speech about capitalism and socialism

 

"We are saying that something is wrong ... with capitalism.... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democrati socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God's children."

 

 

http://www.beingfactual.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-he-a-republican/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jan/25/philip-van-cleave/van-cleave-wongly-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-r/

Edited April 6, 2017 by Doc Brown

[Keukasmallies]

Kinda like the recent health care push by the GOP was nothing more than an excercise in right wing idea bankruptcy?

 

Well, since the previous administration's surgically honed attempt at health care reform is dying on the vine, someone had to give it a go, eh? Now let's counter by reporting that mega-millions more now have health care than before; then completely ignore the fact that the delivery system is broken and both health care providers and insurance companies are bailing out in droves.

 

But remember: Ours is better than yours!

[boyst]

 

You're right that the Dems are the origin of the KKK, but Martin Luther Jr. never had a party affiliation. The confusion came when his niece assumed he was a Republican and said so in 2008, but later retracted that in 2013 assuming he was because his father was and as you said many black people were Republicans before the mid 60's. His son and daughter said his father never chose sides and his quotes back it up. He actually pushed for democratic socialism near the end of his life.

 

Here's what he wrote in a letter in 1956

 

I am not taking any public position in this election. In private opinion I find something to be desired from both parties. The Negro has been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican Party. The Democrats have betrayed us by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the southern dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed us by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of conservative right wing northerners. This coalition of southern dixiecrats and right wing northern Republicans defeats every move toward liberal legislation in Congress. So we confront the problem of choosing the lesser of two evils. At this point I might say however, that I feel that the Negro must remain an independent voter, not becoming unduly tied to either party. He should seek to vote for the party which is more concerned with the welfare of all the people.

 

Here's what he wrote in his 1964 autobiography before the election although he never officially endorsed LBJ:

 

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

 

 

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

 

Here's what he said about JFK in same 1964 autobiography

 

I had to conclude that the then known facts about Kennedy were not adequate to make an unqualified judgment in his favor. I do feel that, as any man, he grew a great deal. After he became president I thought we really saw two Kennedys -a Kennedy the first two years and another Kennedy emerging in 1963. He was getting ready to throw off political considerations and see the real moral issues. Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964. But, back at that time, I concluded that there was something to be desired in both candidates.

 

Here's what he said in a 1966 speech about capitalism and socialism

 

"We are saying that something is wrong ... with capitalism.... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democrati socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God's children."

 

 

http://www.beingfactual.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-he-a-republican/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jan/25/philip-van-cleave/van-cleave-wongly-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-r/

so, MLK Jr. A strong man of god would be alright with queers, trannies, debauchery and the like that have taken over the messages of the dems? He would support open borders and allowing Hispanics to take the job of his working class following?

 

He would be a Republican today if he had to choose. But he was a smart enough man that he would never choose openly.