Dr Martin Luther King saved this country

[JimH52]

I cannot imagine the pain that many in the African American community suffered during the segreation days of this country, particularly in the south.

I was talking to a very good black friend over the weekend who said that when her family took long trips in those days, they had to pack all their food and be prepared to use woods or a forest for a bathroom. They were not allowed to eat at white only restaurants and they weren't allowed to use white only bathrooms. The best way to avoid confrontation was to drive straight through the south.

She is now a prominent Professor at one of our better Universities. But she remembers being treated as a second class citizen and the anguish of her parents when they had to succumb to racist policies of the day. It was very sobering to hear some of these stories.

 

[g5000]

Well, boys and girls, in this topic we have learned why the ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy.

Lots of great men and women who have achieved great things had personal flaws. Those flaws do not take anything away from their accomplishments.

The only time a personal flaw has any bearing on a person's achievements is when they contradict the achievement. For instance, if a preacher becomes famous for promoting heterosexual marriage and it turns out he was a flaming homosexual, then his personal life has some bearing on what he is known for.

If a guy leads people out of bondage, his drinking habits really have nothing do with the fact he led his people out of bondage. And pointing out his drinking habits in an attempt to distract from the great things he achieved does not really fool anyone and just makes you look like an illogical ass.

 

[California Girl]

Dr Paul supports supporting the freedom of a private business to discriminate over the freedom of blacks to have full access to any public accommodation

You can say that you and other citizens would use the free market to punish those who discriminate. 100 years of history between the civil war and the passing of the civil rights bill proves otherwise. People were comfortable with the peculiar institution of segregation. They did not want to make waves and preferred to look the other way
If you want to look at public pressure towards racism. That pressure was used against businesses that opened their facilities to blacks not the other way around

Dr Paul is horribly wrong in his views towards civil rights

It proves nothing. Attitudes change, thank (insert optional deity here). Attitudes have changed - it is meaningless, partisan excuse making to point to the historic views and pretend that is relevant today.

Those attitudes existed for 100 years until they were FORCED to change. They were FORCED to accept blacks in their schools, they were FORCED to allow blacks in their restaurants, they were FORCED to allow blacks to sit next to them on the bus

Once they did they found that the world did not come to an end, that blacks were not as evil as they feared and they rapidly accepted it

Those attitudes changed because they had no choice. It is especially relevant today because it is Martin Luther King Day

You cannot keep clinging to those attitudes as justification for anything. Those attitudes are gone.... how that happened is not relevant. What is relevant is that they are gone. Except for the few - a very small minority of diehard racists.... The only way to seek them out and rid ourselves entirely of racism is to allow people to see them for what they are. In that, I can understand Ron Paul's point.

Please don't misunderstand me... I am not sold on it.... just that I understand and lean towards supporting the concept behind it. The reason why I'm not 100% convinced is precisely for the reasons you stated (albeit as a rather emotional whine rather than a rational argument)... The very idea of someone being turned away from anywhere based on their race is abhorrent to me.

And, since this thread is about him, I'm gonna post it one more time:

I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."

Any of you assclowns on the left or assclowns on the right want to argue that he was fully supportive of your party? Anyone?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, boys and girls, in this topic we have learned why the ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy.

Lots of great men and women who have achieved great things had personal flaws. Those flaws do not take anything away from their accomplishments.

The only time a personal flaw has any bearing on a person's achievements is when they contradict the achievement. For instance, if a preacher becomes famous for promoting heterosexual marriage and it turns out he was a flaming homosexual, then his personal life has some bearing on what he is known for.

If a guy leads people out of bondage, his drinking habits really have nothing do with the fact he led his people out of bondage. And pointing out his drinking habits in an attempt to distract from the great things he achieved does not really fool anyone and just makes you look like an illogical ass.

Remind us what King achieved.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ron Paul has stated that he opposes forcing businesses to serve blacks if they don't want to. He is perfectly fine with that gas station telling a black child that she can't use the restroom

2012 Libertarian America

He's also fine with a gas station telling a white child that she can't use the restroom. You see, it's the gas stations business, not the government's.

No sir.

That's the government's business. Check your constitution.

You pays your taxes. You follows the law. You have equal opportunity to goods and services. And to vote.

Sorry.. you have equal rights to government goods and services. The Constitution defines the duties and limitations of GOVERNMENT.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."

Any of you assclowns on the left or assclowns on the right want to argue that he was fully supportive of your party? Anyone?

Please post where anyone said he was fully supportive of any party? Belonging to a party and being fully supportive aren't the same thing.
And watch who you are calling "assclown" when you move goalposts and offer bad evidence.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ron Paul has stated that he opposes forcing businesses to serve blacks if they don't want to. He is perfectly fine with that gas station telling a black child that she can't use the restroom

2012 Libertarian America

He's also fine with a gas station telling a white child that she can't use the restroom. You see, it's the gas stations business, not the government's.

How profound.....that Dr Paul is quite a guy

Ignore 100 years of injustice but hey......I would do the same thing for a white child

What you fail to see is that everyone has rights, not just a protected class.

 

[rightwinger]

It proves nothing. Attitudes change, thank (insert optional deity here). Attitudes have changed - it is meaningless, partisan excuse making to point to the historic views and pretend that is relevant today.

Those attitudes existed for 100 years until they were FORCED to change. They were FORCED to accept blacks in their schools, they were FORCED to allow blacks in their restaurants, they were FORCED to allow blacks to sit next to them on the bus

Once they did they found that the world did not come to an end, that blacks were not as evil as they feared and they rapidly accepted it

Those attitudes changed because they had no choice. It is especially relevant today because it is Martin Luther King Day

You cannot keep clinging to those attitudes as justification for anything. Those attitudes are gone.... how that happened is not relevant. What is relevant is that they are gone. Except for the few - a very small minority of diehard racists.... The only way to seek them out and rid ourselves entirely of racism is to allow people to see them for what they are. In that, I can understand Ron Paul's point.

Please don't misunderstand me... I am not sold on it.... just that I understand and lean towards supporting the concept behind it. The reason why I'm not 100% convinced is precisely for the reasons you stated (albeit as a rather emotional whine rather than a rational argument)... The very idea of someone being turned away from anywhere based on their race is abhorrent to me.

And, since this thread is about him, I'm gonna post it one more time:

I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."

Any of you assclowns on the left or assclowns on the right want to argue that he was fully supportive of your party? Anyone?

For the most part, those attitudes are gone. By 1970, most people could care less about integration. It was a done deal and people just got on with their lives

But that doesn't mean we can trivialize forced integration and it's impact. When left to their own devices, people did not integrate. The social forces that the right claim would have led to integration were instead used to enforce integration. A white who openly accepted blacks in the segregated south was quickly and sometimes violently reminded of the social mores.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right is missing the very fact that progressive left wing and right wing factions came together to end segregation. Integration would not have occurred on by itself. That took big government federal force. Those who argue those days are over and can never happen again have the right to their views (Dr. Paul et al) but absolutely no support for them.

 

[rightwinger]

The far right is missing the very fact that progressive left wing and right wing factions came together to end segregation. Integration would not have occurred on by itself. That took big government federal force. Those who argue those days are over and can never happen again have the right to their views (Dr. Paul et al) but absolutely no support for them.

If we allowed Dr Paul's philosophy of allowing the free market to correct itself we would not go back to segregation. What we would have is a new target of persecution be it gays, Muslims or the Spanish speaking.

 

[California Girl]

Those attitudes existed for 100 years until they were FORCED to change. They were FORCED to accept blacks in their schools, they were FORCED to allow blacks in their restaurants, they were FORCED to allow blacks to sit next to them on the bus

Once they did they found that the world did not come to an end, that blacks were not as evil as they feared and they rapidly accepted it

Those attitudes changed because they had no choice. It is especially relevant today because it is Martin Luther King Day

You cannot keep clinging to those attitudes as justification for anything. Those attitudes are gone.... how that happened is not relevant. What is relevant is that they are gone. Except for the few - a very small minority of diehard racists.... The only way to seek them out and rid ourselves entirely of racism is to allow people to see them for what they are. In that, I can understand Ron Paul's point.

Please don't misunderstand me... I am not sold on it.... just that I understand and lean towards supporting the concept behind it. The reason why I'm not 100% convinced is precisely for the reasons you stated (albeit as a rather emotional whine rather than a rational argument)... The very idea of someone being turned away from anywhere based on their race is abhorrent to me.

And, since this thread is about him, I'm gonna post it one more time:

I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party."

Any of you assclowns on the left or assclowns on the right want to argue that he was fully supportive of your party? Anyone?

For the most part, those attitudes are gone. By 1970, most people could care less about integration. It was a done deal and people just got on with their lives

But that doesn't mean we can trivialize forced integration and it's impact. When left to their own devices, people did not integrate. The social forces that the right claim would have led to integration were instead used to enforce integration. A white who openly accepted blacks in the segregated south was quickly and sometimes violently reminded of the social mores.

I don't trivialize. I do question whether we should retain parts of the CRA. Questioning is a good thing. Rational discussion is a good thing. There is nothing to fear from discussing - with reason and honesty - the pros and cons of the way forward. As Thomas Jefferson said "Question, with boldness, even the existence of God". Much as I dislike quoting famous people, in this instance, it is relevant. I believe, fundamentally, that we should 'question, with boldness'. It is healthy, intelligent, rational and thoughtful. We, as a nation, should be able to 'question with boldness' every act, every thought, every policy, every action of our government and ourselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right is missing the very fact that progressive left wing and right wing factions came together to end segregation. Integration would not have occurred on by itself. That took big government federal force. Those who argue those days are over and can never happen again have the right to their views (Dr. Paul et al) but absolutely no support for them.

If we allowed Dr Paul's philosophy of allowing the free market to correct itself we would not go back to segregation. What we would have is a new target of persecution be it gays, Muslims or the Spanish speaking.

I agree with that in principle. The fact is that Americans historically have used government to either persecute or forbid persecution on undesirable minorities. To ignore historical realities appears simple minded.

 

[g5000]

Well, boys and girls, in this topic we have learned why the ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy.

Lots of great men and women who have achieved great things had personal flaws. Those flaws do not take anything away from their accomplishments.

The only time a personal flaw has any bearing on a person's achievements is when they contradict the achievement. For instance, if a preacher becomes famous for promoting heterosexual marriage and it turns out he was a flaming homosexual, then his personal life has some bearing on what he is known for.

If a guy leads people out of bondage, his drinking habits really have nothing do with the fact he led his people out of bondage. And pointing out his drinking habits in an attempt to distract from the great things he achieved does not really fool anyone and just makes you look like an illogical ass.

Remind us what King achieved.

Did you sleep through that part in school?

He got his start by leading the Montgomery bus boycott, demonstrating the power of non-violent protest. A concept that took off from there to other similar actions which produced great results.

His leadership abilities, tireless work, and rhetorical prowess energized millions of people into a civil rights movement that led to the end of segration and the enforcement of voting rights for minorities.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, boys and girls, in this topic we have learned why the ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy.

Lots of great men and women who have achieved great things had personal flaws. Those flaws do not take anything away from their accomplishments.

The only time a personal flaw has any bearing on a person's achievements is when they contradict the achievement. For instance, if a preacher becomes famous for promoting heterosexual marriage and it turns out he was a flaming homosexual, then his personal life has some bearing on what he is known for.

If a guy leads people out of bondage, his drinking habits really have nothing do with the fact he led his people out of bondage. And pointing out his drinking habits in an attempt to distract from the great things he achieved does not really fool anyone and just makes you look like an illogical ass.

Remind us what King achieved.

Did you sleep through that part in school?

He got his start by leading the Montgomery bus boycott, demonstrating the power of non-violent protest. A concept that took off from there to other similar actions which produced great results.

His leadership abilities, tireless work, and rhetorical prowess energized millions of people into a civil rights movement that led to the end of segration and the enforcement of voting rights for minorities.

Ignore him...it is just Rabbi being an asshole

He will just come back with another MLK achieved nothing post

If it helps, I have a brick wall you can pound your head against. It will do just as good

 

[California Girl]

The far right is missing the very fact that progressive left wing and right wing factions came together to end segregation. Integration would not have occurred on by itself. That took big government federal force. Those who argue those days are over and can never happen again have the right to their views (Dr. Paul et al) but absolutely no support for them.

If we allowed Dr Paul's philosophy of allowing the free market to correct itself we would not go back to segregation. What we would have is a new target of persecution be it gays, Muslims or the Spanish speaking.

I agree with that in principle. The fact is that Americans historically have used government to either persecute or forbid persecution on undesirable minorities. To ignore historical realities appears simple minded.

Maybe I am naive on this topic.... but I tend to believe that most people are more educated, more accepting (note I deliberately choose 'accept' rather than 'tolerate') and more understanding of society nowadays.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we allowed Dr Paul's philosophy of allowing the free market to correct itself we would not go back to segregation. What we would have is a new target of persecution be it gays, Muslims or the Spanish speaking.

I agree with that in principle. The fact is that Americans historically have used government to either persecute or forbid persecution on undesirable minorities. To ignore historical realities appears simple minded.

Maybe I am naive on this topic.... but I tend to believe that most people are more educated, more accepting (note I deliberately choose 'accept' rather than 'tolerate') and more understanding of society nowadays.

One hopes so, but . . . The Rabbi is not alone in his nonsense. I don't think Paul is racist at all, but some of his supporters here (this is anecdotal only, I don't have universal evidence) are racist and would segregate if they could.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Martin Luther King, Jr.: How would American life be different without him? - Yahoo! News

The above links to an interesting article about MLK's impact in American life.

 

[California Girl]

I agree with that in principle. The fact is that Americans historically have used government to either persecute or forbid persecution on undesirable minorities. To ignore historical realities appears simple minded.

Maybe I am naive on this topic.... but I tend to believe that most people are more educated, more accepting (note I deliberately choose 'accept' rather than 'tolerate') and more understanding of society nowadays.

One hopes so, but . . . The Rabbi is not alone in his nonsense. I don't think Paul is racist at all, but some of his supporters here (this is anecdotal only, I don't have universal evidence) are racist and would segregate if they could.

I don't disagree with that. In the interests of balance, I have seen some remarkably racist statements from left wingers go unchallenged by their fellow 'liberals' on this board. For example, Salt Jones - I have no idea how that guy has any pos rep considering his racist views... but he does. I would question why that is. Racism is not acceptable - no matter what color one's skin happens to be.

I just think (and again, it may be a naive belief) that Americans are better than that now. Sometimes I wonder whether, if we allowed racist to show themselves, perhaps it would make us a better country - in the end. No doubt it would be hard... the downside is, naturally, that it would impact most on minorities, not me personally.... so maybe I'm wrong. I don't honestly know. I certainly don't want minorities to pay the price for my beliefs in the core goodness of Americans.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

its so funny watching this thread get trolled.

i think it's fair to say there was a lot of unrest.

but i guess people who think the civil rights act somehow infringes on our rights really aren't the proper judges of that.

Who said the Civil Rights Act infringes upon our rights?

 

[California Girl]

its so funny watching this thread get trolled.

i think it's fair to say there was a lot of unrest.

but i guess people who think the civil rights act somehow infringes on our rights really aren't the proper judges of that.

Who said the Civil Rights Act infringes upon our rights?

It does. It infringes on the right of racists to discriminate based on someone's race.