No. Hell no.
He supported choice and family planning.
"Family Planning -- A Special And Urgent Concern," King declared, "Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her."
He supported the ruling striking down prayer in school.
"I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the efforts that have been made to nullify the decision. They have been motivated, I think, by little more than the wish to embarrass the Supreme Court."
His best friend, Bayard Rustin, was openly gay and organized this very 1963 march. Homophobia is listed among the "Triple Evils" by the King Center.
He vehemently opposed the Vietnam War.
"We were taking the young black men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem.... We have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them in the same schools"
Was Martin Luther King a conservative?
Daring Blasphemer BN-0
2010/08/28 15:48:33
|
|
|||||
|
47 votes
|
|
53% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
11% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
3% | ||
|
29 votes
|
|
33% | ||
The fact that Glenn Beck is holding a rally today on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is embarrassing enough, but while listening to his show every day on the way home from work I understand that he believes MLK's message was one of personal responsibility and conservative ideals. Right wing pundits like to preach that personal responsibility is exclusive to conservatives. The fact that the 'I Have a Dream' speech is about the responsibility of each of us to destroy racial hatred and to claim our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does not dismiss Dr. King's views on US imperialism, social justice and redistribution of wealth.
What Beck is doing with this grave stomping political stunt (I know he claims it is not political, he is a liar) and his book Common Sense is to claim the icons of the left for the right. By cherry picking the things that he can twist to agree with his ideology, he can then claim that these men were talking about conservative values. The truth, as Beck well knows, is that both of these men were fighting AGAINST the conservatives of their day. Using real stories of oppression and the crimes of the rich against the poor they proved themselves liberal and often even radically liberal.
Thomas Paine gave everything to the cause of liberty. After the American Revolution (for those of you who have learned you history from Glenn Beck University (<I am sorry if that made you throw up in your mouth a little bit), Paine went to France to participate in the French Revolution. After his 'Right of Man' was published and helped to galvanize the people just as Common Sense did here, he was thrown into jail for his refusal to support the death penalty. The American government refused to help him. He was eventually released and died a pauper, ignored by this country he was largely responsible for creating, because he was thought to be a humanist.
Martin Luther King was a community organizer and he surrounded himself with humanists, communists and social reformers. The majority of his speeches were dedicated to these ideals. The civil rights fight was the liberal fight of his time—which is why it was ignored, denigrated and demonized by the Beck's of his day. Dr, King's legacy is enormous and his successor has not emerged. That is all the more reason to be aware of what a travesty of legacy this Beck rally is.
Here is a link to the audio of the 'I have a Dream' speech. It is one of the greatest public addresses in American history.
http://ia331416.us.archive.org/3/items/MLKDream/MLKDream_64kb...
Please listen to this speech about the War to get a better idea of his overall views.
What Beck is doing with this grave stomping political stunt (I know he claims it is not political, he is a liar) and his book Common Sense is to claim the icons of the left for the right. By cherry picking the things that he can twist to agree with his ideology, he can then claim that these men were talking about conservative values. The truth, as Beck well knows, is that both of these men were fighting AGAINST the conservatives of their day. Using real stories of oppression and the crimes of the rich against the poor they proved themselves liberal and often even radically liberal.
Thomas Paine gave everything to the cause of liberty. After the American Revolution (for those of you who have learned you history from Glenn Beck University (<I am sorry if that made you throw up in your mouth a little bit), Paine went to France to participate in the French Revolution. After his 'Right of Man' was published and helped to galvanize the people just as Common Sense did here, he was thrown into jail for his refusal to support the death penalty. The American government refused to help him. He was eventually released and died a pauper, ignored by this country he was largely responsible for creating, because he was thought to be a humanist.
Martin Luther King was a community organizer and he surrounded himself with humanists, communists and social reformers. The majority of his speeches were dedicated to these ideals. The civil rights fight was the liberal fight of his time—which is why it was ignored, denigrated and demonized by the Beck's of his day. Dr, King's legacy is enormous and his successor has not emerged. That is all the more reason to be aware of what a travesty of legacy this Beck rally is.
Here is a link to the audio of the 'I have a Dream' speech. It is one of the greatest public addresses in American history.
http://ia331416.us.archive.org/3/items/MLKDream/MLKDream_64kb...
Please listen to this speech about the War to get a better idea of his overall views.
Top Opinion
-
melly~thwarting Satan since... 2010/08/28 16:41:17
You didn't answer - as usual and attacked me without any reason but by virtue of being a "liberal" - also as usual.
I'd prefer to kiss you - but you allow only punches. What choice do I have?
I say this with all due respect for your right to express your opinion. I have just expressed mine. Now I expect you to come back with the usual RW name calling. You know, Marxist, leftist, etc, etc. It has the ring of "Polly wanna cracker, skwaaaawk!"
What you don't seem to realize is we have heard every one of your platitudes many times over. But fire away, by all means. That is what this site is for.
I have much more clue as to what "conditions and causes that led to the current economic situation" than probably you. You seem confuse the Party of leftist parasites (who are a major cause) pretexts and complains with real reasons.
And how big is your ego, if you think I'm going to type here the book or essay, just in order to entertain you for a minute? We both know that you are not eager to accept anything (including pure facts) that doesn’t fit your religion. But I do work on something. Closer to finish, I’ll invite melly to edit my bombshell piece.
In short, only market can define the optimal structure of the economy. For example, at the current state of science and technology (and the level of this country development) we optimally should have had X % of industrial workers, Y% of service workers, Z% of lawyers, etc. A strong non-economic (government, NGO, bunch of lawyers ideologues/extortionists, etc.) interference would bring the skewed structure.
For example, we have lawyers so omnipresent, that they are running everything in this country, owning about 100% of one party and keeping very strong position in another. But definitely, the left stint is prevailing. But the Michigan manufacturing workers who lost their jobs due to “environmental” restrictions cannot turn into lawyers. What is the “outcome”? Make more soldiers, right? And soldiers would do what?
I have to leave to work.
Have a good day at work.
I’ll try to re-phrase for you what I’ve already told. I see the major reason in the fact that real economy has been subjected to bloodsucking. Parasitic and redistributive “businesses” (virtually all of them are the Demparty patrons and contributors) cause the cash flows to bypass the subjects of productive economy.
It is funny: every time androids face opposing opinion – they mention Beck. Do you really listen to him – or just follow the order to trash him on any occasion? I believe you are boosting his popularity this way.
I guess I almost did your work for you. It might not sound as racy as androids, but it is closer to the truth.
Have a nice weekend.
I’m working both days – but thanks for nice words anyway. Same to you.
Bill Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, to his eventual regret. When the mess was developing, Hillary was a newly elected Senator from New York with no seniority. Obama did not enter the Senate until 2005, when the crisis was in full development. Dodd was not yet a committee chairman, nor was Barney Frank, since the Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress.
There are many books that explain what happened and how. You could Google the name of John Paulson, one of the hedge fund managers who was prominent in the derivatives of bundling and betting, and who made a fortune in the process. You could also look up credit default swaps. It will be an eye opener.
Blaming Democrats, liberals or "leftists," whatever those are, does not begin to explain what really happened. The German financial system is very different from the one in the U.S., and the two cannot be compared.
Sorry you have to work both days. I spent my career as a journalist, and weekends off were very rare, so I fully understand. Take care.
The conditions that have been and will cause problems are structural – when it is easier to make fortune in re-distribution than in production. That makes economy and society fundamentally vulnerable – while what you are mentioning were just triggers that can vary.
Fanny and Freddie were not “minor players” in terms of the damage to the economy – they supplied more bad mortgages than “big players”. Bundling “toxic assets” was reaction to the opportunity the leftist lobbyists created. Money the listed suspects received is fact – you wouldn’t deny them, would you? When you are forced by government “not to discriminate” against insolvent borrowers – that means you are forced to sustain losses, without hedging. Very logically, you’d find a way (not very scrupulous) to respond. The Dems’ created opportunity and motive (to be fair - REpublicans didn't resist enough) – the crime followed.
The German financial system is different in a way it doesn’t restrict banks as severely as here. Actually, nowhere are they as restricted – and nothing too bad happens. Too many regulations to private businesses – a...
The conditions that have been and will cause problems are structural – when it is easier to make fortune in re-distribution than in production. That makes economy and society fundamentally vulnerable – while what you are mentioning were just triggers that can vary.
Fanny and Freddie were not “minor players” in terms of the damage to the economy – they supplied more bad mortgages than “big players”. Bundling “toxic assets” was reaction to the opportunity the leftist lobbyists created. Money the listed suspects received is fact – you wouldn’t deny them, would you? When you are forced by government “not to discriminate” against insolvent borrowers – that means you are forced to sustain losses, without hedging. Very logically, you’d find a way (not very scrupulous) to respond. The Dems’ created opportunity and motive (to be fair - REpublicans didn't resist enough) – the crime followed.
The German financial system is different in a way it doesn’t restrict banks as severely as here. Actually, nowhere are they as restricted – and nothing too bad happens. Too many regulations to private businesses – and too little to semi-government entities like Fanny and Freddie was a nonsense that should have bring to an explosion – and it did.
When your work is interesting and/or well paid – lack of days off is not that painful. Unfortunately, that is not the case so far …
I can't imagine where you get your information. I have never even heard anyone on Fox so far afield. They would be laughed off the air if they said the things you just did. I suspect none of your many degrees are in economics, history or political science. If they are, you have serious issues with your professors.
I think we have reached the point of silliness on this one. It is time to say goodbye.
Last attempt. If a human organism is struck by AIDS, the person would feel severely sick under the influence of any infection, even weakest one. Would you insist that the small infection is the main reason of the disease? Unhealthy structure of economy, when there is less room for productive businesses and redistributors/parasites have more and more to say is a constant threat. Internet invention helped this country in the 90th. But how often can we expect revolutionary inventions like that to happen?
I mentioned two people who (unlike most talking heads) can go deep to the roots of events. You responded with the little boring labels.
Looks like you have no idea what degree Business schools give ). It is MBA, stupid!
And the purpose of good education’s is not to wrap you into leftist perceptions and misconceptions but to equip for independent analysis and synthesis. Sorry for banality.
I have already covered the causes of the current recession, in condensed form, of course. We don't have the time or space to go into all the details, and there are many sources to assist you if you really want to learn more about it. Your sound bytes really don't do it justice.
I am quite familiar with Bill Buckley and Charles Krauthammer. They might both have been journalists at one time, but Buckley has passed on and Krauthammer is a commentator who espouses neoconservatism.
Buckley was very different from the conservatives of today. He was a true conservative in the classic sense, and he often inspired followers like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, to name only two. He would have abhorred what passes for conservative rhetoric today, the originator of which is probably Irving Kristol.
Buckley was in no way associated with neocons like Dick and Liz Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and the others. Probably the closest practitioner to Buckley today is David Frum. The GOP would do well to listen to his good sense.
And yes, economy also can be struck with immune deficit – like a human body. The major reason would be skewed structure that determines low productivity/cost ratio per capita. That is why importing “cheep” low quality labor force is very bad – and that only one example that would illustrate how detrimental the left agendas are for the economy.
We don't have the time or space to go into all the details --------- that is exactly what I told you, when you asked me to lay out my views.
and there are many sources to assist you ------ the sources are compromised, since they rarely if at all helped to avoid crises
It is funny to hear from you (given many of your pro-left assertions) grading the “conservatives” as if you were one of them. For the sake of fairness, I am also smiling when some republicans grade “true democrats”. But I asked you already and would ask again, what is the relevance of you putting republicans in different boxes? My point was: I know only two media people who are/were capable of DEEP analysis. In response you came up with your classifications. Why?
Buckley was very different from the conservatives of toda...
And yes, economy also can be struck with immune deficit – like a human body. The major reason would be skewed structure that determines low productivity/cost ratio per capita. That is why importing “cheep” low quality labor force is very bad – and that only one example that would illustrate how detrimental the left agendas are for the economy.
We don't have the time or space to go into all the details --------- that is exactly what I told you, when you asked me to lay out my views.
and there are many sources to assist you ------ the sources are compromised, since they rarely if at all helped to avoid crises
It is funny to hear from you (given many of your pro-left assertions) grading the “conservatives” as if you were one of them. For the sake of fairness, I am also smiling when some republicans grade “true democrats”. But I asked you already and would ask again, what is the relevance of you putting republicans in different boxes? My point was: I know only two media people who are/were capable of DEEP analysis. In response you came up with your classifications. Why?
Buckley was very different from the conservatives of today -------- he was very different from contemporaries as well.
He would have abhorred what passes for conservative rhetoric today ----------- might be – but that is just pure speculation. However, there is no doubt he wouldn’t like the “change” the most left President in the modern US history is pushing for.
You made me smile again: Buckley couldn’t be “associated” with Liz. She was a baby (in the political sense) when sir William died.
Take care.
It's frustrating, though.They argue policy but lack foundational knowledge. Then, they argue with the foundational knowledge. You never get to the actual subject. It's perpetual redirect because the premise is flawed from the get-go.
These types are not Republicans. These are the conservative crusaders, purgers of the impure. 21st Century Flagelists come to rid the nation of The Plague - you know, us Democrats and impure Republicans. Duh duh duhhhhh!
Tuskegee Institute records of lynchings between the years 1880 and 1951 show 3,437 African-American victims, as well as 1,293 white victims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...