King's legacy still cause of debate

King's legacy still cause of debate

There are 1089 comments on the USA Today story from Jan 19, 2014, titled King's legacy still cause of debate. In it, USA Today reports that:

It is a large legacy that looms over the past five decades, from the prophetic "I Have a Dream" speech delivered during the March on Washington to his last campaign taking a stand for underpaid black sanitation workers in Memphis, the city where he was slain.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#733 Feb 14, 2014
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to explain any of that to me. And your explanation is flawed. In Europe the terms conservative and liberal are not interchangeable.
This confusion is a result of a semantic theft by leftists who hijacked the term liberal, turning it to mean something that barely resembles the original meaning. And so it is more true to say that Margaret Thatcher was a liberal than it is to say that you are a liberal.
Both statements are equally false. Margaret Thatcher was leader of the CONSERVATIVE Party in UK, and not a liberal unless in the sense of "classical liberalism" which is today basically the ideology of conservatism.. And I am way left of liberal.

Yes, you do need instruction even in the basics of Western politics, ideas and culture which you so uncritically esteem.

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#734 Feb 15, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an insane liar. But I think you too stupid to know you are lying. I just mention the fact in order that the public may not take your word on anything. You have no credibility.
<quoted text>
But not among "occupy" sex perverts like you...
<quoted text>
And all over Africa...except we do not "labor" them. They are too filthy. We simply lock them up and either shoot them or forget about them.
<quoted text>
Sources, please... She sure had enough traditional babies and stayed at home to raise them.
<quoted text>
Of course that is another one of your stupid lies.
And what about Eisenhower and Nixon? They had more black support than the Kennedys until JFK got King out of prison while his wife was at home pregnant. Daddy King delivered a pocket full of votes to JFK because JFK wiped the tears from Coretta Scott's eyes. And JFK was elected by a razor thin margin of victory. If JFK had not reached out to the suffering King family, every political expert agrees he would not have been elected.
Prior to that small event, Africans knew not to trust the left because they were anti-black workers. The East Saint Louis race riot is the best and clearest example. But I can cite you at least one other from North Carolina. It were the liberals who led the movement for Jim Crow disfranchisement of black voters all across this country. And they destroyed the economic infrastructure of this community from which we have never recovered. Prior to the left's attacks on our community, we had the National Negro Business League and the Tuskegee example to inspire us to solve our own economic problems. Now black businessmen are still afraid to exert themselves too much because they know the white liberals will attack black progress.
My cousin is a life long businessman in this community. I asked him why not he and I join forces and expand the business into something big. His reply was "the white folks will not allow me to". By that he meant it would cause another East Saint Louis type race riot.
Right now, we are beginning to implement the Economic Development Program that I have spent over 30 years developing. But it will not succeed unless we get political support to protect it from the KKK-type liberals. Look at what Obama did to Libya. His main target was Qaddafi's Great Manmade River. This is why we do not just distrust liberals, we actually hate the Obama/KKKlinton types. Therefore, we must build a new political party alongside our Economic Development Program. The Dummycrats have proven they will not protect our interests. Of course, Sister Savant is a traitor and a DL pervert. So she has nothing to say that interests me much.
Hahaha.... Thanks, you have posted some of the best grade A bullshit I have seen on topix in a long time, perhaps you and sir lancelot can get together and come up with even more nonsense.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#736 Feb 15, 2014
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha.... Thanks, you have posted some of the best grade A bullshit I have seen on topix in a long time, perhaps you and sir lancelot can get together and come up with even more nonsense.
yes, but abduratin or whatever doesn't even attempt to back his bullshit up with anything factual. he knows he can't so he runs like the coward he is from any real challenge...

at least sir lancelot tries...lance is the stupider of the cowards, but at least he has the balls of his convictions...abduratin knows the crap he spews i bullshit, that is hwy he runs like a dog...tail between his legs, balls cut off dog...

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#737 Feb 15, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
"This was, for most of us, our first trip to Scandinavia...We felt we had much to learn from Scandinavia's democratic socialist tradition."(AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., p. 259). While I don't have It with me as present, you can find in King's papers an address to the SCLC stating that he thought that America would also have to move toward some form of democratic socialism. In the AUTOBIOGRAPY he speaks of his "anti-capitalist sentiments" (p. 2). In a July 18, 1952 letter to Coretta, King writes "I am much more socialistic in my in my economic theory than capitalistic...[T]oday capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes." That letter appears in the King Papers, but is included on p.36 of the AUTOBIOGRAPHY which you mention but have apparently not read.
It seems you're not an "Islamic scholar," but a Muslim fundamentalist hack. You not only do not read secondary sources--which ALL scholars MUST do. You don't read primary sources either.
King doesn't bother to critique "Kennedy brand" of capitalism, nor Reagan style. King critiques the CAPITALIST system as a whole. He thought it useful in undermining feudalism centuries ago, but is now a new system of exploitation and oppression.
Anyone who studied King himself and those secondary sources by King scholars would know this.
MLK was inconsistent at best. He did say some negative things about capitalism. But those statements were not strong enough to convince me. My point is MLK managed to accommodate Kennedy brand capitalism because he spent an awful lot of time on the telephone to John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and in their offices. Interestingly enough, all three died from assassination. Do not ask me why. But lightening seldom strikes in the same place three times in a row.

My criticism is against YOU and your "occupy" scum. You want "gay marriage". MLK was not sick enough to go for that crap. You are against Pan-Africanism and African Unity. MLK was that not that big of a fool.

My main point is we must build a political structure that protects Africans from your left-liberal-labor occupy sexual perversions, etc. The first thing that caught my attention about you dogs was the way you tried to divide and conquer Sudan. You promoted sectarianism and anti-Arab racism. That was when I knew you were wrong. And I still oppose everything against Sudan that comes out of Howard U. None of you dogs are true friends of Africa. You are objectively enemies of the African Nation. And hiding behind MLK will not save you.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#738 Feb 15, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Self-respect is a much a part of Assdurratin's character as oil is a part of water. Islam forbids "back biting" he says. If so, Assdurratin is not Islamic. LOL! No one engages in more name-calling, gossip, and personal invectives in the place of arguments than does Assdurratin.
And, of course, he is philosophically illiterate if he cannot discern Nkrumah's Marxism. As for myself, philosophy of existence and existential phenomenology constitutes my basic philosophical position, if indeed I were to adopt any such label at all. Virtually every scholar who has commented on what I've written has noticed that. At most I appropriate insights from Marx where suitable. But also from Aristotle, Fanon, Nkrumah, Cabral, Cesaire, Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche, Hannah Arendt, Foucault, Sartre and even ancient Chinese and Indian thinkers where it seems fitting.
Assdurratin's contrast between alleged "Marxists" like me and "Nkrumahists" like him is a phantom founded on what Analytic philosophers call a "category mistake."
Let me try one more time to dumb thisw down to your level. Africans have our own culture and civilization. All civilization came originally from Africa. Accordingly, we do not have any need to borrow from European, espedcially not Eurocentric ideology. We can govern ourselves entirely from African principles and values. WE DO NOT NEED THE WHITE MAN AND DO NOT WANT THE WHITE MAN. Simple enough.

But You somehow has a need to claim Marxism as your deity. Cool. Marxism is not mine deity. And It was not Nkrumah's deity. At the time of the writing of Nkrumah's autobiography, he was on permission from the Catholic Church. As far as I know, Nkrumah died an active Catholic. During his 12 years in the USA, he worked hi way through college as a Presbyterian preacher. Is that a Marxist to you? Okay. Cool. But that is not Marxism to me. Nkrumah was original. His entire ideology was derived from Africanism.

Furthermore, he showed in detail how his socialism was rooted in African collectivism and communalism. That is not Marxism. Nkrumah's program was t6o prove to the world that we did not need Europe. That we can govern ourselves and manage our affairs without any help from the white man. You problem is you are an enemy agent in here to try and corrupt Nkrumahism and control and derail the African Revolution. Go "occupy" an h-house somewhere and have sex in private and not in a public park.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#739 Feb 15, 2014
This is what my good sister Savant is all about. I am against liberalism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/...

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#740 Feb 15, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you are. And the more I hear about you, the weirder you seem. If what I hear is true, it's a wonder you're not in prison.
It is a wonder you are not in the nut house. You are dam certain insane. Now, all you know how to do is smear by insinuation. You are one pathetic POS.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#741 Feb 15, 2014
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha.... Thanks, you have posted some of the best grade A bullshit I have seen on topix in a long time, perhaps you and sir lancelot can get together and come up with even more nonsense.
How many condoms did you leave in the public park? You need condoms when you are sexing the same sex in a public park. The problem is tax paying money is needed to clean up the mess after you finish.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#742 Feb 15, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
"This was, for most of us, our first trip to Scandinavia...We felt we had much to learn from Scandinavia's democratic socialist tradition."(AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., p. 259). While I don't have It with me as present, you can find in King's papers an address to the SCLC stating that he thought that America would also have to move toward some form of democratic socialism.
Let me dumb this way down for you. I do not even know where Scandinavia is and do not care, except I know it is white man's territory. I am too busy with Africa and Asia and latin America to give a damn about anything in Europe. Why don't you go to Europe and stay there? Forever? Good bye.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#743 Feb 15, 2014
For all the good that MLK did; and for all of things that I agree with on, I do not think that he offered any final solutions for Africans in the USA. Obviously our overall social and economic conditions have deteriorated since MLK. So, for any honest African intellectual we must seek and find better solutions. We cannot afford to be stuck on stupid like our good sister Savant.

To begin with, Brother Malcolm told us to study our history. Nkrumah did not tell us to worry about European history. He told us that African history would point us to African ideology. If Marxist analysis could help to understand African history, fine. But Marxism is not a requirement, it is not a prescience to African history. Simple.

Right now, the problem before us if how to defend and protect African institutions in the USA such as the African family. On thing is certain: "gay marriage" will not help the situation.

What about the one institution that has held this community together more than any other? The Black Church? Do the Marxists support the Black Church? What about the liberals? Do they support the Black Church? What about the labor movement? Do they help the Black Church? Does Clinton or Obama support the Black Church?

Obama is United Church of Christ. UCC is not Black Church in any ordinary sense of the word. They are more concerned about "gay rights" than the economic and social security of the African community: http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/issues/marriage-equal... . That is not Black Church.

I have called for the Empowerment of the Poor. By "poor" I mean those who go to church every Sunday and the Muslims. Let's us Muslims find common political grounds with Black Christians, as Nkrumah advised. I mean the Coptic Christians of Egypt as well as those of Sudan and Southern Africa. We all share a common enemy. And we share a common solution to our problems. This is the program that I am setting forth. I do not think punks like Savants can stop me.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#744 Feb 15, 2014
For those who prefer having sex in public and urinating on the sidewalk, I advise you not to join the Convention People's Party in North America. Go join the "Occupy Movement". Rule #10 o the Rules of Discipline of Nkrumahist organizations is "Do not take liberties with women:" That means that if you want a sister you must marry her first. It also means that it is unthinkable to do what "occupiers" do, namely have sex with other men.( http://libyadiary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09... )

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#745 Feb 15, 2014
Where is that snake in the grass b!tch at?

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#746 Feb 15, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, but abduratin or whatever doesn't even attempt to back his bullshit up with anything factual. he knows he can't so he runs like the coward he is from any real challenge...
at least sir lancelot tries...lance is the stupider of the cowards, but at least he has the balls of his convictions...abduratin knows the crap he spews is bullshit, that is hey he runs like a dog...tail between his legs, balls cut off dog...
Yeah, but it is rather entertaining the sh!t people come up to explain their ignorant positions.

But come on woody, tell me his post didn't make you laugh too?

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#747 Feb 15, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
How many condoms did you leave in the public park? You need condoms when you are sexing the same sex in a public park. The problem is tax paying money is needed to clean up the mess after you finish.
tsk tsk, For someone claiming to be a scholar you should know better than to use ad hominem attacks.

What will your professor think?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#748 Feb 15, 2014
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but it is rather entertaining the sh!t people come up to explain their ignorant positions.
But come on woody, tell me his post didn't make you laugh too?
oh, many of his posts make me laugh. just recently he said you cannot eat on a college campus for under $50/day!

he hasn't been anywhere near a college campus in his life!

some of his riligulous comments are the best...he proves himself wrong so often he just gave up responding to me pointing them out...

he cannot even defend his own cult he is so stupid...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#749 Feb 15, 2014
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Both statements are equally false. Margaret Thatcher was leader of the CONSERVATIVE Party in UK, and not a liberal unless in the sense of "classical liberalism" which is today basically the ideology of conservatism.. And I am way left of liberal.

Yes, you do need instruction even in the basics of Western politics, ideas and culture which you so uncritically esteem.
A book I recently read is After Liberalism by Paul Gottfried. In the book he talks about the history of liberalism and how term "liberalism" was hijacked in the U.S. by the progressives and the left. He contrasts the two. But it is not the case that classic liberalism is somehow any less "liberal" than the so-called "modern liberalism".

I said that Thatcher was a liberal, which is true. You said that was wrong, but yet strangely you say that she was a classical liberal (as if classic liberal is not really a liberal). Then, you say only in backwards USA could Thatcher be called a liberal. I said that she was considered a liberal in Europe. This is true because over there, Thatcher would be more considered a liberal, by common usage of the term, than here in the U.S.; their understanding of what liberal means is more accurate.

I myself do not claim to know everything about politics in the U.S., Europe, or other non-political topics of the West like you do. Nor have I been uncritical of Western culture. You, however, seem to be confused about the difference between what is considered "liberal" in the U.S. vs Europe, and the difference between what is considered "conservative" in the U.S. vs Europe. As I said, I'm not an expert on Western politics. And I know how you like to think of yourself as a "savant" and know-it-all, but anyone would be much better served learning from historians and political scientists like the author of the book I mentioned earlier than you.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#751 Feb 16, 2014
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but it is rather entertaining the sh!t people come up to explain their ignorant positions.
But come on woody, tell me his post didn't make you laugh too?
That perverted POS is mad 'cause I have her and most of her fellow perverts on my ignore list. I never read anything that sick b-word posts, much less respond to it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#752 Feb 16, 2014
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
That perverted POS is mad 'cause I have her and most of her fellow perverts on my ignore list. I never read anything that sick b-word posts, much less respond to it.
no, dear, you tried to tackle me and you soon found your place in teh pecking order, which is good for you to know.

all good dogs should know their place...as you do.

you and i both know why you don't even attempt to counter my factual posts...you cannot. and you are too little of a man to admit you were wrong...

you can deny what everyone can see, but you are only lying to yourself...but then beign a religious cult freak, you are good at lying to yourself.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#753 Feb 16, 2014
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
tsk tsk, For someone claiming to be a scholar you should know better than to use ad hominem attacks.
What will your professor think?
This is political debate. Nothing more. These sick perverted racist dogs want to destroy Africa and the African Nation through sectarianism and racism. My duty is to defend and protect Africa and the African Nation. They are much too dangerous to allow to have the field of debate without any response. Look at the mess they created in Sudan and Somalia.

As an Nkrumahist, my duty is to find common ground between Muslims and Christian such that we have common political grounds despite our confessional differences. That means in Sudan that we stop the Christians from fighting Muslims. It also means stopping the black racists from fighting those of Afro-Arab and Berber ancestry. In Somalia, they have not less than five Christian powers attacking and invading 100% Muslim Somalia. I am against AMISOM because I know it is
. doomed to fail. The liberal Clinton Obama gang has been attacking Somalia under various schemes for about 23 years. But instead of saying "hey enough is enough" Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima pretend everything is cool and that the liberals are somehow beneficial to African interests. Nothing could be further from the truth of reality.

The liberals from Tommy Jefferson (of Sally Hemmings notoriety) have been abusing Africans throughout history. But perverts like Sister Savant want to provide cover so that they can do more damage to our community. That b!tch is not going to get a free ride as long as I can respond in this forum. And that entire Howard U gang of scumbags and racist dogs is likewise put on notice. I am here to fight. And the fight is just now beginning.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#755 Feb 16, 2014
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>
A book I recently read is After Liberalism by Paul Gottfried. In the book he talks about the history of liberalism and how term "liberalism" was hijacked in the U.S. by the progressives and the left. He contrasts the two. But it is not the case that classic liberalism is somehow any less "liberal" than the so-called "modern liberalism".
I said that Thatcher was a liberal, which is true. You said that was wrong, but yet strangely you say that she was a classical liberal (as if classic liberal is not really a liberal).
That b-word is irrational, illogical and dishonest. Good luck in try to talk any sense to her.
Walter Henrickson wrote:
<quoted text>I myself do not claim to know everything about politics in the U.S., Europe, or other non-political topics of the West like you do. Nor have I been uncritical of Western culture. You, however, seem to be confused about the difference between what is considered "liberal" in the U.S. vs Europe, and the difference between what is considered "conservative" in the U.S. vs Europe. As I said, I'm not an expert on Western politics. And I know how you like to think of yourself as a "savant" and know-it-all, but anyone would be much better served learning from historians and political scientists like the author of the book I mentioned earlier than you.
She is dishonest. Her agenda is to distort and rewrite history. For example, she is expert in quoting people out of context to make their words seem to say the opposite of what they actually meant to say. It is psychological warfare against African Nationalism and not much more than that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cocoa Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mannequin in window on Rockledge Dr Wed Trublu 1
Watts Park the New Pickle Park Jul 23 Bernie Goetz 1
News Brevard's youngest murderer will soon be free Jul 20 Lilsbaby12 1
Review: Brevard County Bar Association Lawyer R... Jul 20 MARY MEDS 3
DO NOT rent from Troy Stephan Jul 20 MARY MEDS 3
get your herb Jul 15 karma 1
jerry lobosco Jul 14 karmasucks 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cocoa Beach Mortgages