King's legacy still cause of debate

Jan 19, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: USA Today

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.

Comments
821 - 840 of 926 Comments Last updated 21 hrs ago

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#993
Jun 18, 2014
 
One picture is worth a thousand words. Here is MLK standing shoulder to should to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sNKRKh7Cm5c/UDJwfHz... . The two men are almost hugging each other.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#995
Jun 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah! So you are accusing MLJK of situational non-violence? Why blow me down. I never expected YOU to stoop so low. We Nkrumahists are NOT situationally non-violent. We see non-violence as an integral part of Positive Action against the enemy. But when that does not work, we will also employ violent self-defense. Who makes more sense to you? Nkrumahist Positive Action or Kingian "non-violence". I ask you 'cause you are a well-known "thinker".
No, you half-literate buffoon. I accuse King of NOTHING. King grew into his practice of the philosophy of nonvioence. He gradually came to accept nonviolence as a way of life. It didn't happen all at once. He did obtain arms, but actually got rid of them even BEFORE the Montgomery boycott came to a close. People develop and grow over time. But while King accepted nonviolence as a philosophy or way of life, he was wise enough not to insist that the ENTIRE Black community do so. He asked only that they accept nonviolence as at least a TACTIC in the context of the struggle that he was leading.. Had I been around and old enough to make decisions, I might very well have accepted the discipline of nonviolence in any demonstration led by SCLC or SNCC. Which means I would not physically fight those pigs in the middle of what is supposed to be a nonviolent demonsttation. But I migh very well blow a pig's head off if, apart from Movement activity, a racist fool ws stupid enough to attack my home. I would observe the discipline of the Movement in any Movement activity if it has accepted nonviolence as its principle of action. Either that or I would not participate in an action or demo that was supposed to be nonviolent--unlike those "Invaders" in Memphis. But the same cop whom I refused to fight in a demonstration led by King would get his head knock off if he aggressed against me outside that context of Movement activity. Probably, that's also the differenc with King. Since nonviolence gradually became a way of life with him, he would probably not retaliate even in a situation where he's coming hom from work and some stupid cracka punch him in the mouth. I'd take the stupid mofo's arm off. But I would not jeopardize the Movement by violating its discipline. That's basically all King asked of those who participated in the Movement. "This is going to be a nonviolent demonstration" I heard him say in a clip. "If you can't be nonviolent, don't get in it." Fair enough. I might be "situationally nonviolent", which is all that King asked for . But it was a way of life for King.
I keep forgetting that with Assduratin's childish mind, you have to explain almost everything in detail (and repetitively) on a first grade level. And even then he might not get it.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#996
Jun 19, 2014
 
Abdurratln wrote:
One picture is worth a thousand words. Here is MLK standing shoulder to should to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sNKRKh7Cm5c/UDJwfHz... . The two men are almost hugging each other.
You can see MLK shaking hands with Malcom X, but only a moron imagines they hadbn't any points of disagreement. People do work together for a common cause even when they do not always agree. Otherwise, NO movement at all would be possible.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#997
Jun 19, 2014
 
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> No, you half-literate buffoon. I accuse King of NOTHING. King grew into his practice of the philosophy of nonvioence. He gradually came to accept nonviolence as a way of life. It didn't happen all at once. He did obtain arms, but actually got rid of them even BEFORE the Montgomery boycott came to a close. People develop and grow over time. But while King accepted nonviolence as a philosophy or way of life, he was wise enough not to insist that the ENTIRE Black community do so. He asked only that they accept nonviolence as at least a TACTIC in the context of the struggle that he was leading.. Had I been around and old enough to make decisions, I might very well have accepted the discipline of nonviolence in any demonstration led by SCLC or SNCC. Which means I would not physically fight those pigs in the middle of what is supposed to be a nonviolent demonsttation. But I migh very well blow a pig's head off if, apart from Movement activity, a racist fool ws stupid enough to attack my home. I would observe the discipline of the Movement in any Movement activity if it has accepted nonviolence as its principle of action. Either that or I would not participate in an action or demo that was supposed to be nonviolent--unlike those "Invaders" in Memphis.
What do you man "those invaders in Memphis"? Somewhat of a riot did develop during the Sanitation workers' Strike. But the way you state it as "invaders" seems to imply that Black Power was "invaders". Because I know you have malicious ulterior motives, I do not trust your phraseology. The Black Power Movement emerged in an entirely separate march from the one involving the rioters. The Black Power March is also known in history as the March against Fear. There were no "invaders". There was simply a change in ideological inclinations. This was not only the place where the Black Panther symbol first emerged it was also the home of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. The Deacons for Defense were also involved. I hope you do not imply that the Deacons of Defense were "invaders". But knowing you, I would not be surprised if you do tell such a lie.

Savant wrote:
<quoted text> But the same cop whom I refused to fight in a demonstration led by King would get his head knock off if he aggressed against me outside that context of Movement activity. Probably, that's also the differenc with King. Since nonviolence gradually became a way of life with him, he would probably not retaliate even in a situation where he's coming hom from work and some stupid cracka punch him in the mouth. I'd take the stupid mofo's arm off. But I would not jeopardize the Movement by violating its discipline. That's basically all King asked of those who participated in the Movement. "This is going to be a nonviolent demonstration" I heard him say in a clip. "If you can't be nonviolent, don't get in it." Fair enough. I might be "situationally nonviolent", which is all that King asked for . But it was a way of life for King.
I keep forgetting that with Assduratin's childish mind, you have to explain almost everything in detail (and repetitively) on a first grade level. And even then he might not get it.
Look. idiot. The question here is the question of Positive Action.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Action ) Do you know what this is? Apparently not although I have explained it repeatedly to you. So, let me dumb it down again.

Positive Action consists of non-violent struggle in Nkrumah's work to free Ghana from imperialism. This is what led to his imprisonment as MLK explained in his" A New Nation is Born" sermon. But Nkrumah did not stop there. The Movement that Nkrumah started also included the work of Amilcar Cabral and the MPLA and FRELIMO and ZANU-PF, etc. The last ones included Armed Struggle. Do you support what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe. I doubt it. You are too much of a liar and a coward for that.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#998
Jun 19, 2014
 
Savant wrote:
<quoted text> You can see MLK shaking hands with Malcom X, but only a moron imagines they hadbn't any points of disagreement. People do work together for a common cause even when they do not always agree. Otherwise, NO movement at all would be possible.
The problem is the way you are twisting your propaganda rhetoric. You are lying when you say that MLK was opposed to such things as the war (THE VIOLENT WAR) against apartheid in South Africa. That was Positive Action as defined by Nkrumah. We also has a war in Guinea-Bissau. MLK never uttered one single word against it. There was war in Algeria. MLK never opposed it. There was war In Mozambique. MLK never opposed it. There was war in Angola. MLK never opposed it. There was war in Namibia. MLK never said one word against it. There was war in Zimbabwe. MLK never opposed it. Etc. There were Deacons of Defense in the March against Fear. MLK never spoke against it. In fact, the Deacons of Defense were not "invaders". They were invited to participate.

But the bottom line is Zimbabwe. The war is no over there. But the Struggle for Black Power continues. But the Dummyrat Party imposes sanctions to try to starve us into submission in Zimbabwe, although our cause indisputably a just cause. The reason this is so critically important is that we need to put pressure on Pervert in Chief Obama to lift the sanctions of Zimbabwe. He can do it if he wants to. Also, there are sanxctions against Somalia in an attempt to starve al-Shabab into surrounding. It ain't working. So far, 260,000 innocent women and children have been murdered by Obama. and al-Shabab is stronger than ever.( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22380352 ) That's 260,000 Africans who died in vain.

All of that. But what is going to happen sooner or later in South Africa is Zuma's ANC will fall from power. PAC and its allies will probably win the next election and form the next government. That means the policies in place in Zimbabwe will be extended into South Africa. Then what? Will Uncle Tom cowards like Obama impose sanctions of South Africa? Mind you that the apartheid regime forced compromise on Mandela. Liberalism. But when Mandela's ANC is kicked out of power, there will be no mandate for compromise and liberalism. There will be a mandate for Black Power. You claim you opposed apartheid? Well. All well and good. Do you support Black Power in Zimbabwe and South Africa? Of curse not, you lying POS coward. I know your number. But it gets even better than this.

My Convention People's Party stands a very good chance of re-taking power in Ghana under our new Chairwoman Samia Christian Yabah Nkrumah. She is a very strong Pan-Africanist in alliance with ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe and PAC in South Africa. So I have a personal stake in whether or not you and Pervert Obama remove sanctions against those of us who want Black Power. Certainly Black Power is more to your liking that than the Islamic State in Levant or al-Qaida. But you seem to be too stupid to know this.
Bill

Erin, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1000
Jun 20, 2014
 
I wonder if he used large tampons.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1002
Jun 21, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bill wrote:
I wonder if he used large tampons.
Do not allow that traitor to dominate every intelligent discussion. 99% of what he says is based on lies and most of lies are hos own lies. That is what I do not get about Howard U: how can they produce so many stupid liars? Chancellor Williams was the worse one. Now this Savant POS? Who needs it?
Kip

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1003
Jun 21, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not allow that traitor to dominate every intelligent discussion. 99% of what he says is based on lies and most of lies are hos own lies. That is what I do not get about Howard U: how can they produce so many stupid liars? Chancellor Williams was the worse one. Now this Savant POS? Who needs it?
Nutty, pan-Africanists such as yourself always accuse everyone and everything else of being a lie. No matter HOW deranged your own view of the world and history is, everything else must be a lie. You are an absolute PRIME example of nothing more than manipulations and lies yourself, but apparently remain clueless to the fact.

Since: Aug 09

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1004
Jun 21, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kip wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutty, pan-Africanists such as yourself always accuse everyone and everything else of being a lie. No matter HOW deranged your own view of the world and history is, everything else must be a lie. You are an absolute PRIME example of nothing more than manipulations and lies yourself, but apparently remain clueless to the fact.
Well, the Gay Area is definitely not a lie.

Kip

“Brian's alter ego”

Since: Feb 07

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1005
Jun 21, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, the Gay Area is definitely not a lie.
Oh yes. Of course.
We're all gay now.

What a laugh!

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1006
Jun 21, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kip wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutty, pan-Africanists such as yourself always accuse everyone and everything else of being a lie. No matter HOW deranged your own view of the world and history is, everything else must be a lie. You are an absolute PRIME example of nothing more than manipulations and lies yourself, but apparently remain clueless to the fact.
And what's worse, he's a Moslem!

Lie upon lie upon lie...

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1008
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you man "those invaders in Memphis"? Somewhat of a riot did develop during the Sanitation workers' Strike. But the way you state it as "invaders" seems to imply that Black Power was "invaders". Because I know you have malicious ulterior motives, I do not trust your phraseology. The Black Power Movement emerged in an entirely separate march from the one involving the rioters. The Black Power March is also known in history as the March against Fear. There were no "invaders". There was simply a change in ideological inclinations. This was not only the place where the Black Panther symbol first emerged it was also the home of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. The Deacons for Defense were also involved. I hope you do not imply that the Deacons of Defense were "invaders". But knowing you, I would not be surprised if you do tell such a lie.
<quoted text>
Look. idiot. The question here is the question of Positive Action.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Action ) Do you know what this is? Apparently not although I have explained it repeatedly to you. So, let me dumb it down again.
Positive Action consists of non-violent struggle in Nkrumah's work to free Ghana from imperialism. This is what led to his imprisonment as MLK explained in his" A New Nation is Born" sermon. But Nkrumah did not stop there. The Movement that Nkrumah started also included the work of Amilcar Cabral and the MPLA and FRELIMO and ZANU-PF, etc. The last ones included Armed Struggle. Do you support what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe. I doubt it. You are too much of a liar and a coward for that.
Take a look at the film: AT THE RIVER I STAND, and./or read the book entitled GOING DOWN JERICHO ROAD: THE MEMPHIS STRIKE, MARTIN LUTHER KING'S LAST CAMPAIGN by historian Michael K. Honey. There was an organization in Memphis which called itself THE INVADERS, let by Charles Cabbage, Coby Smith and others who saw themselves as Black Power advocates. Honest and attentive readers of my posts--even when they disagree--know that I don't make statements without THOUGHT and EVIDENCE. You can probably google information about the Invaders--whose choice of a name may have been influenced by a 1960s TV series called The Invaders.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1009
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is the way you are twisting your propaganda rhetoric. You are lying when you say that MLK was opposed to such things as the war (THE VIOLENT WAR) against apartheid in South Africa. That was Positive Action as defined by Nkrumah. We also has a war in Guinea-Bissau. MLK never uttered one single word against it. There was war in Algeria. MLK never opposed it. There was war In Mozambique. MLK never opposed it. There was war in Angola. MLK never opposed it. There was war in Namibia. MLK never said one word against it. There was war in Zimbabwe. MLK never opposed it. Etc. There were Deacons of Defense in the March against Fear. MLK never spoke against it. In fact, the Deacons of Defense were not "invaders". They were invited to participate.
But the bottom line is Zimbabwe. The war is no over there. But the Struggle for Black Power continues. But the Dummyrat Party imposes sanctions to try to starve us into submission in Zimbabwe, although our cause indisputably a just cause. The reason this is so critically important is that we need to put pressure on Pervert in Chief Obama to lift the sanctions of Zimbabwe. He can do it if he wants to. Also, there are sanxctions against Somalia in an attempt to starve al-Shabab into surrounding. It ain't working. So far, 260,000 innocent women and children have been murdered by Obama. and al-Shabab is stronger than ever.( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22380352 ) That's 260,000 Africans who died in vain.
All of that. But what is going to happen sooner or later in South Africa is Zuma's ANC will fall from power. PAC and its allies will probably win the next election and form the next government. That means the policies in place in Zimbabwe will be extended into South Africa. Then what? Will Uncle Tom cowards like Obama impose sanctions of South Africa? Mind you that the apartheid regime forced compromise on Mandela. Liberalism. But when Mandela's ANC is kicked out of power, there will be no mandate for compromise and liberalism. There will be a mandate for Black Power. You claim you opposed apartheid? Well. All well and good. Do you support Black Power in Zimbabwe and South Africa? Of curse not, you lying POS coward. I know your number. But it gets even better than this.
My Convention People's Party stands a very good chance of re-taking power in Ghana under our new Chairwoman Samia Christian Yabah Nkrumah. She is a very strong Pan-Africanist in alliance with ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe and PAC in South Africa. So I have a personal stake in whether or not you and Pervert Obama remove sanctions against those of us who want Black Power. Certainly Black Power is more to your liking that than the Islamic State in Levant or al-Qaida. But you seem to be too stupid to know this.
King was not about to oppose or denounce an anti-colonial movement even if he sometimes disagreed with its tactics. He had friendly correspondence with revolutionaries in Africa regardless of whether or not they were committed to nonviolence. He mentions comradely dialogue with Ben Bella, a ;leader of Algeria's armed revolution against French colonialism.(Malcolm X also met and conversed with Ben Bella). King didn't denounce Ben Bella, Nelson Mandela, Nkrumah, Fanon,. Ho, Giap or any other freedom fighter against colonialism. Colonialism and imperialism (of which American racism is a part) are evil. And King blamed the violence of colonialism and the insurgent counterviolence of anticolonial resistance for the entire nightmare of bloodshed. Still he favored the way Luthuli and Gandhi.
Similarly King never denounced Malcolm or Kwame Ture. It's never ceases to amaze me that even your simple mind cannot grasp that freedom fighters may agree on objectives with differing on methods.
'

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1010
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kip wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes. Of course.
We're all gay now.
What a laugh!
Frankly, I've come to believe that PunkAssdurratin is a CLOSET queen, and it's his obsessive homophobia which arouses my suspicion. I've read (and some psychologists argue) the OBSESSIVE homophobia is a frequently reliable indicator of clandestine, repressed homosexuality of the homophobe.

If he wanted to oppose what you had to say why couldn't he offer a counterargument rather than making stupid imputations about your alleged gayness?. I've seen him do his numerous in himself.times. I think he's projecting onto you and others tendencies he fears in himself. In this regard he also reminds one of that racist freak OhReally.

Moreover, even if his adversaries really were gay that wouldn't disprove a word of what they say. And Assdurraton's playing of the homophobe card amounts to little more than a cheap Argumentum ad Hominem--a common tactic of the inferior mind.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1011
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. King supported the struggles for liberation in Africa, etc.
He said the following words:
"...These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the world are rising up as never before.…We in the West must support these revolutions..." (King speech,“Beyond Vietnam,” 4/4/67
King stated a number of times in April 1967 that although he as a pacifist, if he had been called to military service against Hitler that:
“I believe I would have probably temporarily sacrificed my pacifism because Hitler was such an evil force in history.” He added,“I would willingly have fought against the Nazi menace of the 1940s.”(King speech,“Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam," 4/30/67; and Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 4/12/67, p. B1).
Dr. King wrote these words on nonviolence:
"...I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration..." (Where Do We Go, p. 27).
You hit the nail on the head. It's not rocket science. A simple matter which seems totally incomprehensible to Assdurratin.
Two White Crows

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1012
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Savant wrote:
<quoted text> Frankly, I've come to believe that PunkAssdurratin is a CLOSET queen, and it's his obsessive homophobia which arouses my suspicion. I've read (and some psychologists argue) the OBSESSIVE homophobia is a frequently reliable indicator of clandestine, repressed homosexuality of the homophobe.
If he wanted to oppose what you had to say why couldn't he offer a counterargument rather than making stupid imputations about your alleged gayness?. I've seen him do his numerous in himself.times. I think he's projecting onto you and others tendencies he fears in himself. In this regard he also reminds one of that racist freak OhReally.
Moreover, even if his adversaries really were gay that wouldn't disprove a word of what they say. And Assdurraton's playing of the homophobe card amounts to little more than a cheap Argumentum ad Hominem--a common tactic of the inferior mind.
Dayummm still at it i seee...nothing ever changes with you savant..no one gives a shyyt about progressives, gays or the presumed notion of the negro intellect that is if there is any throughout the world...

me personnally, ive never liked gays or progressives or your types either given that they have never or will never give anything positive to the world..

and quit trying to influence all the young minds of the world with your progressive destructive idiocy...

ive always owned yo black arse ever since youve visited this place and you know it too.

now shut up for awhile

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1013
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
King was not about to oppose or denounce an anti-colonial movement even if he sometimes disagreed with its tactics. He had friendly correspondence with revolutionaries in Africa regardless of whether or not they were committed to nonviolence. He mentions comradely dialogue with Ben Bella, a ;leader of Algeria's armed revolution against French colonialism.(Malcolm X also met and conversed with Ben Bella). King didn't denounce Ben Bella, Nelson Mandela, Nkrumah, Fanon,. Ho, Giap or any other freedom fighter against colonialism. Colonialism and imperialism (of which American racism is a part) are evil. And King blamed the violence of colonialism and the insurgent counterviolence of anticolonial resistance for the entire nightmare of bloodshed. Still he favored the way Luthuli and Gandhi.
Similarly King never denounced Malcolm or Kwame Ture. It's never ceases to amaze me that even your simple mind cannot grasp that freedom fighters may agree on objectives with differing on methods.
'
I have always considered the influence of Malcolm and of Dr. King to have been akin to two of the prongs of a legal argument, as lawyers say.

In other words, I don't even worry about their differences. Keep your eyes on the prize.

All approaches are useful. Some would argue that Malcolm, Stokely, etc., scared white people into agreeing with King. Or simply that, in the light of the moral lessons preached by King, Malcolm's searing rhetoric maybe was understandable. This is from the white perspective.

Likewise, each had a useful role to play in the black community,

It was the same with the freedom fighters of different ethnic groups and for different causes. Each had their own priorities, spoke and when possible acted in solidarity with other groups or leaders, but most effectively continued with their own approach, their own prong.

So some say,“Why weren't the blacks marching with the UFW?” or,“Where were the Mexicans in the Civil Rights struggle?” In fact both were expressing solidarity. This was openly acknowledged by King and Chávez. Every leader, and every political or ethnic group, has its role and its mission.

Abdul trying to force King into conformity with Nkumah... well, he's a cultist. I don't think Nkrumah would enjoy what his professed followers preach, any more than Jesus would like what goes on in some churches.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1014
Jun 22, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Two White Crows wrote:
<quoted text>
Dayummm still at it i seee...nothing ever changes with you savant..no one gives a shyyt about progressives, gays or the presumed notion of the negro intellect that is if there is any throughout the world...
me personnally, ive never liked gays or progressives or your types either given that they have never or will never give anything positive to the world..
and quit trying to influence all the young minds of the world with your progressive destructive idiocy...
ive always owned yo black arse ever since youve visited this place and you know it too.
now shut up for awhile
No, that conservative crap doesn't just lie there. I'll need to shovel some sawdust on it.

What are now called “progressives” are responsible for most of the social advances of the past 5000 years. I can go back and cite Roman abolitionists who had slavery outlawed on the Roman Empire in 200ce, suffragists who got women the vote, Natives fighting for rights, activists now trying to finish the job of ending the disparities enforced against African-Americans for generations, and why should not gay people have basic rights and be left alone. It's called freedom. It's the “liberals” creating it. Who wrote your founding documents? Liberals Madison and Jefferson.

Without us, you'd still be a serf.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1015
Jun 23, 2014
 
Two White Crows wrote:
<quoted text>
Dayummm still at it i seee...nothing ever changes with you savant..no one gives a shyyt about progressives, gays or the presumed notion of the negro intellect that is if there is any throughout the world...
me personnally, ive never liked gays or progressives or your types either given that they have never or will never give anything positive to the world..
and quit trying to influence all the young minds of the world with your progressive destructive idiocy...
ive always owned yo black arse ever since youve visited this place and you know it too.
now shut up for awhile
If no one gave a shit about progressives then shythead reactionaries like Too Jive Crows wouldn't be posting angry rants against progressives. Reactionaries cared enough about progressives to put water hoses and dogs on them in Birmingham, and to kill Schwerner, Goodman and Cheney. They cared enough about them to kill Martin Luther King and Fred Hampton. Reactionaries cared so much about progressives that BPP leader Marshall Eddy Conway is just only got out of prison this past March from being railroaded in 1970. And you reactionaries care about progressives and revolutionaries in Topix so much that you can't stop posting slanderous messages to or about me in AA Forum.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1016
Jun 23, 2014
 
Two White Crows wrote:
<quoted text>
Dayummm still at it i seee...nothing ever changes with you savant..no one gives a shyyt about progressives, gays or the presumed notion of the negro intellect that is if there is any throughout the world...
me personnally, ive never liked gays or progressives or your types either given that they have never or will never give anything positive to the world..
and quit trying to influence all the young minds of the world with your progressive destructive idiocy...
ive always owned yo black arse ever since youve visited this place and you know it too.
now shut up for awhile
By the way, what has all this talk about gays indulged in by Brian, Too Jive Crows and PunkAssdurratin got to do with the legacy of Dr. King. Even Assdurratin acknowledges that this was not an issue in King's time, and certainly not for King even though Bayard Rustin was a long time co-worker in the Cause.
So, why does these three weirdos keep stressing over gay issues? It's not the topic of this thread. I certainly haven't focused on it, And Kip--a married brother(albeit to a white lady)--wasn't speaking of the gay issue when Assdurratin called him gay. So why do they keep on trying to use it as some kind of stick to beat their opponents with?
Maybe all three of those reactionaries are really closet queens reacting to something inside themselves.
Oh, one more thing Missy Too Jive Crows. If you looking to own some "black arse", maybe you better talk to your fellow reactionary and closet freak PunkAssdurratin.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••