• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

why do you think MLK was killed ?

MLK was killed because ....


  • Total voters
    41
Well it turns out I know less about him than I thought I did. I suppose in this case we have a few things to disagree about. Based on what YOU understand (in an effort to not have to research his life's work) how far did MLK think these reparations should go, and for how long? We have affirmative action in the workplace and in schools, we have a welfare system that favors minorities, we even have a Congressional Black Caucus. So how far (in MLK's estimation) far enough? And what kind of effort on the part of the black community is acceptable? The I Have a Dream speech clearly stated that we (they? All of us?) should do the best we can do at whatever station of life we achieved. Would you consider that a prerequisite?

I would suggest that programs designed to enhance personal ambition would require ambition to begin with. Not to say there is none, but how much is enough to "deserve" for lack of a better word, a hand up?

MLK believed, as many others on the left do today, that only equality of outcome indicates that "true" equality of opportunity exists. MLK's goal (measure of progress?) was stated as - if 30% of the area population is black then 30% of all jobs, houses, businesses and etc. in the area would be held by blacks.
 
MLK believed, as many others on the left do today, that only equality of outcome indicates that "true" equality of opportunity exists. MLK's goal (measure of progress?) was stated as - if 30% of the area population is black then 30% of all jobs, houses, businesses and etc. in the area would be held by blacks.

Even if they don't show up to work? Because that would suggest that if they did not the fair thing to do would be to fire people of other ethnicities until the balance is made. I'm not suggesting you could speak to his intentions, I'm suggesting that a man who was obviously intelligent (MLK) would not want equality at the detriment of the community at large.
 
MLK believed, as many others on the left do today, that only equality of outcome indicates that "true" equality of opportunity exists. MLK's goal (measure of progress?) was stated as - if 30% of the area population is black then 30% of all jobs, houses, businesses and etc. in the area would be held by blacks.

and there-in lies the rub. "they" don't really want equal opportunity. what they want is equal outcome, regardless of effort.
 
Nor am I. I just reject the attempt to re-write history. Perhaps it would be wise for some on the left to avoid doing so, especially when their own evidence condemns them.

Thanks for the effort.
You are in denial that "a large portion" of the US population was not in favor of equality.

That has been made evidently clear by my effort.
 
MLK believed, as many others on the left do today, that only equality of outcome indicates that "true" equality of opportunity exists. MLK's goal (measure of progress?) was stated as - if 30% of the area population is black then 30% of all jobs, houses, businesses and etc. in the area would be held by blacks.
prove it.
 
The bolded is the myth of MLK, not the reality. MLK spoke often of reparations, affirmative action and social justice (socialism?). Eveyone quotes the "I have a dream" speech and ignores the "Social Justice and the New Age" speech given 4 months after that.

Some not so often repeated MLK quotes for you to ponder:







Myths of Martin Luther King –



The Forgotten Teachings of Martin Luther King - by Paul Rockwell / Human & Civil Rights /In Motion Magazine







Martin Luther King, Jr. - Wikiquote.

MLK, who I greatly admire, did not stand for everything I would have stood for but its not probable you're going to agree with everything someone you admire advanced. I can't say enough of my appreciation for MLK for doing more to make America a place where blacks have unlimited potential to pursue their dreams. Blacks like me get to experience the American dream because of his leadership and sacrifice before I was even born. At the same time I'm not on board with the anti-poverty programs he also help champion. I agree poverty was and continue to be a serious problem and blacks were disproportionately affected due to centuries of discrimination but incentivizing the break up of black families by making "No Dad Allowed In the Home" a condition of eligibility for children to get something to eat was and continues to be one of the most destructive policies the government has ever advanced. What we should have incentivized was hard work, education, vocational training, entrepreneurship, responsibility and good citizenship.
 
and there-in lies the rub. "they" don't really want equal opportunity. what they want is equal outcome, regardless of effort.

That is why I wonder about the details of his (MLK) position. A clearly intelligent man, I doubt that he would prefer equal representation in the workplace without equal effort. It seems to me he would expect all things to be equal if equal effort were exerted. He was speaking against discrimination, not position without effort. I also think he was talking to a community who WANTED to be equal, who understood and respected the context of his Dream speech, not those who expend little or no effort and expect a handout. He encouraged his audience to be the best they could be at whatever they did, not to sit at home, abandon their children and expect a check.
 
MLK, who I greatly admire, did not stand for everything I would have stood for but its not probable you're going to agree with everything someone you admire advanced. I can't say enough of my appreciation for MLK for doing more to make America a place where blacks have unlimited potential to pursue their dreams. Blacks like me get to experience the American dream because of his leadership and sacrifice before I was even born. At the same time I'm not on board with the anti-poverty programs he also help champion. I agree poverty was and continue to be a serious problem and blacks were disproportionately affected due to centuries of discrimination but incentivizing the break up of black families by making "No Dad Allowed In the Home" a condition of eligibility for children to get something to eat was and continues to be one of the most destructive policies the government has ever advanced. What we should have incentivized was hard work, education, vocational training, entrepreneurship, responsibility and good citizenship.

Just out of curiousity Smeagol, what is your current position in life?
 
That is why I wonder about the details of his (MLK) position. A clearly intelligent man, I doubt that he would prefer equal representation in the workplace without equal effort. It seems to me he would expect all things to be equal if equal effort were exerted. He was speaking against discrimination, not position without effort. I also think he was talking to a community who WANTED to be equal, who understood and respected the context of his Dream speech, not those who expend little or no effort and expect a handout. He encouraged his audience to be the best they could be at whatever they did, not to sit at home, abandon their children and expect a check.

all I can go on is what he said. and what he said was if a community was 30% black, then 30% of all jobs of all levels should be filled by blacks.
 
Yes, actually. You are still denying it.

Yes, that you are in denial.


Why are you scratching at your wounds?

I think you've proven enough already.

Do you have anything of substance to comment on regarding the topic of the thread?
 
MLK, who I greatly admire, did not stand for everything I would have stood for but its not probable you're going to agree with everything someone you admire advanced. I can't say enough of my appreciation for MLK for doing more to make America a place where blacks have unlimited potential to pursue their dreams. Blacks like me get to experience the American dream because of his leadership and sacrifice before I was even born. At the same time I'm not on board with the anti-poverty programs he also help champion. I agree poverty was and continue to be a serious problem and blacks were disproportionately affected due to centuries of discrimination but incentivizing the break up of black families by making "No Dad Allowed In the Home" a condition of eligibility for children to get something to eat was and continues to be one of the most destructive policies the government has ever advanced. What we should have incentivized was hard work, education, vocational training, entrepreneurship, responsibility and good citizenship.

I agree that most current poverty programs will ensure only that folks are more comfortable poverty by simply rewarding failure. The notion that it somehow helps children to support morons producing them in order to "qualify" for gov't assistance makes no sense. The role of the urban male, as provider, has been replaced with General Welfare ruining the family/community structure in the process. Having no real place (role?) in the traditional family, these males then form gangs to earn respect and income serving only as breeding stock for the welfare queens, supported by the state, between their brief periods of incarceration. Oddly this behavior seems to exist mainly in urban/suburban areas, out here in the sticks (rural America) the ability to form gangs is limitted and men (even the young ones) are still expected to behave and work.
 
Why are you scratching at your wounds?

I think you've proven enough already.

Do you have anything of substance to comment on regarding the topic of the thread?
I am free to pick what I want to respond to, if I see a poster trying to re-write history by claiming that there were not large portions of the US population against equal rights for blacks, then I will call them on it.

I can understand why you need to change the topic.
 
I am free to pick what I want to respond to, if I see a poster trying to re-write history by claiming that there were not large portions of the US population against equal rights for blacks, then I will call them on it.

I can understand why you need to change the topic.


What you wrote can't possibly be true. You haven't written a single word taking yourself to task.

The irrefutable absolute truth, is that only a small percentage of whites living in the United States were against equality with Blacks.

You have proven that to be true with the data you provided.

Again, thanks for the effort.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise only serves to sever oneself from reality that much further, and further establish a bias that is usually labeled quite harshly.
 
In the final analysis, dude smelled of eggs and milk, so **** him.
 
What you wrote can't possibly be true. You haven't written a single word taking yourself to task.
Why would I take myself to task, I am not the one denying the level of racism existing in the US in the 1960's.

The irrefutable absolute truth, is that only a small percentage of whites living in the United States were against equality with Blacks.
Wash rinse repeat.
Gallup 1972.JPG


Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment ... - Paul Burstein - Google Books

Original Gallup questionnaire from 1963:
The Gallup Poll #674 (AIPO0674) - Questionnaire from June 1963

California results:
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/pubs/CalPolls/432.pdf

Even Oscar was able to recognize that I disproved your claim:
all you showed that was a "large portion" of the people who responded to the poll did not support equal rights back in the 60s

The question is.....why can't you?
 
Why would I take myself to task, I am not the one denying the level of racism existing in the US in the 1960's.

Wash rinse repeat.

Even Oscar was able to recognize that I disproved your claim:


The question is.....why can't you?


I'm afraid I can't help you push your narrative. I'll let you do that all yourself.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Sorry, but you've landed woefully short of the target.

As usual.

:sinking:
 
It was, and still is, and will always be a cover up. Those that know the truth, have gone to their graves with the truth. My opinion!
 
I agree that most current poverty programs will ensure only that folks are more comfortable poverty by simply rewarding failure. The notion that it somehow helps children to support morons producing them in order to "qualify" for gov't assistance makes no sense. The role of the urban male, as provider, has been replaced with General Welfare ruining the family/community structure in the process. Having no real place (role?) in the traditional family, these males then form gangs to earn respect and income serving only as breeding stock for the welfare queens, supported by the state, between their brief periods of incarceration. Oddly this behavior seems to exist mainly in urban/suburban areas, out here in the sticks (rural America) the ability to form gangs is limitted and men (even the young ones) are still expected to behave and work.

I agree but I won't vilify the victims by insinuating they are the ones who brought this on themselves. The facts are in the 1960s and 70s there were real disadvantages to being a minority and faced with being derived of adequate educational opportunities, career experience from being allowed to move up te ranks, etc., I can understand the appeal the welfare programs could have had. The problems more than anything else are the conditions they required that in effect changed the culture of minority families by emasculating and driving fathers out of the family to where now absentee fathers is normal. Secondly, there seems to have been no comprehensive plan to get disadvantaged Americans caught up economically to where they would eventually graduate out but it seems the whole idea was to create a permanantly dependent class. So drive fathers out of the family and get people on welfare for their whole lives and then pass it down to subsequent generations.

Welfare needs to be a temporary safety net or if conditions exists where the circumstances that led to poverty in some cases are themselves permanant then a comprehensive approach needs to be applied that includes education, vocational training, citenzenship, household budgeting, basic home maintance, auto care, child rearing and yes promotes a 2 parent commitment for life as the ideal, nutrition, etc. I'm thinking 4 to 5 years and every welfare recipient should be graduated out of dependency.
 
Just out of curiousity Smeagol, what is your current position in life?

Not sure if I understand the question.

I make less that I'd like to make. :lol: I live in a nicer home than what's average from what they told me at closing. I have a 24/7 job; even if I'm not at work I'm usually tied to the place via laptop, iPad or iPhone usually if its after hours to deal with problems.
 
I agree but I won't vilify the victims by insinuating they are the ones who brought this on themselves. The facts are in the 1960s and 70s there were real disadvantages to being a minority and faced with being derived of adequate educational opportunities, career experience from being allowed to move up te ranks, etc., I can understand the appeal the welfare programs could have had. The problems more than anything else are the conditions they required that in effect changed the culture of minority families by emasculating and driving fathers out of the family to where now absentee fathers is normal. Secondly, there seems to have been no comprehensive plan to get disadvantaged Americans caught up economically to where they would eventually graduate out but it seems the whole idea was to create a permanantly dependent class. So drive fathers out of the family and get people on welfare for their whole lives and then pass it down to subsequent generations.

Welfare needs to be a temporary safety net or if conditions exists where the circumstances that led to poverty in some cases are themselves permanant then a comprehensive approach needs to be applied that includes education, vocational training, citenzenship, household budgeting, basic home maintance, auto care, child rearing and yes promotes a 2 parent commitment for life as the ideal, nutrition, etc. I'm thinking 4 to 5 years and every welfare recipient should be graduated out of dependency.

That will never happen; welfare, like all other federal programs, will be permanent and expanded.
 
Not sure if I understand the question.

I make less that I'd like to make. :lol: I live in a nicer home than what's average from what they told me at closing. I have a 24/7 job; even if I'm not at work I'm usually tied to the place via laptop, iPad or iPhone usually if its after hours to deal with problems.

That's pretty much what I meant. From what I've read in your posts you seem like you are an intelligent guy who wins more often than you lose. Perhaps that's the issue. You have taken control of your life and are playing to win.
 
That's pretty much what I meant. From what I've read in your posts you seem like you are an intelligent guy who wins more often than you lose. Perhaps that's the issue. You have taken control of your life and are playing to win.

I wouldn't say I'm the shining example of success. Whatever I have achieved I give God the credit and I think the future is bright.

I can't see how anybody can think I'm intelligent by my posts here with all the the typos I don't see until the 25 minute time limit on no further editing has passed, but thanks. ;) Interestingly, I was an average student; did well in the classes I liked but HORRIBLE in the ones I didn't like. My love for learning new things didn't really take off until long after I was out of school. Thankfully there's the Internet and open source education. I plan to take some classes soon on Coursera- free online university classes and recommend it to everyone. It doesn't apply toward a degree but they're the same classes the students take at the top universities in the world. One Harvard professor was shocked to learn she had 50,000 students in her class! Plus there are dozens of free Ivy League classes on Roku. I guess everyone learns and matures at that own pace and I was a late bloomer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom