Stacey Abrams...lower than dirt

@rajinGator may not recover from that.

 

I think we all would agree that in an ideal world, we could live in a society where race doesn't matter. But Thurgood Marshall is 100% right. Demanding colorblindness in our current world only leaves those who have been punished for their race to continue to bear the costs of that.

The idea that "the left" has "flipped" what MLK sought is the sort of fiction that right-wing Republicans tell themselves to justify voting for the party that around 90% of Black voters usually vote against. "The left" is fighting for the genuine equality that MLK demanded. We don't have to cherry pick one sentence out of one speech to justify our beliefs.

 

Rajingator probably doesn’t have weeks to spend reading that post.

 

pontificate and bloviate are two words that come to mind.

 

Do they believe the mental illness that a man just thinking he's a woman is automatically a woman, genetics and science be damned?

 

That makes no sense. The discussion was about when an actual heartbeat is detected in a fetus.

 

That contingent always quotes MLK and uses him as an example of who more people should be like, when the reality is they'd be calling him a woke, race-baiting libbie if he was alive today.

 

I’m not arguing, I’m just explaining why I’m right. He needs that shirt.

 

About what I expected in terms of rebuttal. When you can't dispute the words of the man himself, we get impotent posts like these.

 

Don't forget a "Marxist" and a "socialist." Hell, their "conservative" predecessors were saying that when he was alive.

 

And complaining about how there is always more violence when he shows up.

 

Well counselor while I agree with much of what you posted IRT MLK it was still bloviating and pontificating IMO.

 

If setting the record straight on MLK's views of equality requires that, so be it.

 

The north won the civil war and were in control. Why didn’t those in control treat AAs the same as white Europeans?


Honest question

 

Because they were racist as hell too. (Although, it's worth noting that the President at the time of the end of the Civil War was a Southerner, Andrew Johnson.) Even Lincoln was a white supremacist.

 

It was a pretty substantial political fight at the time. "Radical Republicans" fought for many policies that were at least closer to equality (resisted by Johnson- who was himself basically a Southern Democrat that Lincoln had run with as a unification ticket before his assassination). Meanwhile, Southern Democrats tried to argue that any black people born before 1868 were not eligible for citizenship based on Dredd Scott. But you had things like the Mississippi government sending black Senators to the US Senate at the time, as the reconstruction government was heavily African American. Eventually, heavily through violence such as the Battle of Liberty Place in New Orleans as well as a variety of large and small acts of political violence, and driven by a heavily contested Presidential election, white Southerners re-established control and ended Reconstruction and established Jim Crow.

 

Except I don't see what you posted as a refutation to my original statement. My claim was we as a society (ushered by the Left) have come to a point where skin color is the most important aspect of a person and ironically goes against what MLK aspired. Do you believe we should be characterized by the color of our skin and not our inward substance? I don't. And how was I "attacking him"???

 

Okay, how have we "come to a point where skin color is the most important aspect of a person"? Offer examples of this. How has "the Left" "ushered" this in?

 

Can you agree with most of what he said and disagree with some? Or does that make you less than desirable?

 

I didn't disagree with everything he said. I disagreed with the bold:

Why? Because I expect he's talking about affirmative action and DEI initiatives. I already posted quotes to demonstrate why claiming MLK opposed those sorts of things is manifestly dishonest.