Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day Everyone!

[Cheerbleeder]

And modern Republicans are Conservative as hell, so good luck with that argument.

- - - Updated - - -



You should read his own words, not his families.

- - - Updated - - -



This 'white washing' of MLK is hilarious

You do realize that in 1863 republicans freed the slaves! You do realize that the 1924 Democatic convention was also known as "Klanbake" with the KKK marching under that party! You do realize that more democrats in the senate and congress opposed the civil rights movment than republicans!

-Republicans abolished Slavery. Democrats supported it
-Republicans gave blacks the right to vote. Democrats tried to keep them from voting.
-Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democrats opposed it.
-The first black republican was elected in the U.S. Senate in 1871. The first black democrat wasn't elected to the U.S. Senate until 1999.
-Even to this day, 70% of all black senators have been Republicans.
-The first 22 blacks elected to the U.S. house were all republicans.

Open a history book before you get rekt!

[Elegiac]

I am sure there were .....reasons. :P

Reasons that you lot like to conveniently ignore because it gets in the way of your 'Democrats are the racist ones, ackshually, because I don't see skin colour' narrative.

[JohnBrown1917]

You do realize that in 1863 republicans freed the slaves! You do realize that the 1924 Democatic convention was also known as "Klanbake" with the KKK marching under that party! You do realize that more democrats in the senate and congress opposed the civil rights movment than republicans!

-Republicans abolished Slavery. Democrats supported it
-Republicans gave blacks the right to vote. Democrats tried to keep them from voting.
-Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democrats opposed it.
-The first black republican was elected in the U.S. Senate in 1871. The first black democrat wasn't elected to the U.S. Senate until 1999.
-Even to this day, 70% of all black black senator have been Republicans.
-The first 22 blacks elected to the U.S. house were all republicans.

Open a history book before you get rekt!

I don't give a shit about what they did back then.
Again, try reading MLK's own words. Thats all.

[Elegiac]

You do realize that in 1863 republicans freed the slaves! YOu do realize that the 1924 Democatic convention was also known as "Klanbake" with the KKK marching under that party! You do realize that more democrats in the senate and congress opposed the civil rights movment than republicans!

You do realise that MLK's career in political activism started in the 1950s and by that point the Democrats were in the midst of the New Deal coalition that combined the progressive urban wing with the conservative remnants of the prior century, yes?

Open a history book before you get rekt!

You first.

Also, as said; what party he voted for was entirely immaterial to his stated beliefs. By every metric he was a social democrat and a social reformer.

[Darkeon]

The answer is no, he wouldn't necessarily be 'okay' with violent protests but he would probably advocate putting the blame where it belongs - on the system - rather than blaming black people for being 'ungrateful' or whatever the All Lives Matter crowd believes in these days.

So he'd not be Okay with the more violent protests... so he'd blame the real culprits, which is the system and not the people committing these acts themselves? Wut?

[Dr Assbandit]

It's lit. Gonna get drunk AF, fam #MLCRAY

I know how the kids talk these days.

Teach me your ways Senpai!

[Ghostpanther]

Reasons that you lot like to conveniently ignore because it gets in the way of your 'Democrats are the racist ones, ackshually, because I don't see skin colour' narrative.

Which still does not change the facts of what happened back then.

[Elegiac]

Which still does not change the facts of what happened back then.

"The facts" being that the Democrats have long since shed what elements of Southern racism they possessed largely as a result of the northern wing's support of the Civil Rights movement.

Go figure.

[JohnBrown1917]

Which still does not change the facts of what happened back then.

Which has nothing to do with the modern members, this is politics 101.

[Elegiac]

So he'd not be Okay with the more violent protests... so he'd blame the real culprits, which is the system and not the people committing these acts themselves? Wut?

Novel concept, huh?

[Dmitro]

Gratz!
Generally a good man, worth having a holiday

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Hmmm this smacks of dwelling on the gentrified version of King. Popular with privileged internet denizens. While also ignoring the many lawful and peaceful demonstrations over the past two years.
The idea that King would oppose this generation’s most prominent struggle for racial justice is absurd, of course, but appreciate the recent New Yorker cover making the point explicitly that Kaep and Michael Bennett and the rest of those who kneel and march in service of justice today are firmly in keeping with King’s legacy. In his time, King was in many ways an American radical.

He wasn’t murdered for being a moderate.

Are people in the nfl still kneeling seems to have fallen off the map.

[Ghostpanther]

I called him a social deemocrat, read more carefully next time.




Not that I'd be wrong.

I know what you said. And no, he was not calling for socialism. Democratic Socialism to some extent. But was not a full support of socialism.

[JohnBrown1917]

I know what you said. And no, he was not calling for socialism. Democratic Socialism to some extent. But was not a full support of socialism.

Are you really this bad at reading? I never said that.

Dem Socs are still socialists, by the way.

[Cheerbleeder]

You do realise that MLK's career in political activism started in the 1950s and by that point the Democrats were in the midst of the New Deal coalition that combined the progressive urban wing with the conservative remnants of the prior century, yes?



You first.

Also, as said; what party he voted for was entirely immaterial to his stated beliefs. By every metric he was a social democrat and a social reformer.

History just took a shit all over your opinions. Read my statments from above and fact check them.

#next

[Elegiac]

I know what you said. And no, he was not calling for socialism. Democratic Socialism to some extent. But was not a full support of socialism.

This is just silly semantics.

[Darkeon]

Novel concept, huh?

I hope someone -doesn't- smack you across the back of the head; We all know you'd blame the system and not the person who actually did so. haha

Novel concept!

[Ghostpanther]

Are you really this bad at reading? I never said that.

Dem Socs are still socialists, by the way.

Or maybe even a socialist, is what you said. I think you are having issues with reading what you even write. lol!

- - - Updated - - -

Are you really this bad at reading? I never said that.

Dem Socs are still socialists, by the way.

They would be the first ones calling for some capitalism if they needed money to fund their social programs. No, they are not socialist in the pure way.

[Elegiac]

History just took a shit all over your opinions. Read my statments from above and fact check them.

#next

The issue is not whether or not they are factual statements, the issue is that it is cherry picking points of information and ignoring context.

[Ettan]

History can be quite amusing sometimes.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/geo...-king-jr-1965/