The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates

[sirs]

So, apparently in Tee's reality, MLK's goal of a colorless society and being judged by one's character was just a pipe dream.  Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated

I wonder if that white sheet under his bed still fits       

[Michael Tee]

<<So, apparently in Tee's reality, MLK's goal of a colorless society and being judged by one's character was just a pipe dream.  >>

Well, I'm making some progress in educating you.  What you once called Martin's "message" you now realize was just a dream.  His life was in fact spent in fighting for black causes.  That's how Martin dealt with the real world - - not by treating it as if it were a dream world.

I wouldn't characterize it as a "pipe dream."  That's YOUR fascist brain speaking YOUR fascist words.  Martin did not say "I have a pipe dream."  I certainly did not refer to Martin's dream as a pipe dream.  Only you have chosen to use that term.

For your information, the "pipe" in "pipe dream" means opium pipe.  Pipe dreams are opium-inspired dreams.  Today, "pipe dreams" means idle, pleasant and sometimes fantastic dreams, dreams that are not meant to be translated into action.  What Martin dreamed of, he worked for, he went to jail for, he put his life on the line for.  He did not dream pipe dreams.

<<Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated>>

YOU may or may not know what that sentence means, if in fact it's a sentence, but I sure as hell don't.

[Rich]

>>Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated.<<

Of course this does not apply to white folk. Even hint that you're voting for a White person because they're White, and leftists will castrate themselves in protest.

[sirs]

>>Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated.<<

Of course this does not apply to white folk. Even hint that you're voting for a White person because they're White, and leftists will castrate themselves in protest.

Boy, ain't that the truth

[_JS]

>>Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated.<<

Of course this does not apply to white folk. Even hint that you're voting for a White person because they're White, and leftists will castrate themselves in protest.

Boy, ain't that the truth

Do you realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian Socialist?

[sirs]

And.........................?  That changes the goal of his Colorless society vs Tee's (& JJ's, & Sharpton's) mutation of his message of how integral color needs to be, how again??

[Rich]

>>And.........................?<<

And ... only socialists care about minorities.

Come on sirs ... you're slipping.

 

[_JS]

And.........................?  That changes the goal of his Colorless society vs Tee's (& JJ's, & Sharpton's) mutation of his message of how integral color needs to be, how again??

I think it changes some of the ways I've seen you use the "I have a dream" speech.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just."

You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry? Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong? with capitalism? There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.

King's view of equality was not only racial, as you so often imply, but economic as well. He knew that racial equality was impossible without economic equality.

[sirs]

King's view of equality was not only racial, as you so often imply, but economic as well. He knew that racial equality was impossible without economic equality.

And.........................?  That changes the goal of his Colorless society vs Tee's (& JJ's, & Sharpton's) mutation of his message of how integral color needs to be, how again??

[Michael Tee]

>>Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated.<<

<<Of course this does not apply to white folk. Even hint that you're voting for a White person because they're White, and leftists will castrate themselves in protest.>>

<<Boy, ain't that the truth>>


Stop it, you're making me cry!  I never realized how tough it is for white folks!

[_JS]

King's view of equality was not only racial, as you so often imply, but economic as well. He knew that racial equality was impossible without economic equality.

And.........................?  That changes the goal of his Colorless society vs Tee's (& JJ's, & Sharpton's) mutation of his message of how integral color needs to be, how again??

You cannot see how economic equality plays a role in this?

[sirs]

King's view of equality was not only racial, as you so often imply, but economic as well. He knew that racial equality was impossible without economic equality.

And.........................?  That changes the goal of his Colorless society vs Tee's (& JJ's, & Sharpton's) mutation of his message of how integral color needs to be, how again??

You cannot see how economic equality plays a role in this?

I can't see how pushing race & segregation as integral in decision making is consistent with the goal of a colorless society, no matter how you try to twist it.  They're incompatiable with each other.  and with that being the case, I'm going with MLK's "dream" vs the mutated message being propogated

[Brassmask]

>>Where race must be integral with any decision making, and segregation on the basis of that is perfectly acceptable, if not advocated.<<

Of course this does not apply to white folk. Even hint that you're voting for a White person because they're White, and leftists will castrate themselves in protest.

Boy, ain't that the truth

Well, not exactly.

I had a wonderful conversation a few months ago with a nice african american lady I work with on the day of the first debate I think it was.  Very smart and has a degree in political science.  So imagine how blown away I was when she half-jokingly said to me that she was going to support Obama because he was a "brother".

I took it upon myself to explain to her why I wouldn't be supporting him nor Hillary nor any of them.  She just said its time for an african-american and I just said, "Well, it's not really."  She gave me a look and I said, "...because if we really are what we love to claim that we are (liberals) then we cannot base our selection for this position on race, sex, religious affiliation, etc."

She just said, "Hmmm..." as we headed back to working.

The next day, she told me about the debates and said that she had watched them through the prism of what I had said the day before and following the debate, she had made a firm decision to support Hillary not because she was a woman but because she and her husband (a conservative) could agree on some of her positions.

So, not all liberals will hari kari at the thought that someone might support a candidate based on the color of their skin or their sex but if handled properly, that can be changed.