RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DaddySatyr -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 9:32:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Don't you know, Michael? If Martin Luther King were alive today, his new statement would be that you should judge a GROUP on the content of the character of their BEST individual (him). Much more inclusive that way and you can put away that niggling suspicion that an individual may be different from someone else in his group.



Normally, I would continue along in the spirit of snarky camaraderie. I will get to that, eventually, but I want to be serious, first.

MLK is ("was", since he's no longer with us?) one of my heroes. His outlook and quiet, non-aggressive power still stand as an absolute testament to the man. He was exactly what this country needed. He advocated justice; as opposed to a counter-balance of the status quo.

In a different time/reality, MLK could have easily found himself to be president and he probably would have done a wonderful job.

The problem is with people who have a certain caché of credibility, having marched with him and been arrested with him. They have bastardized MLK's message. I won't go so far as to say that their reasons are nefarious, but they certainly aren't honorable, in one way or another. These people (and I'm referencing Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte and their ilk) have no way of knowing what MLK might be thinking, today. The fact that he was a man that did think and wasn't swayed by other more violent and militant personalities hints at the idea that these modern idiots have it wrong.

It doesn't matter "Why?" What matters is the bastardization itself. Luckily for us, we have King's own words - in books, on film, and on audio - with which to examine his message.

It's apropos and interesting to me, personally, that you chose to paraphrase what most consider to be his greatest sermon/speech. The part which you referenced:

quote:


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.


Not only damns racism but it speaks to an intense sense of justice. It also points out the bastardization about which I have written.

That sentence tells us that he finds (as should we all) racism to be repugnant. What's inferred by that sentence is that if we are leaving skin color out of the equation, it's okay to find the character of a man to be lacking. The modern-day PPLs forget this. It's why someone could investigate the voting records and written words of a political candidate and find that candidate to hold a socialist political stance but still be dismissed as a "racist" because the socialist politician happens to have darker skin.

The fact that someone looks a certain way should never be a reason to demonize them but neither should it be a reason to give them transactional immunity/absolution. It contrasts, nakedly, with the modern day message of: If you hold a man accountable for his actions and that man happens to have darker skin, you're a racist.

There's another part of that same speech that speaks to me, also:

quote:


I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.


Once again, we see an intense sense of justice. We see a true statement on equality which no human being with two brain cells to rub together could argue against.

Unfortunately, the same rousers of rabble whom I mentioned, earlier (Jackson et al.) seem to only have one brain cell and we see their hatred, injustice ("Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice, everywhere" sound familiar to anyone?) and vitriol regurgitated here, on a daily basis.

The neo-liberal ... the new Pablum©-Puker doesn't seem to want equality; based upon their own words. They seem to want "pay-back" or vengeance. In my heart of hearts, I just can't bring myself to imagine one of my personal heroes changing the content of his character to that degree.



Michael




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 11:16:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Cuz gay friends are the new black friends. It totally means he's not a bigot. Duh.

Exactly.....orange is the new black [:D]


At least somebody understands an attempt at humor.

But you all know damn well that no major event done by a Presidential candidate in this day and age is unplanned. The campaign managers intend to put as much spin in their favor as they possibly can, and will continue to do so until November 2016. And that's true for every candidate from every party. Elections aren't just kissing babies anymore.

So Ted Cruz has rich gay friends. Awesome. And that doesn't even surprise me. This country as a whole is much more socially integrated than we were even a decade ago, much more socially connected.

I have to wonder why the couple would seemingly endorse Cruz by hosting the event though. Because he's a good person? Or because they have decided that, for them, his stands on certain issues is more important than his stand on gay marriage? And the answer is likely a combination, with even more to it than that.

But when your businesses make millions every year off of a specific group, it is a financial risk to endorse a candidate that is opposed to one of the group's primary political causes. Especially when we're talking about discretionary spending.




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 12:17:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Cuz gay friends are the new black friends. It totally means he's not a bigot. Duh.



So ... if we have no black (or gay) friends, we're bigots.

If we have black (or gay) friends, we're "bigots, putting on a front".

Yeah, that sounds like convoluted logic to me.

I guess I need to tell all of my friends that aren't Caucasian and straight that we can't be friends, anymore.



Michael


That's the way to go....act stupid(typecasting if you ask me)

You are a bigot if you feel bigoted towards gays in general

You can be an asshole towards gays while still retaining the odd friend or family member that turns out to be gay.


Just because your cousin (the generic you) came out of the closet and you didn't damm him to hell is no reason to feel you are an all around good guy [:)]

Just means you are willing to tolerate the odd one or two in your life.

Again, that comes down to you making assumptions.

I dont "tolerate" the gay family or friends in my life, I love most of them and like the rest except for those that are asshm in favor oles. Same as with my straight friends.

I don't "tolerate" those people in my life who are a different color, I enjoy them for who they are or I dislike them for what they are.

I do the same thing with straight, white people.

I am in favor of gays being allowed to be married. I believe in equal access to housing, medical care, job opportunity. I'm not in favor of a church or anybody else being forced to sanctify gay marriage. That's their choice. I'm not in favor of illegal immigration though I have no problem with where you legally immigrate from or what color you are.

When it was pointed out that may be more than one gay person who supported the pizzaria owner who would not cater a gay wedding, little was said. Are these gay people bigots against their own kind?


I was against the calls for violence and the harassment, but I have no qualms with people choosing to not financially support any business that publically goes against your views on an issue.




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 12:33:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Don't you know, Michael? If Martin Luther King were alive today, his new statement would be that you should judge a GROUP on the content of the character of their BEST individual (him). Much more inclusive that way and you can put away that niggling suspicion that an individual may be different from someone else in his group.



Normally, I would continue along in the spirit of snarky camaraderie. I will get to that, eventually, but I want to be serious, first.

MLK is ("was", since he's no longer with us?) one of my heroes. His outlook and quiet, non-aggressive power still stand as an absolute testament to the man. He was exactly what this country needed. He advocated justice; as opposed to a counter-balance of the status quo.

In a different time/reality, MLK could have easily found himself to be president and he probably would have done a wonderful job.

The problem is with people who have a certain caché of credibility, having marched with him and been arrested with him. They have bastardized MLK's message. I won't go so far as to say that their reasons are nefarious, but they certainly aren't honorable, in one way or another. These people (and I'm referencing Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte and their ilk) have no way of knowing what MLK might be thinking, today. The fact that he was a man that did think and wasn't swayed by other more violent and militant personalities hints at the idea that these modern idiots have it wrong.

It doesn't matter "Why?" What matters is the bastardization itself. Luckily for us, we have King's own words - in books, on film, and on audio - with which to examine his message.

It's apropos and interesting to me, personally, that you chose to paraphrase what most consider to be his greatest sermon/speech. The part which you referenced:

quote:


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.


Not only damns racism but it speaks to an intense sense of justice. It also points out the bastardization about which I have written.

That sentence tells us that he finds (as should we all) racism to be repugnant. What's inferred by that sentence is that if we are leaving skin color out of the equation, it's okay to find the character of a man to be lacking. The modern-day PPLs forget this. It's why someone could investigate the voting records and written words of a political candidate and find that candidate to hold a socialist political stance but still be dismissed as a "racist" because the socialist politician happens to have darker skin.

The fact that someone looks a certain way should never be a reason to demonize them but neither should it be a reason to give them transactional immunity/absolution. It contrasts, nakedly, with the modern day message of: If you hold a man accountable for his actions and that man happens to have darker skin, you're a racist.

There's another part of that same speech that speaks to me, also:

quote:


I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.


Once again, we see an intense sense of justice. We see a true statement on equality which no human being with two brain cells to rub together could argue against.

Unfortunately, the same rousers of rabble whom I mentioned, earlier (Jackson et al.) seem to only have one brain cell and we see their hatred, injustice ("Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice, everywhere" sound familiar to anyone?) and vitriol regurgitated here, on a daily basis.

The neo-liberal ... the new Pablum©-Puker doesn't seem to want equality; based upon their own words. They seem to want "pay-back" or vengeance. In my heart of hearts, I just can't bring myself to imagine one of my personal heroes changing the content of his character to that degree.



Michael



I would agree with most of this. And Dr King is exactly why I will never be able to call Nelson Mandela a personal hero.




DaddySatyr -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 2:47:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I would agree with most of this. And Dr King is exactly why I will never be able to call Nelson Mandela a personal hero.



Not too long ago, on these very boards, I called Mandela a racist based upon his policy of "blacks first, everyone else second, then whites."

Naturally, I was lambasted, but the truth is: the way Mandela governed was the antithesis of the stated Utopian society of King.

Maybe you and I truly agree upon an issue?



Michael




Politesub53 -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 5:40:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I would agree with most of this. And Dr King is exactly why I will never be able to call Nelson Mandela a personal hero.



Not too long ago, on these very boards, I called Mandela a racist based upon his policy of "blacks first, everyone else second, then whites."

Naturally, I was lambasted, but the truth is: the way Mandela governed was the antithesis of the stated Utopian society of King.

Maybe you and I truly agree upon an issue?



Michael



Any evidence to show this bullshit....errr "truth"..... somehow I doubt it. Not the fact you were rightly lambasted, just a shred of any racist policy Mandela implemented.




CreativeDominant -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 6:26:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Cuz gay friends are the new black friends. It totally means he's not a bigot. Duh.



So ... if we have no black (or gay) friends, we're bigots.

If we have black (or gay) friends, we're "bigots, putting on a front".

Yeah, that sounds like convoluted logic to me.

I guess I need to tell all of my friends that aren't Caucasian and straight that we can't be friends, anymore.



Michael


That's the way to go....act stupid(typecasting if you ask me)

You are a bigot if you feel bigoted towards gays in general

You can be an asshole towards gays while still retaining the odd friend or family member that turns out to be gay.


Just because your cousin (the generic you) came out of the closet and you didn't damm him to hell is no reason to feel you are an all around good guy [:)]

Just means you are willing to tolerate the odd one or two in your life.

Again, that comes down to you making assumptions.

I dont "tolerate" the gay family or friends in my life, I love most of them and like the rest except for those that are asshm in favor oles. Same as with my straight friends.

I don't "tolerate" those people in my life who are a different color, I enjoy them for who they are or I dislike them for what they are.

I do the same thing with straight, white people.

I am in favor of gays being allowed to be married. I believe in equal access to housing, medical care, job opportunity. I'm not in favor of a church or anybody else being forced to sanctify gay marriage. That's their choice. I'm not in favor of illegal immigration though I have no problem with where you legally immigrate from or what color you are.

When it was pointed out that may be more than one gay person who supported the pizzaria owner who would not cater a gay wedding, little was said. Are these gay people bigots against their own kind?


I was against the calls for violence and the harassment, but I have no qualms with people choosing to not financially support any business that publically goes against your views on an issue.
Nor do I. As a matter of fact, I have much more respect for the person who looks the store owner in the eye and days "thank you for your time. Given your views, I'm sure you'll understand why I'll be taking this particular piece of business ...and any other business I may have done here...elsewhere" than I do for the person who says "I don't fucking CARE about your beliefs but I'm going to run to 'mommy' (government) and they'll....they'll....they'll MAKE you care about mine."




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 9:41:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nor do I. As a matter of fact, I have much more respect for the person who looks the store owner in the eye and days "thank you for your time. Given your views, I'm sure you'll understand why I'll be taking this particular piece of business ...and any other business I may have done here...elsewhere" than I do for the person who says "I don't fucking CARE about your beliefs but I'm going to run to 'mommy' (government) and they'll....they'll....they'll MAKE you care about mine."



I believe that all personal, moral, and religious issues should be considered before a person goes into business.

That may determine what sort of business you can operate, within your defined limits. At no point do I believe anyone should be forced to break the laws & traditions of their religions.

But I do not believe any business should be allowed to discriminate against any class of people for any reason.

If you run a business, shut up and take my money.




Aylee -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 10:15:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Nor do I. As a matter of fact, I have much more respect for the person who looks the store owner in the eye and days "thank you for your time. Given your views, I'm sure you'll understand why I'll be taking this particular piece of business ...and any other business I may have done here...elsewhere" than I do for the person who says "I don't fucking CARE about your beliefs but I'm going to run to 'mommy' (government) and they'll....they'll....they'll MAKE you care about mine."



I believe that all personal, moral, and religious issues should be considered before a person goes into business.

That may determine what sort of business you can operate, within your defined limits. At no point do I believe anyone should be forced to break the laws & traditions of their religions.

But I do not believe any business should be allowed to discriminate against any class of people for any reason.

If you run a business, shut up and take my money.



So. . . no blacks should have a Bed & Breakfast because they may not want to rent to KKK members?




DaddySatyr -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/25/2015 11:30:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe that all personal, moral, and religious issues should be considered before a person goes into business.

That may determine what sort of business you can operate, within your defined limits. At no point do I believe anyone should be forced to break the laws & traditions of their religions.

But I do not believe any business should be allowed to discriminate against any class of people for any reason.

If you run a business, shut up and take my money.



A couple of thoughts come to mind, here that kind of acknowledge but build upon Aylee's question:

Should a infanticidist who owns a printing shop have to print up pro-life posters and pamphlets?

Should a Christian publishing company be forced to print Anton levay?

To some people, money or the collection of wealth is not important as their moral integrity. Why must a person be forced to choose between "harming" their business by turning away a few particular customers and being able to make a living, at all? Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Isn't there anything that your boss could conceivably ask you to do that might make you walk off the job? Have you never taken a stand on principle? If you enjoy that freedom, why can't others?

I see a lot more "live and let live" coming from the right than the left. What ever happened to that idea? Did it die when the right gave an inch and the left decided they wanted to annihilate the right? I'll say it, again; only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Turn your back on the dark side.



Michael




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 12:01:00 AM)

...facepalm...

As soon as I can wrap my head around just how ignorant a question that is, I'll try to give it a serious response.




DaddySatyr -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 12:09:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

...facepalm...

As soon as I can wrap my head around just how ignorant a question that is, I'll try to give it a serious response.



Yes. It's very ignorant to ask someone if they've ever taken a stand on personal principle.

Here's a better idea: I've tried to be civil with you and you have, on a couple of occasions, met my civility with asshole-ish behavior. So, now, go play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself because I'll not engage you, further.

We're done, here. You're dismissed.




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 1:25:10 AM)

You'll notice that my reply wasn't to you, Michael.

I'm just wondering how Aylee would spot a member of the KKK.




BamaD -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 3:40:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I believe that all personal, moral, and religious issues should be considered before a person goes into business.

That may determine what sort of business you can operate, within your defined limits. At no point do I believe anyone should be forced to break the laws & traditions of their religions.

But I do not believe any business should be allowed to discriminate against any class of people for any reason.

If you run a business, shut up and take my money.



A couple of thoughts come to mind, here that kind of acknowledge but build upon Aylee's question:

Should a infanticidist who owns a printing shop have to print up pro-life posters and pamphlets?

Should a Christian publishing company be forced to print Anton levay?

To some people, money or the collection of wealth is not important as their moral integrity. Why must a person be forced to choose between "harming" their business by turning away a few particular customers and being able to make a living, at all? Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Isn't there anything that your boss could conceivably ask you to do that might make you walk off the job? Have you never taken a stand on principle? If you enjoy that freedom, why can't others?

I see a lot more "live and let live" coming from the right than the left. What ever happened to that idea? Did it die when the right gave an inch and the left decided they wanted to annihilate the right? I'll say it, again; only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Turn your back on the dark side.



Michael


I once worked for a Christian supply company where I told the boss I had a problem dealing with Westboro, fortunately the saw my point.




BamaD -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 3:41:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

You'll notice that my reply wasn't to you, Michael.

I'm just wondering how Aylee would spot a member of the KKK.

Same way you would spot a gay.




Aylee -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 3:45:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

You'll notice that my reply wasn't to you, Michael.

I'm just wondering how Aylee would spot a member of the KKK.


The robes. [:D]

They bring in Robert Byrd with them. [:D]

They bring their own pillowcases.

Ya know they still have Klan functions and parades and such.

Or you can just substitute skinhead or La Raza or any other racist group.

But in many towns and such the Klan members are known.




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 3:50:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

You'll notice that my reply wasn't to you, Michael.

I'm just wondering how Aylee would spot a member of the KKK.


The robes. [:D]

They bring in Robert Byrd with them. [:D]

They bring their own pillowcases.

Ya know they still have Klan functions and parades and such.

Or you can just substitute skinhead or La Raza or any other racist group.

But in many towns and such the Klan members are known.


I have no personal experience with the KKK, but from what I've seen on tv, if they show up in full robes, they're not there to rent a room.

But without specific evidence supporting the claim that the would-be guest is a member, I think there's no reason to turn them away.




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 3:52:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

You'll notice that my reply wasn't to you, Michael.

I'm just wondering how Aylee would spot a member of the KKK.

Same way you would spot a gay.


Lies! My robe is a much higher thread count. Softer too.




JVoV -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 4:10:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I once worked for a Christian supply company where I told the boss I had a problem dealing with Westboro, fortunately the saw my point.


Was that because of the church's stance on any given issue, or after a negative experience with them directly?




BamaD -> RE: First to throw his hat in the ring (4/26/2015 4:20:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I once worked for a Christian supply company where I told the boss I had a problem dealing with Westboro, fortunately the saw my point.


Was that because of the church's stance on any given issue, or after a negative experience with them directly?

Because of the way the dealt with things. Their demonstrations at soldiers funerals, the demonstration at the Amish funeral. they are the kind of people who would favor boycotting an entire state because they didn't like a stand one business takes. The fact that they claim to be Christians doesn't mean they are.

To sum it up, everything about them.

If that meant that in the future they would never do business with us fine.

Didn't we have a whole thread on this? What does it have to do with Cruz? And I am not saying that you are responsible for the derailment.




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625