PDA

View Full Version : "I Have a Dream"



RWGR
08-28-2013, 09:06 PM
....that someday I will be used for political purposes only

(not sure MLK said that, but it's happening)

"Sen. Tim Scott, R.-S.C., the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn't invited to the event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington, though a host of Democratic luminaries spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-tim-scott-wasnt-invited-to-event-commemorating-mlk-march-on-washington/article/2534830

Isn't it funny (or sad, I suppose) that the Party that claims MLK, and his visions of people being judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin, is the Party that absolutely thrives on perceived racism in order to keep a key voting bloc intact.

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 12:49 AM
....that someday I will be used for political purposes only

(not sure MLK said that, but it's happening)

"Sen. Tim Scott, R.-S.C., the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn't invited to the event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington, though a host of Democratic luminaries spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-tim-scott-wasnt-invited-to-event-commemorating-mlk-march-on-washington/article/2534830

Isn't it funny (or sad, I suppose) that the Party that claims MLK, and his visions of people being judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin, is the Party that absolutely thrives on perceived racism in order to keep a key voting bloc intact.

How come Black liberals aren't invited to Teabagger rallies?

RWGR
08-29-2013, 01:49 PM
How come Black liberals aren't invited to Teabagger rallies?

Because the Tea Party is a conservative organization.

But is MLK political? Did he have a dream only for Black liberals?

I bet he didn't...but today's Left is making out that way.

They have spit on his legacy and his grave.

A Progressive will do whatever it takes to get their political point across.

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 07:02 PM
Because the Tea Party is a conservative organization.

But is MLK political? Did he have a dream only for Black liberals?

I bet he didn't...but today's Left is making out that way.

They have spit on his legacy and his grave.

A Progressive will do whatever it takes to get their political point across.

So in other words, you're a victim again.

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 07:10 PM
....that someday I will be used for political purposes only

(not sure MLK said that, but it's happening)

"Sen. Tim Scott, R.-S.C., the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn't invited to the event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington, though a host of Democratic luminaries spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-tim-scott-wasnt-invited-to-event-commemorating-mlk-march-on-washington/article/2534830

Isn't it funny (or sad, I suppose) that the Party that claims MLK, and his visions of people being judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin, is the Party that absolutely thrives on perceived racism in order to keep a key voting bloc intact.


The Senate’s only black lawmaker wasn’t invited to speak at Wednesday’s 50th anniversary March on Washington, because Tim Scott’s office declined an invitation to attend the ceremony as a spectator, according to a source connected to the event.

“Much of the speaking program was created based on those who were able to confirm availability to attend the event, and thus were able to speak at the event,” the source explained.

And based on an email exchange obtained by CQ Roll Call, the South Carolina Republican did receive an invitation to attend the festivities commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s delivery of the famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

The invitation, sent Aug. 8 from the Coalition for the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington, appears to have been a form letter to all members of Congress, with invitees listed as “Representative” rather than by name.

Within a day, Rachel Shelbourne, a staff assistant to Scott, had replied to the email with the following message:

“Thank you for extending to Senator Tim Scott the invitation to the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington on August 28th. Unfortunately, the Senator will be in South Carolina during this time, so he will be unable to attend the event. Please do, however, keep him in mind for future events you may be hosting.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/senator-tim-scott-turned-down-invitation-to-50th-anniversary-of-mlk-speech/

Conservatives are chronic liars and WATBs.

RWGR
08-29-2013, 08:14 PM
It was an invitation to attend, not to speak. Big difference.

But, hey, why would you want the only Black senator to speak on the 50th anniversary of MLK's speech??

Crazy, that!

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 08:53 PM
It was an invitation to attend, not to speak. Big difference.

But, hey, why would you want the only Black senator to speak on the 50th anniversary of MLK's speech??

Crazy, that!


Not a single Republican elected official stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday with activists, actors, lawmakers and former presidents invited to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington — a notable absence for a party seeking to attract the support of minority voters.

Event organizers said Wednesday that they invited top Republicans, all of whom declined to attend because of scheduling conflicts or ill health.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-absent-from-march-on-washington/2013/08/28/43b807ac-1010-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html?tid=pm_pop

No. Crazy that! #GOPOutreach.

RWGR
08-29-2013, 08:55 PM
Translation: "Damn, I didn't notice the invite to Scott was only to attend, not to speak"

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 09:03 PM
Translation: "Damn, I didn't notice the invite to Scott was only to attend, not to speak"

Actually, I did know that because you stated it in your opening quote.

"Sen. Tim Scott, R.-S.C., the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn't invited to the event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington, though a host of Democratic luminaries spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

Remember that? It was only yesterday. It says nothing about speaking, only an invitation. Keep moving those goalposts you dishonest hack.

RWGR
08-29-2013, 09:04 PM
Actually, I did know that because you stated it in your opening quote.

"Sen. Tim Scott, R.-S.C., the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn't invited to the event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington, though a host of Democratic luminaries spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

Remember that? It was only yesterday. It says nothing about speaking, only an invitation. Keep moving those goalposts you dishonest hack.

Translation: "How do I support the fact the only Black in the US Senate was not invited to speak on the 50th anniversary of MLK's speech??"

Westender 3
08-29-2013, 09:17 PM
Translation: "How do I support the fact the only Black in the US Senate was not invited to speak on the 50th anniversary of MLK's speech??"

Where were all the other GOTP? He is only one appointed Senator.

dancingqueen
08-29-2013, 10:27 PM
So he should have been invited to speak because he is black?
Was every single other member of the senate invited to speak?

RWGR
08-30-2013, 09:56 AM
So he should have been invited to speak because he is black?
Was every single other member of the senate invited to speak?

Strawman.

Answer this: why shouldn't the ONLY Black senator speak?

RWGR
08-30-2013, 09:56 AM
Where were all the other GOTP? He is only one appointed Senator.

Why should they go after the Dems turned into a Leftloon rally?

Westender 3
08-30-2013, 01:35 PM
Why should they go after the Dems turned into a Leftloon rally?

Need a tissue?

dancingqueen
08-30-2013, 04:11 PM
Strawman.

Answer this: why shouldn't the ONLY Black senator speak?

It is not a strawman, If other members of the senate where not invited to speak, it says there are certain reasons why some where and some where not. Simply being black, I doubt, would be one of those reasons.
Nice evasion tactic though, i know you are smart enough to see this point.

official soonet pu$$ycat
08-30-2013, 05:51 PM
Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly has apologized for incorrectly stating that no Republicans were invited to participate in a ceremony this week marking the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for civil rights and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

In fact, Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor were invited but did not attend. Former President George W. Bush sent a statement in commemoration. O'Reilly had made the incorrect claim on Wednesday, the day of the ceremony.

"The mistake — entirely on me," O'Reilly said on his show Thursday. "I simply assumed that since all the speakers were liberal Democrats, Republicans had been excluded. So here's the tip of the day: Always check out the facts before you make a definitive statement and when you make a mistake, admit it."

O'Reilly said the Republicans made a mistake, too. He said they should have been there

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/foxs-oreilly-made-wrong-claim-march-20118237

This thread backfired.

RWGR
08-31-2013, 11:40 AM
This thread backfired.

Good point, because Soonet is always accepting as Fox News and Bill as a source, so what either one has to say is ...





...wait ...

official soonet pu$$ycat
08-31-2013, 12:16 PM
Good point, because Soonet is always accepting as Fox News and Bill as a source, so what either one has to say is ...





...wait ...

If the people who don't accept Fox News accept CNN news then I will be deeply deeply hurt and angry.

dancingqueen
09-02-2013, 05:28 PM
Good point, because Soonet is always accepting as Fox News and Bill as a source, so what either one has to say is ...





...wait ...

Translation:
Whew, thanks cat for diverting attention from me failing to dismiss that good point dancingqueen made, now lets try to move the goal posts in talking about news politics.





Wanna be my friend?

RWGR
09-02-2013, 06:47 PM
Attempt: to be RWGR

Result: Failure

Reason: Anger; poor professors at university; more anger

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 01:53 AM
Attempt: to be RWGR

Result: Failure

Reason: Anger; poor professors at university; more anger

I notice you still won't address my response, that's okay, you're angry, I get it.

RWGR
09-03-2013, 07:38 PM
I notice you still won't address my response, that's okay, you're angry, I get it.

Respond to what?

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 07:40 PM
It is not a strawman, If other members of the senate where not invited to speak, it says there are certain reasons why some where and some where not. Simply being black, I doubt, would be one of those reasons.
Nice evasion tactic though, i know you are smart enough to see this point.

deflection tactic #85685878956
pretend you didn't see the response, hoping it is to complex for the person to bother,
Sorry 'bout that champ.

RWGR
09-03-2013, 07:46 PM
It is not a strawman, If other members of the senate where not invited to speak, it says there are certain reasons why some where and some where not. Simply being black, I doubt, would be one of those reasons.
Nice evasion tactic though, i know you are smart enough to see this point..

What, exactly, is there to respond to? I said my part, you said your part.

Grownups can talk like that, DQ. It doesn't constantly have to be back n forth jousting. Two mature people can make a point and move on; they can agree to disgree.

dancingqueen
09-03-2013, 08:43 PM
I cannot accept your reasoning that the only reason he should have been invited to speak is because of the color of his skin.
More importantly, you accused me of making a logical fallacy, and I explained how it is not, recognition of that is expected, just so I know, it's polite conversation, that's all.

RWGR
09-04-2013, 07:21 PM
I cannot accept your reasoning that the only reason he should have been invited to speak is because of the color of his skin.
More importantly, you accused me of making a logical fallacy, and I explained how it is not, recognition of that is expected, just so I know, it's polite conversation, that's all.

First of all, the only Black senator is a noteworthy reality. It also is a real-life example of what MLK 'dreamed'. The fact of the matter is he was not invited because he is a conservative; this is Democrats pissing on MLK's legacy, and nothing more.

Second, I accused you of a logical fallacy, you attempted to explain how it was not a logical fallacy, and I reject the attempt, because I still contend you made a logical fallacy. As such, the recognition you seek is in itself illogical.

dancingqueen
09-09-2013, 12:40 PM
First of all, the only Black senator is a noteworthy reality. It also is a real-life example of what MLK 'dreamed'. The fact of the matter is he was not invited because he is a conservative; this is Democrats pissing on MLK's legacy, and nothing more.

Second, I accused you of a logical fallacy, you attempted to explain how it was not a logical fallacy, and I reject the attempt, because I still contend you made a logical fallacy. As such, the recognition you seek is in itself illogical.

Sorry, didn't notice this response.
Can you show that he was not invited on the grounds that he is conservative?
secondly, white flag accepted. You cannot state on what grounds you reject my explanation, you just do... because

RWGR
09-09-2013, 12:54 PM
Can you show that he was not invited on the grounds that he is conservative?

Is that your defense now? If so, we can consider this one over, and I won


secondly, white flag accepted. You cannot state on what grounds you reject my explanation, you just do... because

I reject it because it is wrong. Quite simple, really.

dancingqueen
09-09-2013, 02:23 PM
Can you show that he was not invited on the grounds that he is conservative?

Is that your defense now? If so, we can consider this one over, and I won
How so??



secondly, white flag accepted. You cannot state on what grounds you reject my explanation, you just do... because

I reject it because it is wrong. Quite simple, really.
Again, How so????

You are creating the parameters in which your argument is valid without any explanation or justification your only response is "Left is in the wrong here LALALALALA" Talk about sticking your head in the sand.
Your argument lacks ground and content.

dancingqueen
09-09-2013, 02:25 PM
If that's how you want to "win" have at 'er, but frankly, I expected better from you... you know, an actual argument from your perspective.

RWGR
09-09-2013, 02:32 PM
How so??



Again, How so????

You are creating the parameters in which your argument is valid without any explanation or justification your only response is "Left is in the wrong here LALALALALA" Talk about sticking your head in the sand.
Your argument lacks ground and content.

Relax with the over-bearing semantics, I'm not one of your college profs that gets excited about students using words whose meanings are not clear to them. :)

I disagreed with you, you wanted an explanation. Okay: I disagree with you, because you're wrong. Your assertion lacks logic, and is therefore illogical.

RWGR
09-09-2013, 02:33 PM
If that's how you want to "win" have at 'er, but frankly, I expected better from you... you know, an actual argument from your perspective.

I can't even remember what we're arguing about. Can you give me a quick refresher ,and then let me know what it is I'm supposed to support...refute...whatever it is.

Thanks

dancingqueen
09-09-2013, 02:42 PM
*BIGGIGANTICEYEROLL*
don't be mad.
I already accepted your white flag
go have a drink or two, and have one for me.

RWGR
09-09-2013, 02:56 PM
*BIGGIGANTICEYEROLL*
don't be mad.
I already accepted your white flag
go have a drink or two, and have one for me.

So you admit there is nothing to respond to. Fair enough.

dancingqueen
09-10-2013, 12:17 AM
So you admit there is nothing to respond to. Fair enough.

More like I have accepted the fact that you will not back up your position.

RWGR
09-10-2013, 10:27 AM
More like I have accepted the fact that you will not back up your position.

I don't know what it is you want me to back up. Could you specify?

Westender 3
09-12-2013, 06:50 PM
I was wondering if our resident teabagger translator could do a translation of this statement by the GOP's latest rising rock star Ted Cruz.

“Apparently Wayne said, ‘Oh yeah, you’re that guy saying all those crazy things. We need 100 more like you.’ The willingness to say all those crazy things is a rare, rare characteristic, and you know what? It’s every bit as true now as it was then. We need a hundred more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sen-ted-cruz-we-need-a-hundred-more-like-jesse-helms-in-senate/

Jesse Helms, proud unrepentant southern racist,

“No intelligent Negro citizen should be insulted by a reference to this very plain fact of life. It is time to face honestly and sincerely the purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinction in group intellect. ... There is no bigotry either implicit or intended in such a realistic confrontation with the facts of life. ... Those who would undertake to solve the problem by merely spending more money, and by massive forced integration, may be doing the greatest injustice of all to the Negro.”

"Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced."

“To rob the Negro of his reputation of thinking through a problem in his own fashion is about the same as trying to pretend that he doesn't have a natural instinct for rhythm and for singing and dancing.”

"Appearing on “Larry King Live” in 1995, Jesse Helms, then the senior senator from North Carolina, fielded a call from an unusual admirer. Helms deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, the caller gushed, “for everything you’ve done to help keep down the niggers.” Given the rank ugliness of the sentiment — the guest host, Robert Novak, called it, with considerable understatement, “politically incorrect” — Helms could only pause before responding. But the hesitation couldn’t suppress his gut instincts. “Whoops, well, thank you, I think,” he said."



This guy sounds a lot like you. Same talking points.

RWGR
09-12-2013, 07:05 PM
Says the guy who claimed there were no racists in the Democrat Party

translation: being the Grand Dragon (Byrd of W Va) of the KKK is not racist

take a bow, Westy!! :)

Westender 3
09-12-2013, 07:53 PM
Says the guy who claimed there were no racists in the Democrat Party

translation: being the Grand Dragon (Byrd of W Va) of the KKK is not racist

take a bow, Westy!! :)

Never said such a thing. Now back to the present. How about that Ted Cruz translation now.

RWGR
09-12-2013, 08:09 PM
Never said such a thing. Now back to the present. How about that Ted Cruz translation now.

Trying to bury your past ...much like Byrd :)

Westender 3
09-12-2013, 08:43 PM
Trying to bury your past ...much like Byrd :)

And you're trying to bury the GOP present.

Have that translation yet?

RWGR
09-13-2013, 10:15 AM
And you're trying to bury the GOP present.

Have that translation yet?

Translation of what?