Reply With Quote
ASSume as you like. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the content of his charactor. MLK must be turning in his grave.
Meh.
I pretty much knew what I would find when I clicked, and the stilted op-ed piece merits little response.
"bla bla bla, I hate Obama, bla bla bla."
ASSume as you like. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the content of his charactor. MLK must be turning in his grave.
MLK would be fine with Obama, idiot.
Bull . MLK was more conservative than liberal. He would cringe at Obama's associations.
Bull . You have no idea what you are talking about.
As usual.
Get back to us once you've read about the Poor People's Campaign.
Or don't read about it and just shut up.
He was a liberal of the time. If you recall, I have called myself a 'classic liberal' before. By today's standards, we is more conservative. He believed in equal treatment under the law and working hard with proper compensation. He wanted limited retributive payments that were not race dependant. Nothing excessive, and we went beyond his wildest dreams in that regard. Far more than the $50 billion he wanted. He invoked God often. Something today’s liberal rarely, if ever, do.
Liberals twist the cons ution. MLK only wants the cons ution to do as it says. Like all conservatives do."I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
Conservatives believe far more in character than liberals do. It is all too obvious."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."
Say as you will. As a conservative libertarian, I consider him a brother. Today's liberals are authoritarian. They either abuse athority, or want more authority and regulations. MLK would not be a liberal by today's standards. Todfays democrat party is far from the liberties he believe in.
Is we?By today's standards, we is more conservative.
BTW, MLK would be demanding $300 billion today.
Jack Abramoff
Claude Allen
Lester Crawford
Randy Cunningham
Tom DeLay
Brian Doyle
Mark Foley
Bill Frist
Dennis Hastert
Bob Ney
Tom Noe
Tony Rudy
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
David Safavian
Mike Scanlon
Ted Stephens
James Tobin
Pillars of higher character, one and all.
Jack Abramoff
Claude Allen
Lester Crawford
Randy Cunningham
Tom DeLay
Brian Doyle
Mark Foley
Bill Frist
Dennis Hastert
Bob Ney
Tom Noe
Tony Rudy
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
David Safavian
Mike Scanlon
Ted Stephens
James Tobin
Pillars of higher character, one and all.
Please get a clue. Very few of them are conservative. Besides, do politicians count?
Do you even know what a conserative is? Most republican politicians are not conservatives!
I love the "No True Scotsman" fallacy! It's the best.
what do you expect from new york times and cnn
MLK's advocacy for civil rights put him in direct opposition to the conservative stance on state's rights. (wait's for WC's head to go all Linda Blair on everyone)
If you have followed my remarks, I made the clear distiction that he was a liberal then, but a conservative by today's standards, and that I am a classic liberal.
Were you alive in the 60's? Were your parents even alive in the 60's?
Wild Cobra, how do you define conservative? Because, frankly, your definition of conservative is probably not the 'working' usage of the term anymore.
All I know is I'm getting sick of the JFK comparisons.
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." -- this is DEFINITELY NOT part of the Obama Doctrine.
Also, JFK was a major HAWK, had military experience, was more travelled, ... should I continue?
JFK was a conservative.
You all keep using that word. I dunna think it means whatcho think it means.
What do you think it means?
Sincerely,
ChumpDumper
I see the term as more of a relative meaning. It also varies by the topic, weather economic, social, etc. There is no static meaning. That is why things changed in the past through what was considered liberal can be considered conservative today. Maintaining the idea that we treat people by their character rather than prejudice was a radical idea of the time. However, it is rather common today. Smoking pot in the 60's was radical. However, you think us conservative want to give such a gift from God up, just because we now call ourselves conservative rather than liberal?
Conservative doesn't mean some stuffy idea that never changes. It is more to the point that we don't want change until the full impact of such a change can be thought out enough to be comfortable with it. When it comes to social policies for example, where have they worked? Has the poverty rate made any large decrease since we started social programs? It is a failed policy. If we ended most social programs, most people on programs would get off their duffs, and we would still have poverty at about the same rate we do today. Never wanted by conservatives then, and not wanted now, because we see no positive side to it.
Liberal policies tend to be more 'touchy feely' whereas conservative policies tend to be more logical, and seen as cold blooded. It's not that we are cold blooded, we just want policies that will succeed rather than waste money, resources, and time.
Being racist in the 60's was considered conservative. It was maintaining the status quo. The status quo for long time now is that all races do succeed. It is still based on merit, or character. Not skin color. It is now a conservative viewpoint to reward those who succeed of any color by merit. Affirmative action is not a conservative view because it forces quotas, often to requiring the use of people who are less qualified over more qualified individual.
I better stop here. This is getting off topic.
I too, get sick, when people try to compare Obama to JFK. I cannot believe how naive they are.
Honestly, I do not think that is the definition of conservative nowadays. Let's point out some issues in which so-called 'conservatives' have broke from this tradition.
Abstinence-based sex ed - Proven not to work
War on Drugs - Proven not to work
Trickle-down economics - Arguably can be shown not to work
Those are just off the top of my head. Not to mention the lack of agreement with the majority of the scientific community on two big topics, global warming and evolution. Would you call it 'conservative' to disagree with the majority of the scientific community?
barney franks
Jack Abramoff
Claude Allen
Lester Crawford
Randy Cunningham
Tom DeLay
Brian Doyle
Mark Foley
Bill Frist
Dennis Hastert
Bob Ney
Tom Noe
Tony Rudy
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
David Safavian
Mike Scanlon
Ted Stephens
James Tobin
Pillars of higher character, one and all.
dodd
charlie rangel
biden
kennedy
we can play this game all day.
You mean the game where all the names I listed are criminals and all your names are just people you don't like?
I'm not the one claiming that one political sect has better moral character than the other.
yeah...sure. kennedy should be in prison for negligent homicide..charlie rangel..mr. ethics should be in jail as well with his violations and defense of ignorance? re . franks with his gay lover....dodd with his countrywide financed mortgage..the hypocrisy is endless with you freaking lib s.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
