I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Epic Rap Battle of History, Nice Peter' to 'Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Epic Rap Battles, Nice Peter, key, peele' - edited by xxovercastxx

That's sort of my point. These people were working in their own cities, organizing other people, having meetings and rallies. Organizing events for Martin Luther King to come speak at. Or getting protests together to put pressure on politicians. They're specific to each city in which they were working.

My point is, everyone can make a difference in their own sphere of influence to effect huge change. We're not taught that in History class, because why would they teach us how we can challenge power?

Pretty much the problem with how people are taught history. Regular people working together change history. Not famous people like Martin Luther King or LBJ. It's the people working behind the scenes.

I lived through that era. I lived through both men's attempts at deriving a semblance of equality for a people which had been MUCH maligned throughout history. I always had and still do have mixed emotions about Malcolm X. I am white. Malcolm sent shivers of inspiration up my spine because of his anger at a condition that deserved MUCH anger. In some ways I believe Malcolm was more effective at harnessing black rage despite the fact that it often turned on itself.

I think I believe that that rage was used as a catalyst for many black people to engage in activism USING the NON violent techniques of Martin Luther King. I believe BOTH served a purpose to ameliorate the black condition and while it is still a work in progress much good has been established. I find them both necessary to rectify wrongs.

Your video, martin luther king debates malcolm x-vintage coverage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Good job at attacking me and not my actual statement BTW.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

The police is more likely to be a threat so if you don't want citizens to carry guns then we have to get rid of armed officers too. I don't want anyone to have a gun but if you read what I said you might have noticed that I specified that gun rights are important in the situation we are in where known criminals in the police like the officer doing the detaining in this video are allowed to carry guns.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^swedishfriend:
You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.


You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.
Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.
Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.
The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...
I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

>> ^swedishfriend:

You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:
No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.



You are the exact type of person I refer to in paragraph 3 of my post.

Trying to say that this guy is in ANY WAY like MLK or Gandhi just demonstrates how utterly you have failed to grasp this.

Him having a gun on his person makes everyone less safe (including him), not moreso. He's a dick who loves guns and feels like a big man by walking around with one on his hip. He's discovered he's within his rights to walk around like that, and likes to wave that right in people's faces, no matter how scared he makes people or anything else.

The LAW may be on his side, but that doesn't make him 'right'...

I for one sure as shit don't want people walking around on the street with sidearms.

You would really get riled up about Gandhi and Martin Luther King then as they provoked the law as well. If the police can break the law openly and on film and still get to carry a loaded gun then maybe gun rights are kind of important. Or do you prefer to wait try to fight enslavement once only the police and the military have guns?
>> ^spoco2:

No, see, I really don't like dickheads like this.
Smug little shit who has read up on one law and then has probably gone out carrying a gun PURELY to run into a cop and be able to spout off this shit.
What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?
He thinks he's being some righteous individual, standing up for the rights of citizens everywhere... IN WHAT WAY? Hurray sir, you've been able to walk around with a loaded firearm. You've improved our lives in what way?
If you want to improve our lives by railing against authority figures, why not do it by standing up for rights that actually IMPROVE our lives?
Just dangerous stupidity on this dick's part.

>> ^legacy0100:

I remember having this conversation with my brother few months ago. I compared the Occupy movement with the Stop SOPA/PIPA movement, and how the Stop SOPA movement was so successful in such short period of time, when Occupy movement has been going on for a longer period of time but couldn't materialize any 'real change'.
For one thing, the occupy movement started out demanding accountability in the bank/finance industry. Then the agenda blew up to having social equality of laborers, minority rights, states rights, environmental rights etc etc. It tried taking in EVERY social reform agenda that was out there, taking the focus away from the original efforts demanding real reform in the financial industry.
Last year I remember Occupy protesters coordinating a march on Martin Luther King Jr day. Now I'm sure this is all a good message, but what does this have to do with Wall Street? This only goes to show that this mass movement is lacking focus, and in desperate need of core representatives, like we did during SOPA/PIPA movement when Reddit.com first lead the march, and other giants such as Wikipedia had moved in.


I think the major success of the SOPA/PIPA protests was that there were several very large corporations like google and facebook supporting and participating in the protests. It made it very hard for the media to ignore and detractors to dismiss the protestors as jobless smelly hippies.

And I think you're right about them losing focus. If they start to include every liberal cause under the sun they're going to alienate a lot of people who support financial reform, but may not support gay marriage, or increased environmental regulations.

While more successful over all, the tea party also lost a lot of support when they started subverting the economic reform message with social conservative agendas.

I remember having this conversation with my brother few months ago. I compared the Occupy movement with the Stop SOPA/PIPA movement, and how the Stop SOPA movement was so successful in such short period of time, when Occupy movement has been going on for a longer period of time but couldn't materialize any 'real change'.

For one thing, the occupy movement started out demanding accountability in the bank/finance industry. Then the agenda blew up to having social equality of laborers, minority rights, states rights, environmental rights etc etc. It tried taking in EVERY social reform agenda that was out there, taking the focus away from the original efforts demanding real reform in the financial industry.

Last year I remember Occupy protesters coordinating a march on Martin Luther King Jr day. Now I'm sure this is all a good message, but what does this have to do with Wall Street? This only goes to show that this mass movement is lacking focus, and in desperate need of core representatives, like we did during SOPA/PIPA movement when Reddit.com first lead the march, and other giants such as Wikipedia had moved in.

>> ^westy:

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.
hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.

If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.


This is in my opinion the biggest victory of those who ruin the country. This opinion is pretty standard, I've heard it all my life on college campuses and even believed it at one point.

I wonder, if you posed the question to Martin Luther King Jr. what his opinion of that would be. I think he'd say that the only reason he could do his job, that he could speak and go to towns and rally people for his cause was because there were hundreds of thousands of people working to make it happen behind the scenes. The tribute we pay is not to those people though, it's to Martin Luther King Jr.

The reason is because they want to make sure and convince you that you cannot do this on your own. That you need a "Special Person" to come forth and fight your battles for you, and lead you to promised land. This is the idea that Obama satisfied with his "Army" of people that weren't to do anything but work to get Obama elected and listen to him, and then that's it. Their job was done, when in a real democracy they'd be working still, putting pressure on Obama to do what he promised and what they put him in for.

This is a great propaganda tool to control people, it works. Until it doesn't, and you have occupy protests everywhere.

@quantumushroom, I'm trying to figure out how to we can find some sort of common framework between us so we can have a conversation about this. For the moment, let's just talk about Paul himself.

Upfront, here are the things I see as facts about Paul:

1. Ron Paul owned a company that published several newsletters with his name in the title.
   
2. Those newsletters contained overt, incontestably racist commentary
   
3. Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act
   
4. Ron Paul opposes having a national holiday for Martin Luther King day
   
5. Ron Paul says he's not racist
   
6. But Ron Paul has not, as far as I've been able to find, given any sort of speech where he explains the moral problem with discrimination
   
7. Ron Paul protected the identity of the author of the articles in question
   
8. When that author was independently revealed, he did not condemn the author or disassociate himself from him
   
9. People can lie about what they believe
   
10. Which Paul demonstrated by saying he didn't know about or approve what was in the newsletters, then later a reporter uncovers proof that he did know about them and approved them
    

Now what I have about Paul is what you would call a theory (and what eggheaded people like me call a hypothesis). This theory explains all those facts, and more. That theory is: Ron Paul is a racist.

I don't know it's necessarily the explanation, I'm just saying it's the best theory that fits the available facts.

Now this theory could be easily destroyed by Paul if it were false. All Paul would need to do is give one speech, where he admits to just being so grossly negligent and incompetent that he couldn't even manage a newsletter, or where he admits to having been racist in the past and tells us about his journey towards becoming a believer in racial equality.

But he hasn't done that. Instead he's gone after his accusers and critics, while refusing to concede he's made a mistake of any kind at any point, even though clearly something must've gone wrong -- his name ended up on a bunch of racist articles.

Until someone comes in with new, verifiable facts that contradict that theory, or comes up with a new theory that fits the facts better, I see no reason for anyone to say "you're wrong about Paul being racist" to me.

And just as an aside, even if Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and I were all racists, it would have zero bearing on whether Paul is racist or not.

>> ^longde:

Soul Train's Legacy
I’m seeing a lot of people talk and write about Don Cornelius passing but do not seem to comprehend the legacy Don Cornelius established while he was here with us. Don Cornelius was a pioneer who built a Black empowerment framework that was also an economic engine and knew exactly what he was doing and succeeded. As a fellow Chicago native who knows my people, know and respect those who came before me and appreciate the path they shaped for me and you to move forward, we are going to discuss Don Cornelius legacy and contribution.
Don Cornelius is from Chicago and was definitely someone who grew up with love for his people. You can check his history where he was straight hustling to get his in the Chi before joining WVON radio in the 60s. WVON means Voice of the Negro in case you didn’t know broadcasted to the Black community back then. Martin Luther King Jr. would appear regularly on WVON and most likely Don Cornelius was inspired by his presence as well as the fact he broadcasted for his people. He also carried this on television at WCIU where Soul Train got it start:

However, the late sixties was a beautiful time for brothas and sistas as we became united. More people were moving from the South up North to Chicago and cats were establishing themselves and their identity as Black. Don Cornelius was throwing parties all around Chicago as a party promoter and this is where he wanted to promote a television show and used his media industry connects to host Soul Train in Chicago.
Now Soul Train blew up and Don Cornelius moved the show out to Los Angeles for a bigger audience. Now here is where we have to take a break because this is the moment of truth. When some of us brothas or sistas make it big, what do we do? Most of us start acting like we don’t know our Black people anymore and start trying to go “mainstream” hoping to reach a bigger audience. But Don Cornelius not only kept his show Black-orientated, he pioneered Black media as we know it today and built a Black economic framework upon his success.
Soul Train was not some dance show, it was a framework that Don Cornelius used to promote his people and promote peace, love and soul in the core essence. Let’s look at each element of the Soul Train show:.................


Lest we forget another pioneer's passing this month, Johnny Otis passed, with him a lifetime-legacy of promoting the struggle of black entertainers. Producer, musician, talent scout, DJ, pastor...Son of Greek immigrants, he identified with the black culture during the civil rights era, and got black-listed on many fronts for his outspoken support of the struggle. little Esther, Big Mama Thornton, Jay McNeely, he discovered and promoted some of the best talent during the heyday of rhythm and blues.