Yeah.... the MLK jokes where, how do you say, flat?

Ron Paul doesn’t just oppose affirmative action, he opposes all civil rights measures, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - you know, the one that allows black people the LIBERTY to drink out of drinking fountains not marked colored? He voted against MLK day. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289). He even voted against recognizing the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling on its 50th anniversary, which is beyond petty. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml He wants to dissolve all civil rights protections and allow government sanctioned discrimination at the state level, giving a new meaning to the term "state"-ism.

Why do you think he flip flopped on Gay rights in 2010? If this guy has been so ‘consistent’, fair and unprejudiced, why did it take him until 2010 to get on board with tolerance towards gay people? Is it possible that this deity among men could just be doing some old fashioned political pandering? Of course not! We must not challenge the Ron Paul hive mind!

Let’s take down your last two points (Ron Paul on the UN, Ron Paul is rational) with one stroke.

Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

Let me say that again. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

One more time. Let the inanity of this sentence wash over you like a tropical shower. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Does any of this seem rational to you?

Winstonfield, what you're saying about MLK's tactics is simply wrong. Read MLK's biography by Eric Dyson. MLK wanted to use non-violent "industrial sabotage" to clog up industries and highways in Washington DC, to bring things to a halt until democratic socialist reforms were put into place. He wanted to do this by clogging places up with people so that even "innocent bystanders," as you put it, would have no choice but take notice.

Also I believe MLK supported "sit ins" where black people came in and sat in white-only restaurants, filling them up with black customers. This drove away white customers from stores, and I'm sure owners were annoyed that they were losing so much business to this tactic. Plus, at the time, I'm pretty sure white owners had the legal right to only serve white customers, thus the private property rights of white owners were being violated by MLK's black supporters.

If you disagree with the Occupy Wall Street end goal, OK that's fine. But don't criticize the tactics in the belief that MLK Jr. was not a supporter of the tactics here, because he used them himself.

>> ^zor:

A commenter on Slashdot had it right: If we are going to make this protest matter we need to dress properly. Sunday best, if possible. Like MLK did. If we look like a bunch of hippies with camcorders nobody can identify or hope to take our side. Filthy, dirty hippies! Even though there is widespread popular support for this protest very few will acknowledge it.


I disagree, people should choose to dress how they want to dress, not how they think people would prefer them to dress. If dressing nice is important to you, go and protest in a business suit - I imagine after 2-3 days of sleeping on the street you'll regret that decision.

In addition, saying that nobody will identify with these 'filthy dirty hippies' is a pretty big exaggeration, other filthy dirty hippies will! Also, if being a filthy dirty hippy is so bad, why are we leaving it to them to free America from the most fiscally and morally corrupt politicians anywhere in the free world? Shouldn't that be seen as a positive? In my eyes these guys are hero's and judgement should be made solely on their actions.

By the way, if you think they need new clothes so badly, you can send them a donation.

>> ^zor:

A commenter on Slashdot had it right: If we are going to make this protest matter we need to dress properly. Sunday best, if possible. Like MLK did. If we look like a bunch of hippies with camcorders nobody can identify or hope to take our side. Filthy, dirty hippies! Even though there is widespread popular support for this protest very few will acknowledge it.


If I could promote a comment--I'd promote this one.

A commenter on Slashdot had it right: If we are going to make this protest matter we need to dress properly. Sunday best, if possible. Like MLK did. If we look like a bunch of hippies with camcorders nobody can identify or hope to take our side. Filthy, dirty hippies! Even though there is widespread popular support for this protest very few will acknowledge it.

Hmph...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street_n_987439.html
http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/09/wall-st-protest-day-three-a-call-for-the-deprivatization-of-everything/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street_n_987439.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/labor_unions_and_leftist_group.html

The more I see about these yahoos, the less sympathy I feel. The protestors were clogging up the streets and sidewalks and bringing the area to a standstill. People couldn't drive or get to work. They were creating a disturbance, disrupting citizens, and otherwise being a bunch of jerks. That sort of mess can be dangerous in a big city. It stops ambulances. It stops fire trucks. It stops emergency services. It causes accidents.

So the police got called in to clear a way so normal traffic could keep going. The protestors refused to disperse or cooperate. Therefore in order to accomplish their jobs, the police had to start hauling people away and using crowd control. That means they break out the pepper spray, nightsticks, nets, plastic cuffs, and start arresting people. Duh.

So when that happens the protestors start whining they are 'peaceful'? And the police are 'violent'? Nope. Doesn't wash. If you'd wanted a peaceful solution then you'd have dispersed when the police asked - or better yet you wouldn't have created a problem to start with. But that didn't happen, so the cops had to force it.

You don't get to cry foul when that happens. When you illegally block traffic and create a danger to others then the cops have every right to force you to clear out - and they have every right to use force if you are not cooperative. MLK and Ghandi accomplished their goals with peaceful protests against real oppression. These Wall Street yahoos are just a bunch of leftist cretins who are trying to stir up trouble. I think this opinion about sums it up...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/26/life-on-occupied-wall-street/

"It’s become impossible to tell where a deluded leftism stops and a respectable liberalism starts. For all the liberal complaining about conservative extremism becoming the norm, today’s liberal media culture earns its daily bread by flattering (or employing) everyone from Al Sharpton to Michael Moore to 9/11 Truthers like rapper Mos Def. And so liberalism continues its steady transformation into a self-righteous, incoherent, solution-free blur. Take a long, hard look at the fur-capped, begoggled, and topless misfits on Wall Street. They’re funhouse mirror images of our more respected liberal elites."

>> ^longde:

hahaha....well as much as people would like it, MLK wasn't a made up character. Plus, the context wouldn't work; what, they throw a white MLK in jail for sitting at a white counter?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I have a new hero called Martin Luther King JR., he's white.



Ahhh good point, he's now Chinese. "I hab a dleam, rare all men lar cleated equally lacist". /trollface

hahaha....well as much as people would like it, MLK wasn't a made up character. Plus, the context wouldn't work; what, they throw a white MLK in jail for sitting at a white counter?>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I have a new hero called Martin Luther King JR., he's white.

I'm not hijacking a quote; rather, I think it's fairer to say that Jesus is contradicting himself here, which should come as no surprise to anyone else who's read the Bible. The Old Testament Law is binding forever: Genesis 17:19, Leviticus 23:14, Luke 16:17. But it also isn't: Luke 16:16, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:13.

There is some good stuff in in the Sermon on the Mount about loving thine enemy and not judging others, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who plans to cast all his enemies into a lake of fire forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "
Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
The semen on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says
I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "

Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The semen sermon on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says

I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.


*Fixed awesome typo

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.

If you're looking at Old Testament, then perhaps yes. But not according to the New Testament, where Jesus' message is meant to "trump" the law. See the Sermon on the Mount as to what is expected of those who wish to follow him (i.e. how Christians should act toward one another).

You mean this Sermon on the Mount, described in Matthew 5?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven [...]
(Matthew 5:17-19)

^cosmovitelli:If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.




*sigh* again, no one was getting slammed for dancing. The cops werent running around saying "hey, that dude is dancing, crossface chicken wing that motherfucker! ya! DX for life!! SUCK IT" and then slamming their crossed arms on their crotch.

the only "bodyslam" that took place (in the video at least, the rest is speculation) was on kokesh (pretty sure it was him). If you can objectively watch that video and then with a straight face insist he was slammed for dancing you are out of your fucking mind. He was being placed under arrest and then repeatedly and forcefully resisted arrest. THAT is what he was taken down for. The arresting officer gave him two "last" warnings before the takedown but all you saw was the bodyslam huh?

if you can objectively watch the video and then with a straight face insist that those arrested were not disturbing the peace and were acting civilly then you are out of your fucking mind.

their first warning even was "if you demonstrate by dancing" but all you heard was dancing huh?

officer calmly and politely explains to them they are in violation of the demonstration ordinance and gave them ample warning to knock it off. what do they do? argue the semantics of dancing with them? continue to demonstrate and then act outraged that they got arrested? MLK would be proud

the fact that everyone keeps latching on to the dancing aspect and willfully ignores the fact that they were demonstrating shows a certain selectiveness of what we are seeing here. Ive been trying to be as objective as possible in viewing both of these videos. but we see what we wanna see huh?

Did you even read my comment?

These people aren't protesting because they are oppressed. They are protesting for fun. To try and paint these people as modern day Rosa Parks and MLKs is dumb. They don't even know how to do the civil disobedience thing correctly. Rule #1: Don't resist arrest, because getting arrested is the entire point of civil disobedience.

The law they're breaking? Protesting in a Memorial. You can't protest anywhere in the parks without a permit. Everyone IS treated equally. The video itself is incriminating. It's labeled from a protest group as a protest video. It's not legal to protest without a permit in the parks.

An officer does not have to tell you what law you are breaking to arrest you. That's mythology. I know because I've been through it. It's the DA's job to figure that out. If the officer couldn't name exactly what you are being arrested for he has an attorney that will do it for him. That's why you need one too. In fact, in most places disobeying an officer is a crime. That's because police have a hard job, shitty pay, and should be respected, even if they're not articulate.

This makes it a very very bad idea to disobey an officer even if he doesn't communicate well ... but then maybe you weren't listening. In spite of the 1 in 10,000 instances that everyone hears about, the rest of the times the "dissident" loses.

If I'm at the capital I don't want my opportunity to visit sites disrupted by people, who I may or may not agree with in most general terms, breaking the Equal Rules For All concerning the management of protest traffic. You don't get to ruin innocent people's day just because you didn't get something you want. That's not being civil. If you want the rules changed you have to show that you're willing to live in the rules that do work. MLK would agree, I'm sure. Go dance outside and leave the Jefferson pilgrims the hell alone.

Yes, dancing is a visual distraction.

Pro-tip, which is often overlooked:

It is more visually effective to dress up for a protest... lends an air of seriousness, intelligence, and good intention. It can also be psychologically harder for assholes to harass and arrest women in lovely summer dresses accompanied by men wearing well-fitting suits and ties.

... props to the legend MLK Jr. for that bit of knowledge.