Look! If you tap on the glass, it startles him, and he hides!
Awww, how cute.
What a cute little specimen.
Oh, and he’s already been counted as #12.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Kvallulf:
Of course, you can have your little peace and love, let everyone live viewpoint cause someone else went out a shed blood for you.
If they shed only their own blood, that would be acceptable.
Whether someone consumated a realtionship with another (particular) person is not germane to whether they were gay.
Living as husband and wife, dressing in drag. As far as not consumating their relationship doesn’t surprise me. I know a few “old-school” gay relationships, where both partners are on the make for “trade” and just do cocktails, and throw parties together.
Apply occam’s razor, quickly.
If you want to assume J Edgar was anything less than a homosexual, fine.
Missed a point. Any of the stuff you may admit to be attested - drag, living as a couple with Tolson, is enough to make a guy paranoid and get dirt on people around him.
I want to know how this guy was able to post his load of crap, when it says “unregistered” under his name. I was under the impression you had to be a registered member before you could post anything.
::remind me to change the password at the front gate so morons like this guy can’t get into our secret club anymore::
Shadowfox
“We are what we pretend to be.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
Shadowfox, he was registered, but now Admin has unregistered him. Don’t worry, he’ll think of a new screen name to register and be back to shit on the board in no time, I’m sure.
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
Now I have to say that I think MLK is idolized more than perhaps he should be, and he certainly gets more credit than he deserves, but what Rascist Scumbag said was just plain silly. MLK was not a communist, and I highly doubt what was said about his sexual escapades, odd religious beliefs, and so forth. Overall it sounds like a case of COINTELINPRO at work.
The reason that I think that MLK is idolized as he is, is that he was non-violent. I may just be being cynical here with regards to the US government(hah) but it seems to idolize, and create these myths about people who led non-violence movements, while ignoring the more militant ones that occured at the same time.
For instance, whenever the civil rights movement is mentioned, MLK is mentioned. In history textbooks he gets chapters and chapters. At the same time other figures, such as Malcolm X are not, or are mentioned as brief side notes in history. Does this seem at all accurate? No. It is the opinion of many historians of the civil rights movement(see especially Howard Zinn’s excellent book The People’s History Of The United States) that the only reason that MLK was allowed by the US government to hold the large public meeting/rally during which he gave the famous “I have a dream” speech was out of fear of the militant black civil rights movement exemplified by groups like the Black Panthers.
The US seems to be on a quest to convince people that the only way to institute long term revolutionary change is through non-violent means(as it was put by a classmate of mine)(She had a hard time explaining such things as the South African elections).
Oh, and one last thing, Winnie Mandela was is not a communist. South Africa’s legal system at the time she was convicted of this defined “communism” as pretty much any criticism of South African law. Hence the conviction of “Statutory Communism”. Of course, she was responsible for many unjust deaths, that is true, but please try to check your information before you throw statements like that around.
Which pretty much confirms my belief that Zinn spends as much or more time on rhetoric as on history.
Leaving aside the obvious difficulty in allowing King to speak in order to marginalize a group that was not organized for another three years after his march and speech, who were the feared groups?
The only militant group that could be considered a threat was the Nation of Islam. I can see various “authorities” fearing the persuasive abilities of Malcom X. Unfortunately, in 1963, the Nation of Islam was a very small group concentrated in New York with a few subsidiary groups in several large Eastern cities. On the other hand, the groups who were (at that time) explicitly non-violent included SCLC, NAACP, CORE, and SNCC with far more members in far more localities, with histories of actually going “to the streets” that went back at least seven years.
The problem with Zinn’s thesis is that it appears to be an attempt to undermine the efforts of those who labored peacefully under threatened and actual violence by claiming that they were simply “allowed” to protest in preference to more serious efforts by more militant groups.
Thus, only angry, potentially violent people can be considered to have actually pushed forward the issues of racial relations in this country (even if only by the threat of their unleashed fury). In this, Zinn gets to marginalize King while ignoring the example of Ghandi and also ignoring the reality that the great mass of unconcerned, uninvolved white America was moved by what they saw inflicted on blacks–and to ignore that the white majority would have been much more likely to resist armed demands, however just those demands might have been.
By the time of the 1963 march, a very large segment of the uninvolved white society had been persuaded to recognize the demands of King and others. Look at photos of the march, itself: it is a multi-racial event, supported by civic and church leaders as well as politicians and everyday citizens.
Tom~
Agreed.
Apparently the majority of Americans do not agree with you. As one who’s served in a combat zone, I tend to agree with them instead of with your ill-thought out comment.
We never “left society,” youngster. We, as part of what we considered to be our duty to the society of which we are a part, went into harm’s way.
Now, if you’re talking about the illegal actions of some combat soldiers, then you need to make that abundantly clear and not tarnish the whole group. (You might recall that Dr. King was fighting against an entire group being stereotyped.) As it is, the military can, and has, punished combat soldiers who have committed crimes in combat zones.
Perhaps a better idea would be for folks such as you to spend about five years in a prison before being allowed to join society.
Good think I don’t hold to either that insanity or the one you just posted.
BTW, exactly how low a grade did you get in Civics?
Sorry, but in the “translation” by the Troll.
I doubt that MLK really said “Slap my fro”.
but thats just obvious.
John Larrigan
“82.35% of all statistics are made up on the spot”–Vic Reeves
And this months most rediculous quote attributed to somebody famous by a troll is
“Slap my Fro!!” MLK jr.- (In the MLK jr. thread- by the one and only , Racist scumbag)
Not that it matters at this point, but I read this entire post… and there were very few actual responses to the OP.
I have enjoyed coming out here from time to time, and reading the posts of various people. I am amazed at the lack of tolerance… Whether or not you agree with R.S., the speed at which you liberal “free thinkers”, who for some reason feel you’re in the right, come out here to prove your non-racism by slamming someone else is embarrassing… the amount of name calling and disparaging remarks to slam R.S., without even addressing the OP, makes you no better than whoever he is.
I was amazed at one of the first replies… “This asshole is gonna get banned in record time.” Why? Because a question was asked that offended your politically correct sensibilities? I think that too many people in this country are afraid to address issues that confront race. And those who do are immediately labeled a “racist”. It’s crazy.
If you do not agree with a post, fine. Prove it wrong. R.S. put a lot of stuff in his OP that could have been debated and refuted. But most chose to name call and submit a reply without addressing the OP.
In my opinion, political correctness has done more to perpetuate racism in this country than to curtail it. Forcing someone to use the “right” term, like “African-American” instead of “black” or “colored” doesn’t make someone more tolerant or understanding… understanding the culture does… and you can’t force someone to do that if they don’t want to.
For those of you that felt a need to post an insult to R.S. and prove your love for minorities and all mankind, thanks. You are all swell folks, and I’m sure you will all go to heaven. Give yourselves a group hug! But in the meantime, please practice what you preach. Maybe what YOU think isn’t always right, either.
Wait! This is the pit! Ignore me! (but since it IS the pit, why in the hell has R.S. been banned?)
Gotta go to work… it’s MLK day, but obviously my employer doesn’t give a shit.
John Larrigan
“82.35% of all statistics are made up on the spot”–Vic Reeves
Sorry… I had put my comments in to his post as well, please ignore the above post.
John Larrigan
“82.35% of all statistics are made up on the spot”–Vic Reeves
Sorry, things went wrong in the post…
I had planned a well thought out response to Wiggums post. here goes.
Racist says that he was a womanizer, a communist biut does not offer any conclusive proof. He makes claims about sealed files that he has never seen or heard. He claims that because Some one is a Lesbian she is a threat to his way of life.
And just because ol’ Teddy is a Kennedy dosent make him a threat.
sorry again for the mess I made above
John Larrigan
“82.35% of all statistics are made up on the spot”–Vic Reeves
Chief Wiggum, the responses to Rascist [sic] have been generated by several things:
R S showed up just after Captain Ed was branded a Racist Scumbag for performing several hit-and-run attacks, first in GD, later here in the Pit. Neither of them engaged in any form of debate; they were trolling with polemics. In GD, Captain Ed initiated several threads in which he posted misinformation without stating a thesis (which is generally necessary for an actual debate), then refused to discuss what conclusions were to be drawn from those errors. He did not even take a “position” until those threads had been moved here to the Pit.
R S posted here, in the Pit, rather than post in GD, so the obvious inference is that he is looking to incite anger, not discussion.
Since we gave them what they wanted, why are you upset?
Tom~
I was watching the news a whie ago, and the mayor of Wallingford CT was being roasted by the media. Wallingford refuses to reccognize MLK day. I remember that NH and AZ also refused, but they relented.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and risk incurring the wrath of the copyright police, but this was sent to my e-mail box by the “Chicken Soup for the Soul” home-deliveries, so I’m going to assume (I know, never assume) that distributing it is OK:
Thirty-Nine Years - Too Short - Too Long - Long Enough
Oh, the worst of all tragedies is not to die young, but to live until I am seventy-five and yet not ever truly to have lived.
Martin Luther King Jr.
From 1929 to 1968 is only 39 short years.
Too short to gather the fruits of your labor
Too short to comfort your parents when your brother drowns
Too short to comfort your father when mother dies
Too short to see your children finish school
Too short to ever enjoy grandchildren
Too short to know retirement
Thirty-nine years is just too short.
From 1929 to 1968 is only 39 short years, yet it’s
Too long to be crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination, it’s
Too long to stand in the quicksand of racial injustices, it’s
Too long to receive threatening phone calls, often at the rate of forty per day, it’s
Too long to live under the sweltering heat of continuous pressure, it’s
Too long, 39 years is just too long.
From 1929 to 1968 is only 39 short years, yet it’s
Long enough.
It’s long enough to journey all the way to India to learn under a great teacher how to walk through angry crowds and keep cool.
It’s long enough to be chased by police dogs and lashed by the rushing waters from the fireman’s hoses because you are dramatizing the fact that justice has a way of eluding me and my brother.
It’s long enough to spend many days in jail while protesting the plight of others.
It’s long enough to have a bomb thrown into your home.
It’s long enough to teach angry violent men to be still while you pray for the bombers.
It’s long enough.
It’s long enough to lead many men to Christianity.
It’s long enough to know it’s better to go to war for justice than to live in peace with injustices.
It’s long enough to know that more appalling than bigotry and hatred are those who sit still and watch injustices each day in silence.
It’s long enough to realize that injustices are undiscriminating and people of all races and creeds experience its cruel captivity sooner or later.
It’s long enough.
It’s long enough to know that when one uses civil disobedience for his civil rights, he does not break the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America - rather he seeks to uphold the principles all men are created equal; he seeks to break down local ordinances that have already broken the laws of the Constitution of the United States.
It’s long enough.
It’s long enough to accept invitations to speak to the nation’s leaders.
It’s long enough to address thousands of people on hundreds of different occasions.
It’s long enough to lead 200,000 people to the nation’s capital to dramatize that all of America’s people are heirs to the property of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It’s long enough to enter college at 15.
It’s long enough to finish and earn several degrees.
It’s long enough to earn hundreds of awards.
It’s long enough to marry and father four children.
It’s long enough to become a drum major for peace.
It’s long enough to earn a Nobel Peace Prize.
It’s long enough to give the $54,000 prize money to the cause of justice.
It’s long enough to visit the mountain top. It’s certainly long enough to have a dream.
When we note how much Martin Luther King packed into 39 short years, we know it’s long enough for any man who loves his country and his fellow man so much that life itself has no value - unless all men can sit at the table of brotherhood as brothers. Thirty-nine years is long enough - for any man to knowingly flirt with death each day of his life - because to spare himself heartaches and sorrow meant two steps backward for his brother tomorrow.
Martin lived for several centuries, all rolled into 39 short years. His memory will live forever. How wonderful it would be if we could all live as well.
Martin, like all others, would have welcomed longevity - yet when he weighed the facts, he said, “It’s not how long a man lives, but how well he uses the time allotted him.”
And so we salute and honor the memory of a man who lived in the confusion of injustice for all his too short, too long, long enough 39 years- “For He’s Free At Last.”
By Willa Perrier
from A 2nd Helping of Chicken Soup for the Soul
Copyright 1995 by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
I just noticed Rascist Scumbag’s “Al Gore” thread, and if I was wrong to post that Chicken Soup article, go ahead and delete it. I apologize. My bad. 
“I hope life isn’t a big joke, because I don’t get it,” Jack Handy
Never was much of a student, but…
We never “left society,” youngster.
Not True. Militarians have different rights-Some/most are removed and some are added.
We, as part of what we considered to be our duty to the society of which we are a part, went into harm’s way.
It’s not the harm you suffered that i object to. It’s the harm you inflicted. Not in my name, thank you.
Now, if you’re talking about the illegal actions of some combat soldiers, then you need to make that abundantly clear and not tarnish the whole group.
I refer to the harm combat vets inflicted that was ‘legal’–how absurd a concept!
(You might recall that Dr. King was fighting against an entire group being stereotyped.)
One can’t choose one’s race. You chose to hurt people. So did the NAZIs–no difference.
As it is, the military can, and has, punished combat soldiers who have committed crimes in combat zones.
Not for the crimes that you might call duty.
Perhaps a better idea would be for folks such as you to spend about five years in a prison before being allowed to join society.
Such as me in what way? Political dissenters? You would have made a good Party member.
Good think I don’t hold to either that insanity or the one you just posted.
Sure you do. Opressers need to believe that their crimes are virtuous. G Bush sr was a combat vet. 40 yrs later he killed 500k people to preserve a dictatorship. Could not have become president if he had been jailed for his crimes. Might have changed his mindset…did wonders for Malcom X.
yamo? G Bush killed 500,000 people? I think you’re about as far out of touch of reality as Captain Ed and his buddies.
As it happens, there were a number of events during Bush’s tenure in which the U.S. committed what I consider to be murder. However, claiming a “500k” figure (along with claiming that every person who has ever been a member of the military must be a criminal) simply puts you next to the people who deny the Holocaust as someone who prefers to decide how the world is or should be and then manufactures the “facts” to support that view.
Tom~