Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I've said all along is we have NO IDEA if any of this is true.
WHEN we do - I'll discuss again.
Uh, yeah you are. You're arguing that we can't believe this story because of the source reporting it.
Regardless, will you condemn him if it turns out that he watched a woman get raped and laughed about it, and also argue that he was a tremendous hypocrite whose portrayal in history should be re-evaluated?
According to Lincoln. A house divided can not stand. That's what he said. Lincoln wanted to unite the country to the best of his abilities and did not want to kill or execute Southern Generals. Southern soldiers unconditionally surrounded and were able to keep their arms. Civil Wars at times, it is best not to kill your rivals after peace is achieved. During the Roman Republic Civil Wars between Caesar and Pompey, Caesar wanted to capture Pompey and have some sort of peace between the two men. Pompey fled Greece across the Mediterranean to Greek ruled Egypt where the Ptolemaic child King had Pompey beheaded. Caesar was horrified that his friend but also enemy was beheaded. All Caesar wanted to do was to make peace and have Pompey back as Co Consul.
Now these people want you broke, dead, your children raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
You know the answer to that question. Why would you even ask that?
Its really up to the black feminist, and black academics if they want to take part in this iconoclasm like what they did against Confederate Statues. According to the FBI if this happened, I don't think his statue should be torn down. But its up to the the SJW left amongst the black supporters like the Wokes, intersectional, black feminists and black academics to decide MLK fate. If it is true, than the black community amongst the intersectional left will want to tear down his statue because he violated black women on multiple occasions. And the Pro black make? Those types as well don't believe in cheating or a harming a black queen. Most of these types don't favor MLK anyway, and prefer the philosophy of Malcolm X. MLK is mainly for white liberals and white conservatives.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Actually, that article refers to an interview done with Garrow in 2008. So it isn't as if he has suddenly changed his thinking in the last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
one year?
2019-2008= 11 years.
Okay, so I went with the year of the publication date of the article and missed that the interview was conducted in 08, Garrow's words still do not reconcile. I think Garrow would like to make some money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
No. I'm not.
What I've said all along is we have NO IDEA if any of this is true.
Historian and leading American civil rights activist, Edith Lee Payne, told the Mirror she was disgusted at the claims.
"If the FBI really had damaging evidence on Dr King they would have exposed it."
It has always amazed me that people would rather talk about the smear campaign of a person rather than the obvious overreach of an Administration and their power ... good to know we have our priorities straight ...
Okay, so I went with the year of the publication date of the article and missed that the interview was conducted in 08, Garrow's words still do not reconcile. I think Garrow would like to make some money.
Historian and leading American civil rights activist, Edith Lee Payne, told the Mirror she was disgusted at the claims.
"If the FBI really had damaging evidence on Dr King they would have exposed it."
It has always amazed me that people would rather talk about the smear campaign of a person rather than the obvious overreach of an Administration and their power ... good to know we have our priorities straight ...
One, exposing it would destroy the value of it as tool to control King, if they decided they needed it.
Two, there was little they could do to stop the Civil Right’s movement, too many were rising up and, more troubling for politicians, there was support from young, affluent whites. If they wanted any chance to keep the uprising from exploding into a violent rebellion they needed to control which of the spontaneously emerging leaders became the de facto national leader of the movement. Without getting into it too much, ultimately for the government puppet masters it came down to selecting between King and Malcolm X. Malcolm X was in reality much more righteous of an individual, and much purer in his motivations, but that also meant he was less pliable. King had the government’s support, they were not going to be who took him down.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
It has always amazed me that people would rather talk about the smear campaign of a person rather than the obvious overreach of an Administration and their power ... good to know we have our priorities straight
As a teacher I've by far heard more on how Hoover abused the FBI then on the dirt he dredged up. Of the dirt he dredged up MLK is rarely mentioned. He is a sacred cow. It is typically the dirt he has on JFK and other presidents.
There is a lot of legit irrefutable dirt on MLK that gets overlooked on purpose by most, because of the pedestal he is on for his consequential work and massive contributions to the country.
It is fair to point out the hypocrisy of tearing down Jefferson, Washington, and others who also like MLK helped build this country for largely being products of their time with their faults while refusing to confront MLK's glaring issues of sexism - sexism even by the standards of the day.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
I respectfully disagree.
One, exposing it would destroy the value of it as tool to control King, if they decided they needed it.
Two, there was little they could do to stop the Civil Right’s movement, too many were rising up and, more troubling for politicians, there was support from young, affluent whites. If they wanted any chance to keep the uprising from exploding into a violent rebellion they needed to control which of the spontaneously emerging leaders became the de facto national leader of the movement. Without getting into it too much, ultimately for the government puppet masters it came down to selecting between King and Malcolm X. Malcolm X was in reality much more righteous of an individual, and much purer in his motivations, but that also meant he was less pliable. King had the government’s support, they were not going to be who took him down.
Then why did Hoover spy on him? To discredit him? If he could have he would have. That's it ...
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
As a teacher I've by far heard more on how Hoover abused the FBI then on the dirt he dredged up. Of the dirt he dredged up MLK is rarely mentioned. He is a sacred cow. It is typically the dirt he has on JFK and other presidents.
There is a lot of legit irrefutable dirt on MLK that gets overlooked on purpose by most, because of the pedestal he is on for his consequential work and massive contributions to the country.
It is fair to point out the hypocrisy of tearing down Jefferson, Washington, and others who also like MLK helped build this country for largely being products of their time with their faults while refusing to confront MLK's glaring issues of sexism - sexism even by the standards of the day.
The Institution of Slavery was an acceptable social economic solution 150 years ago that began 3000 years before that ...
Extra martial affairs were not a socially acceptable norm, 50 years ago. Shoot t.v. shows were not even allowed to show married couples in the same bed together. Cher was told she couldn't show her belly button and you're going to tell me that ... MLK's alleged affairs were 'overlooked' by products of the era?
Try again ...
Today, nothing is shocking.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-28-2019 at 07:24 PM..
Reason: Off topic
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Then why did Hoover spy on him? To discredit him? If he could have he would have. That's it ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
He was mostly interested in possible Communist connections.
True, yet ...
"Hoover continued to approve investigations of King and covert operations to discredit King’s standing among financial supporters, church leaders, government officials, and the media." Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
In the 60's disclosing extra martial affairs, the community would have run King out on the rails. Why not take him down when they had the chance? Why wait for the man to become hero status and then start popping up with all the innuendoes?
None of this makes any sense accept one. Not to mention no one caring about the overreach of an administration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
