violent pig?

[therightman]

hey there.im interested what views people on here hold about Martin Luther King and Gandhi and their methods of non-violence.so...shoot.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

THey were great men of color who fought for civil rights the right way. UNfortunately, thy're counterparts preach a message that says "We were oppressed, we deserve money for no good reason."

I agree. Not so much with Ghandi, because there's not a big Indian pride movement in American like we have with blacks. But 'civil rights' leaders have definitely turned the concept of civil rights from equality to victimhood and racial preferences and seperation (in favor of minorities). My only question is why do we still call it 'equality', when it clearly has nothing to do with that anymore?

Black leaders love to quote King, but when it comes to it, they advocate seperate African-American groups for this and that, while at the same time preaching against segregation and racism, when, by definition, African-American groups are racist in nature.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

I agree with you 100% avid I notice that too they want us the "Caucasian Male” To pay them money and apologize for what are ancestors did a 130 years ago to African American community. If that’s not racist then what is?

[believer]

Look at Liberia. aint been able to do shit for themselves. Nowhere in the world is there more striking an example of instability, unrest, corruption...nowhere in the world is a life worth so little. King was a trouble maker. everywhere he went, there was trouble. when he died, he shut up. Look at India, still today; war has escalated, nukes have entered the fray, they're still starving, they still got corrupt government and they still can't even provide their own with safe drinking water. These so-called political activists / cultural leaders, why haven't they helped anyone learn irrigation techniques for their lands? Maybe educate people, show them how they can BUILD pride and happiness in their land. Why have they never assisted in the causes of freedom and empowerment by actually DOING something!? because they don't care about the people they use for attention.

[FightinDaMan]

Liberia has nothing to do with, nor does the poverty in India. King and Ghandi both were instrumental in helping their people win valuable rights. King by providing protection for blacks, and gaining them legal equality, Ghandi by contributing to the Indians' right to be free of colonial rule and gain self-determination.

Hardly "using people for attention".

edit: By the way, our founding fathers could be described as "trouble makers" as well. Rocking the boat isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Wadi66]

I think King was right in bringing to the forefront the violation of rights. Although the movement was necessary, further amendments were not. Blacks had full equality under the 14th amendment, states just weren't forced to honor them.

Unfortunately, he was killed. People like Rev. Jackson seized the opportunity to politicize it and make a bundle of money for themsleves.

[Brosio]

Oh Jesse Jackson, if ever their was someone who made my blood boil. The simple sight of his name is enough to conjure up intense dissapointment in MLK's legacy. Now Mr. Bill Cosby's got a point and I praise him for shelving the PC debates and focusing on the truth in the face of much ridicule and ferocious attack.

[therightman]

So we agree with King and his fight for black American civil rights.but not their counterparts who have moved in the wrong direction, who have alterd his dream.but where i stand on the other side of the fence to my fellow money hungry right wingers is with gay civil unions.King dream has not been realised, we only take from it the things we like.As blood thirsty patriots it is our duty to stand up for this rights which have be stolen form our people and to judge persons not on skin color/sex/sexuality but on the content of their character.We must do what is right.

[Wadi66]

And this is the price you pay for allowing the government any control over your life. Government has no constitutional right to require a marriage license from anyone. Seeing the potential revenue presented too great a temptation. But to require one for those getting married in Churches presented a problem. That was interferrance. So to get around that, they required Churches to become corporations registered as tax free. Now the problem is solved because as corporations, they are subject to federal law. Liberals scream separation of church and state, what about that little violation? This violation is okay because it suits their purpose. But try to dictate by law who can get married and who can't and suddenly, the libs cry foul.

If gay's wish to live together the law will protect them there. But the law CAN dictate who marries and who doesn't.

[therightman]

that is all erelevant when it comes to civil unions which are being out lawd left right n centre.

[Wadi66]

that is all erelevant when it comes to civil unions which are being out lawd left right n centre.civil unions require a marriage license too. If they want to live together the 14th amendment protects that right.

[therightman]

a civil union license is different from a marraige license.which should be allowd under the 14th amendment.however we dont allow this license.

[Wadi66]

a civil union license is different from a marraige license.which should be allowd under the 14th amendment.however we dont allow this license.the 14th amendment doesn't allow for any license. I said earlier the constitution doesn't give the government the authority to dictate who can get married. The 14th amendment however would protect them if they chose to live together.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

I agree with you 100% avid I notice that too they want us the "Caucasian Male” To pay them money and apologize for what are ancestors did a 130 years ago to African American community. If that’s not racist then what is?

Don't forget their African brethren were also guilty of profiting from the slave trade. That fact doesn't get nearly enough attention.

[therightman]

the 14th amendment doesn't allow for any license. I said earlier the constitution doesn't give the government the authority to dictate who can get married. The 14th amendment however would protect them if they chose to live together.
the 14th amendment allows for the basis of this particular license.but it does not allow them to get this license.which is where you keep failing me.

[therightman]

that was before he learnt better ways.thats why he then stopd that and looked to further ending opression to all women.people make mistakes.?

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

Don't forget their African brethren were also guilty of profiting from the slave trade. That fact doesn't get nearly enough attention.

Did you know back then tribes went to war in Africa and the Losing Tribe gets sold to a slavers so I think its kinda their doing.

[Wadi66]

the 14th amendment allows for the basis of this particular license.but it does not allow them to get this license.which is where you keep failing me.EXACTLY what part of the 14th amendment allows it? WHERE, anyplace, is the government granted this authority?????

[Wadi66]

Ah no Gandhi continued to abuse his family up untill the time of his death. you've got a link right??

[therightman]

EXACTLY what part of the 14th amendment allows it? WHERE, anyplace, is the government granted this authority?????
im not saying it aloows it.im saying that the 14th would let civil union licenses be passed.but no.

[therightman]

Ah no Gandhi continued to abuse his family up untill the time of his death.
thats not true you gimp.after he returnd from south africa he relised how the opression he had seen was being carried out by him in the home.so he stopd.

[14edsullivan]

http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html

Some of you may have a problem with who wrote that, but we shall see.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

Did you know back then tribes went to war in Africa and the Losing Tribe gets sold to a slavers so I think its kinda their doing.

Yup. People like to call slavery barbaric (which it was), but it's not by any means stricly a white thing. People who criticize only whites for being slavers are extremely ignorant and have an obvious racial motivation.

[Wadi66]

rightman, do you even know what you're saying? In one breath you say
the 14th amendment allows for the basis of this particular license.but it does not allow them to get this license.which is where you keep failing me.then you say
im not saying it aloows it.im saying that the 14th would let civil union licenses be passed.but no.the problem is, if you're reading the amendment at all, you don't understand it. Neither the state nor the federal government can make laws that can abridge privileges. That means, neither have the authority to demand a license to marry or a license to have a civil union.

[therightman]

I am a gimp because when Gandhi returned to India after fighting in the War of South Africa he brought his racist views towards the blacks, back with him. And still to this day, Hindu's still have racist views toward blacks. Hmmm someone needs to start to study history.



1. Grenier, Richard. The Gandhi Nobody Knows published in Commentary March 1983; pages 59 to 72. This is the best article on Gandhi briefly outlining his war activities against the blacks.

2. Kapur, Sudarshan. Raising up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi; Boston: Beacon Press, 1992
Excellent research book into the perspective of Gandhi's anti-black activities in South Africa and India

3. Huq, Fazlul. Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1992.
Superb book. Really gets into the Gandhi's anti-black ideology with a sense of history setting intact.
ok.you shudenly changed your arguement against gandhi to him being racist.

all these authors are bullshit.ive read 2 and 3 and both are full of lies and bend facts and are extremely biased.its like neo nazis trying to deny the haulocost.