BF2S Forums The fruits of Equal Opportunity

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Or a book by George Bush on honesty in politics?

I see ya got the point, now how about addressing it?

Trouble is you're blind to one side of the argument, so there is no real point arguing.

Well if you have an argument for repeatedly cheating on your wife and children and cheating on your PHD as well as other college papers, all the while presenting yourself cloaked in self righteousness and morality, I am all ears.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-21 17:54:29)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its irrelevant, so I can't be bothered.

lol, a dismissal..wow never saw that coming.

Nice to see the truth about a leader is irrelevant to you. Before you said it was because I was "blind" now it is because you deem it irrelevant. Got it.

Can't say i blame you really, since there is no argument FOR MLK's cheating and stealing. Only question left is, why do you excuse it? I doubt you would excuse it from Bush.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-21 18:00:59)

Dilbert_X wrote:

What MLK did in his private life doesn't mean blacks don't have the right to be treated equally, or to ask for it.
What did he steal exactly?

Jesus never worked, or payed taxes - he was a leech who sponged off his followers - address that.

I see, so now a public figure has a private life that should not be breached. I have a notion to go a read your thoughts about the guy that has camped out next door to Sarah Palins house in an effort to dig dirt for his book. By the way, this has nothing to do with civil rights of black Americans.

He stole the works of other people and took credit for them.

LOL, I though Jesus was a carpenter. Got proof he did not pay taxes,cuz there is proof MLK was a liar cheater and thief?

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-21 18:11:37)

owned

sagger lover

11 Bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

owned

I wonder where all of my "BRILLIANT POST" karmas are. I will not hold my breath

dont hold your breath for the mods to make sense either.  ill give you karma for this one.

actually I was waiting for my ban. lol

11 Bravo wrote:

ya thats what i mean.  fucking joke as usual.

to be honest, my last ban was well deserved as I ragged burnzz pretty hard. My only regret is they removed my post.

Macbeth wrote:

lowing wrote:

What does it say about your character if you cheat on your wife and children ( consistently mind you)?

That he was continuing a long tradition of powerful men having mistresses.

He did plagiarize his PHD essay, and cheat on his wife, those are indisputable facts. The reason why it doesn't change his legacy is: the cheating on his wife and the plagiarism didn't have any relation to the civil rights movement.

In a way it does.  If not for the civil rights movement and his false "image", he would have his PHD revoked. It goes toward his character, and as I said if you are going to build your image around your self righteousness, it would be best to be righteous.

lowing wrote:

LOL, I though Jesus was a carpenter. Got proof he did not pay taxes,cuz there is proof MLK was a liar cheater and thief?

Got proof that he did? I'm not aware of a single bit in the bible which shows he worked or paid taxes.
He was a leech, a moocher, and didn't man-up and join the army so that makes him a liberal fag too.

why the double standard ? where is your consistency in your opinions? and you accuse me of being blind? Sorry pal, I am consistent in my posts, regardless of race. Sad you can not say that.

Its irrelevant to the argument, MLK dealt with all the criticism and it didn't affect his argument since it was about black equality - not honesty in politics.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-21 19:28:43)

lowing wrote:

For the most part I agree. However, when one builds an image of morality and righteousness for themselves, then preaches it, all with a goal of forwarding an agenda, I find it harder to excuses their trespasses, as those trespasses are more meaningful and their message has less credibility and merit.

How would you react to a book written by Mark Sanford on the sanctity of marriage, or a book written by Don King on the integrity of a good clean fight?

Fair points...

How about this then...  MLK had his problems, but his "agenda" was still righteous.  I support the spirit of what he achieved even if he himself was a flawed man.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

For the most part I agree. However, when one builds an image of morality and righteousness for themselves, then preaches it, all with a goal of forwarding an agenda, I find it harder to excuses their trespasses, as those trespasses are more meaningful and their message has less credibility and merit.

How would you react to a book written by Mark Sanford on the sanctity of marriage, or a book written by Don King on the integrity of a good clean fight?

Fair points...

How about this then...  MLK had his problems, but his "agenda" was still righteous.  I support the spirit of what he achieved even if he himself was a flawed man.

I have no problem with that. The thing is the civil rights movement has nothing to do with the issue of his integrity honesty or morality, his actions do.

Just because MLK championed the movement, it does not deter from the fact that he was a liar, a cheater, a thief, and a fraud.

I will also go out on a limb and say Rosa Parks was more of a champion to that cause than MLK. She was not looking for fame or self promotion. Her heart was pure in that regard.

MLK sought fame, publicity, notoriety and power, ( and he lied cheated and stole his way to that end). Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are of the same ilk.

Well, actually, they've discovered that Parks was approached by activists before she walked onto that bus.  She was somewhat of an activist herself, so when she took a stand, it was a planned incident.

Granted, I think Parks shows us that planning a movement is very effective.  You're much more likely to get something accomplished through planning an incident than to just rely on random chance.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, actually, they've discovered that Parks was approached by activists before she walked onto that bus.  She was somewhat of an activist herself, so when she took a stand, it was a planned incident.

Granted, I think Parks shows us that planning a movement is very effective.  You're much more likely to get something accomplished through planning an incident than to just rely on random chance.

Now that is disappointing news. Lets face it, the act is less potent because it was "staged" than it is as a random act of defiance by a brave woman that has had enough and took a stand spontaneously.

I don't see it that way.  The sitins at Woolworth's in my city of Greensboro were planned as well, but that doesn't seem to detract from their significance in the movement.