BF2S Forums The fruits of Equal Opportunity

Pug wrote:

No I'm not endorsing shit.

I'm telling you it DOESN'T matter.

There's a difference.

Ahh then you are telling me the behavior of any public figure does not matter. got it.

I take it you refuse to address the double standard as well..What a shocker.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-22 13:51:22)

Pug wrote:

No dumbass.

For example:
Tiger Woods is one of the best golfers ever.  And I hate him for being a fuckhead.

Where is the double standard?  Because you think he's not a golfer because he fucked somebody else?

Do you get it yet?

Yet you seem to think the civil rights movement could suffer from acknowledging MLK was a "fuckhead". You separate tiger woods from golf, yet can not seem to manage to separate MLK from the civil rights movement. So you do not see the double standard? Hell you epitomize it.

Go ahead let me hear you say it. MLK should have his PHD revoked, for his conduct, and you condemn his actions as a preacher. Let me hear you call him exactly what he is. A liar, a cheater, an adulterer and a thief and a plagiariser.

THe argument is MLK deserves privacy and the Palins do not.  You feel this way ( Dilbert really) while controversy surounds MLK's life. THere is no such dirt deserving of attention for the Palin's yet Dilbert thinks it is right and fair to dig into her life. Explain this double standard when both are public figures, influencing the masses.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-22 16:13:30)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yet you seem to think the civil rights movement could suffer from acknowledging MLK was a "fuckhead". You separate tiger woods from golf, yet can not seem to manage to separate MLK from the civil rights movement.

The argument is MLK deserves privacy and the Palins do not.  You feel this way ( Dilbert really)

No one has said that, we've said MLK's private life is irrelevant to your arguments.

Ummm yes you did say that, do I really need to dig up the post again? Do I need to post your excuses, starting with, I am "blind", "it is irrelevant", "he is not a public figure", and lastly now, "you never said that". you have done nothing except try to worm your way out of acknowledging your double standards for those you like and those you do not.


I am wondering if you know what my argument is.

let me clarify. It is not the civil rights movement. It is the public figure, MLK that has been PROVEN to be a fraud, a cheat, and adulterer, a thief a liar and a plagiarizer. You call this irrelevant and should not be scrutinized because he is a private citizen, which he is not he is a public figure.

I then have shown your post where you claim the Palins have no right to privacy because she is a public figure. totally disregarding the fact there is no real dirt on her. Yet you approve of every effort to find some. I assume because it would be relevant to her character. When some is found on MLK and PROVEN, all of a sudden it does not matter. those facts goes to his character. He was not what his self righteous public image showed the world.

Question is simple. Why is MLK given a pass by you regarding his character, which are proven facts, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!! and the Palins are expected to endure digging into their private lives because for her, you claim she has no private life.

You do not excuse any other public figures character as irrelevant, why do you excuse MLK's character as irrelevant?

By the way do not claim MLK is not a public figure again. He god damn sure as fuck is and you know it.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-22 21:12:16)

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

It is the public figure, MLK that has been PROVEN to be a fraud, a cheat, and adulterer, a thief a liar and a plagiarizer.

He's dead, who gives a shit?

How is this relevant to racists selectively editing a video to distort the message?

Yeah you used that excuse, along with I am blind, it is irrelevant, and he is not a public figure, and yet you do not explain your double standard.

If dirt were dug up after Bush was dead you would want it included as part of his legacy, which I agree. You would not be claiming it is irrelevant, or he is dead leave him alone. You would run with it, and we all know it. Now explain your double standard.

What matters is your inconsistency in your opinion that public figures deserve no privacy Except MLK who has been proven to be an unscrupulous immoral man with not an ounce of integrity.

How is it relevant, because I can easily say you are willing to let the black guy off the hook with one standard after his unscrupulous behavior has been proven, while approve the character assassination of the white woman who has done nothing wrong.

Uhh no the message was not distorted, she did in fact admit that she withheld help she could have rendered because the family was white. The audience did in fact applaud that action. The only difference is, she admitted it was wrong. Where was the distortion?

You were not screaming "racism" or "distortion" when the whole truth came out about what Henry Gates did to get himself arrested. You did not call him a racist for making racist slurs, and you did not acknowledge the cop was justified in his arrest. Oh and by the way, there was a presidential apology to the cop as well.

So here we have it, 2 cases where you side with the black guy regardless of the circumstances and the FACTS against them, while condemn the white person who has been shown they did nothing wrong.

Might wanna take a step back and think about who you call a racist.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-23 05:20:14)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Last time - I haven't said MLK deserves privacy, just that his private life is irrelevant to the issue of black equality.

You're mad if you're obsessing over black people in the news.

Dilbert out.

I am not the one linking his private life with black equality, in fact I never mentioned it, and insist they are 2 separate issues. You continue to do mention it and try to tie the 2 together to protect MLK.

Now that we agree on that.
Explain your double standard with regards to what has been pointed out in your opinions and your posts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I expect nothing more. You can put away your dancing shoes, I am done with you.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-23 05:58:59)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well I'm glad thats over.

Back to the OP:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Just more confirmation for my long held beliefs (based on personal experience) that black people are far more racist than white people here in America. Thank you JFK for saddling us with EO. Hope you're burning in your own Catholic hell.

So who is more racist:

[ ] The black woman who started out racist but recognised the error of her ways, rectified it and spoke out about it.
[ ] The fruitcakes who edited and published a video to make someone appear racist and stir up race hate across the country.

I bet you are glad it is over, you must be exhausted form all of the dodging and juking and dancing.


This story is not about her, it is about the double standard ( I know you know what that is) shown by the NAACP and the audience who applauded this women's actions against that white family, while condemning the tea party movement as racist.

The video was about that fact. The person posting the video did not insist on Sherrods termination. That was damage control by the Obama administration.

m3thod wrote:

The Obama administration has apologised to former Agricultre Ministry director Shirley Sherrod after she was fired; a short video posted online had apparently shown her being racist - only for the context of the full video to show she was not. Barack Obama has blamed "this media culture where something goes up on YouTu...be or a blog and everybody scrambles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10732839

seems context places a new perspective

Uhh yeah she was being racist, she admitted it, and the audience applauded with approval for it...Lets get the facts straight.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yet you seem to think the civil rights movement could suffer from acknowledging MLK was a "fuckhead". You separate tiger woods from golf, yet can not seem to manage to separate MLK from the civil rights movement. So you do not see the double standard? Hell you epitomize it.

Go ahead let me hear you say it. MLK should have his PHD revoked, for his conduct, and you condemn his actions as a preacher. Let me hear you call him exactly what he is. A liar, a cheater, an adulterer and a thief and a plagiariser.

THe argument is MLK deserves privacy and the Palins do not.  You feel this way ( Dilbert really) while controversy surounds MLK's life. THere is no such dirt deserving of attention for the Palin's yet Dilbert thinks it is right and fair to dig into her life. Explain this double standard when both are public figures, influencing the masses.

You still aren't getting it.

No matter what happens, Tiger will be one of the greatest golfers because he accomplished something.
No matter what happens, MLK will be one of the greatest civil rights activists.

And tack on the rest:
No matter what happens, they will be adulterers.

The argument isn't about privacy at all.  You want equal treatment?  Let Palin do something...i dunno win the master six or seven times...and then we'll talk.

You aren't understanding that character issues DO NOT erase the past.  And accomplishments DO NOT erase character issues.

Now...
Let's say we revoke his PhD.  What happens?  Does suddenly civil rights become defunct?  Do you understand that even if MLK faded into obscurity there would be no change?

Now, if Palin faded into obscurity...would anyone notice?

So do you think MLK and Palin is a good comparison?

Again, not sure if I can find a way to emphasize that this is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement is bigger than MLK sorry to tell ya. This goes toward setting the record straight. MLK does not deserve his PHD and it should be revoked. MLK preached morality, integrity and he had none, this is relevant to HIS legacy, not the civil rights movement.

I also am a little taken back that you think sinking a 20 foot putt is a far greater significant accomplishment or contribution to society than being the governor of a state. lol Oh well, I never have underestimated the power of celebrity worship.

You would not feel the same if it were Bush and not MLK with the same behavior, even if he were dead. you would insist his legacy reflect his actions as a person.

I guess we must first acknowledge this issue has nothing to do with the civil irghts movement, so stop mentioning it.

Sarah effin Palin and Martin effin King...seriously?

Pug wrote:

Sarah effin Palin and Martin effin King...seriously?

I am not comparing Palin and King. I used Dilberts own opinion regarding 2 public figures against him. It did not have to be Palin, it just happend to be Palin. The issue of Palin and King is his attitude and double standard  regarding public figures, not accomplishments. It is a character issue, not an accomplishment issue.  I think I have made that abundantly clear if you are willing to acknowledge I have stated it.

Yeah, but the problem is I'm not seeing a double standard.

lowing wrote:

You are not acknowledging Dilberts opinion is a double standard and in fact have gone to bat in order to deflect that fact, by arguing points that have not been made regarding the civil rights movement and tiger woods.