BF2S Forums The fruits of Equal Opportunity

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Why would someone quit in the middle of their term?

Something is there....

Well, in the mean time you can explain how her accomplishments, which have been shown to amount to more of that than MLK's is insignificant while MLK's is beyond reproach.

They have?

Wanna compare.

Palin:                                                                        MLK:
                                                                                preacher
mayor                                                                       an activist       
governor                                                                   public speak with a huge following
author                                                                       author
public speaker with huge following                               nobel prize winner ( so was Obama so that pretty much dumb that down)
vice presidential candidate

Ok so tell me most notably King gave great speeches that drew 100s of thousands
Most notably Palin was the governor of Alaska gave great speeches and draws 100s of thousands.

Regardless of politics they both are accomplished, yet one did so without being a liar a cheater a thief and a plagiarizer or an adulterer.
  Palin is dismissed. The civil rights movement went forward even without MLK, it did not collapse, pretty much indicating he rode the wave and was NOT the wave itself.

Pug wrote:

riiiiight

I hear there's also going to be a national holiday for Palin, to correct this error.

lmao! yeah and? How does that dismiss what Palin has done?....By the way, a holiday is not one of HIS accomplishements.

Now, back to the actual comparisons.

Pug wrote:

I'm not wasting my time lowing.

If you are so fucking dense to believe Palin has done more for America than MLK...

lol, whatever you do, do not address what was posted.

No lowing, there comes a point in time that someone's argument becomes so fucking ridiculous you realize there is no point in debating with them.

To be clear:
You have just said Sarah Palin should be compared with MLK, and not only that, but Sarah Palin's accomplishments have been more that MLK's.
And many historians compare MLK with Abraham Lincoln.

That is why your argument is fucking ridiculous.

How about this:
Since MLK is compared to Abraham Lincoln, and Sarah Palin has accomplished more than MLK...prove to me that Sarah Palin has done more than Abraham Lincoln.

Yeah, but I'm the one that is going out on a limb here and needs to defend my point of view. 

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

They have?

Wanna compare.

Palin:                                                                        MLK:
                                                                                preacher
mayor                                                                       an activist       
governor                                                                   public speak with a huge following
author                                                                       author
public speaker with huge following                               nobel prize winner ( so was Obama so that pretty much dumb that down)
vice presidential candidate

Ok so tell me most notably King gave great speeches that drew 100s of thousands
Most notably Palin was the governor of Alaska gave great speeches and draws 100s of thousands.

Regardless of politics they both are accomplished, yet one did so without being a liar a cheater a thief and a plagiarizer or an adulterer.
  Palin is dismissed. The civil rights movement went forward even without MLK, it did not collapse, pretty much indicating he rode the wave and was NOT the wave itself.

You ignore the blemishes on Palin's record (see about her nepotism and various vendettas) and you marginalize MLK's role in civil rights, both of which are really dishonest in this discussion.

If there is any marginalizing going on, it is that of MLK's character. Which has nothing to do with the civil rights movement regardless as to how much you want it to. The civil rights movement and its righteousness stands alone. MLK does not add or detract from its moral ground.

What has Palin done again? Because so far the biggest thing the liberals have been able to pin on her is her dastardly writings on her hands. Now compare that to MLK's theft, adultery, lying cheating etc.... and you wanna condemn Palin? lol yeah right.

lowing wrote:

If there is any marginalizing going on, it is that of MLK's character. Which has nothing to do with the civil rights movement regardless as to how much you want it to. The civil rights movement and its righteousness stands alone. MLK does not add or detract from its moral ground.

What has Palin done again? Because so far the biggest thing the liberals have been able to pin on her is her dastardly writings on her hands. Now compare that to MLK's theft, adultery, lying cheating etc.... and you wanna condemn Palin? lol yeah right.

NEPOTISM.  She has done this; hiring friends who are unqualified into jobs with inflated pay because she could in her political position.  With your logic, that's just like stealing.  Or what about using personal email for work business as a method to avoid public record?  That's deceit, right there.  So now Palin is a thief and a liar.

MLK worked to move the civil rights movement along.  His character does not define the movement, nor does the movement define his character.  You are the only one making that particular connection.  However, his WORK on that movement is part of his character, and you keep ignoring that.  That is dishonest.

MLK compared himself to moses lel

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

How about this....post a DEBATABLE premise instead of garbage.

I did...I want to discuss MLK's character and you dismiss it, diverting attention to the civil rights movement. A movement that stands alone with or without mMLK's approval. In fact it did, since he was shot and killed.

I think we discussed character enough.

The problem is you don't like the outcome so you want to continue discussing it by using the same points.

Now, lets go on.

Prove to me that Palin deserves to be compared with the best leaders in US history, as that is the current topic you wish to discuss.

LOL I wouldn't mind the outcome if you didn't insiust character was the same thing as image. they are not, so no I am not going to let you press that.


LMAO!! given that MLK is a liar a cheater, an adulterer, a womanizer as plagiarizer and a thief and Palin is not how about you explain to me how MLK is the better roll model for any leaders or followers? side note, Palin has not been proven to be any of those, so who has the moral high ground here?

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

If there is any marginalizing going on, it is that of MLK's character. Which has nothing to do with the civil rights movement regardless as to how much you want it to. The civil rights movement and its righteousness stands alone. MLK does not add or detract from its moral ground.

What has Palin done again? Because so far the biggest thing the liberals have been able to pin on her is her dastardly writings on her hands. Now compare that to MLK's theft, adultery, lying cheating etc.... and you wanna condemn Palin? lol yeah right.

NEPOTISM.  She has done this; hiring friends who are unqualified into jobs with inflated pay because she could in her political position.  With your logic, that's just like stealing.  Or what about using personal email for work business as a method to avoid public record?  That's deceit, right there.  So now Palin is a thief and a liar.

MLK worked to move the civil rights movement along.  His character does not define the movement, nor does the movement define his character.  You are the only one making that particular connection.  However, his WORK on that movement is part of his character, and you keep ignoring that.  That is dishonest.

Wow what a stretch, you are gunna hang your hat on that shit while excuse MLK for his REAL crimes? Why not?

lowing wrote:

Great now that we agree MLK's character does not define the civil rights movement, and the civil rights movement does not define MLK. Based on MLK's proven character, we can safely say he was a fraud and moraily lacking with a false image rightusnous.

By the way pal, you might wanna go back and do some fucking reading. I never merged the civil rights movement with the character of MLK, that was your boy. SOunds like you 2need to work out your argument and come up with something consistant to present. Because now you are arguing on my side.

Go find where I linked the two.

You link them whenever you refute that claim.  No one ever said 'MLK is the civil rights movement', yet you keep saying that 'MLK is NOT the civil rights movement'.  If there is someone who is confused, it's you.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

I did...I want to discuss MLK's character and you dismiss it, diverting attention to the civil rights movement. A movement that stands alone with or without mMLK's approval. In fact it did, since he was shot and killed.

I think we discussed character enough.

The problem is you don't like the outcome so you want to continue discussing it by using the same points.

Now, lets go on.

Prove to me that Palin deserves to be compared with the best leaders in US history, as that is the current topic you wish to discuss.

LOL I wouldn't mind the outcome if you didn't insiust character was the same thing as image. they are not, so no I am not going to let you press that.


LMAO!! given that MLK is a liar a cheater, an adulterer, a womanizer as plagiarizer and a thief and Palin is not how about you explain to me how MLK is the better roll model for any leaders or followers? side note, Palin has not been proven to be any of those, so who has the moral high ground here?

It's not up to me to repeat the majority opinion.  It's up to you to definitively prove that Palin is better.

Redirecting this to me isn't going to improve the argument.

Try again

The topic:
Palin deserves to be compared with the best leaders in US history.

Is that NOT what you are saying as historians cite MLK was one of the most important leaders in US history?

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Great now that we agree MLK's character does not define the civil rights movement, and the civil rights movement does not define MLK. Based on MLK's proven character, we can safely say he was a fraud and moraily lacking with a false image rightusnous.

By the way pal, you might wanna go back and do some fucking reading. I never merged the civil rights movement with the character of MLK, that was your boy. SOunds like you 2need to work out your argument and come up with something consistant to present. Because now you are arguing on my side.

Go find where I linked the two.

You link them whenever you refute that claim.  No one ever said 'MLK is the civil rights movement', yet you keep saying that 'MLK is NOT the civil rights movement'.  If there is someone who is confused, it's you.

Re-read, I didn't say you did link them, Pug does. He can not argue his point for his beloved MLK without involving the civil rights movement.

lowing wrote:

Yes because hiring someone you know is a far greater breach of trust than cheating on your wife, or stealing works from other people and calling them your own.

You ever get a job because a friend recommended ya?

What's this?  a dismissal?  Oh my!  I thought that was what everyone else did.

I've been recommended to people but ultimately hired on my merits, not just the other person's word.  Look up nepotism if you're confused on the difference.