Conservative on Republican Motivations

[_moksha]

Did you know Martin Luther King was a devout Christian as well? I'm sure the left would like to bury the fact that their civil rights champion was foolish enough to believe in God.

They would never acknowledge that the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a minister, nor would they be likely to acknowledge that a giant ground sloth is a quadruped! Such acknowledgments would run contrary to whatever comes into our heads, eh Ajax?

[_EAllusion]

This so thoroughly misunderstands what Martin Luther King was saying and what his politics were about that it immediately flags people of using this reasoning as profoundly ignorant or acting in bad faith.

Did you know Martin Luther King was a devout Christian as well? I'm sure the left would like to bury the fact that their civil rights champion was foolish enough to believe in God.

This isn't 1967. MLK is a national hero and isn't "the left's" civil rights champion so much as an iconic civil rights champion for the bulk of America. There's a holiday and everything, FYI.

His status in the culture is why you see the "Actually, MLK endorsed contemporary conservative views" arguments coming from conservative circles. Their trying to coopt the positive association with his name. Being someone who doesn't like misleading people with historically inaccurate information, I find this annoying.

I'm fairly certain that most people are aware that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was a Christian.

Anywho, contrary to what you said, Dr. King was a strong advocate of programs that we'd call affirmative action. In fact, he favored very far reaching policies to advantage African-Americans in society in order to compensate for and counteract historical wrongs committed against them. What came to be called affirmative action started under the Nixon administration as a compromise against the kind of policies people like King were advocating. And Nixoian affirmative action had more teeth than what we see today, which you find completely unacceptable. If a politician today was advocating what King was advocating in the 60's, you'd describe them as the left wing of the left wing.

[_subgenius]

Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.

The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count.

Reading is fundamental.

Mr H's analysis does not confirm the posted claim, as it is simply a possible side effect. Also, please quote the remaining context of your snippet for an honest, and "fundamental", reading of the point made by your 'snippet'.

and note the implicit racism in your citation...of the "analysis",
thanks!

[_ajax18]

Anywho, contrary to what you said, Dr. King was a strong advocate of programs that we'd call affirmative action

So his statement about being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin was just empty rhetoric and not really what King was about at all. Thanks for the history lesson.

[_Res Ipsa]

Anywho, contrary to what you said, Dr. King was a strong advocate of programs that we'd call affirmative action

So his statement about being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin was just empty rhetoric and not really what King was about at all. Thanks for the history lesson.

Please tell me you’re really not this dense? Have you ever read the speech?

[_EAllusion]

The reason it is a “dream” Ajax is because we don’t live in a society where people aren’t treated differently in the basis of race. That is the North Star aspiration of King’s view of an ideal society. That’s what its function is in the speech. He believed that in order to fix social ills around race relations that prevent this from happening, America ought to address the unequal effects of historical racial discrimination through programs we now call affirmative action.

Wanting a post-racial society is not inconsistent with taking actions that acknowledge present-day social realities.

[_canpakes]

Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.

The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count.

Mr H's analysis does not confirm the posted claim, as it is simply a possible side effect. Also, please quote the remaining context of your snippet for an honest, and "fundamental", reading of the point made by your 'snippet'.

and note the implicit racism in your citation...of the "analysis",
thanks!

The side effect is the claim. Thanks for proving the point even as you’re trying to weasel through some sort of excuse as to why it is that given the results of the study, that the strategy then became to add the citizenship question.

And you can tell me what the ‘implicit racism’ is that you’re referring to, right? I’ll wait.

[_moksha]

So his statement about being judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin was just empty rhetoric and not really what King was about at all. Thanks for the history lesson.

If you recall, the Reverend Doctor was able to see over the mountain, while others are content to wait at base camp while their sherpas fetch them a mint julep.

[_Gunnar]

Congrats, Sub. You hit every trope in the racism denial category.

i have never denied the fact that the majority of Democrats and Liberals are racist.

Classic projection, nothing more!

[_subgenius]

Classic projection, nothing more!

A truer summary of the DNC platform and racism has yet to be posted.
Thanks Gunnar!