the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn't invited

[ChezC3]

If you refer to your little diatribe the answer is no, if you mean my post and where the Radical Right has pulled my former political party then yes, yes I do believe what i posted. Howsomever I didn't say fair minded, but I'd say FAIRER minded.

Again look at the title of this thread and the posts the Cons put in it.... race and skin color is what they concentrated on in a lame attempt to take a little bit of wind out of a national celebration.

And to be clear, I never mentioned the race baiting whackadoodles with crayon posters at Con events.... YOU did.

No Sir, I think I can restrict my examples to elected Cons in Congress, with a generous helping of State politicians of the TP persuasion...

What radical Right has taken over exactly? the one who has been bending over for Obama every chance given or the ones who are doing everything in their power to blur the line between (R) and (D)?

Look, I like The Newsroom too, but that "I'm a Republican who wants back his party" schpeal isn't gonna jive, besides, I used that back in 08 and I see where it got us.


There was no national celebration that was the point, it was an attempted take-over of MLK to be used as a political icon of the Democratic party.

The point of the thread I can assume is that with there only being 1 black Senator, and you know, some people view that as a big thing, so he naturally should have been invited.

This event was nothing more than a campaign to rob MLK's legacy from all and give it to the chosen few. Shouldn't surprise anyone, it's what Obama has been doing since he took office.

and you started your post telling me to look at other posters and finished off by saying you can restrict your examples to elected officials, which is it gonna be?

 

[Carleen]

Sen. Tim Scott wasn

So why wasn't the only Black Senator invited to the biggest Black event of the year?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Every Republican who was invited to speak declined including Boehner, Cantor, McCain and Jeb Bush in place of his brother. I'm not sure he wasn't invited. Haven't read anything about that. So much for Republicans reaching out.

 

[notquiteright]

What radical Right has taken over exactly? the one who has been bending over for Obama every chance given or the ones who are doing everything in their power to blur the line between (R) and (D)? Look, I like The Newsroom too, but that "I'm a Republican who wants back his party" schpeal isn't gonna jive, besides, I used that back in 08 and I see where it got us. There was no national celebration that was the point, it was an attempted take-over of MLK to be used as a political icon of the Democratic party. The point of the thread I can assume is that with there only being 1 black Senator, and you know, some people view that as a big thing, so he naturally should have been invited. This event was nothing more than a campaign to rob MLK's legacy from all and give it to the chosen few. Shouldn't surprise anyone, it's what Obama has been doing since he took office. and you started your post telling me to look at other posters and finished off by saying you can restrict your examples to elected officials, which is it gonna be?

First the GOP has not even leaned toward Obama and the blockage of his nominees is prefect proof of that. That a few radical right ranters carry on claiming the GOP has bent over is no proof. fact is Congress is in a deep freeze, we stumble along without budget talks of any meaning, even Boehner admits the GOP in the House can't lead and is leaving it up to the Senate to lead (with it's rules favoring minority roadblocks the Senate isn't in a position to lead unless the Dems get 66 seats.)

I don't see the GOP returning to it's classical past, the die has been cast with the social conservatives flooding in with Reagan. More a shame than a desire to return. The GOP ain't coming back, it has already gone too far.

I can see how a hard right rightie would see the 'taking over' of MLK day- I see it more as a shunning by the Cons as their base really doesn't like affirmative action and as the original posters show, and you- they do judge a man by the color of his skin... even a conservative one... :shock:

ANY politician who stands against most of MLK's ideas shouldn't be invited to speak- even if both come from the same state, the same school, served together- or are the same race.

Content of heart, not color of skin.... all this other dancing you are doing in an attempt to cover up that single most important fact about MLK. The posters in here who put race/color of skin before content of heart, the radical right who would turn back civil rights for more than just minority races all still judge by skin and not content of heart.... :roll:

 

[ChezC3]

First the GOP has not even leaned toward Obama and the blockage of his nominees is prefect proof of that. That a few radical right ranters carry on claiming the GOP has bent over is no proof. fact is Congress is in a deep freeze, we stumble along without budget talks of any meaning, even Boehner admits the GOP in the House can't lead and is leaving it up to the Senate to lead (with it's rules favoring minority roadblocks the Senate isn't in a position to lead unless the Dems get 66 seats.)

I don't see the GOP returning to it's classical past, the die has been cast with the social conservatives flooding in with Reagan. More a shame than a desire to return. The GOP ain't coming back, it has already gone too far.

I can see how a hard right rightie would see the 'taking over' of MLK day- I see it more as a shunning by the Cons as their base really doesn't like affirmative action and as the original posters show, and you- they do judge a man by the color of his skin... even a conservative one... :shock:

ANY politician who stands against most of MLK's ideas shouldn't be invited to speak- even if both come from the same state, the same school, served together- or are the same race.

Content of heart, not color of skin.... all this other dancing you are doing in an attempt to cover up that single most important fact about MLK. The posters in here who put race/color of skin before content of heart, the radical right who would turn back civil rights for more than just minority races all still judge by skin and not content of heart.... :roll:

I think we've seen what's in the Dem's heart -- divisiveness... That's what I see most people -- myself included -- complaining about. That and saying one thing and then doing something different.

What precisely does this Senator believe that contradicts MLK?

 

[notquiteright]

I think we've seen what's in the Dem's heart -- divisiveness... That's what I see most people -- myself included -- complaining about. That and saying one thing and then doing something different.

What precisely does this Senator believe that contradicts MLK?

Now again you attempt to talk away from my issue with the first few posters in here, nice try but the Cons have been playing the divisive card since Willie Horton, give or take an election cycle. Please don't attempt to include 'most people' with your opinions- IF that was true then Willard would have won...

before we move away from my point I'd like to remind you of it as Cons sure like veering away from an issue they can't refute into a nit pik deflection-

You and the other decriers of Sen Scott not being invited to speak see the senator as black first, the content of his heart second. ALL of you use his race as THE reason to have him speak when the fact is he is nothing special historically. He is not an ELECTED Senator, no voice of the people put him in the Senate, a Republican Governor did to replace DeMint as he scuttled off to run the Heritage Foundation.

So the very scourge of the radical right- unelected officials who hold power over 'we the people'- is who you go to bat for. :doh

As for his political believes in conflict with MLK try reading his 'tenure' in the House of reps in Wiki. the biggie- he wanted to cut off food stamps to those eligible families who met the requirement while on strike. I don't think MLK was looking down on that favorably. he claims in a vote on the budget and constitutional amendment that he received 'Divine Inspiration' on that vote but not for food stamps... :shock:

His funding and backing for his House race was incredibly lopsided in amount and Tea Party backing, Quitter Palin, Mike huckabee, Demint and Eric cantor all backed him, he is rumored to spend 723,000 to 20,000 by frasier.

BUT back to my point, those so 'outraged' by a black Con Appointed Senator didn't point to his many references to MLK, or how inspired he was by MLK as he grew up, or even how in his many prayers he thought of MLK.

No Sir, you ALL point to his skin color as THE primary reason appointed senator Scott should have been invited to speak!

Quit the quibble, quit trying to go off topic-

You guys saw race first, political 'convictions' second and certainly Scott is no dreamer chaser, well not a chaser of MLK's dream....

 

[Manc Skipper]

The OP is a misrepresentation. He was asked, but like every single republican on the invitation list, he declined. What kind of people judge his qualification to attend based solely on his skin tone?

 

[ChezC3]

Now again you attempt to talk away from my issue with the first few posters in here, nice try but the Cons have been playing the divisive card since Willie Horton, give or take an election cycle. Please don't attempt to include 'most people' with your opinions- IF that was true then Willard would have won...

before we move away from my point I'd like to remind you of it as Cons sure like veering away from an issue they can't refute into a nit pik deflection-

You and the other decriers of Sen Scott not being invited to speak see the senator as black first, the content of his heart second. ALL of you use his race as THE reason to have him speak when the fact is he is nothing special historically. He is not an ELECTED Senator, no voice of the people put him in the Senate, a Republican Governor did to replace DeMint as he scuttled off to run the Heritage Foundation.

So the very scourge of the radical right- unelected officials who hold power over 'we the people'- is who you go to bat for. :doh

As for his political believes in conflict with MLK try reading his 'tenure' in the House of reps in Wiki. the biggie- he wanted to cut off food stamps to those eligible families who met the requirement while on strike. I don't think MLK was looking down on that favorably. he claims in a vote on the budget and constitutional amendment that he received 'Divine Inspiration' on that vote but not for food stamps... :shock:

His funding and backing for his House race was incredibly lopsided in amount and Tea Party backing, Quitter Palin, Mike huckabee, Demint and Eric cantor all backed him, he is rumored to spend 723,000 to 20,000 by frasier.

BUT back to my point, those so 'outraged' by a black Con Appointed Senator didn't point to his many references to MLK, or how inspired he was by MLK as he grew up, or even how in his many prayers he thought of MLK.

No Sir, you ALL point to his skin color as THE primary reason appointed senator Scott should have been invited to speak!

Quit the quibble, quit trying to go off topic-

You guys saw race first, political 'convictions' second and certainly Scott is no dreamer chaser, well not a chaser of MLK's dream....

I think it's clear by your smorgasbord of issues here that you're the one going off topic.

but here let's put this to bed and chalk it up to 24/7 news coverage and the narrative it puts out there, right or wrong.

Senator Tim Scott Turned Down Invitation to 50th Anniversary of MLK Speech | Mediaite

The issue is dead as far as I'm concerned I retract anything I said as it specifically regards this particular for instance. You do have some other ideas floating out there that I do think need correcting but that would be for a different thread(s)

 

[ChezC3]

The OP is a misrepresentation. He was asked, but like every single republican on the invitation list, he declined. What kind of people judge his qualification to attend based solely on his skin tone?

Now see, I was just about to move on and I see this. What was MLK known for? Civil Rights, specifically race. The entire event is about race. It is beyond intellectually dishonest to make accusatory suggestions as the one above and from others I have seen, feigning your indignity. Please...

 

[Manc Skipper]

Now see, I was just about to move on and I see this. What was MLK known for? Civil Rights, specifically race. The entire event is about race. It is beyond intellectually dishonest to make accusatory suggestions as the one above and from others I have seen, feigning your indignity. Please...

That's a perfect exmple of the kind of thinking I meant. There were speakers of all "shades" on the day, yet you only see one as relevant.

 

[notquiteright]

I think it's clear by your smorgasbord of issues here that you're the one going off topic. but here let's put this to bed and chalk it up to 24/7 news coverage and the narrative it puts out there, right or wrong. Senator Tim Scott Turned Down Invitation to 50th Anniversary of MLK Speech | Mediaite The issue is dead as far as I'm concerned I retract anything I said as it specifically regards this particular for instance. You do have some other ideas floating out there that I do think need correcting but that would be for a different thread(s)

More Con quibble I see- YOU took us down the off topic road, not me. YOU and the first posters tried to make this a 'libs are mean to a fellow black man' crap fest.

YOU cons were the ones looking at Appointed senator Scott's skin color rather than content of his heart, not me.

YOU cons violated Dr. King's message in a lame attempt to claim the liberals did so... :roll:

I'll agree with one thing you posted- it doesn't matter if Appointed Senator Scott refused an invite or wasn't invited. His skin color earns him no special consideration but you Cons made this all about his skin color... :2wave:

 

[ChezC3]

That's a perfect exmple of the kind of thinking I meant. There were speakers of all "shades" on the day, yet you only see one as relevant.

No, I see the person they're celebrating, his life's work, and his death as relevant. He was specific in whom he was an advocate for, let's not entertain childish notions by thinking anything different.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I am old. I remember the Speech in 'real time'. Back in the day MLK was called everything but white- he was a commie, an anarchist, a race baiter, and a criminal agitator.

Your rhetoric would fit right in. Though I have to laugh that you divide the Marxism by race... you are having trouble seeing past skin color?

Well, to be truthful, MLK did hold some very anti-establishment views, and doubt he would be getting much love from the mainstream left and the democratic party in this day and age. And the only reason so many "love" him today is due to his legacy being rather whitewashed and now representing a political caricature

 

[ChezC3]

More Con quibble I see- YOU took us down the off topic road, not me. YOU and the first posters tried to make this a 'libs are mean to a fellow black man' crap fest.

YOU cons were the ones looking at Appointed senator Scott's skin color rather than content of his heart, not me.

YOU cons violated Dr. King's message in a lame attempt to claim the liberals did so... :roll:

I'll agree with one thing you posted- it doesn't matter if Appointed Senator Scott refused an invite or wasn't invited. His skin color earns him no special consideration but you Cons made this all about his skin color... :2wave:

Well no one can accuse you of being a gracious victor, that's OK, mis-characterize me, don't care. Hell, why not call me what you really want to? Eh? C'mon, live a little... you've earned it...(in your mind anyhow...)

 

[Linc]

Zero Republicans attended, period, in spite of being invited.

Why wouldn't Boehner and nCan'tor attend when they were invited?

 

[notquiteright]

Well, to be truthful, MLK did hold some very anti-establishment views, and doubt he would be getting much love from the mainstream left and the democratic party in this day and age. And the only reason so many "love" him today is due to his legacy being rather whitewashed and now representing a political caricature

A very opinionated and not well sourced post... no doubt he would be seen as a progressive rather than Tea Party darling- no debate there. When many to include President Kennedy didn't want to face the 'dirty south's' separate but equal crap, saying 'time is on your side, don't rock the boat', many stood up to be counted. MLK was one of them, and he paid for his temerity with his life. I understand some want to knock his legend down, but bottom line he did lead the nation toward honoring the simple concept- all men are created equal.

But all this deflects from the OP and the first few posters who stood MLK's dream on it's ear and judged an appointed Senator by the color of his skin and not the content of his heart.

Denigrate the MLK all you want, his Dream Speech will outlive us all.... eace

 

[notquiteright]

Well no one can accuse you of being a gracious victor, that's OK, mis-characterize me, don't care. Hell, why not call me what you really want to? Eh? C'mon, live a little... you've earned it...(in your mind anyhow...)

More con quibble- you care or you wouldn't post... :lol:

I called you what I wanted to, I don't quibble. Some cons play any partisan angle they can no matter how ignorant, you are one of them from time to time, this was one of those times. :2wave:

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

A very opinionated and not well sourced post... no doubt he would be seen as a progressive rather than Tea Party darling- no debate there.

you just don't know much about MLK's politics, or simply choose to ignore how anti-mainstream they are today. Either way, it doesn't change the facts. Secondly, I would probably not describe the mainstream left or democratic party as "progressive".

When many to include President Kennedy didn't want to face the 'dirty south's' separate but equal crap, saying 'time is on your side, don't rock the boat', many stood up to be counted. MLK was one of them, and he paid for his temerity with his life. I understand some want to knock his legend down, but bottom line he did lead the nation toward honoring the simple concept- all men are created equal.

I'm unsure how anyone could interpret pointing out that MLK is only loved by the maintream political institutions in this country because his image is whitewashed as an attack on King. Also, I would say such political whitewashing is more disrespectful to the man than looking at the actual content of his views and positions

Denigrate the MLK all you want, his Dream Speech will outlive us all.... eace

Yeah, well at least you love him enough to use him as some cheap racial boogie man ...

 

[ChezC3]

More con quibble- you care or you wouldn't post... :lol:

I called you what I wanted to, I don't quibble. Some cons play any partisan angle they can no matter how ignorant, you are one of them from time to time, this was one of those times. :2wave:

and I suppose the point of that was to end the conversation or prove you right, eh? :lol:

I was originally posting from a false position, one I conceded. Had it been the case that the Sen was excluded, I would not have conceded. I admitted my mistake and bowed out. That's not quibble, that's character.

 

[notquiteright]

you just don't know much about MLK's politics, or simply choose to ignore how anti-mainstream they are today. Either way, it doesn't change the facts. Secondly, I would probably not describe the mainstream left or democratic party as "progressive". I'm unsure how anyone could interpret pointing out that MLK is only loved by the maintream political institutions in this country because his image is whitewashed as an attack on King. Also, I would say such political whitewashing is more disrespectful to the man than looking at the actual content of his views and positions Yeah, well at least you love him enough to use him as some cheap racial boogie man ...

I looked for a fact in all that... you seem to not have any. Again more Con quibble.

I do agree that from where you sit the progressive/liberal/democrat thing is puzzling...

when you have a fact come back and share it with us....

 

[notquiteright]

and I suppose the point of that was to end the conversation or prove you right, eh? :lol:

I was originally posting from a false position, one I conceded. Had it been the case that the Sen was excluded, I would not have conceded. I admitted my mistake and bowed out. That's not quibble, that's character.

It proves you don't say what you mean... you quibble. The case was not any ol' body being excluded but as you and the original gang was quick to point out, the body being excluded was black. that a black senator, no matter his political lean should be part of "I have a Dream Day".

Not basing this on his heart or appreciation for what Dr. King stood for but just because he is black and the only current black politician in the senate. (nevermind he was appointed to fill the dissed DeMint's seat)

You didn't concede the ONLY reason the Cons were up in arms over this was to try and diss the Dream day. So it isn't character, it's con Quibble. Good nite... :2wave:

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I looked for a fact in all that... you seem to not have any. Again more Con quibble.

I do agree that from where you sit the progressive/liberal/democrat thing is puzzling...

when you have a fact come back and share it with us....

What facts do you want me to list? It's an opinion based on his widely acknowledged political positions, like viewing Vietnam as imperialism and his highly critical views of capitalism. These were positions that grated against the democrats back in the 60's, to put it lightly, and would amount to poison in today's political atmosphere.

Also, this is hardly a position that is conservative in nature

 

[windowdressing]

Sen. Scott was invited, as was every member of Congress, and Republican leaders were invited to speak (and chose not to), and Scott is not a leader (he wasn't even elected to the Senate). Are you cons on this thread suggesting that he should have been invited to speak because he's black? Are you really? Please say you are ... make my night ...

 

[Linc]

And the governor who appointed Sen. Scott has been called some of the most vile anti-Indian-American names, as has Gov. Jindal, by the Repups.

Scott may yet get primaried. And Gov. Haley defeated ex-Sen. DeMinted's hand-picked machine can-di-date. It's SC!!!

Sen. Scott was invited, as was every member of Congress, and Republican leaders were invited to speak (and chose not to), and Scott is not a leader (he wasn't even elected to the Senate). Are you cons on this thread suggesting that he should have been invited to speak because he's black? Are you really? Please say you are ... make my night ...

 

[windowdressing]

And the governor who appointed Sen. Scott has been called some of the most vile anti-Indian-American names, as has Gov. Jindal, by the Repups.

Scott may yet get primaried. And Gov. Haley defeated ex-Sen. DeMinted's hand-picked machine can-di-date. It's SC!!!

good evening Nimby, good to see you in such good spirits ... I'm still waiting for a con to tell us that Scott should've spoken solely because he's black ... I'm waiting ... I hope not too long though, I'm getting a little tired ...

 

[Linc]

If you watch the replay of Hardball in 105 minutes, I believe Michael Steele made that case.
Steele was still ashamed of the GOP he brought success to before Rank Priebus got his job.
The list of Repukes invited is a who's who of the obstructionists our Great Nation will face for only 40 working days this year.

good evening Nimby, good to see you in such good spirits ... I'm still waiting for a con to tell us that Scott should've spoken solely because he's black ... I'm waiting ... I hope not too long though, I'm getting a little tired ...