MLK Event Excluded Conservative Key Organizer of '63 March

[Hotdoger]

MLK Event Excluded Conservative Key Organizer of '63 March

 

[Hotdoger]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/930de7e0f2c70130104e001dd8b71c47?width=750

 

[Que]

Hotdoger, do you really care about the match that took place or the efforts of those who took part? If so, have you contacted any of the organizers to inquire about this matter? The GOP said invitations came too late, while another article posted on INGO said there was no invitation extended. Which is true and if an invitation was offered, when was it sent? What exactly is too late?

The second post on this thread is simply nonsense, IMO and should not be associated with MLK's speech in any way.

 

[jamil]

I suspect that there are some shenanigans on both sides.

Judging from the content of many of the speeches given, the character expressed was dubious. Today's racial situation is in no way comparable to the time before MLK's speech. Listening to the various speeches, you'd think no progress has been made at all. Making Treyvon Martin a martyr of the civil rights movement is a travesty. So I doubt those speakers would want a more conservative viewpoint juxtaposed with that. I don't doubt that some conservatives were intentionally "unvited".

On the other hand, I suspect that though the liberal organizers weren't all that motivated to invite conservatives, some conservatives may not have been all that motivated to attend until after the fact, when it became politically expedient to have been shunned.

 

[Hotdoger]

QUE the only "nonsense' is Obamas speech . He has done more to cause a divide in race relations than any President since MLK . You can neg rep me all you want but THAT is the truth!
!

 

[Hotdoger]

"However, CORE says none of the event organizers at this year's remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech invited anyone from the black conservative organization, particularly CORE's chairman and '63 March on Washington alum Roy Innis (pictured), to speak.


Take it up with "CORE" Que!!!

 

[Hotdoger]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...onation-bonafide-house-negro-obama-plantation

Cornel West has a different take. LOL

 

[Que]

I suspect that there are some shenanigans on both sides.

Judging from the content of many of the speeches given, the character expressed was dubious. Today's racial situation is in no way comparable to the time before MLK's speech. Listening to the various speeches, you'd think no progress has been made at all. Making Treyvon Martin a martyr of the civil rights movement is a travesty. So I doubt those speakers would want a more conservative viewpoint juxtaposed with that. I don't doubt that some conservatives were intentionally "unvited".

On the other hand, I suspect that though the liberal organizers weren't all that motivated to invite conservatives, some conservatives may not have been all that motivated to attend until after the fact, when it became politically expedient to have been shunned.

Looking at various reports, u believe this is right on. Both sides are trying to gain sympathy. Invitations to the event were extended a while back; however, the invitation to speak was very last minute. So, those who were too busy to attend were not extended an offer to speak. Was this intentional? Possibly. Why wouldn't the invitation be accepted without the chance to speak? They are politicians. Why couldn't the offers to speak go out earlier? Again, politics.

 

[Que]

QUE the only "nonsense' is Obamas speech . He has done more to cause a divide in race relations than any President since MLK . You can neg rep me all you want but THAT is the truth!
!

MLK was not a President. The relations discussion was something I heard argued when Reagan was in office. Individuals allow division and politicians can be blamed, but it's an individual's choice whom they choose to like or dislike. I will never dislike my neighbor because of the actions of a man sitting in a chair in Washington, D.C.

 

[jamil]

MLK was not a President. The relations discussion was something I heard argued when Reagan was in office. Individuals allow division and politicians can be blamed, but it's an individual's choice whom they choose to like or dislike. I will never dislike my neighbor because of the actions of a man sitting in a chair in Washington, D.C.

That's admirable, but that's just your outlook. I don't recall a time in my life that racial tensions have been higher since the race riots in the early 70s. This President is in a position to bring races together. Yet he uses language that divides. Tell me. Do you think that his speech about Treyvon Martin did any unifying? The problem is, his Saul Alinsky training didn't teach him to unite. He only knows how to divide.

 

[Hotdoger]

Well of course he wasn't President.... LOLAY

 

[Que]

That's admirable, but that's just your outlook. I don't recall a time in my life that racial tensions have been higher since the race riots in the early 70s. This President is in a position to bring races together. Yet he uses language that divides. Tell me. Do you think that his speech about Treyvon Martin did any unifying? The problem is, his Saul Alinsky training didn't teach him to unite. He only knows how to divide.

Honestly, and you may not believe this, but I didn't listen to even one speech from the celebration or even the President's comments after T.M. was killed. Nothing he or anyone else says will cause me to look negatively upon a group of people. I try my best to budge individuals according to the content of their character and ask the same in return.

Also, can you tell me what it means when you say racial tensions are worse then ever, since the 70's? How does one know this is the case? I've noticed certain things said about the President, but that has always been the case with other Presidents, so how do you tell there is a strain on race relations?