patrick.net

Ruki says

The 'story' can be summed up entirely like this:

"Wow! I marched with MLK! That gives me the right to say whatever unverifiable bullshit I want to on TV! Even better, people on p-net will believe that BS w/o a single critical eye, too! Shit, what a scam!"

Obey The Tripods

Wow, that's some seriously fucked up view on history. I guess the Holocaust never happened either.

Even I would not have thought a right-winger would deny that during the 1960s the rights of African Americans to vote was illegally suppressed. That's batshit crazy revisionist history. But hey, let's teach both sides of the controversy. The side that said the Holocaust happened and the side that said it didn't, and let the students decide what they want to believe.

By the way, did you know that most Americans don't know that George Carlin crossed the Nile during the American Revolution to fight the French and win our independence from the Martian dinosaurs that enslaved our ancestors? True story. I read it on Wikipedia.

Martian dinosaurs photographed by Mars Rover.

Ruki says

Wow! You just lost the entire argument by running afoul of Godwin's Law. Nice going.

No, you dumb ass. Know your memes.

From http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html

Godwin's Law: prov.

[Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the subject.

Clearly, I did not compare you to Hitler or the Nazis. I compared you to Holocaust deniers like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And the comparison is valid as denying the facts about racial suppression of blacks involving lethal force and the threat of lethal force is similar to the denial of the Holocaust of Jews. Both denials are the rewriting of history to deny the atrocities committed against people because of their race. Both serve to continue injustices against those people and are only committed by racists who, although they did not necessarily participate in the events, silently approve of such actions.

For falsely invoking Godwin's Law, you lose.

Ruki says

It wasn't illegally suppressed. It was legally suppressed, remember?

A state law that violates the Constitution is illegal.

Ruki says

Ok, so you are a product of the teacher's union-controlled shitty pubic school system. What about it?

I have never attended public schools. Nice way to try to divert attention from the issue by using an unfounded personal attack.

Ruki says

Notice how liberals don't give a rat's ass about voter suppression when it is part of their collective guilt trip against whites that they try to force upon the rest of us?

Bullshit. If blacks are prevent whites from voting, I'd call that illegal as well. I think you are confusing leftist with liberal. They mean entirely different things.

Liberals believe in liberty. That's why they are called liberals. It's not rocket science.

Ruki says

Black Panthers deliberately scaring white voters away from polling center during 2008 election. Arrested and charge by the Bush Justice Department but then released by Holder because Holder never has met a white person he did not want to fuck over.

If that is true -- and that's a big if since you are an creditless source of information -- than those involve should be prosecuted for preventing people from exercising their Constitutional rights. But somehow I suspect that suppression of black voters is more typical, particularly in the south.

Ruki says

Uh, to bring up the Holocaust in any shape or form invokes references to HItler and Nazis. That's a Godwin's Law F-up. Who is the dumb ass now?

Still you. That's not what Godwin's Law is or intends. And denouncing deniers of atrocities is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Ruki says

They didn't violate the Constitution. That didn't happen until AFTER they resisted the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Right's Act. Pay attention.

You really need to read the Constitution. Go here, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Specifically read amendment 15.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Do I really have to dumb this down for you. It even explicitly stays "or by any State".

Your grasp of even the very basic tenants of our system of government is depressingly lacking.

At this point I expect you to deny that I've quoted the actual fifteenth amendment of the Constitution, and accuse me of quoting a fake version released by the Obama Whitehouse.

Ruki says

Not in the America, they don't.

Half of your problem is that you have your head so far up your ass that you can't hear people explain the difference between left and liberal. I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself.

The difference between a leftist and a liberal.

Leftist: People should not be allowed to say racist or offensive things on college campuses because it creates an atmosphere of intolerance.

Liberal: Actually, you have more in common with him than me.

Ruki says

You suspect but can't prove.

I suspect that men are more open to one-night stands and anonymous sex than women. Some things are just plain obvious. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can find ample statistical evidence to support that racial voter suppression happens way the fuck more in Alabama than Massachusetts. Only a moron would argue otherwise. I look forward to your counterargument.

For all the anti-socialist,

"provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare"

Surely that can't be in the Constitution.

HEY YOU says

For all the anti-socialist,

"provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare"

Surely that can't be in the Constitution.

Look up what the actual writers of the Constitution actually said regarding the "general welfare" clause.

Just because the term "welfare" has changed to be associated with government-provided social entitlements does not mean that was the intent of those who used the term when they wrote the Constitution - their actual words and explanations indicate that it was not. So while you might be gay with yourself for thinking the founders were promoting, or would support "socialism," a little more research would help.

Dan8267 says

Wow, that's some seriously fucked up view on history. I guess the Holocaust never happened either.

Well I kinda have to agree, every time there's a black guy or 60 year old white guy that even as much as participated in a million strong march. They are labeled as "Civil Rights Activist" when they are announced. They can call them selves what ever they want, but I just find it odd, they waited to do so until AFTER the people that could refute their claim are dead.

"Man you weren't the "Organizer" you were there because you thought you could get laid..."

disclaimer I'm not criticizing the civil rights movement just the thousands of people NOW call them selves "Activists". Seems now to have been more chiefs than Indians, than I remembered it.

CaptainShuddup says

"Man you weren't the "Organizer" you were there because you thought you could get laid..."

That's certainly true of many male protesters in the 1960s and today. However, the video isn't about this particular man. The messenger is irrelevant.

The important thing about the video is the story in which the state used the threat of massacring unarmed civilians if they tried to exercise their right -- one could say even duty -- to vote. That is what is suppose to leave an impression upon you.

There is something really sad about "social conservatives" that they always miss this point. If social conservationism was really about personal responsibility rather than code for racism and other forms of bigotry, then social conservatives should be the most vocal of those singing the praises of the African-Americans risking their lives to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies who wanted to undermine our republic. If social conservatives actually believed what they try to convince others they believe, then social conservatives would be calling these African Americans heroes.

The right to vote shouldn't be a left-right issue. It should be an American vs Tyranny issue. How a person can consider themselves an American patriot and not support the rights of all adult Americans to vote can only be explained as a lie. Such a person is no patriot.