This is Your Nation on White Privilege

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Did you think no one would read the entire report? I pulled up the link and couldn't find anything close to what you posted. In fact there were no quotes from the wiretaps at all. They were only referred to. There were probably tapes admitted to the hearings but they aren't on this link. And none of the hearings referred to Hoovers frilly panties either.

It did remind me however of the depth of government abuse that Hoover employed. Your kind of guy, thats for sure. He was sure everyone was a Commie, Marxist, Leninist operative and was willing to use the power of the government to destroy lives without reservation. Of course he was a racist, extortionist too but that was just for kicks.

Inhale this boob head:

The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." 9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' 10 The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." 11 Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the "Man of the Year," an honor which elicited Director Hoover's comment that "they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." 12 Hoover wrote "astounding" across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI's efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death. Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize. 13

The FBI sent a audiotape to the residence of MLK.

The audiotape captured a sexual liaison between MLK and a women who was not his wife.

That is the tape that proclaimed, "I'm white tonite".

Coretta Scott King was NOT amused......

Michael Eric Dyson's book, "I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr." discusses King's sexual piccadillos.......

So, Michael's right. You are a liar. You posted that they were in the Church report that you linked to. Turns out they are referred to in a book. Not a Senate hearing.

His affairs with other women have been discussed for years and even reported on the History channel. Apparently only you and Hoover really thought that was important.

[RecycleMichael]

Oh so you post a link to prove your story that doesn't prove anything?

I also read the report and it doesn't have the quote you used.

Then when challenged, you switch your argument and say it was in a tape written about in a book you read. Of course, that would still not be proof, even if you did actually post from a book.

Friendly Bear has been proven to be a liar once again. Your efforts to cover up your lie using a link to a government report make it even worse.

Telling two lies does not make it truth. No matter how many times you lie.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Oh so you post a link to prove your story that doesn't prove anything?

I also read the report and it doesn't have the quote you used.

Then when challenged, you switch your argument and say it was in a tape written about in a book you read. Of course, that would still not be proof, even if you did actually post from a book.

Friendly Bear has been proven to be a liar once again. Your efforts to cover up your lie using a link to a government report make it even worse.

Telling two lies does not make it truth. No matter how many times you lie.

Because of the very incendiary nature of the tape recordings of the Reverand King, the published reports tend to soften the actual recordings so as to protect the dignity of the wife of the martyr, Coretta Scott King.

Nonetheless, the quote by Dr. King is accurate.

All in all, a tawdry affair at best.

[RecycleMichael]

Not listening any more, liar.

You really should give up on this thread.

When you don't know what you are talking about, it is hard to know when to stop.

[Wrinkle]

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Isn't that what Psychologists call transfer? Clinton has nothing to do with this.

[USRufnex]

Here's a definition of flip flop for ya there, wrinkle... or maybe McCain didn't flip-flop... maybe he just "found religion."  [)]

John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
01/16/2008

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421

"I don't think the governor's tax cut is too big—it's just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. ...

"I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich."

—Discussion with media, reported in "Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans," Los Angeles Times, and "GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,"
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

------------------------------------------------

"I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it's clear that there's a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don't think it's fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans."

—NBC's "Meet the Press," Jan. 16, 2000.

------------------------------------------------

"There's one big difference between me and the others—I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I'll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation."

—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.

------------------------------------------------

"I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. ...

"We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. ... We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.

"We will need resources to deal with ... responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers."

—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Not listening any more, liar.

You really should give up on this thread.

When you don't know what you are talking about, it is hard to know when to stop.

The Church Senate Intelligence committee studied a number of issues:

--CIA involvement in foreign assassinations.

--U.S. Army spying on domestic dissident organizations.

--FBI spying on MLK.

Feel free to research at your leisure.  The Committee issued FOURTEEN separate reports.

Nonetheless, the Church Report on the FBI did discuss the FBI smear campaign against MLK, including providing the aforementioned audiotape to him family, with the suggestion that he commit suicide to avoid public embarrassment....

He declined, and someone implemented Plan B.

[RecycleMichael]

Still no proof of your lies.

Friendly Bear = Liar.

Stop insulting us. Stop.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Here's a definition of flip flop for ya there, wrinkle... or maybe McCain didn't flip-flop... maybe he just "found religion."  [)]

John McCain's Top 10 Class-Warfare Arguments Against Tax Cuts
01/16/2008

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421

"I don't think the governor's tax cut is too big—it's just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. ...

"I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich."

—Discussion with media, reported in "Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans," Los Angeles Times, and "GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,"
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

------------------------------------------------

"I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it's clear that there's a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don't think it's fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans."

—NBC's "Meet the Press," Jan. 16, 2000.

------------------------------------------------

"There's one big difference between me and the others—I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I'll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation."

—McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.

------------------------------------------------

"I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. ...

"We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. ... We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.

"We will need resources to deal with ... responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers."

—Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.

That was the McCain that I was impressed with. He's gone.

[FOTD]

http://www.timwise.org/

Whoa. I didn't know anybody was allowed to just come out and tell the truth like that.

[Juan Mad Okie]

MLK was no saint... and I think you owe FB an appology...


Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the influence of Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under constant surveillance.

The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about communism.

But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life -- details the FBI was able to use against him.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html

On Jan. 6, 1964, FBI men installed microphones in King's Washington, D.C., hotel room and turned on the tape recorder. According to officials who heard the tapes, King that night betrayed his wife, Coretta--not for the first or the last time--shouting, amid his most private activities, "I'm ****ing for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Later that year, agents anonymously shipped King "a 'highlight' recording of bugged sex groans and party jokes" along with a letter warning him: "You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They called it the "suicide package."
http://www.slate.com/id/3043/

When the Bureau installed wiretaps in King's office, these taps provided absolutely no evidence that Levison's interest in King was other than a shared commitment to the civil rights movement. They did, however, provide the FBI with its first inkling of King's promiscuous sexual activities, which would later be amply augmented by surveillance bugs installed in his hotel rooms.
http://www.historynet.com/martin-luther-king-jr-fbis-campaign-to-discredit-the-civil-rights-leader.htm/print

in 1964, the FBI sent King a tape they had made of him having sex with women other than his wife and they threatened to release it to the public if he didn't resign his leadership of the movement. But the letter they sent with the tape blackmailing him when even further. The FBI wrote:"King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Negroes. White people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don't have one at this times that is any where near your equal. You are no clergyman and you know it. I repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that."
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/king.htm#FBI

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Juan Mad Okie

MLK was no saint... and I think you owe FB an appology...


Hoping to prove the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was under the influence of Communists, the FBI kept the civil rights leader under constant surveillance.

The agency's hidden tape recorders turned up almost nothing about communism.

But they did reveal embarrassing details about King's sex life -- details the FBI was able to use against him.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html

On Jan. 6, 1964, FBI men installed microphones in King's Washington, D.C., hotel room and turned on the tape recorder. According to officials who heard the tapes, King that night betrayed his wife, Coretta--not for the first or the last time--shouting, amid his most private activities, "I'm ****ing for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Later that year, agents anonymously shipped King "a 'highlight' recording of bugged sex groans and party jokes" along with a letter warning him: "You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They called it the "suicide package."
http://www.slate.com/id/3043/

When the Bureau installed wiretaps in King's office, these taps provided absolutely no evidence that Levison's interest in King was other than a shared commitment to the civil rights movement. They did, however, provide the FBI with its first inkling of King's promiscuous sexual activities, which would later be amply augmented by surveillance bugs installed in his hotel rooms.
http://www.historynet.com/martin-luther-king-jr-fbis-campaign-to-discredit-the-civil-rights-leader.htm/print

in 1964, the FBI sent King a tape they had made of him having sex with women other than his wife and they threatened to release it to the public if he didn't resign his leadership of the movement. But the letter they sent with the tape blackmailing him when even further. The FBI wrote:"King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all of us Negroes. White people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don't have one at this times that is any where near your equal. You are no clergyman and you know it. I repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that."
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/king.htm#FBI

Wouldn't this be the same FBI under JEH?  You know, the cross-dresser?

[:O]

Just sayin'...

[waterboy]

Not at all Juan.

Follow the thread. He said such tapes were part of public records in the Church hearings report and provided a link. They were not. He got the text of the tapes from a book by an author who quoted them. The author was not under oath and his sources are anyone's guess.

The tapes are also quite suspect having come from an agency led by a cross dressing vengeful leader who expressed contempt for MLK as early as 1962 and spent most of the 60's trying to unsuccessfully prove his Communist links. There were none. That is persecution at the basest of levels.

Then he expects others to believe that the tapes were authentic, undoctored and relevant? Well, it was enough for you and FB but no one else either cared or gave him credit.

[Conan71]

How does this make white women feel who just aren't for Obama?  Wise says he's against racism, he's just another black racist in white skin.  He pretends to understand what it is to be a woman.  

"Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women
Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November

By Tim "Whiteguilt" Wise

June 5, 2008

This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.

I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.

That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.

First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.

If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?

And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...

Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?

See, I told you your whiteness was showing.

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.

But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act."