Obama uses King speech to attack obstructionism

Do folks even listen anymore?

Leave it to O to politicize at every opportunity. And, for the uninitiated, "obstructionism" is his new word for democracy - a nuisance now that he's in power.

commanteer

this wasn't about you

A massive, 28-foot (nearly nine-meter) “Stone of Hope” statue in the likeness of King, carved out of white granite by renowned Chinese sculptor Lei Yixin, shows him gazing sternly out onto the horizon, arms folded.

Made in China... that pretty much sums up the Obama era. The Chinese couldn't have chosen a better leader for the free world if they had put him into power themselves. President Obama seems to diminish everything he associates himself with and he did the same with the MLK ceremony by making it an occasion to campaign for re-election.

The icon's son, Martin Luther King III, called for an end of "conservative policies that exclude people"and praised the Occupy Wall Street movement, saying: "We must stand up for economic justice."

This event was not about what he thinks.

As his father's son, he should've given his father's memory his due on that day, instead of using the event to propel his own political opinions.

I want to know who sent the Cherry Trees from Japan. I want to meet that person or contact that organization. Whoever did this beautiful act has earned credit with me at a time when Japan has very little. I still need to know what area of Japan they came from though...hahaha Just kidding this time.

There are too many wonderful things to say about the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. I want to see this and if we can touch this. Our society is now in love with touching the very fabric of ideas.

We go through life everyday now, touching words, touching music, touching devices. I'd like to go to this place and if it's allowed touch this stone. To be able touch the words of Martin Luther King Jr. I believe would move any human being's heart. One cannot help but be filled with emotional and passion towards the idea of a society of peace without prejudice and discrimination.

If you could close your eyes for just a moment. Leaving all other thoughts out. Your fingers grope out the engraving, gliding across the smooth stone. At last, you open your eyes as you caress the words that have already been etched into your heart and mind like the stone upon which you now embrace physically. It would be pilgrimage to remember. The stand there in awe of a man, a leader, an angel, through great self-sacrifice fought for all that we hold most dear in life, that we now consider as the norm and at times take for granted. I want to experience this, do you not?

Obama is right. Those in the position of power and privilege make great efforts not to share it with others. When slavery was abolished they sought out a new form. Economic enslavement. Jobs are necessary to revitalize the nation and get America back to work. The 1% are confident they can survive without the other 99% and they are willing to sell America if they need to.

If we don't overcome these Republicans they will blast the faces off Mt. Rushmore and sell the stones. They have shown that they'll sink this ship before handing out loaves of bread to the crew.

I think President Obama is trying his best to help America and the world, but we have REPUBLICANS doing their best to screw everything up, no to bullet trains?? etc..They are evil, rich, greedy and do not care about the USA, Republicans only care about themselves and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ IMHO.

@pamelot - it looks like MLK3 is doing exactly as his father did, speak up, and not accept the status quo. When MLK Jnr was alive, he fought for justice for the black people of America. He refused to listen to those who said 'can't be done', or 'if we change, we will wreck society'. The only difference now is that MLK3 is fighting for those Americans who have been disenfranchised due to a political system that over the years, has tried to adapt to 'market practices'. IMHO, it has failed. I'm not saying he has the right answer, but just look at the Republicans and tell me they aren't obstructionist. Their current battle to get a candidate to stand against Obama is a shambles and looks like a bloodbath - they don't even agree with each other!!

Commenteer is right. Mr Obama labels anyone who disagrees with him an Obstructionist. Hogwash. That's the democratic process at work. I personally think MLK would be disgusted with how Mr Obama has performed as national leader, cowtowing to the establishment and renegging on most of his campaign promises. I had hoped there actually would have been some change I could believe in with Mr Obama, but rather he has not only continued the Bush-era overgrown government policies, but expanded them beyond belief. MLK said it best, that he had a dream. But MLK's son and the others mentioned have lost sight of what MLK fought for . Today, at the hands of both Demopublicans an Repocrats, that dream lies shattered in the streets of places like Detroit and New Orleans. Say NO to more Mr Obama's failed policies. The Occupy Wall St et. al. really need to shift to Occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and take back control of the country from the politically corrupt and give it back to the people.

I'm not sure why this discussion has turned into an outlet for blaming Republicans for everything. The Democrats have been in power since President Obama took office. If he cannot get anything done then it is a failure of leadership.

The ideal that MLK stood for was for all people to be treated equally and with respect. He was so successful because he used the nations founding ideals to pursue his civil rights goals; "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... (Thomas Jefferson)". As soon as you start trying to treat people differently for any reason, then your logic fails. Where modern society got it wrong after the success of the civil rights era was to confuse civil equality with a narrow economic equality that no government can deliver without coercion. When the government decides who gets what, then there can be no equality. This is especially true in a nation that contains so many different races of people with so many different cultural backgrounds. Even relatively homogenous societies such as Japan will decline due to the massive financial burden incurred by it's huge welfare benefits.

The icon’s son, Martin Luther King III, called for an end of “conservative policies that exclude people” and praised the Occupy Wall Street movement, saying: “We must stand up for economic justice.

The young Mr. King should seek to further his goals outside of the realm of government because his father already won that fight. I would like to suggest that he create his own bank, his own Wall Street, with the significant resources of those that support him and socialism in general. Ironically, there are famous billionaires that want to pay more for social programs that he could call upon. The crass claim that conservatives are exclusionary is false - as seen by the current popularity of Herman Cain among the most conservative of conservatives.

Liberals such as those at the MLK ceremony are in crisis due to the huge debt and annual deficits that America is running. They cannot change their socialist ideology even in the face of certain failure. You can take every dime of the richest 1% and it will not pay for more than a month or two of the cost for America's welfare state. The Left has finally run out of other peoples money.

Gyoza,

There is no reasoning with a Republican so long as Fox News serves as their Bible and everything spoken there is taken as gospel, despite overhwleming evidence that Fox News is unabashedly biased and subservient to corporate overlords.

Obama does nothing but politicize? Are you serious? The guy has done nothing but pander to Republicans in office and voters on the Right since he took the oath. But Fox News says otherwise, so facts and reason go out the window.

Aquaman, seriously, read up on what's going on in D.C. before you write about it. Obama has never labeled anyone an obstructionist, and he's only shifted to a more aggressive tack in maybe the last 2 or 3 weeks. And that's only because the primaries are drawing near and his "compromise" stance was clearly ineffective. Why was that, by the way? Oh, right. Republican obstructionism.

wolfpack,

Liberal does not equal socialist. And fairness does not equal Marxism. Until conservatives get that through their considerably thick skulls, this conversation will go nowhere.

Thomas Jefferson understood that there was a need to stand up for the have-nots. If he didn't think so, there would have been no need for him to utter those famous words you quote above. If others didn't think so, there would have been no need for the Boston Tea Party (which, by the way, would get you swiftly arrested if you did it today). The conservative understanding of history is the same as the convservative understanding of the Bible - that is, they understand it only to the point that it stops being conveniently in line with their ideologies.

You know as well as I do that if Martin Luthor King were to see our society the way it is today, he would be disgusted. Doing nothing does not open the door to equality. Racism is not dead, and it's pointless and ignorant to deny it.

HumanTarget, Before accusing others of not being well-read, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror. What's happening in DC is a mess, for sure. It's called Democratic Process. And both parties play the same game, smoke and mirrors. What I believe Wolfpack is pointing out is the socialistic policies wealth redistribution, the welfare state. FDR initiated many of the programs. The Romans went down the same road. Back to MLK, he rightly pointed back to the Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are what need to be emphasized in the discussion of Civil Liberty. Until the people wake up and rise up against the oppression of the current regime, that liberty will continue in decline. As MLK said, I have a dream...

When MLK Jnr was alive, he fought for justice for the black people of America.

MLK's idea was that a person's skin color should not be the deciding factor in determining a person's worth.

His fight was for all people.

Aquaman,

This type of terroristic opposition has not been seen since the antebellum South. This is not "Democractic Process". Here is a quote from Mike Lofgren, a 30-year veteran Republican staffer who retired recently:

"A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner."

In other words: Sink the ship to kill the captain. Again, this is not Democratic process. This is a unique insurrection not seen in 80+ years of American government.

MLK, by the way, agreed wholeheartedly with the so-called "welfare state". How does that jive with the values of conservatives, who so often clamor to show their support of MLK despite vehemently opposing most of what he stood for?

Representative democracy fundamentally must have SOME wealth redistribution. Otherwise, it's a Plutocracy. 1% or even 10% of the people in a country soaking up the vast majority of the wealth is not good for the people, and the other 99% or 90% would inevitably move to amend such injustices. This is exactly why the very large majority of Americans agree with raising taxes on the wealthy. But we don't live in a true Representative Democracy, so the wishes of the majority are drowned out by corporate money and misinformation.

As you said, "Until the people wake up and rise up against the oppression of the current regime, that liberty will continue in decline." Truer words were never spoken. Which is what makes the Wall Street protests righteous and correct, and the anniversary of MLK's most famous speech the perfect time to talk about revolution.

"I think President Obama is trying his best to help America and the world, but we have REPUBLICANS doing their best to screw everything up." This completely ignores the fact that President Obama had the political equivalent of royal flush when he took office; Democratic control of both houses, off-the-charts public support, etc. He did very little with it. I truly want President Obama to succeed but I bet historians will look book in amazement at the missed opportunity.

"Liberal does not equal socialist. And fairness does not equal Marxism. Until conservatives get that through their considerably thick skulls, this conversation will go nowhere. " At Human Target, very well stated.

There is one central issue which all conservatives miss. Equal civil rights for humans means fair chances in the beginning. Growing up in poverty makes it almost impossible to get decent education. Hence, almost no chance of getting a decent job.

Thus, the founding principles of the US (or any western style democracy) include the imperative of wealth redistribution for the sake of children. Anyone who claims otherwise should review the precepts of civilised society.

As the resources that feed and power us come under more and more pressure the pyramid scheme that is the basis for most western style countries is going to become very bottom heavy.

Perhaps it will get to a point that age, race, gender and sexuality will become of little importance as we all struggle simply to pay our bills, maybe then some of the political right will finally understand we are all very similar, a large majority of people in need have never chosen to be there and that we can only elevate ourselves by caring about others around us.

I wonder if we really have to reach the bottom to realise all the things we thing make us all different are nothing but easy ways label each other not a single one of them makes anyone human or deserving than anyone else.

@Human Target. "Representative democracy fundamentally must have SOME wealth redistribution. Otherwise, it's a Plutocracy. 1% or even 10% of the people in a country soaking up the vast majority of the wealth is not good for the people, and the other 99% or 90% would inevitably move to amend such injustices. This is exactly why the very large majority of Americans agree with raising taxes on the wealthy. But we don't live in a true Representative Democracy, so the wishes of the majority are drowned out by corporate money and misinformation. "

It might be a bit off topic but I found a wonderful quote in the Japan Times (October 10th, 2011) that speaks to what you are saying and I believe that Mr. King would have approved. "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there---good for you. But...you moved your goods to markets on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You build ...something terrific; God bless, keep a big chunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." ---Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

They are called parents and their responsbility. Government makes a lousy substitution for them.

Fairness and an equal playing field are noble goals to pursue but it does not promise an equal outcome that is utopian thinking. This is where Liberals fail. Equality of results is nothing more than zero sum and life does not work that way. Martin Lurther King was a great man and "to be judged on the content of ones character and not the color of ones skin" is all anyone can ask of another. You take and judge men one at a time and life will never be "fair" but it can be just to ensure all rise or fail based on their character and worth.

For NetNinja and others:

In reply to your question (which was included in a joke):

I want to know who sent the Cherry Trees from Japan. I want to meet that person or contact that organization. Whoever did this beautiful act has earned credit with me at a time when Japan has very little.

It was Ryoichi Sasakawa, who lived somewhere from around 1895 to 1989 or so ... He also built the Maritime Museum at Odaiba, which closed at the end of September.

I agree that MLK would be disgusted with how Obama operates.King supported Israel. Like most southern civil rights activists of his time King was also pro-life.

I agree that MLK would be disgusted with how Obama operates.King supported Israel. Like most southern civil rights activists of his time King was also pro-life.

The corrupted media keeps blocking everything about Ron Paul yet Obama is on the news even if he steps on an ant. Ron Paul 2012!

@Lieberman2012:

I think You must see a distinction between supporting Israel and the Israeli government. There is no doubt where the US administration or European administration stands regarding to Israel as a state or their attitude towards the Israeli population. But the (current) Israeli government is a shame. MLK wouldn't have liked such politicians. After all, the present state Israel treats many citizens openly as second class citizens.

@Sailwind:

No sane person demands equal outcomes, as it is obviously impossible. But fairness at the start is something, which can be improved. Naturally, not everyone can be like Einstein. It's not even as everyone has enough brains to attend college. But if kids have talent, they deserve the chance to realise it. This is the most important duty of the state. People who realise their talents will contribute more to a state than they had received in the beginning. If the state fails at this tenet, there is no whatsoever justification for its existence.

It might be a bit off topic but I found a wonderful quote in the Japan Times (October 10th, 2011) that speaks to what you are saying and I believe that Mr. King would have approved. "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there---good for you. But...you moved your goods to markets on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You build ...something terrific; God bless, keep a big chunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." ---Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor

I can't believe the number of people who regard leftist boilerplate like that as link-worthy or something that deserves repeating. No, I don't think Dr King would have approved. I think he was probably quite sensitive to not just the explicit threats but the implicit and subtle ones politicians and the politically ambitious struggle to conceal in outbursts like this one of Prof. Warren's.

In Warren's case it is pretty clear she believes that in place of liberty there must be political obligation, and that there exists, of course, a certain class of persons among us who are fit to draw up, impose and enforce a vague and completely foreign notion she calls 'the underlying social contract.'

No, I don't think Dr King would have approved. I think he was probably quite sensitive to not just the explicit threats but the implicit and subtle ones politicians and the politically ambitious struggle to conceal in outbursts like this one of Prof. Warren's

If you think that then you don't really know that much about the man whose thinking evolved through his life -- until he became totally dedicated to seeking economic justice. He was in Memphis to lend his support to a union strike when he was killed. Unlike King, folks like yourself consider unions to be a "threat."

completely foreign notion she calls 'the underlying social contract.'

Hobbes' social contract theory a foreign notion? That's funny. King certainly studied it, and found Gandhi's philosophy of satyagraha to be a better update of it for the 20th century and beyond.

Hobbes' social contract theory a foreign notion?

Monarchy - I am sorry I must inform one of King Barack's eager would-be subjects - is indeed foreign to America. I for one hope it remains so.

I suspect Warren wants Rousseau's version, but with as heavy a Jacobin tilt as she could lay on it.

If you think that then you don't really know that much about the man whose thinking evolved through his life -- until he became totally dedicated to seeking economic justice.

He knew sociology and theology. Is there any proof that the Reverend King understood the very complex subject of economics? How can you demand justice if you don't?

He was in Memphis to lend his support to a union strike when he was killed. Unlike King, folks like yourself consider unions to be a "threat."

Not the ones I chose to belong to.

But if kids have talent, they deserve the chance to realise it. This is the most important duty of the state. People who realise their talents will contribute more to a state than they had received in the beginning. If the state fails at this tenet, there is no whatsoever justification for its existence.

Respectfully disagree. The most important duty of the state is to be a servant of the people. Government of the people, for the people and by the people. In a free society kids that do have talent already have that chance by the very nature of living in a free country. No matter how poor one is or what station in life the promise of America was and is that anyone could make it no matter who or what his background was. It was what caused the flood of immigrants to our shores. The statue of Liberty with her words “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Martin Luther King in his wise words in his " I have a Dream" speech understood that basic promise and tenet in American life and faith in the individual rising no matter his condition was denied for Black Americans and codified into law. His speech the part that many folks gloss over was in fact a demand that America finally cash that check for freedom to all Americans regardless of skin color.

His words;

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

I have always been moved by that part of his speech.

The state owes our children one thing and one thing only, freedom and real freedom means all the joy and terror that comes that word when one has to rely on self first and Government second.

My humble opinion for your consideration on what Mr. King's legacy means to me.

Sailwind, You are absolutely correct. But the statists would likely never understand that. The state is to be the servant, not the master of the people as it has become, especially in the past 80+ years.

He knew sociology and theology. Is there any proof that the Reverend King understood the very complex subject of economics? How can you demand justice if you don't?

What knowledge of economics justifies the institution of slavery and institutionalized racial discrimination? Both used to as American as apple pie. Are the victims of those systems unable to demand justice because they don't know "the very complex subject of economics?"

Rather absurd, isn't it?

The most important duty of the state is to be a servant of the people. Government of the people, for the people and by the people.

I can't think of serving a person better than helping them -- when they ask for and/or need it -- bring out their talents and abilities. Based upon all that I have read from you, your view of the state would serve people best by turning its back on them when they need help.

Another way of serving people is acting like a referee in a game. People want to play the game and know that every other player is on the up and up. Let's say the game is poker and one player is winning all the chips and it's found it he has been rigging the game. We would expect a fair arbiter to come in and force the cheating player to put his winnings back in the pot and leave the game. That would be a great way of serving "the people" -- who mainly want the game to go on and played fairly.

The state owes our children one thing and one thing only, freedom

That's not what King was saying. The state can not "give" freedom to people. King said that the state had defaulted on a promissory note. To understand King's words you have to get past "the state" as an abstract concept and accept that it is people who operate its machinery. And the people who run the state can cause its wheels of justice to turn one way for one person and another way for another. A white person never had much in the way of societal obstacles in obtaining "the riches of freedom," while freed slaves and their descendants were free to eke out their lives in poverty.

Unless you understand the philosophy behind King's words and life -- satyagraha -- then you can't understand what he is saying. What people end up doing is misappropriating King's words to serve your their ends, and that is a great injustice as well as a great evil.

The state is to be the servant, not the master of the people as it has become, especially in the past 80+ years.

The irony here is that this person probably wants the state to do less for people.

There are some servants who serve so well that their masters come to depend very much on them. See how easily that gets turned around?

The state can not "give" freedom to people. King said that the state had defaulted on a promissory note. To understand King's words you have to get past "the state" as an abstract concept and accept that it is people who operate its machinery.

The Constitution says the state does give freedom to the people and our leaders swear fidelity to that piece of paper. Abstract concept? The Bill of Rights is an abstract concept? Martin Luther King didn't understand that and demanded that the same be afforded to all Americans no matter what color??

He said in case you missed it.......When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

Unless you understand the philosophy behind King's words and life -- satyagraha -- then you can't understand what he is saying.

I think I understand what he was saying just fine.

The Constitution says the state does give freedom to the people

No, it most certainly does not say that. The founders believed that freedom was "natural" and endowed by a creator, as the deists put it. It was not "given" to the people by the state. When the founders wrote that rights were unalienable, they meant that they were intrinsic to every person -- and definitely NOT granted to them by a state.

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

Yes, and King said they failed to make good on that note as far as African-Americans were concerned. Much of the early United States was built on the backs of slaves.

I think I understand what he was saying just fine.

I understand how some people think they can understand a person's words while remaining completely ignorant of the spirit and philosophy out of which those words came. How is it that the founders believed in and wrote of inalienable rights that somehow get misconstrued into a state that gives freedom to people?

The founders believed that freedom was "natural" and endowed by a creator, as the deists put it. It was not "given" to the people by the state. When the founders wrote that rights were unalienable, they meant that they were intrinsic to every person -- and definitely NOT granted to them by a state.

Yabits,

You do know the difference between The Declaration of Independence which you are quoting and the Constitution I would hope. You've confused the two. The Constitution is our actual Governing Document and the Bill of Rights is where that Freedom of assembly, Freedom of Speech can be found as the law of the land. Our rights and freedom IS granted by the State.

Freedom of Speech can be found as the law of the land. Our rights and freedom IS granted by the State.

Well, you are certainly free to believe in the all the falsehoods and misconceptions you want to, but are you ever going to be embarrassed when you come to finally learn the truth.

Hint: read the Bill of Rights. They are not granting freedoms; they are preventing government incursion on freedoms that already exist. Yes, those freedoms which the state most certainly did not grant, and which they most certainly can not take away by law.

What knowledge of economics justifies the institution of slavery and institutionalized racial discrimination? Both used to as American as apple pie.

Did they? How did the story end? Slavery was limited to the South and even in its day an informed Southerner had to admit that the free industrialized North was the future.

MLK , according to his niece, was a registered Republican.

Well, you are certainly free to believe in the all the falsehoods and misconceptions you want to, but are you ever going to be embarrassed when you come to finally learn the truth.

That the Constitution really consists of negative rights? Limiting what the Government can and cannot do? That those limits are enshrined as law therefore granting and guarenteeing Freedom to all the citizens?

Gosh, I never knew.........If you make something the law of the land that prevents the Government from taking away your freedom that it really means the State didn't grant you your freedom in the first place. Those founding fathers sure were a sneaky bunch after all.

MLK , according to his niece, was a registered republican

I knew, I JUST KNEW, there was no way this thread could go without that whopper not showing up.

Congratulations my boy, you win the booby prize.

Taka

Slavery was limited to the South and even in its day an informed Southerner had to admit that the free industrialized North was the future.

Oh really? Up until the mid-1700s nearly half the households in New York and Philadelphia had slaves. Slavery wasn't abolished in many of the northern states until the mid-1820s. And the large northern banks and business firms underwrote insurance policies and contracts on slaves and slave labor -- profiting nicely from it.

MLK , according to his niece, was a registered Republican.

The Republicans of the 1950s bear no resemblance at all to the pack of lying deviants who oppose the Democrats today.

Gosh, I never knew.........If you make something the law of the land that prevents the Government from taking away your freedom that it really means the State didn't grant you your freedom in the first place.

That is exactly right. The state never granted anybody freedom in the first place -- at least not in the philosophy of the founders of the United States. They recognized that it's not within the state's authority to do that -- nor would it ever be if they had anything to do about it. (And the constitution they wrote reflected their beliefs -- as far as white, land-owning males were concerned.)

The founders mentioned three of the rights -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- as being unalienable. Just as important, they said that those three were just three from among other unalienable rights not specified by them.

Heh, wonder why Obama didn't mention it was Democratic Party policies that Dr. King was marching against?

RR

HumanTarget:

Liberal does not equal socialist. And fairness does not equal Marxism. Until conservatives get that through their considerably thick skulls, this conversation will go nowhere.

There is no need to be so angry.... In this day in age of polarization, there has become very little difference between liberals and socialists. President Obama is a socialist, he just hides it whenever he can so as no to scare people. The history of socialism is indeed scary so I can understand why you would want to minimize the similarities. Both words are used for a manner of government that is collectivist in nature. The conversation will go no where because Liberals and Socialists believe that government can make society a utopia whereas conservatives believe that you cannot deny basic human nature. You cannot educate away the human desire for self preservation. Therefore, you work with it for the good of all. We just see the world differently.

You know as well as I do that if Martin Luthor King were to see our society the way it is today, he would be disgusted. Doing nothing does not open the door to equality. Racism is not dead, and it's pointless and ignorant to deny it.

You shouldn't throw words around like 'ignorant', it may come back and bite you too. I never said that MLK would think about today's society. What I said was that the moral power behind his movement was so powerful because of it's simple truth. I think this simple truth is best demonstrated by a picture I say of a black man back in the 1950's carrying a sign that simply said, "I am a man".

I also didn't not say that racism is dead. There are racist among all races - we all know that. However, I will say that racism on the part of government against blacks and other minorities certainly is dead. I think you would find it very difficult if not impossible to find a law at any level of government in America today that specifies that you can discriminate in favor of white men. Conversely, I can easily find laws that discriminate in favor of every demographic group imaginable except for white men. The one exception would be Asians applying for college - there is terrible discrimination against them. I'm sorry, but it makes no logical sense to use institutional racism to cure institutional racism. There is no moral authority in a sign that says, "You race had it's turn, now it's mine". It fails simple logic.

@RomeoR:

Heh, wonder why Obama didn't mention it was Democratic Party policies that Dr. King was marching against?

Because like most Democrats today, he hasn't learned that it was the Democrats that were the party of segregation.

Wolfpack,

If racism is not dead, and our country is founded on the principle that "all men are created equal", then government must fundamentally take a hands-on approach to enforcing equality for the underprivileged. You've proven my point.

Because like most Democrats today, he hasn't learned that it was the Democrats that were the party of segregation.

The Democrats, as a national party, were not a party of segregation. Conservative white southerners were the ones who brought segregation into the party's fold.

However, conservative white racist southerners started leaving the Democratic Party in droves when the national party started supporting civil rights -- starting with Democrat Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces. Like the racist Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, they started to gravitate to the GOP like moths to a flame. Heck, it was only within the last decade that an RNC Chairman felt compelled to apologize to African-Americans for his party's racist "southern strategy."

Why go back to the early part of the 20th century to disparage Democrats and leave out the more recent racist strategies of the Republican Party? Is it ignorance? Dishonesty?

I would have preferred a statue of Frederick Douglass - also a Republican - who did more for African Americans than King did.

"A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."