Nation’s only black Senator not invited to speak at March on Washington

All politicians were invited 'a whole 12 days' in advance. Democrat and Republican.

Republicans just had more important things to do.

 

You're not going to find a coherent or intelligent debate on this issue. Everything these guys do is reactive and not proactive. There was nothing mentioned before the event about people not "being invited" or "not asked to speak". Now after the the event, they are in damage control status and will attempt to rebut everything, deflect and dodge, and try to find an excuse as to why no republican was present.

Even O'reilly was outed as to lying about "no republicans were invited". Turns out, not only were they invited, they turned down the invitation.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/28/bill-oreilly-falsely-claims-republicans-barred/195656

From Tim Scott's staff assistant

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/tim-scott-declined-invite-to-attend-march-as-spectator/

 

Really, all a ruse you say, believe what you will.

but

"GO BUY A HOODIE?"

You lower yourself to personal insults because you cant have your own way?


River

 

wrong again. He was truly non-partisan

Dr. MLK Jr.'s words.....

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/

Really amazing how MLK seems to accurately describe the republican party today. I wonder if knowing this, you tend to think he's more a "No Limit N i g g a" now?

What say you?

 

Really, all a ruse you say, believe what you will.

but

"GO BUY A HOODIE?"

You lower yourself to personal insults because you cant have your own way or even talk about any issue without insults? sad


River

 

I asked you to supply the quote and you did.

It was post #116.

You are not being dishonest but you are not putting the quote on proper context.

Nor was my quote very clear.

Your confusion is my fault for not choosing my words more carefully.

I was referring to Sen Scott not being invited to speak at the MLK celebration by the CBC.

As I have pointed out Scott refuses to join the CBC because it is a racist organization.

As for the CBC being segregated there is no doubt that it is.

They made it clear to the white rep who wanted to join that he was not welcome and Cohen slunk away quietly back under his rock.

 

Isn't it alot easier to just say "damn, you got me", rather than keep digging a deeper hole?

 

Now that your post is clearly shown to be a lie, why haven't you asked the mods to take this down and replace it with you know, the facts.

 

I sort of did concede the quote.

And I take responsibility for the misunderstanding that I created.

But I have never intentionally claimed that Scott was barred from joining the CBC.

Just the opposite.

He refused to join because the CBC is a racist organization.

 

Why would those seeking equality for blacks in America invite "Uncle Tom" to be a speaker?

 

With approximately 79% of Republicans reflecting anti-black racial prejudice in a 2012 study couldn't we also conclude that the Republican Party is a racist organization?

There's a reason why over 95% of African-Americans oppose the Republican Party and it's the anti-black racial agenda of the Republican Party that has driven them away from it.

 

Are you serious?

 

I'm not aware of the alleged "study" you refer to.

But I can say hat the Republican Party is open to all races whereas the Congressional Black Caucus is segregated and black only.

Which is the essence of racism.

 

It was a well publicized study.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/27/racial-prejudice-worsened-obama

I've had many conservatives/Republicans dispute this study but none have ever responded to my challenge when they do. If the 79% is incorrect then what percentage of Republicans do have explicit anti-black racial prejudice and what study establishes this different percentage?

Stating that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are black makes about as much sense as pointing out none of members of the Republican House Caucus are Democrats.

Let's look at a more appropriate example. In 2013 there were 49 members of the House Tea Party Caucus and they have one thing in common. Every single one of them is white!!!! Most are from former slave states with documented histories of discrimination and their political agenda is decidedly anti-black which is why none of the members are black. I think we can logically conclude that the House Tea Party Caucus represents a group of politicians with explicit anti-black prejudice that advocate laws founded in racism.

 

who conducted that study and who answered the study ?

 

He is a real American. The so called 'march day' was for progressive leftist losers only who had no intention of remembering MLK or his speach and what he really meant, they were simply self serving mental masterbators falsely achieving faked orgasim for their failed agenda.

 

Politically biased lib polls are not the same as reality.

I don't know the methods used to slant the poll but I know conservatives and I know lib logic.

Not supporting affirmative action for instance is often viewed by the left as anti black.

As for the CBC not being segregated and your example of the democrat party that's just nonsense.

The be a democrat all I have to do is declare myself as one and join the party.

But Steven Cohen could not change the skin color he was born with and join the CBC.

 

BS back your claim. politician make their plans months in advance. to claim other wise just shows your ignorance or partisanship.

 

Interesting how they did not link the study. Its British, and smells fishy. Just saying.

 

I hope you are aware by now that this is a lie. It was made up by Rupert Murdoch, and, like the sort of right wing lies that are designed to pander to the prejudices of their audience, it spread like plague through the right trash blogosphere.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/tim-scott-declined-invite-to-attend-march-as-spectator/

 

Here it is:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-fXlHo_-x6CsKZw&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc&cad=rja

 

Its a shame. The left does not allow anyone to speak who has a different opinion of things. This is why so many blacks can't take it up on themselves to get off the black democrat plantation. If they do, they will be talked down to, made fun of, and put down. Its easier to keep the status quo, and its tough to blame them for it. Afterall, would you want to try to escape a place where you know you will be hunted down if you left?

 

Any one interested in the historic FACTS? "It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military."
Just for fun ask any 'Low Information Voter' who George Wallace was. Oh yeah. Don't forget to 'axe' them which political party Wallace belonged to.

 

Its sad to be wrong so many times in one post.....why don't you take Dr. King's own words on the matter....

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/


after this, I doubt if MLK Jr.'s name will be uttered out of most of you all's mouths....

 

I have no doubt the study exists.

Lib professors are paid to set around doing studies that make America look bad.

Typically they write the conclusions page first and do the study to find what they expect to find.

They have worn out that old trick a fool no one with it anymore.

But I agree that race relations have declined since Obama took office.

If you asked blacks their attitude toward whites is probably worse today than 5 years ago.

That's what happens when you have a race hustler like Obama in the White House.