Lowest common denominator

Anon$anon sends this photo that’s on the Internet today: So what do these men have in common? Martin Luther King rose above a viciously segregated society, earned a doctorate of divinity, defied racists, was beaten and jailed for his beliefs and led a movement that resulted in the most profound social change in our country since the Civil War. Young Trayvon was a thief and a druggie who, while on suspension from high school for both activities, became embroiled in a conflict with a Hispanic and was shot for his troubles. He accomplished nothing of significance while he lived and almost certainly would have maintained that record of failure had he extended his stay on this mortal coil. What did they have in common? Oh yeah, they were both black.

To compare the two is not to honor the late, unlamented Trayvon, it’s to disrespect Dr. King.

Trayvon and Martin

Trayvon and Martin

35 Comments

Filed under Right wing nut rantings

35 responses to “Lowest common denominator

  1. anon$anon

    makes me wonder if Trayvon’s mother is getting the royalties. or if this shirt was her idea to begin with. Remember a couple of days after her son’s death, she trademarked his name? Isn’t that how we all grieve?

    Who would be the other half of your memorial t-shirt?
    Christopher Fountain Pen?
    Christopher Fountain Soda jerk?

  2. Tony

    Chris,
    It’s only myopic liberals that cannot see the truth in what you have just written. it does not fit their racist agenda.

  3. Anonymous

    Utterly laughable to see CF posing as the champion of MLK, calling out those who “disrespect” his legacy. Everything on your blog is all about how modern civil rights leaders are all a bunch of phonies who simply won’t acknowledge that blacks are nothing but a bunch of shiftless, violent, drug addicted affirmative action losers. MLK, if he were alive today, would be hip to your latter day John Bircher sentiments, and want nothing to do with your phony attempt to co-opt his legacy, which was about social justice, battling militarism, racial equality. We know which side of the fence you would have lined up on back then. And it certainly wasn’t on Dr. King’s.

    • anon$anon

      Hey Jack, Your high horse is calling. He wants you to get back on it and ride off into the sunset. And dontcha come back no mo no mo..

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Ahhh… Dullardius Bill is back at it. Dullard: you forgot to call him a tea-bagger.

  4. Speaking of disrespecting Dr. King:

    Just read Washington Wire in the WSJ, and it said that there are no GOP speakers at today’s events. They all declined to speak, including the princes of the stupid party, Boehner and Cantor. Now why is that??? An opportunity to come together, and they still don’t get it. Everyone knows that old white guys run the GOP, but this should be a time to heal, to come together. Are the white Southerners that powerful???? Maybe it is Tony’s racist agenda; oh sorry, those are liberals!!!!! Oh I know…Rush told them not to speak. He is the man of power!

    • The reason Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina, didn’t speak at the event was because the events’ organizers refused to invite him. Senator Scott happens to be the only black senator in Congress: he is also a Republican.
      Take your moral superiority and hypocrisy, Bob and stuff it (politely).

      • Did you read the article, CF? Your buddy Boehner had his own celebration/meeting. Why is that? Why did they all decline? Moral superiority?? We have been through Norm Coleman calling the GOP the “white old party”. We have been through Bobby Jindal calling the GOP the stupid party. BTW, you are right about Scott. Why didn’t he just go??
        The GOP is finished if it does not reach out to minorities.
        CF, I now give you the opportunity to speak about Boehner and Rush, and have them stuff it (politely).

        • TheWizard

          All this reaching out crap just means give them gifts at the taxpayers’ expense.

          Screw that. Give them a tax benefit to start a small business would be the only welfare I endorse. A profitable business, no electric cars or windmills.

    • anon$anon

      Bob,That’s about the stupidest thing you have ever said here and you’ve said a lot of stupid things.

      Let’s put your asshat comment into perspective. Obama was up on the podium today doing his best impersonation of a black, Jesse Jackson said “the Tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy”, Al Sharpton says every white person is a racist, Oprah spoke blacker than she ever did on her talk show when she spoke like a white, so any cotton-pickin’ ninny would see that if Boehner or Cantor spoke (I don’t believe for a second they were asked), they would get booed. But from your lamebrain head, they should have gone anyway, and said what?? – My best friends are black or chicken and grits at my house after the speech? Just what would you have them say that wouldn’t be considered disingenuous?

      • I have not seen it, but I urge you to read the WSJ. It sounds like you don’t different dialects than your own. Did Carter or Clinton talk black? Let me know.

  5. AJ

    CF, you sound like a lawyer for the defense of someone on trial for rape, doing your best to discredit the victim, who, whether or not he smoked pot, or whether or not he may have ever stolen anything, had nothing to do with whether Zimmerman was guilty or not guilty of murder.

    In my opinion, the prosecution put forward one of the lamest narratives I’ve ever heard. Had I been the prosecutor, I would have put forward the story that Zimmerman went out and bought a gun, and with the stand your ground law in mind, decided that someone was going to make his day. Well, do ya punk?

    Ask yourself, if Zimmerman wasn’t armed, do you really think he would have been stalking a strapping black youth that I’m sure he knew could have easily kicked his ass? The only justification was that he knew he was armed and could take the guy out once he got on his nerves and got him to confront him. If you are being persistently pursued, stalked, by a stranger in the dark, then springing on him at an opportune moment is an act of defense, not assault. Stalking is a crime, it is an aggressive act.

    By the way Zimmerman’s wife just pleaded guilty to perjury. But Zimmerman is not out of the woods yet because he still could be federally charged for civil rights violations. And even though he was acquitted of murder charges, he can still be held liable, and be hunted down the rest of his life to fork over his money, much as is the case with Tawana Brawley.

    • When you come up with reasons to compare Trayvon Martin and Martin Luther King beyond the color of their skin, write back.

      • AJ

        Obviously, what Trayvon Martin and Martin Luther King have in common is the name Martin, someone’s idea of a clever segue, and an opportunity to come up with a t-shirt that probably would sell well and make some serious coin at the million man march — tasteless t-shirts are hardly anything new. What is pathetic is that Obama, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, most democrats, and the whole left wing controlled media are doing everything they can do to promote division: to Milk Travon Martin for all that its worth and then some.

        Trayvon Martin was a kid minding his own business who got shot down by a soulless punk, a guy carrying a pistol where his balls should have been. What Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, et al, have been doing to promote racial division since that crime is no less criminal, and probably in good part responsible for all the black on white crime that has since occurred and the resulting deaths. As a leader of the black community, Jackson’s reaction to the black on white murders, that such activity is to be frowned upon, is tantamount to condoning black on white murders. And Jesse Jackson’s defending his son’s claims of mental illness, allowing him to collect $8,700 a month while sitting in prison for corruption clearly illustrates his lack of ethics. But his racial agitating, and mere frowning upon black on white murders shows there is no limit to how low this man will go.

        As for Trayvon Martin’s family trademarking Travon’s name, I doubt they are very well off financially. There are certainly, a lot of people trading off his name, making hay out of it after all this time. If there’s any money made from it, I don’t see why his family shouldn’t be the ones to benefit.

        • What I don’t understand, AJ, is the certainty you and others have as to what happened that night. The state put forth its version, Zimmerman had his, the triers of fact found that the state hadn’t proved that its version was the truth. So how do you know? You’ve never struck me as a guy who blindly accepts the state’s version of anything else, (cough cough), why the deference here?

        • AJ

          I don’t know what happened that night. What I do know is that it wouldn’t have happened if Zimmerman wasn’t stalking him. What makes common sense is that he wouldn’t have been stalking him if he didn’t have a gun and was prepared to use it. Use common sense. Who would stalk some big black guy twice his size to the point of getting him to turn on him? Nobody. The prosecutions job, the states job, since they charged him, is to come up with a scenario, to paint a picture, to speculate what was in defendant’s mind in a way that would lead the jury to believe that it was most likely murder, to put the defense on the hot seat, and poke holes in their story. The prosecutions presentation and angle of attack was weak, who cared what his girlfriend thought.

          What I do know is that some kid who went to visit a relative and was minding his own business is dead. He wasn’t doing anything, he wasn’t pestering George Zimmerman, he was just was walking home. And he would have made it if Zimmerman hadn’t been shadowing him, something he wouldn’t have been doing if he wasn’t armed and prepared to use his gun. If George Zimmerman had stood his ground, then Martin would have walked away and gone home. But in this Case it seems that Zimmerman’s ground was stuck to Martin’s ass and went wherever Martin went.

          Everything was initiated by Zimmerman. He had to know what would happen. Go back to you days of hanging out in bars and imagine yourself following, stalking some big, nasty looking guy who had just left the bar. Then ask yourself how long it would have taken before you got your ass kicked. You would have known it was coming, and so would have had Zimmerman, have to have known how things would play out — make my day punk!

          • In fact, AJ, you don’t any of that. You don’t know that Zimmerman was stalking him, you don’t know that Martin was “minding his own business” (he wasn’t walking towards his aunt’s house, for instance), you don’t know, you don’t know, you don’t know. Christ ma, next you’ll be telling us Neil Armstrong walked on the moon!

        • AJ

          Okay, I’ll give you that one: Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. But yeah, I think that’s what pretty much happened — Zimmerman followed Martin ’till Martin got pissed and turned on him. What difference does it make whether or not he was walking to his aunts house? I didn’t know you had to file a log and stick to it to walk the streets of America. But yeah, you’re right that I don’t know this, and I don’t know that because the prosecution’s whole case was questioning Martin’s stupid ass belligerent girlfriend, who wasn’t even there. WTF? And that’s my point is that you don’t know because the prosecution failed to paint a picture that made it murder. They were weak in their prosecution.

          I mean look at the Moxley case. They got a conviction without a shred of evidence when it could have just as well have been his brother Tommy, or the supposed two black guys who were gonna get them a white woman, caveman style.

          Or look at the Scott Peterson trial where the prosecution painted vast murals: guilty as charged, while his lawyer Mark Geragos primped and preemed himself to sit as the all knowing lawyer on the Larry King show, a place where you don’t win trials. Hell, even I could have put up a better defense: his wife didn’t know where he was going so decided to follow him and slipped and fell on the seaweed, hitting her head on a rock a slipped into the ocean — she did things like that. See?

  6. “What did they have in common? Oh yeah, they were both black.” Precisely! Martin was killed because of his colour. Not because of anything wrong he might have done elsewhere. But because he was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. This was exactly what MLK was talking about.

  7. JamesR

    Surprise surprsise. Leftys regurgitating the same MSNBC talking points about the Zimmerman case that have absolutely no basis in reality, and have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. Facts are such stubborn things!

    • It’s never about the facts for them, it’s about the narrative. As you point out, facts are stubborn things, so they don’t use them.

      • AJ

        In this case the pertinent fact was what was inside Zimmerman’s mind. For the prosecution, it’s up to them to come up with an angle that will make their case. For the defense, it’s to them to refute the prosecution’s theory. While the prosecution has to divulge whatever they have, its not their job to win for the defense or help them make their case. Nobody knows what the facts are. That’s why they have trials: to weigh the evidence. In the end, right or wrong, the facts are what the jury believe them to be. All I’m saying is that the prosecution was very weak.

  8. JamesR

    “Had I been the prosecutor, I would have put forward the story that Zimmerman went out and bought a gun, and with the stand your ground law in mind, decided that someone was going to make his day.” The trial would have even been shorter then; a not guilty verdict in ten minutes.

    • JamesR

      Based of course on you know…..what are those words…..hmm, oh yeah, the ACTUAL FACTS of the case. Facts. So inconvenient to the narrative we simply must ignore them.

      • AJ

        Narrative is what trials are all about: it’s what wins and looses cases; it’s for each side to put forth the narrative that will win for their side; narrative is how the facts are presented; it’s the story that is told. Is the narrative important? Just ask Michael Skakel.

  9. MLK was killed in part because he was a Republican
    who was undermining the power of the
    Southern Democrat controlled Senate…..

  10. JamesR

    MLK was killed because he was only 12 years old and on his way home with skittles, and was then stalked by a racist white man who bought a gun just so he could invoke “stand your ground” and kill a black child for fun. I saw it on Rachel Maddow so it must be the truth.

    • AJ

      C’mon man, you know he was a dweeb with a gun. I’ll bet he stood in front of a mirror in the ready position, pretending he was Mark David Chapman, pretending to off somebody, then blowing imaginary smoke from the tip of his gun, waiting for the night when he would go out and make his bones. Psycho Killer Qu’est Que C’est

  11. Anonymous

    they look alike

  12. Anonymous

    MLK was NOT a Republican. He didn’t like wishy washy Dems either. Love how the right is vainly trying to claim MLK as one of their own. His whole critique was steeped in democratic socialism, about economic justice as well as racial equality–in short everything the morons that constitute todays Tea Party find anathema. Nice try Randbots, vut take your apartheid thinking elsewhere.

    • Atticus

      MLK was a plagiarist, his doctorate was fraudulent. And his name wasn’t Martin, it was Michael.
      http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp

      • sunbeam43

        You are so very wrong stating it as you have! Yes, both MLK Sr. and MLK Jr. were named Michael, however in 1934 MLK Sr. changed both of their names to honor the German reformer Martin Luther.
        MLK Jr. entered Morehouse College without even finishing H.S. at age 15, receiving his B.A. In 1948, he went on to Crozer Theological Seminary receiving a B.Div. in 1951 and lastly Boston University where he received his Ph.D. in 1955 in Theology. A few portions of his dissertation were said to have been plagiarized, however the committee decided not to revoke his degree as the dissertation in itself was truly a masterful piece of work.
        So stop inserting pieces of junk until you read his complete history for Heaven’s sake. Sheesh!!
        And if you’re depending upon partisan Snopes to get answers, it is no wonder why you speak/write as you do!!

  13. Peg

    CF – you are utterly correct in this post. I weep for those who think that MLK Jr and Martin have much in common other than the color of their skin. Content on of their character? Please.

    Those who are ranting about this poor young black child who was hunted down, etc., etc. apparently have heard little or none of the actual FACTS of the case. Try reading up, people.

    In any case, MLK Jr is my American hero of the 20th century.

    Martin? A product of many factors in our nation that continues to harm the black underclass. And – if you think it’s mostly conservatives/Republicans/white racism – you’d be woefully incorrect.

  14. sunbeam43

    Reprehensible!!!!