DiscussMormonism.com

Democrats today want to ban the Confederate Flag from capital grounds, or even existing ANYWHERE, in history, media, historical gift shops, the General Lee Car in the Dukes of Hazard, etc. for it's terrible historical racism.....

So.... Why don't Democrats want to ban themselves then, if historical racist ideology and symbols are so bad?
Dem's still have the same ideology, the ideology of slavery and bigotry at their core ideology, even though not the words themselves of slavery and racism are no longer embraced.

They were racists of the past.... so they should be banned also, if past racism is bad, even though most people who do anything with the Confederate Flag today don't do or have anything to do with racism today, just like most Dem's today don't.

But, liberals don't have logic, only bigotry..... thus much BAN anything and anyone they don't like.

ldsfaqs wrote:But, liberals don't have logic, only bigotry..... thus much BAN anything and anyone they don't like.

Bit two-faced coming from a supporter of a ban based on skin colour.

I have a question wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:But, liberals don't have logic, only bigotry..... thus much BAN anything and anyone they don't like.

Bit two-faced coming from a supporter of a ban based on skin colour.

Never at all supported a ban on "skin color"..... Never said anything of the sort.
In fact, I said the complete opposite, that the ban WAS NOT based on skin color.

See you're still a liar.
Further, what I have said on the subject is in explaination not "support".
God is much more moral and right than YOU and your racist ideological and behavior brothers Dem's of the past.

ldsfaqs wrote:
Clearly you didn't watch the video because it debunks some of what you just said.
You should read better books, because LBJ was not a good man when it concerns race......

Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963...

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them n*****s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

Ignorant man, that is a false quote for which there is no primary source. That is to say, you posted a LIE.

ldsfaqs wrote:

Bond James Bond wrote:I've recently been reading the four volume bio of LBJ by Caro (sorry no youtube ldsfaqs, just words) and it's been rather illuminating about the Democratic party's internal strife during the 1940s-60s. The Southern Dixiecrats along with numerous mid western and western Republican senators held civil rights back for nearly 30 years until the first civil rights law, albeit a weak one, was pushed through the Senate for the first time in 1957 with LBJ's help. Southern Dixiecrats totally shifted away from the Democratic party beginning with the Goldwater election in 1964 after LBJ basically betrayed their racist ideals.

Interestingly the Democrats had a civil rights plank forced into their campaign platform by northern Democratic liberals way back in 1948 by liberals like Hubert Humphrey long before the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 (this led to the 1948 campaign of Strom Thurmond in 1948). They just never could get any traction against the Senate which was controlled at that time by the Southern senators for various reasons.

Clearly you didn't watch the video because it debunks some of what you just said.
You should read better books, because LBJ was not a good man when it concerns race......

Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963...

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

I have no doubt you've read Vol III of Caro's bio of LBJ, Master of Senate.

I have no doubt you read chp 31 (pg 711-740 in the 2003 paperback version by Vistage) wherein Caro takes apart LBJ's argument that he "had been free of racial prejudice." (711)

I have no doubt you read the numerous instances of personal behavior towards African-Americans and Latinos that is far short of decent behavior, although somehow perfectly in character with LBJ's treatment of well...just about everyone he ever met.

I have no doubt you found it paradoxical that LBJ could call Latinos lazy while he also went into his own pocket during his first teacher job to buy books to teach Mexican children on the Texas-Mexican border as well as spent his free time teaching the illiterate Mexican janitor of that school to read and write and speak English.

No doubt you read that in The Path to Power (Vol 1). Where LBJ also spent basically every waking moment working himself and his assistants as Congressional aides squeezing every last bit of help from every New Deal program for the constituents of all colors of his congressional district.

I have no doubt you read that chapter where LBJ's bigoted statements are laid out so that we know that much of his actions were pragmatic and self serving while they also lead to mutual.

I have no doubt you anxiously await the final volume of Caro's biography which will also detail his Presidency when he turned the switch on Civil Rights legislation after Kennedy couldn't get a thing done between 1961-63 as well as other Great Society programs that helped millions of poor people of all stripes.

I have no doubts you are familiar with actual history written in books in addition to your extensive knowledge of youtube.

Currently trying to track down that quote...but since I have no doubt you've read extensively about LBJ and know that he said whatever he had to say to whomever in order to get them on his side you'll find basically all arguments expressed by LBJ. I'm not really concerned about what he said, he was a product of his time and obviously said racist stuff. More important were his actions which helped millions of people.

According to some sleuthing the LBJ quote was attributed to LBJ by Kessler in a conversation with two southern governors. Exactly to my point that he would say whatever depending on the company. Caro noted numerous examples where people heard him talk racist to the southern conservatives while he would turn around a few minutes later and take the opposite position with northern liberals. Frankly Caro listed examples of language as bad by LBJ. LBJ once said to a White House employee, Robert Parker, this when he asked if Parker was mad he didn't call him by his name rather than "boy", "n****r", or "chief" Parker said he would prefer to be called Robert Parker and LBJ said:

"Let me tell you one thing, n----r....as long as you are black, and you're gonna be black til the day you die, on one's gonna call you by your goddamned name. So no matter what you are called, n----r you just let it roll off you back like water, and you'll make it. Just pretend you're furniture." (716-717)

Rough stuff. But in the 1950s? I mean probably par for the course.

After all things weren't much better from the Republican perspective. Conservative Republican senators from the midwest eagerly voted with southern Dems in exchange for southern support on other issues. Dwight Eisenhower was a total coward on civil rights, and while the southern Dems were awful on civil rights the liberal branch of the party was the best hope for Dems, particularly since most African-Americans still were in awe of FDR and the programs of the New Deal that helped them so much during the 1930s.

Do you really think people should vote more than once and also for people not living in this country to come here and thus influence an election by voting?

I don't believe that a person should be voting more than once. The Ohio woman who voted for Obama five times during the 2012 election would probably not have been prevented from doing so with a strict voter I.D. law. EAllusion and I got in a debate about this a couple of years ago, and he ended up stating this to me:

"Increasing the ID requirement while she votes with her own name each time doesn't change anything."


Pennsylvania's strict voter I.D. law ended up getting struck down as Unconstitutional about a year and a half ago.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Struck Down as Judge Cites Burden on Citizens

...

In a strongly worded decision, a state judge on Friday struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 law requiring voters to produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls, setting up a potential Supreme Court confrontation that could have implications for other such laws across the country.

The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts.

“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election,” the judge wrote in his 103-page decision. “The voter ID law does not further this goal.”

In addition, Judge McGinley ruled, the state’s $5 million campaign to explain the law had been full of misinformation that has never been corrected. He also said that the free IDs that were supposed to be made available to those without driver’s licenses or other approved photo identification were difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain.

Opponents of voter IDs called the ruling a “devastating indictment” of the Pennsylvania law.

...

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/us/po ... -down.html

ldsfaqs wrote:
You only demonstrate yourself the TRUE BIGOT.....
I nor 99.9% of any other conservative has ever uttered a word in common with the bad of that racist.
But, I know you people don't like truth, just slander and bigotry..... because you are the true bigots, and bully's.

You ain't just whistling Dixie on that brother! We pointy headed liberals like to hold our rallies over a Cobb salad with some of that nice white ranch dressing on the side!!!

Bond James Bond wrote:Dwight Eisenhower was a total coward on civil rights, ...

He did appoint Earl Warren to the Supreme Court and that made all the difference (of course, he also appointed Ezra Taft Benson to be Secretary of Agriculture - can't win them all).

ldsfaqs wrote:Never at all supported a ban on "skin color"..... Never said anything of the sort.

If you were a member of the Church prior to 1978 then you supported the Priesthood ban which was based on skin colour (racism).

In fact, I said the complete opposite, that the ban WAS NOT based on skin color.

The Church doesn't agree with you. The Church has disavowed the Priesthood Ban as racism.

See you're still a liar.

I see that one of us is...

Further, what I have said on the subject is in explaination not "support".

You are in no position to explain anything about racism or the Church, you clearly don't know squat and seemingly are unable to substantiate any baseless assertion you make on any thread....ever.

God is much more moral and right than YOU and your racist ideological and behavior brothers Dem's of the past.

So now you're speaking on behalf of God? You're not even a half-wit.