[davidbrainfart]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Despite the despicable Democrats trying to rewrite history, Martin Luther King was a lifelong Republican. It was the Democrat Jim Crow laws he was fighting – and the KKK, yes – they were Democrats. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) passed the 1957 civil rights laws and sent federal troops to desegregate the Arkansas public schools.

All true. After the Civil War, the black people became Republicans like their hero Abraham Lincoln. The white people stuck with the racist Democratic party and successfully kept the blacks from voting. When the crippled Democrat FDR became president he did a lot for the South and most blacks became Democrats along with most whites, but they still didn't vote.

The Democrats were deeply divided between the liberals, mostly in the North and the conservatives mostly in the South. Martin Luther King, Jr. was just the kind of man to buck the trend, for after all, the Democratic party of FDR was also the party of Strom Thurmond. There were both liberals and conservatives in the Republican party as well. I give president Eisenhower full credit not only for enforcing integration but for having appointed the Republican Earl Warren to the Supreme Court.

BTW, it seems there is a lot of support for Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan here and not much support for MLK. In fact, for a site that denies racism, it seems almost a parody on unackowledged racist ideology.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

I haven't checked these figures myself, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you are correct.

However, it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson who pushed the Civil Rights bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through congress, with proportionately more votes from Republicans than Democrats. When Johnson signed the Voting Rights act, he said "We have lost the South for a generation." He was a consummate politician and a proud man, but he was proud to have done the right thing. So far, with Richard Nixon pursuing the Southern Strategy, it has been two generations since the white racist Democrats in the South became white racist Republicans.

I don't know whether MLK would still be a Republican if he were alive today. The Republicans have moved so far right that they could benefit from his influence. However, I think he would be a Democrat. Democrat or Republican, I'm sure he would have endorsed Obama, as did his fellow Republican Colin Powell.

"Brainless" is an appropriate nom de plume for your uninformed drivel. Republicans are saving this country from the socialism of Obama.

That is certainly the consensus of the Landover Baptist Church Forum. Why else would they have given me that name? Most of what I say is well informed, as any objective observer can tell. Perhaps the characters on this board or so accustomed to being told what to think that most will go with the illusion the board managers seek to create rather than read what I have to say. What's wrong with socialism anyway? I'm for socialized schools, highways, and fire departments as well as Health care available to all.

I have a pen pal from Freehold. I'll call him Freehold Harry. He doesn't want his real name to be known, as he does post here from time to time to keep up his True Christian™ credentials. We agreed that he would come to California to see San Francisco and I would come to visit him in Freehold. His lawyer friend has told him that the Freehold injunction against the unsaved in his community is unenforceable. I'll keep a low profile. Fortunately no one would recognize me from my avatar.

How ironic that your avatar and nom de plume are taken from a famous Democrat!

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

...
However, it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson who pushed the Civil Rights bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through congress, with proportionately more votes from Republicans than Democrats. When Johnson signed the Voting Rights act, he said "We have lost the South for a generation." He was a consummate politician and a proud man, but he was proud to have done the right thing. So far, with Richard Nixon pursuing the Southern Strategy, it has been two generations since the white racist Democrats in the South became white racist Republicans.

I don't know whether MLK would still be a Republican if he were alive today. The Republicans have moved so far right that they could benefit from his influence. However, I think he would be a Democrat. Democrat or Republican, I'm sure he would have endorsed Obama, as did his fellow Republican Colin Powell.
...

Once again, it's a DEMONcrat lie. Most racist southern Democrats did not become Republicans, they became what were known as "Dixiecrats". Many of the more infamous - Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

It was not until the shifting demographics of Republicans fleeing the North to the South to escape the Big Government high tax (and spend) socialist policies of the Democrats that Republicans made gains in the South. While we're on the subject we can't ignore the Big Unions and their support of the Democrats. Racist unions were bent on keeping their membership white and blocked integration, membership and denied jobs to blacks for decades.

LBJ was a racist Democrat who was Senate Majority leader when Republican Eisenhower sponsored the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Bill. LBJ fought tooth and nail against them. LBJ's only contribution was to buy back the black vote for the Democratic Party by passing his socialist "Great Society" programs that segregated blacks into high rise slums all over the country.

...
What's wrong with socialism anyway? I'm for socialized schools, highways, and fire departments as well as Health care available to all.
...

Like all LIEberals, you never bother to read – either to check your facts or the Bible (KJV1611). Your beloved socialism is going bankrupt all over the world, and contributed to the deaths of 170 million people in the 20th Century. Go ahead, continue to listen to the vacuous speeches of Obama.

[davidbrainfart]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would think you're a whiny little bitch, and tell you to stop calling him by his father's name.

I'm no Martin Luther King, Jr., but I'm sure he would regard me as part of the solution and you as part of the problem.

[davidbrainfart]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Once again, it's a DEMONcrat lie. Most racist southern Democrats did not become Republicans, they became what were known as "Dixiecrats". Many of the more infamous - Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

The transition from Democrat to Republican was gradual. Southern liberal Democrats remained Democratic and, with the help of newly enfranchised black voters, elected such leaders as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Neither was racist but I have a strong premonition that you will reflexively label them as such. Liberal Southerners never had a reason to leave the Democratic party.

Some of the Southern racist Democrats in congress, such as Richard Russell, and James Eastland remained Democrats. The voters routinely returned them to office as long as they kept saying what they wanted to hear. Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. Jesse Helms and Trent Lott also became Republicans. In the election of 1968 all of the Southern states except Texas went to Richard Nixon or George Wallace. In Nixon's landslide victory of 1972, Nixon got 72% of the vote in the South compared to 61% nationwide. Ronald Reagan cemented Southern conservative support partly because of race but also because of other issues that appealed to the religious right--which this forum either represents or misrepresents.

William Fulbright was a racist who also held enlightened views about international policy, and it was in this sense that he was a mentor of Clinton. Robert Byrd had a mixed record on racism. He joined the Klan in the 1940s then left it and denounced his racism. Still he fillibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights act and supported the Vietnam War, but he later reversed himself. It was his denunciation of his own earlier racist views in 1982 that stayed with him to the end of his career.

I met Albert Gore Sr. at a political event at the University of Illinois in 1964. He told me he was for the Civil Rights Act "with modifications." He voted against the Civil Rights Act because he feared that Southern schools would lose federal funding when confronted with the demand to integrate. He later expressed regret for his vote. He did vote for the Voting Rights Act in 1965. In 1956, he, along with Tennesee's other senator Estes Kefauver and Lyndon Johnson of Texas refused to sign the Southern Manifesto, which opposed integration.

It was not until the shifting demographics of Republicans fleeing the North to the South to escape the Big Government high tax (and spend) socialist policies of the Democrats that Republicans made gains in the South. While we're on the subject we can't ignore the Big Unions and their support of the Democrats. Racist unions were bent on keeping their membership white and blocked integration, membership and denied jobs to blacks for decades.

I don't know how much of Southern political and racial attitues, if any, are driven by the migration from the North. I know that the white Republican South was well established with the election of Ronald Reagan. Labor unions brought us fair wages, weekends, and time and a half for overtime, which we all benefit from whether we are in unions or not. The suppression of unions leads to a race to the bottom with U.S. workers competing with slave wages in China and India, etc. Unions have been on both sides of the racial divide.

LBJ was a racist Democrat who was Senate Majority leader when Republican Eisenhower sponsored the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Bill. LBJ fought tooth and nail against them. LBJ's only contribution was to buy back the black vote for the Democratic Party by passing his socialist "Great Society" programs that segregated blacks into high rise slums all over the country.

In 1957 Lyndon Johnson steered a tense middle course between the Southern segregationists and Northern civil rights advocates. Not his proudest moment compared to his accomplishments in 1964 and 1965. The Great Society foundered because there was not enough money to fund it and the Vietnam War at the same time.

Conservatives, who are these days overwhelmingly aligned with the Republican party, want to make out that all Democrats are racist and all Republicans are free of racism. The opposite is closer to the truth. One way conservatives link Democrats to racism is by failing to take account of how people change over time, partly due to the influence of MLK himself.

What's wrong with socialism anyway? I'm for socialized schools, highways, and fire departments as well as Health care available to all.

Like all LIEberals, you never bother to read – either to check your facts or the Bible (KJV1611). Your beloved socialism is going bankrupt all over the world, and contributed to the deaths of 170 million people in the 20th Century. Go ahead, continue to listen to the vacuous speeches of Obama.

I don't believe the Bible has much to say about Socialism. It was deregulation that led to economic collapse in America, which in turn affected the rest of the world. It will take increased regulation, which Wall Street fights tooth and nail, to bring it under control.I assume the 170 million death toll you cite refers to the forceful installation of the communist brand of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, not to the democratic socialism of European countries. In America 45,000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance.

Socialism is not just a dirty word; it is an option we need to consider. There are some things that private enterprise does better than government and some things government does better than private enterprise. Whether or not the moderate policies of Obama, who disappoints many true progressives, can be called socialism is doubtful.

[davidbrainfart]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Pay no attention to this man! He is a member of a lesser race who dares to accuse his betters here at the church of racism. He is not an American. He is a citizen of an evil foreign power on our doorstep beyond the reach of God's love. God hates him because he is a mental cripple. He is a racist, a hatemonger, and a fool. Trust us! Would we lie to you?

This is not an actual quote, but it is the message the board managers are trying to convey with their various invasions of my control panel. When your forum is lying to you about the messenger, intelligent readers, and I believe there are some on this forum, can only form their conclusions from the message itself.

BAB: "Dr. King, thank you for joining me for this conversation."

MLK: "Lawz, ol' Martin ain't no doctor -- I'ze jus' a kindly ol' Tom who do go on!" Strength to Love, introduction, p. ii.

When I looked for a place to post my Martin Luther King Day message, this was the only board in which the Reverend was mentioned by name. I took the discussion in a different direction. Responses to my post assumed that MLK was a great man and focused on ways in which I, or my liberal friends, were assumed to fall short. But the original message, as represented above, was that Martin Luther King was a fool. Let me remind you, Born Again Bob, that they say there is no place for racism at Landover. But you can take comfort in the fact that there is plenty of room for stupidity.

Sometimes I think that this whole forum is one big joke, but my friend Freehold Harry assures me that it is all deadly serious. I understand they gave a bicyclist a $37 fine for looking like a tree-hugging hippie. In his defense he went "yap, yap, yap, yap, yappity yap," but that didn't go over well with the judge.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

...
Labor unions brought us fair wages, weekends, and time and a half for overtime, which we all benefit from whether we are in unions or not. The suppression of unions leads to a race to the bottom with U.S. workers competing with slave wages in China and India, etc. Unions have been on both sides of the racial divide.

Unions do not create wealth – never have and never will. In many cases they even destroy jobs. There are too many links to post, just go look it up yourself if you ever want to become educated.

...
The Great Society foundered because there was not enough money to fund it and the Vietnam War at the same time.

More Marxist drivel – your kind would not be happy until everyone was taxed at 100%, and then you get to redistribute everything as you see fit – or maybe you want to leave those decisions up to Obama.

Conservatives, who are these days overwhelmingly aligned with the Republican party, want to make out that all Democrats are racist and all Republicans are free of racism. The opposite is closer to the truth. One way conservatives link Democrats to racism is by failing to take account of how people change over time, partly due to the influence of MLK himself.

More unctuous self-absorbed personal opinion completely devoid of facts – come back when you can prove your points.

I don't believe the Bible has much to say about Socialism.

Jesus had a few simple and easily understood things to say about socialism:

Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

- 1 Corinthians 3:8

Thou shalt not steale.

- Exodus 20:15

It was deregulation that led to economic collapse in America, which in turn affected the rest of the world. It will take increased regulation, which Wall Street fights tooth and nail, to bring it under control.

Regulation or deregulation (not even " Glass-Steagall") had anything to do with it. It was the GSEs Fannie and Freddie that played the major role. Twice the Bush administration tried to do something about it, but by 2006 the House was controlled by Democrats (Nancy "Face Lift" Pelosi) and they stopped every attempt to address the impending doom.

I assume the 170 million death toll you cite refers to the forceful installation of the communist brand of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, not to the democratic socialism of European countries.

I'm always amused how all you little neo-Marxists, when confronted by the carnage caused by the implementation of your redistributionist schemes, walk away from any moral (as taught by Jesus) culpability. The fact of the matter is that you all want to enlist the power of the state to enforce your utopian nightmares on everyone else. Appealing to your alleged peaceful "democracy" is nothing more than 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

In America 45,000 people die each year because of lack of health insurance.

Wrong again, delusional Marxist worm. You must be taking your "talking points" from DNC air head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Do 45,000 Americans Die Each Year from Lack of Health Care?
…

The study reflects the bias of the authors and contains inaccurate characterizations. The authors of the study, Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-founded the Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates a single-payer health system, or socialized medicine. According to Stearns, the authors developed their conclusion before conducting the study.

Consider the questionable methodology behind the report. According to an analysis by John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis:

* The authors of the Harvard study interviewed the uninsured only once -- and never saw them again; this alone undermines the integrity of the findings.

* A decade later, the researchers assumed the participants were still uninsured and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes.

Yet:

* Like unemployment, uninsurance happens to many people for short periods of time.

* Most people who are uninsured regain insurance within one year.

* The authors of the study did not track what happened to the insurance status of the subjects over the decade examined, what medical care they received or even the causes of their deaths.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/do-45-000-americans-die-each-year-from-lack-of-health-care

Socialism is not just a dirty word; it is an option we need to consider. There are some things that private enterprise does better than government and some things government does better than private enterprise. Whether or not the moderate policies of Obama, who disappoints many true progressives, can be called socialism is doubtful.

There is no doubt that Obama is a socialist. He hung around Marxists all his life (in case you didn't read his tiresome books), and he has appointed the most socialists to his administration than in any recent history. His seizing of GM and Chrysler is the closest we've come to the Marxist ownership of the means of production since Democrat President Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry. Obama is somewhat constrained in his attempts to socialize America by the Constitution, so his socialist dreams are more likely to take the form of fascism than anything else – much to the consternation of all you socialist "progressives".

You seem obsessed with Obama son, you need to get with Jesus – and begin to worry about what is going to ultimately happen to your immortal soul.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't believe the Bible has much to say about Socialism.

The Bible advocates taxing the poor disproportionately more than the rich. That is why I give all of my discretionary income to the church, while wealthier True Christians™ can give millions more than I do, without sacrificing as large a percentage of their wealth.

Mark 12:42-44

King James Version (KJV)


42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

The money of the wealthy is just as important as the money of the poor, if not moreso. Because poor people are ignorant and under educated, their money goes to malt liquor and XBoxes. The money of the rich goes to investing in the American economy and creating jobs.

Also, when a multi-millionaire loses just 10% of his wealth, many people must be laid off for the rich person to maintain his standard of living, and as a result many families lose their income and die from exposure in the streets. When a poor person loses the same amount of money, only one family dies from exposure in the streets. It may look bad on paper, because it is a larger percentage of one family's assets, but not as many people are affected.

When the poor get money, they spend it immediately, because they are so greedy. When the rich get money, they stow it away for a rainy day, because they are so responsible. So when you give a poor man a penny, he puts it right back into circulation, creating inflation and diminishing the value of the Godly American Dollar.

The rich have given the poor everything they own for labor that any mindless retard could perform. It is selfish for the poor to demand payment for work that the rich could just as easily perform themselves.

These reasons and many more are why it is important for the poor to sacrifice everything they have to the rich, just like the woman gave her last two mites to Jesus, who can spontaneously create as much money as he wants, having miraculous powers. That is the message of the Bible.

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The true MLK, in his own words.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The true MLK, in his own words.

Glory!!!

[Jim Farmer]

Re: Equal Time: BAB v. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Who's this thread about? I don't understand