Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 6566
|
|
Re:Documents raise questions about religious influ 3 Months ago
|
Karma: -377  
|
|
Wren wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Wren wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Wren wrote: , Spencer W. Kimball did,
You have proof he was a bigot, then changed? Your a lieing prick Wren.
Dubbs is doing selective editing again. This puts it back into context: "But good-meaning bigots can change. Abraham Lincoln did, Spencer W. Kimball did, Reagan never did -- bigotry is hard to shake." Please note that Dubbs left out that SWK changed for the better in this area.
Read SWK's works, percy, and get back to me. He talks about how hard it was for him to overcome his Arizona LDS upbringing and the attitudes towards people of color. My friends and I, too, in St. George and Washington County had to overcome that bigotry, Dubbs. Didn't matter whether you were LDS or not in our area, and I guess it was the same where SWK grew up as well.
Blowing a fuse, huh, percy? Too funny.
Your claiming he was a bigot, then changed, do you have proof he was a bigot before 1978?
Didn't think so, so shut your yapper punk.
Then you know very little about SWK.
Show the evidence then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My ignore list... The The The The Betz, Kitcat, and the blonde. They have nothing of substance to say anyway, but just like to add smarmy comments to the conversations, so why bother with the the constant smariness?
Wren would like to think he's ignoring me, but he can't, won't and will not.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 6566
|
|
Re:Documents raise questions about religious influ 3 Months ago
|
Karma: -377  
|
Dubbs hates LDS people wrote:Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Jaye wrote: [b The only part of that definition I never saw in Ronald Reagan was a tendency toward bigotry.
On the contrary, I have read accounts where for the era in which he was growing up as a boy and a young man, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination..
Yes, you are correct, and Bigdummy's claim's are wrong here also. Typical
"LOL" Dubbs do you even know what the word bigot means "LOL"
why do you think it just has to do with racial discrimination,
Ronald Reagan was a conservative, very conservative which means: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change, a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas, he was a member of a Conservative Party.
right there should tell you Ronald Reagan was a bigot...
look at the definition of bigot then look back what a conservative is:
bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
There's a difference between being opposed to somehting and that making you a bigot.
course your too dumb to understand this, I know it flew right over your head.
Again, show proof he was a bigot, or your just a slandering bumbling idiot.
"LOL" hey Dubbs I didn't make up the definition of bigot, I'm sorry if you don't like it but too bad, I know you always think you are right but sorry dumbo you are not!!
But OK you want proof about Ronald Reagans bigotry, how about this, did you ever here how RR felt about hippies, he hated them, now this is a fact, they even made posters about it, here look at this one:

NOW TELL ME, was or wasn't he a bigot "LOL"
Reagan first began his civil service to famous, wealthy people as the president of the Screen Actors Guild in the 40's and 50's. Naturally, this made him a prime candidate for governor of California, which he won entirely on an anti-hippie, anti-hobo platform.
You've flip flopped your story from a racial bigot, to know he doens't like hippies, Your full of shit big.
Also I want to tell you something, My ex-wifes Grandfather John Henry lived his last day's in Joshua Tree California in the Californian desert, one time these black peoples car broke down and they were stuck out in the desert could not get their car fixed until the next day, so John Henry let them stay at his house, that's the same thing Ronald Reagan did... I don't see how this is proof that Ronald Reagan was not a racist!!!
You see John Henry was born in South Carolina and at one time was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan until his death, But he did the same as Reagan and had let black people stay at his house....!!!!
Hmmmm makes you wonder!!!!  Huh, when did Ronald reagan let black people stay at his house? So now your saying a Klu Klux Klan nutjob is similar to RR? Wow, your nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My ignore list... The The The The Betz, Kitcat, and the blonde. They have nothing of substance to say anyway, but just like to add smarmy comments to the conversations, so why bother with the the constant smariness?
Wren would like to think he's ignoring me, but he can't, won't and will not.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dubbs (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 6566
|
|
Re:Documents raise questions about religious influ 3 Months ago
|
Karma: -377  
|
Dubbs hates LDS people wrote:Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Also Dubbs didyou know about this:
On 15 May 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan ordered armed police to carry out a dawn raid against hippie protesters who had occupied People's Park near the Berkeley campus of the University of California. During the subsequent battle, one man was shot dead and 128 other people needed hospital treatment. On that day, the 'straight' world and the counter-culture appeared to be implacably opposed. On one side of the barricades, Governor Reagan and his followers advocated unfettered private enterprise and supported the invasion of Vietnam. On the other side, the hippies championed a social revolution at home and opposed imperial expansion abroad. In the year of the raid on People's Park, it seemed that the historical choice between these two opposing visions of America's future could only be settled through violent conflict.

Yes, they were breaking the law, good for him. Doesn't make him a bigot.
Wrong Dubbs they were not breaking the Law!!!
It was a student demonstration at the Berkeley campus and University administrators allowed them to do it...They were not doing anything wrong Dubbs
Here read this:
During its first three weeks, People's Park was enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to improve the neighborhood. Objections to the expropriation of University property tended to be mild, even among school administrators.
Governor Ronald Reagan had been publicly critical of University administrators for tolerating student demonstrations at the Berkeley campus, and he had received enormous popular support for his 1966 gubernatorial campaign promise to crack down on what was perceived as the generally lax attitude at California's public universities. Reagan called the Berkeley campus "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants."
Reagan considered the creation of the park a direct leftist challenge to the property rights of the University, and he found in it an opportunity to make good on his campaign promise.
Governor Reagan overrode Chancellor Heyns' May 6, 1969 promise that nothing would be done without warning, and on Thursday, May 15, 1969 at 4:45 a.m., he sent 250 California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park. The officers cleared an 8-block area around the park while a large section of what had been planted was destroyed and an 8-foot tall perimeter chain-link wire fence was installed to keep people out and to prevent the planting of more trees, grass, flowers and shrubs.
Beginning at noon, approximately 3,000 people appeared in Sproul Plaza at nearby U.C. Berkeley for a rally, the original purpose of which was to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several people spoke, then Michael Lerner ceded the Free Speech platform to ASUC Student Body President Dan Siegel because students were concerned about the fencing-off and destruction of the park. Siegel said later that he never intended to precipitate a riot; however when he shouted "Let's take back the park!," police turned off the sound system. This angered some people, and the crowd responded spontaneously, moving down Telegraph Avenue toward People's Park chanting "We want the park!"
Arriving in the early afternoon, the protestors were met by the remaining 159 Berkeley and University police officers assigned to guard the fenced-off park site. The protestors opened a fire hydrant, the officers fired tear gas canisters, some protestors attempted to tear down the fence, and bottles and rocks were thrown. A major confrontation ensued between law enforcement and the crowd. Initial attempts by the police to disperse the protestors were not successful, so more officers were called in from surrounding cities.
Reagan's Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, a former district attorney from Alameda County, had established a reputation for firm opposition to those protesting the Vietnam War at the Oakland Induction Center and elsewhere. Meese assumed responsibility for the governmental response to the People's Park protest, and he called in the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies, which brought the total police presence to 791 officers from various jurisdictions.
Under Meese's direction, the police were permitted to use whatever methods they chose against the crowds, which had swelled to approximately 6,000 people. Officers in full riot gear (helmets, shields and gas masks) obscured their badges to avoid being identified and headed into the crowds with nightsticks swinging.
The most aggressive were the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies-later dubbed "The Blue Meanies" who resorted to using shotguns loaded with "00" buckshot. "00" buckshot consists of lead pellets that are much larger, and thus more lethal, than the birdshot that is occasionally used for crowd control. The Alameda County Sheriff's deputies used shotguns to fire "00" buckshot at people sitting on the roof at the Telegraph Repertory Cinema, fatally wounding student James Rector and permanently blinding carpenter Alan Blanchard. Neither man was a protestor.
As the protestors retreated, the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies chased them several blocks down Telegraph Avenue as far as Willard Junior High School at Derby Street, firing tear gas canisters and "00" buckshot into their backs as they fled. At least one tear gas canister landed on the school grounds. Many people, including innocent bystanders, suffered permanent injuries, some with as many as a hundred lead pellet wounds in their scalps, necks, backs, buttocks and thighs. One man, John Willard, lived for years in intractable pain with lead pellets lodged near his spine.
At least 128 Berkeley citizens were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by law enforcement. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested. Many more protestors and bystanders were treated for minor injuries. Local hospital logs show that 19 police officers or Alameda County Sheriff's deputies were treated for minor injuries; none were hospitalized.
The authorities initially claimed that only birdshot had been used as shotgun ammunition. When physicians provided "00" pellets removed from the wounded as evidence that buckshot had been used, Sheriff Frank Madigan of Alameda County justified the use of shotguns loaded with lethal buckshot by stating "... the choice was essentially this: to use shotguns-because we didn't have the available manpower-or retreat and abandon the City of Berkeley to the mob." Sheriff Madigan did admit, however, that some of his deputies (many of whom were Vietnam War veterans) had been overly aggressive in their pursuit of the protestors, "as though they were Viet Cong."
Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops- ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty. The Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 against the decision to occupy their city, however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guard helicopters sprayed tear gas on anyone who gathered in more than small groups.
On Wednesday, May 21, 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the University campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.
During the Peoples Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protestors from planting flowers, shrubs or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD. A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence.
A curfew was established, and protestors jumped fences after dark to plant flowers in the guarded lots. Guardsmen destroyed the flowers each morning. Some protestors, their faces hidden with scarves, challenged police and National Guard troops. Hundreds were arrested, and Berkeley citizens who found it necessary to venture out during curfew hours risked police harassment and beatings.
The battle lines were drawn, Flower Children versus The Establishment; the conflict mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream.
In a University referendum held soon after, the U.C. Berkeley students themselves voted 12,719 to 2,175 in favor of keeping the park.
On May 30, 1969, 30,000 Berkeley citizens (out of a population of 100,000) secured a Berkeley city permit and marched without incident past barricaded People's Park to protest Governor Reagan's occupation of their city, the death of James Rector, the blinding of Alan Blanchard and the many injuries inflicted by law enforcement. Young girls slid flowers down the muzzles of bayonetted National Guard rifles, and a small airplane flew over the city trailing a banner that read, "Let A Thousand Parks Bloom."
Almost a year after 'Bloody Thursday' and the death of James Rector, addressing the California Council of Growers at Yosemite, Reagan defended his actions, saying: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement." Less than a month later, on May 4, 1970, similar violence erupted at Kent State University, killing four students and seriously wounding nine.
No police officers, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies or National Guardsmen were disciplined for their actions in the Bloody Thursday incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_ParkTell me Big, if you got a group of friends togheter and went down to a city park and started planting tree's without proper permission, you think you'd be arrested? Or at least told to leave? They were breaking the law here, don't be naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My ignore list... The The The The Betz, Kitcat, and the blonde. They have nothing of substance to say anyway, but just like to add smarmy comments to the conversations, so why bother with the the constant smariness?
Wren would like to think he's ignoring me, but he can't, won't and will not.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:Documents raise questions about religious influ 3 Months ago
|
Karma: -20  
|
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Also Dubbs didyou know about this:
On 15 May 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan ordered armed police to carry out a dawn raid against hippie protesters who had occupied People's Park near the Berkeley campus of the University of California. During the subsequent battle, one man was shot dead and 128 other people needed hospital treatment. On that day, the 'straight' world and the counter-culture appeared to be implacably opposed. On one side of the barricades, Governor Reagan and his followers advocated unfettered private enterprise and supported the invasion of Vietnam. On the other side, the hippies championed a social revolution at home and opposed imperial expansion abroad. In the year of the raid on People's Park, it seemed that the historical choice between these two opposing visions of America's future could only be settled through violent conflict.

Yes, they were breaking the law, good for him. Doesn't make him a bigot.
Wrong Dubbs they were not breaking the Law!!!
It was a student demonstration at the Berkeley campus and University administrators allowed them to do it...They were not doing anything wrong Dubbs
Here read this:
During its first three weeks, People's Park was enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to improve the neighborhood. Objections to the expropriation of University property tended to be mild, even among school administrators.
Governor Ronald Reagan had been publicly critical of University administrators for tolerating student demonstrations at the Berkeley campus, and he had received enormous popular support for his 1966 gubernatorial campaign promise to crack down on what was perceived as the generally lax attitude at California's public universities. Reagan called the Berkeley campus "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants."
Reagan considered the creation of the park a direct leftist challenge to the property rights of the University, and he found in it an opportunity to make good on his campaign promise.
Governor Reagan overrode Chancellor Heyns' May 6, 1969 promise that nothing would be done without warning, and on Thursday, May 15, 1969 at 4:45 a.m., he sent 250 California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park. The officers cleared an 8-block area around the park while a large section of what had been planted was destroyed and an 8-foot tall perimeter chain-link wire fence was installed to keep people out and to prevent the planting of more trees, grass, flowers and shrubs.
Beginning at noon, approximately 3,000 people appeared in Sproul Plaza at nearby U.C. Berkeley for a rally, the original purpose of which was to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several people spoke, then Michael Lerner ceded the Free Speech platform to ASUC Student Body President Dan Siegel because students were concerned about the fencing-off and destruction of the park. Siegel said later that he never intended to precipitate a riot; however when he shouted "Let's take back the park!," police turned off the sound system. This angered some people, and the crowd responded spontaneously, moving down Telegraph Avenue toward People's Park chanting "We want the park!"
Arriving in the early afternoon, the protestors were met by the remaining 159 Berkeley and University police officers assigned to guard the fenced-off park site. The protestors opened a fire hydrant, the officers fired tear gas canisters, some protestors attempted to tear down the fence, and bottles and rocks were thrown. A major confrontation ensued between law enforcement and the crowd. Initial attempts by the police to disperse the protestors were not successful, so more officers were called in from surrounding cities.
Reagan's Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, a former district attorney from Alameda County, had established a reputation for firm opposition to those protesting the Vietnam War at the Oakland Induction Center and elsewhere. Meese assumed responsibility for the governmental response to the People's Park protest, and he called in the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies, which brought the total police presence to 791 officers from various jurisdictions.
Under Meese's direction, the police were permitted to use whatever methods they chose against the crowds, which had swelled to approximately 6,000 people. Officers in full riot gear (helmets, shields and gas masks) obscured their badges to avoid being identified and headed into the crowds with nightsticks swinging.
The most aggressive were the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies-later dubbed "The Blue Meanies" who resorted to using shotguns loaded with "00" buckshot. "00" buckshot consists of lead pellets that are much larger, and thus more lethal, than the birdshot that is occasionally used for crowd control. The Alameda County Sheriff's deputies used shotguns to fire "00" buckshot at people sitting on the roof at the Telegraph Repertory Cinema, fatally wounding student James Rector and permanently blinding carpenter Alan Blanchard. Neither man was a protestor.
As the protestors retreated, the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies chased them several blocks down Telegraph Avenue as far as Willard Junior High School at Derby Street, firing tear gas canisters and "00" buckshot into their backs as they fled. At least one tear gas canister landed on the school grounds. Many people, including innocent bystanders, suffered permanent injuries, some with as many as a hundred lead pellet wounds in their scalps, necks, backs, buttocks and thighs. One man, John Willard, lived for years in intractable pain with lead pellets lodged near his spine.
At least 128 Berkeley citizens were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by law enforcement. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested. Many more protestors and bystanders were treated for minor injuries. Local hospital logs show that 19 police officers or Alameda County Sheriff's deputies were treated for minor injuries; none were hospitalized.
The authorities initially claimed that only birdshot had been used as shotgun ammunition. When physicians provided "00" pellets removed from the wounded as evidence that buckshot had been used, Sheriff Frank Madigan of Alameda County justified the use of shotguns loaded with lethal buckshot by stating "... the choice was essentially this: to use shotguns-because we didn't have the available manpower-or retreat and abandon the City of Berkeley to the mob." Sheriff Madigan did admit, however, that some of his deputies (many of whom were Vietnam War veterans) had been overly aggressive in their pursuit of the protestors, "as though they were Viet Cong."
Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops- ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty. The Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 against the decision to occupy their city, however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guard helicopters sprayed tear gas on anyone who gathered in more than small groups.
On Wednesday, May 21, 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the University campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.
During the Peoples Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protestors from planting flowers, shrubs or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD. A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence.
A curfew was established, and protestors jumped fences after dark to plant flowers in the guarded lots. Guardsmen destroyed the flowers each morning. Some protestors, their faces hidden with scarves, challenged police and National Guard troops. Hundreds were arrested, and Berkeley citizens who found it necessary to venture out during curfew hours risked police harassment and beatings.
The battle lines were drawn, Flower Children versus The Establishment; the conflict mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream.
In a University referendum held soon after, the U.C. Berkeley students themselves voted 12,719 to 2,175 in favor of keeping the park.
On May 30, 1969, 30,000 Berkeley citizens (out of a population of 100,000) secured a Berkeley city permit and marched without incident past barricaded People's Park to protest Governor Reagan's occupation of their city, the death of James Rector, the blinding of Alan Blanchard and the many injuries inflicted by law enforcement. Young girls slid flowers down the muzzles of bayonetted National Guard rifles, and a small airplane flew over the city trailing a banner that read, "Let A Thousand Parks Bloom."
Almost a year after 'Bloody Thursday' and the death of James Rector, addressing the California Council of Growers at Yosemite, Reagan defended his actions, saying: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement." Less than a month later, on May 4, 1970, similar violence erupted at Kent State University, killing four students and seriously wounding nine.
No police officers, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies or National Guardsmen were disciplined for their actions in the Bloody Thursday incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park
Tell me Big, if you got a group of friends togheter and went down to a city park and started planting tree's without proper permission, you think you'd be arrested? Or at least told to leave?
They were breaking the law here, don't be naive.Again Bull sh*t Dubbs, Don't you know anything about California History ??? It wasn't a city Park Dumbsh*t The University was the legal owner of the plot, Vice Chancellor Earl Cheit of the University allowed the park builders creative control over one quarter of the plot, the People's Park was enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike, Again Dubbs What Laws were they breaking??? OH YES NONE..!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:Documents raise questions about religious influ 3 Months ago
|
Karma: -20  
|
Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote:Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Dubbs hates LDS people wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Jaye wrote: [b The only part of that definition I never saw in Ronald Reagan was a tendency toward bigotry.
On the contrary, I have read accounts where for the era in which he was growing up as a boy and a young man, Reagan was unusual in his opposition to racial discrimination..
Yes, you are correct, and Bigdummy's claim's are wrong here also. Typical
"LOL" Dubbs do you even know what the word bigot means "LOL"
why do you think it just has to do with racial discrimination,
Ronald Reagan was a conservative, very conservative which means: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change, a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas, he was a member of a Conservative Party.
right there should tell you Ronald Reagan was a bigot...
look at the definition of bigot then look back what a conservative is:
bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
There's a difference between being opposed to somehting and that making you a bigot.
course your too dumb to understand this, I know it flew right over your head.
Again, show proof he was a bigot, or your just a slandering bumbling idiot.
"LOL" hey Dubbs I didn't make up the definition of bigot, I'm sorry if you don't like it but too bad, I know you always think you are right but sorry dumbo you are not!!
But OK you want proof about Ronald Reagans bigotry, how about this, did you ever here how RR felt about hippies, he hated them, now this is a fact, they even made posters about it, here look at this one:

NOW TELL ME, was or wasn't he a bigot "LOL"
Reagan first began his civil service to famous, wealthy people as the president of the Screen Actors Guild in the 40's and 50's. Naturally, this made him a prime candidate for governor of California, which he won entirely on an anti-hippie, anti-hobo platform.
You've flip flopped your story from a racial bigot, to know he doens't like hippies, Your full of shit big.
Also I want to tell you something, My ex-wifes Grandfather John Henry lived his last day's in Joshua Tree California in the Californian desert, one time these black peoples car broke down and they were stuck out in the desert could not get their car fixed until the next day, so John Henry let them stay at his house, that's the same thing Ronald Reagan did... I don't see how this is proof that Ronald Reagan was not a racist!!!
You see John Henry was born in South Carolina and at one time was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan until his death, But he did the same as Reagan and had let black people stay at his house....!!!!
Hmmmm makes you wonder!!!! 
Huh, when did Ronald reagan let black people stay at his house?
So now your saying a Klu Klux Klan nutjob is similar to RR?
Wow, your nuts.Go read Ronald Reagan History Dubbs, Oh wait you're too stupid to read up on things "LOL" So here I get the part for you: in Dixon when the local inn would not allow black people to stay there. Reagan brought them back to his house, where his mother invited them to stay the night and have breakfast the next morning. If you want to read all of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_ReaganI never said either one of them were nutjobs Dubbs!! But they both invited black people to stay at their house. So I don't see how Ronald Reagan inviting black people to stay at his house proves he wasn't racist, if a man who was did the same thing....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2008/07/08 21:42 By Just Reading.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Jaye (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 11746
|
|
Re:Documents raise questions about religious influ 3 Months ago
|
Karma: -2  
|
Wren wrote:Jaye wrote: KitKat wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Jaye wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Jaye wrote: Dubbs Kitkats favorite wrote: Jaye wrote: JLD said:
"I'm sorry your wife felt it was best to resign as organist. The truth of the matter is that it was her decision to do so though, for better or worse.
What is the moral of the story Jaye? The LDS church, like any other church, has the right to dictate what is and is not appropriate, and apparently it was felt that this was not appropriate. I fail to see how that is a bad thing."
To which I reply:
1. Yes...it was her decision to do so. And it was the congregation's great loss as well. A great many of them were pretty upset over the circumstances under which she resigned.
They also voiced their support for her, their disagreement with the G.A.'s opinion regarding the appropriateness of her musical selections, and their disappointment with the Bishop for not standing up for her and supporting her very righteous endeavors in her calling.
The interesting thing is this, which I didn't mention before, (for my own reasons) but will mention now.
My wife contacted Church headquarters and presented the list of selections she had played. They saw absolutely nothing wrong with what she played.
2. What is the moral to the story? As I said...the greater portion of her musical selections within the prelude and postlude consisted of her own arrangements of songs found within the hymnals, and included variations of classical music...some of which can also be found in the hymnal.
Apparently the G.A. who so sanctimoniously and self-righteously tried to humiliate her from the pulpit... wasn't all that familiar with quite a number of hymns within the LDS hymnal.
And this was, as I mentioned, part of her mission in life as she saw it...to educate people regarding sacred and inspirational music.
I would think the way they are played would be the issue also, not just the songs that are played, You could take a song like "I am child of God" and put a spin on it to make in inappropriate in a sacrament setting.
Oh...fer sure dude...h'YUCK, h'YUCK!!!She like TOTALLY played 'I am a child of God' in like, ragtime style, man!!
Come OFF it Percy.
Well her style obviously took attention away from the music, and onto herself enough for a GA to comment. The rousing style is telling.
Nobody...I repeat...NOBODY in the ENTIRE STAKE would ever dream of accusing my wife of 'showboating' or otherwise purposefully trying to draw attention away from the music, or the spirit of reverence for that matter, and onto herself.
It's just a simple fact...when my wife plays and/or sings...people stop whatever they are doing and they listen.
They stop fidgeting, they stop whispering, they stop thinking about what they are going to cook for dinner after Church...and they listen.
The G.A.'s problem was that he failed to actually NOTICE how silent it was in the Chapel and how intently everyone was listening to her playing and singing.
He failed to notice the smiles, and the tears throughout the congregation.
No doubt he was too busy trying to think of how he could return the attention back to himself, to notice how very perfectly the Spirit was being served.
My wife's musical talents have always been, and in fact still ARE in great demand in the Church.
And Percy...you have, once again, completely misinterpreted what I said.
I pointed out that the first half of the Finlandia is rousing...but that the last segment is calm and serene...and THAT is the part utilized for the hymn 'Be Still My Soul'...and THAT is what my wife utilized within her arrangement.
I've seen it before where an orgainist put's there own rendition on a musical number, and I've seen it get to the point where it becomes more about them than the meeting, the volume goes way up, the organ horns and other tools on the organ are blown so loud and "rousing" that it is a distraction. I think that maybe a point where it becomes a distraction to the spirit of the meeting. Of oourse you've seen it. You know all, you've seen all, you've heard all. You try to make every comment on this board about you.
You failed to understand the "rousing" thing. If I understand Jaye right, and I think I do, his wife did NOT play anything "rousing" in her arrangement. The part of the selection that is rousing, she left out. She played the LAST part where the music is calm and serene.
Learn to oomprehend or shut up.
You understood me correctly, KitKat...as you usually do. There was nothing rousing in that arrangement. And at any rate, in answer to Percy's musings about 'loud organ horns and other organ tools' her rendition of the special music was played on the piano, not the organ.
As far his attempts to paint the incident as 'being distracting to the spirit of the meeting'...apparently he can't bring himself to digest the part where I stated that the congregation was absolutely silent as they enjoyed the music. Far from being a distraction to the spirit, her music invoked a very soothing spirit.
Ev | | |