tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post7085880220964981503..comments2023-08-13T05:40:53.959-06:00Comments on The Mormon Left: Open Thread DiscussionJacob S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-53275001192031041642009-04-16T15:41:00.000-06:002009-04-16T15:41:00.000-06:00"Andrew, wanting to enforce a gun ban, any kind of..."Andrew, wanting to enforce a gun ban, any kind of gun ban, is a threat to me. Especially when the only reasoning so far given is a skewed report of numbers of weapons going from the US to Mexico. Let me say this, I don't care about Mexico. Those idiots could blow their entire country off of the face of the world, and it would not affect me a bit - well, except I'd have to buy even more Chinese made crap at Walmart. Yes, this administration has said it will come after guns."<br /><br />That speaks for itself, I think you've illustrated my point about being overly neurotic on the gun issue nicely.<br /><br />As to Peter's comments, Gov. Perry continues onwards in his secession parade with various comments about the issue yesterday and today. He's being joined by others, too. When he spoke yesterday at a tea party rally the crowd loudly cheered him on, and Beck got a similar reception speaking in similar tones. Perry was specific about the idea that Texas only joined the Union in the first place on condition that it be able to withdraw at any time. I gotta hand it to those Texans, they sure know how to fulfill <A HREF="http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5eb1fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1" REL="nofollow">prophecy</A> (see the last question. Incidentally, that whole "I have a question" is a great read).Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-56799461776873127612009-04-16T11:56:00.000-06:002009-04-16T11:56:00.000-06:00My honest opinion (and I don't think you'll agree)...My honest opinion (and I don't think you'll agree): Though it appears that Beck chose an unfortunate analogy, his point was that we need to find a way to stop government interference in business and government growth in general. This was not a call to militia groups and it wasn't a call to assassinate Obama (he said plural bloodsuckers and did not name the president.) If President Bush made it through all the vitriolic hate speech of the commentators, media, and liberals during his presidency without some extremist taking it as a call to assassinate him, then I think President Obama is safe. I repeat again, conservative talk show hosts are not militia men or advocates of that way of thinking…don’t believe the politically motivated fear-mongering.<br /><br />I would liken the liberal outcry over this event to conservative outcry over President Obama's bow to the Saudi King. Blown way out of proportion and not really important.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying that Beck doesn't go overboard sometimes, but you really have to be looking for violent militarism to read so much into that analogy (and to ignore all the other passive things he’s said). And I don't see how the governor of Texas' speech about limiting the power of federal government can be taken as practically calling for succession. He was merely stating a rational idea (that has been argued from the beginning of this nation) about the appropriate size and scope of the federal government. And you can't deny that President Obama has made a massive power grab for the federal government during his first three months in office. If you don’t agree with policies being promoted by your government and you see them as harmful, you need to stand up and say something. <br /><br />As for your gun show example, that is just fear-mongering, too. The writer does note in one brief sentence that thousands (the vast majority) were just there to shoot guns (not a crime or even out of the ordinary), but they aren’t interesting or sensational so he focused on the fringe element. The left wing has their share of nut jobs and I doubt you would characterize Keith Olberman as speaking for liberals (at least I hope not) but you probably agree with some of the things he says even if his crassness crosses the line. So I would say again, trying to brand a whole ideology based on the fringe (or believing people who are trying to do that) is ridiculous.peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067910269067338674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-53148856458047495922009-04-16T08:25:00.000-06:002009-04-16T08:25:00.000-06:00They're not spying on conservatives. DHS issued a...They're not spying on conservatives. DHS issued a report gauging the threat of right wing extremists. As in, neo-Nazis, skinheads, and heavily armed nationalistic militias. I highly doubt (fingers crossed) that you are a member of any of these groups. Assessing a threat level and spying are not the same thing. There was a similar report issued a few years ago about extreme left wing groups. I should hope the government is keeping tabs on these groups to keep us safe. But they are not wiretapping just anyone who owns a gun or voted for McCain. No, they are wiretapping anyone who looks Arabic. Big difference.Jacob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-78884414614437341142009-04-16T07:32:00.000-06:002009-04-16T07:32:00.000-06:00Andrew, wanting to enforce a gun ban, any kind of ...Andrew, wanting to enforce a gun ban, any kind of gun ban, is a threat to me. Especially when the only reasoning so far given is a skewed report of numbers of weapons going from the US to Mexico. Let me say this, I don't care about Mexico. Those idiots could blow their entire country off of the face of the world, and it would not affect me a bit - well, except I'd have to buy even more Chinese made crap at Walmart. Yes, this administration has said it will come after guns.<br /><br />Another fact, DHS, whose domestic spying techniques were so condemned by liberals while the last administration was in office, is now spying on "right-wing extremists." In other words, people against abortion, over taxation, illegal immigration, bowing to the leaders of terrorist nations, and social reform. In other words, now the liberals are all for the DHS spying domestically, as long as it is only those crazy conservatives that they are watching. <br /><br />Lastly, you think the changes to the tax code were benign? Then why were they so important that they had to be done? Benign? Read a freaking dictionary some time. And look up Socialism while you're at it, you don't seem to understand that concept either! Nevermind, I'll do the first one for you. Webwster says that benign is "gracious, favorable, wholesome, harmless." How can spending hundreds of billions of dollars fit that description? Even further, how can spending hundreds of billions of dollars...next election year, fit that description.<br /><br />So, to summarize. My 2nd amendment rights are being challenged because of a drug war in another country. I am being spied on for expressing my 1st amendment rights and I will be soon taxed to death so I won't have to worry about what rights I've lost.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17266150313741808907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-41572219855443037152009-04-15T15:18:00.000-06:002009-04-15T15:18:00.000-06:00"So the point of the strats-sphere blog was to poi..."So the point of the strats-sphere blog was to point out a conservative plot or to underscore that they aren't considered a militaristic threat by the Department of Homeland Security?"<br /><br />I think it shows several things. Strats-sphere seems to be a pretty conservative place itself, but they see that there's no threat posed to the Conservative movement by the DHS report about potential right-wing domestic terrorism. They may think the Obama administration is making political hay of the report, but that's a different issue. However, it's abundantly clear that they're fighting off the hordes, so to speak. I.e. their commentors and some of the posts/articles they link to sound pretty hysterical w.r.t. the report. Where does that paranoia come from? The concept must have been formed somewhere that the Obama administration is actively seeking to jail political dissidents, or wants to take away everyone's guns, or whatever. <br /><br />Certainly nothing the administration has said or done publicly (aside from announcing various changes to the tax code and other relatively benign measures) could even be remotely construed to pose that sort of threat. So someone else is out there actively pushing the idea that Obama is coming for you (and possibly your children).Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-59457640316191750342009-04-15T14:32:00.000-06:002009-04-15T14:32:00.000-06:00Read this, and be honest:
"BECK: These bloodsucke...Read this, and be honest:<br /><br />"BECK: These bloodsucker vampires are not going to be satisfied with just sucking the blood out of GM's top guy, the AIG executives, or any other business, or business person. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable. They will not stop. There's only two ways for this movie to end. Either the economy becomes like the walking dead, or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers."<br /><br /><br />What does that sound like to you? Perhaps some people are desensitized to violence in their media discourse, but that's pretty extreme in my opinion. When the governor of Texas goes on TV and stops just short of announcing secession, there's something very wrong with how public-facing Conservatives are framing their issues. I know this is more of a fringe thing, but take a look at this report from a gun show:<br /><br />http://washingtonindependent.com/37511/at-gun-show-conservatives-panic-about-obama<br /><br />and the photo album:<br /><br />http://washingtonindependent.com/37360/scenes-from-the-real-america<br /><br />And read the links to various manuals about starting militias and such. Do you want these folks to represent your political views? Their framing of issues is being adopted more and more by some of the more popular Republican media figures.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-56280800519464121372009-04-15T14:12:00.000-06:002009-04-15T14:12:00.000-06:00So the point of the strats-sphere blog was to poin...So the point of the strats-sphere blog was to point out a conservative plot or to underscore that they aren't considered a militaristic threat by the Department of Homeland Security? As Jake has said, people's ideologies can be found more on a continuum than being tossed into one of two buckets. To characterize either conservatives or liberals based on their talk show hosts (Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, etc. as well as the ones you mentioned) or by the people on the extremes serves no purpose other than to be divisive and promote a political agenda.peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067910269067338674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-42383074892245931662009-04-15T13:23:00.000-06:002009-04-15T13:23:00.000-06:00We keep cross posting...I've listened to some of t...We keep cross posting...I've listened to some of those hosts you are talking about and I don't hear militaristic overtones, undertones, or anytones. Glenn Beck was saying just the other day that any protest needs to be peacefull just like Martin Luther King. <br /><br />I think the left would like to portray conservatives in this way so that they are marginalized, just like they persist in ridiculing them in order to marginalize them. <br /><br />I think the message of decreased government size and spending does resonate with independents and middle-or-the-road people. I think tripling the national debt in the first three months of a presidency has some people frustrated. Lower taxes are promised now, but how are they going to repay all that money without raising taxes later on?peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067910269067338674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-63801929995806661182009-04-15T13:16:00.000-06:002009-04-15T13:16:00.000-06:00Andrew
"Did I want to spend my time demonizing an...Andrew<br /><br />"Did I want to spend my time demonizing anyone and everyone who didn't agree with me?" So as we are generalizing, as a liberal you will now spend your time ridiculing anyone who doesn't agree with you. Depictions of conservatives as stupid, war-mongering, unfeeling neanderthals drive me nuts! (Which is what you just did as I'm sure you know.) Sure, there is probably a small percentage of people who identify with conservatives who might be able to be classified this way, but most of us are not. But I am glad you don't hate the world anymore...neither do I (and I never have.)<br /><br />Sure, we will probably always have social programs and the debate is on how to make them more efficient, so let's have that debate! The current government seems so intent on expansion that it doesn't have time for efficient. That's what these tea parties are about and I hope they are a big success so that liberals will realize that though they won the election, their big-spending, big government ways are not as popular as they think. And that goes for Republicans that do the same thing. Obama ran on a centrist platform, but I think we can say that was a bunch of campaign baloney.<br /><br />And as for capitalism, it has some problems, but it beats the alternative. Liberals like to forget that they had a big hand in the financial meltdown by deregulating mortgage lending requirements under Clinton because everyone is entitled to be in a single-family home. Banks were forced to give risky loans because they could be sued for not complying. When, in 2006, some republicans tried to get these measures repealed, they couldn't get it out of committee because it was opposed by democrats. And it's all those bad mortgages that led to the housing bubble and bust which help precipitate this financial crisis. Democrats definitely don't have their hands clean on this one as much as they like to credit the "past administration" for everything going wrong. Let's just not condemn capitalism based on a current financial crisis with roots in government interference.<br /><br />Kristypeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067910269067338674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-81960718188551107042009-04-15T13:14:00.000-06:002009-04-15T13:14:00.000-06:00...Adding, take a look at this to get a general se......Adding, take a look at this to get a general sense of what's happening now:<br /><br />http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8699<br /><br />And my apologies to Mr. Huntsman for misspelling his first name -- it should be "Jon", not "John".Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-43511749758377622382009-04-15T13:07:00.000-06:002009-04-15T13:07:00.000-06:00'And, how is the label of socialist associated wit...'And, how is the label of socialist associated with violence and mean-spiritedness...isn't it just a government philosophy practiced by many european nations trying to achieve an equality of result by taking from those who have to give to those who have not?'<br /><br />Sure, if you don't buy into the framing being put forth by current Conservative leaders and the national Republican party. But that's the problem -- we're not talking about how a majority of people see the concept of "socialism", we're talking about how certain Conservatives view it.<br /><br />It's the culmination, basically, of two trends. First, we spent a good 50 years or so recently arming our country to the teeth to fend off "Communists". Second, while that was happening Conservatives of various stripes worked hard to also tar "Socialists" with the same brush. The result is that some of today's Conservatives are hell-bent on eliminating anything that's "socialist", and have a tacit understanding that doing so violently is appropriate. <br /><br />Now, never mind any actual distinctions between groups of "Communists" (nobody even tries to separate them into Marxists, Leninists, or Stalinists any more) or between Communists and Socialists. Those are not important in the Conservative's war of ideas. Rather, they'd like you to equate "San Fransciso values" with being so evil that you'll do anything to stop them, or sanction them doing anything to stop them. Spend some time (but not too much, you probably have better things to do) watching or listening to Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and especially Glenn Beck. You'll see that they're obsessed with themes and ideas shot through with a very strong militarism, and express their disagreements in very violent terms.<br /><br />It's all part and parcel with the current Republican party's national strategy to demonize the Left (or what they'd like to define as the Left). It's a campaign that's been brewing for a long time, and I think the main aim is to assert tighter control over what's left of the Republican base. It certainly isn't convincing any independent voters and has no chance of persuading Democrats.<br /><br />Thankfully there are some Conservatives (John Huntsman springs to mind) who see this for what it is and refuse to participate.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-89106363384867224712009-04-15T12:09:00.000-06:002009-04-15T12:09:00.000-06:00Using the data that Jake quoted before, which is s...Using the data that Jake quoted before, which is somewhat obsolete coming before the 1996 welfare reform, 90% of people ever being on welfare will be off in under five years, however, 75% of people currently on welfare will be on longer than five years. Are all 75% of those abusers? Probably not, but the length of stay is indicative of a serious social problem if not abuse.<br /><br />Now I have a couple of questions...not that I think a drug test would be possible, but how can a drug test requirement for a voluntary program be considered illegal search and seizure?<br /><br />And, how is the label of socialist associated with violence and mean-spiritedness...isn't it just a government philosophy practiced by many european nations trying to achieve an equality of result by taking from those who have to give to those who have not?<br /><br />Kristypeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067910269067338674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-44063664847659716432009-04-15T11:54:00.000-06:002009-04-15T11:54:00.000-06:00I can certainly add to the post, having been on we...I can certainly add to the post, having been on welfare myself as a child. But considering the governor of Texas' remarks yesterday, it's important to remember that Conservatives have spent the last fifty years pushing for a defense-heavy budget, specifically with the purpose of defeating "Communism". That morphed into "terrorism" under GWB, but my point is when people use words like "Communist" there's a strong implication that those so associated are a national threat that must be exterminated at all cost.<br /><br />Conservative is not a dirty word, I think most conservatives are misguided but not evil. The Church is a large enough institution now to have members who profess almost every political leaning under the sun, so it makes no sense to get too worked up over partisan identification. <br /><br />Besides, I grew up pretty heavily Conservative myself (I used to read John Birch stuff and various defense-related books for fun) and I realize that, aside from some appeal to my teenage angst, the real issue was how I spent my time. Did I want to spend my time demonizing anyone and everyone who didn't agree with me? Did I want to contribute to global instability by supporting the mass production of weapons (at the time I wanted to be an aerospace engineer and design fighter jets)? I decided that, no, peace begins with me so I'd do better to learn the Gospel more thoroughly and focus on the spiritual well-being of myself and those around me through being faithful in my callings. Suddenly I wasn't so mad at the world anymore, or afraid of fuzzy threats posed by various classes of outsiders. <br /><br />Anyways, I'm not one for mixing religion and politics. I don't think, for instance, that a fair amount of the Church's welfare system would translate well outside of the confines of Priesthood leadership. That doesn't mean the State can't do welfare, rather I think what will work in the world is different than what we sometimes think will work based on our collective experience in the Church. <br /><br />The reality is that Capitalism poses too many threats to normal people to let it run amok without some safety nets to catch those it spits out. The pipe dream of a welfare-less society is just as foolish as the dream of a collective economic political order, and just as dangerous. Not dangerous because it poses present harm to us physically, but dangerous in that it sets up situations that can lead to institutional collapses like what we're experiencing now. <br /><br />I'd say what we're going through is similar in scope to what happened in Russia after the fall of Communism, and it's important that the State assert itself to a degree to ensure that we don't become a thugocracy ruled by rich barons who can buy influence. They're already working on that with the "tea parties", but thankfully those are about as popular as tinfoil hats. <br /><br />So I'm pretty content with facing our current reality -- the U.S. will always have some measure of social programs, and the real debate is more over how to make them more effective, not whether or not they should exist. As those who've fought and lost the gun issue know, there comes a time when you accept reality and move on.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-32329426818809672072009-04-15T09:31:00.000-06:002009-04-15T09:31:00.000-06:00I already showed that something like 70% of people...I already showed that something like 70% of people stay on for less than two years, and 90% for less than three (maybe four? I can't remember exactly), and that less than half ever go back. There are a lot of abusers, but the majority are not.<br /><br />As for the drug testing thing, of course I think it is wrong to just assume they are drug users until proven wrong, though I admit it would be satisfying to make sure people receiving public funds are not using. The big problem, however, is that pesky Constitution that we have that forbids unlawful searches and seizures.<br /><br />Finally, as to Andrew's point, there is a difference between liberals using the word "conservative" in a derisive manner and conservatives calling liberals "communist" or, to a lesser extent, "socialist." Words matter, and the connotations to those latter words are much more loaded, violent, repellant, and mean-spirited than the connotations to the word "conservative."Jacob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16519032754947817876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-61123552805296368582009-04-15T05:24:00.000-06:002009-04-15T05:24:00.000-06:00Well, Andrew, when you Liberals use the word conse...Well, Andrew, when you Liberals use the word conservatives, you are using it as if it is degrading. While I agree with you that Mr. Randy has definitely been on the offensive, I think several of your comments on this blog have been just as "loaded." Face it, the "left" and "right" are never going to join, no matter how many moderates we have. <br /><br />Maybe, instead of jumping to the defensive, and attacking back, you should try to find something to add to the post.<br /><br />Jake, I only have one question for you today, as far as welfare and its recipients goes. Where have you found factual evidence that the users/abusers are a minority among welfare recipients?Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17266150313741808907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-749789029915695563.post-48474442256165515162009-04-14T19:12:00.000-06:002009-04-14T19:12:00.000-06:00I'm sorry, but comments like this are not meant to...I'm sorry, but comments like this are not meant to be "pleasant":<br /><br /><br />'There are several concepts of "left" worthy of exploration.<br /><br />1. Left as a description of twentieth century political American progressivism starting with Wilson through FDR and Johnson<br /><br />2. Left as a partisan democrat<br /><br />3. Left as intermational socialist<br /><br />4. Left as the other side in the culture war of the secular humanists vs. the Christians. The intellectual movement which has at its foundation Darwin and which is at its core athiestic. The left of abortion, eugenics, the sexual revolution, and drug legalization.<br /><br />I am curious which of these "left" connotations you are referring to in your reference.<br /><br />This is a pleasant debate I hope it is for you as well.'<br /><br /><br />While Socialist or even Communist aren't dirty words to me, they're not meant nicely when said by Conservatives. Those are loaded terms used for sanctioning violence against the people they describe. If it's not the godless Commies it's the godless Humanists, and we all know that the only good atheist is a dead atheist as far as Conservatives are concerned, right?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09755808950832071517noreply@blogger.com