Jump to content
Scott Lloyd

Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Does "Muslim Ba*****" in reference to Obama qualify as racist? Because that was 4 comments in when I looked at the article earlier. And this one just rolled through "Massa Nigroll Obama, Show us what you did whiff duh $10 Trillion dollars........ At Least President Trump will build a Wall with only $20 Billion." That was 5 minutes ago.

The Breitbart comment section is full of this stuff. I don't need to provide examples when I'm sure you've seen it yourself. Its easy to tune it out, but it exists.

That's not racist at all. Obama has a Muslim past and Islam is not a race. It is highly wrong and hatefilled so that supports one part of The Nehor's assertion, the very part I did not challenge him on. During the 2008 campaign I got anti-Mormon venom from them as well. Was that racist?

Breitbart is a crazy site. I occasionally looked through it for news until the last election. The hate spew they gave, both mai posters and commenters, to Ted Cruz drove me away to the point that I have never looked there again for news.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Does "Muslim Ba*****" in reference to Obama qualify as racist? Because that was 4 comments in when I looked at the article earlier. And this one just rolled through "Massa Nigroll Obama, Show us what you did whiff duh $10 Trillion dollars........ At Least President Trump will build a Wall with only $20 Billion." That was 5 minutes ago.

The Breitbart comment section is full of this stuff. I don't need to provide examples when I'm sure you've seen it yourself. Its easy to tune it out, but it exists.

By the way, what were the usernames of the two idiots you cited? I betchya they used pseudonyms and thus I challenge you to explain a way to me as how it can be determined as to how sincere these posters are. That's another challenge I gave to The Nehor.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

During the 2008 campaign I got anti-Mormon venom from them as well. Was that racist?

If you were black and that anti-Mormon venom was peppered with comments like massa' nigroll and 1001 other highly racist memes, yes, it would be racist.

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

By the way, what were the usernames of the two idiots you cited? I betchya they used pseudonyms and thus I challenge you to explain a way to me as how it can be determined as to how sincere these posters are. That's another challenge I gave to The Nehor.

You use a pseudonym. I use a pseudonym. The Nehor uses a pseudonym. Most the people on this board, even the mods, use a pseudonym. I assume what you post is sincere, but you're right, I can't know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 

 

I think we've about run this back and forth course. It's been good and here's my final reply.

1) While states may do things that are bad. Don't let it escape you that you are 100% free to oppose states who do bad things and 100% free to work towards the ideal state government. All states have their own constitutions and the vast majority of them are extremely similar to that of the US Constitution. There are rights in place already. 

The real threat to Americans are not individual state governments but the federal government which cannot be corrected as efficiently as state governments can. What if the federal government decided to eradicate specific Indian tribes? Round up Japanese Americans? Spy on Americans? Take their lands without just compensation? To what extent are you OK with the federal government imprisoning Americans who commit crimes within a state? (These are rhetorical questions so if you care to reply I most likely will not continue this thread of conversation). There are already mob-controlled areas of the country. No doubt Florida has some but I know Chicago has them as well. Mobs most likely commit crimes that cross state lines and thus the federal government may go after those crimes. They may also commit tax fraud which also falls under federal jurisdiction. If you are talking about a majority of people becoming bad then I say no amount of federal control will correct that. Change of hearts will. If you are talking about corrupt politicians than wherever they commit federal crimes within the constitutional purview of their power, which is a lot already, then get the feds on them. If not *you* are 100% free to support measures within your state to make sure corruption is uprooted.

You seem to frame your arguments in the manner of since you are only one person and therefore cannot affect the laws of another state that the only recourse you have is to get the feds on other states for being bad. Just remember that there are millions of "yous" in the country. They all take interest in the well being of their respective states. They can and will step up. Bad things have happened in the past and unfortunately will happen in the future. The responsibility of We the People in a free society is to get involved. Getting the feds to crack down on bad things everywhere is ineffective and expanding the federal role in individual lives is volatile. This isn't about accepting certain levels of bad ("if they were only kicked out of the state by Boggs then no harm done") but about people stepping in and opposing the bad, as Missourians did regarding Bogg's Executive Order 44.

2) If you want to know how people feel and react, then hang out with them. Make them part of your life. The scenario you described seems to include a lot of pseudonyms used online. If that's the case, how do you know if they are sincere or not? People do not hide their vile with you if you know them. You'll always find out what kind of people people are simply by interacting with them. Your statements about majorities being racist, especially based on their opposition to Obama is absolutely baseless. It is a factual nothing unless you can back up your claims with reliable statistics. If you think that the majority of Obama "opposers" did so because they are racist, I think your view is way off of reality. If you are basing your assessment on people who will not even divulge their own names online then that merely supports your unfounded view of society. By no means do we live in a post racial society. If anything, I'd say that racial tensions have worsened under Obama's 8 years as President but saying tat those who accused him of deliberately destroying America as "blinded by hate and racism" is absurd and based on nothing but hyperbole.

3) You are a smart man no doubt; you post on psychoanalytical summary of America was just bizarre. 

 

1) You are 100% free to try to change the federal government too. There is no magic at the state level that makes it less likely to be corrupt. The different levels of our government exist to check each other. You want the federal government powerless. To quote an idiot: Why do you hate our freedoms?

2) How do I know that someone spewing racist hate is sincere? Because there is no other reason to do so. People rarely try to actively make themselves worse then they actually are. I think that almost everyone is racist. I know I am. It is built into us. The book written for our day, the Book of Mormon, has quite a bit of it and there is probably a reason for that. Part of that natural man thing. I think I control it relatively well. I think living in denial makes it surface in other ways.

Maybe puppets will explain it better than me:

3) I will take that as a compliment. If you found it palatable I might have started doubting myself.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic if we can keep it. SEE http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/Author/21"

Precisely but The Nehor expressed worry (profound worry) at longview for being a danger to democracies throughout the world. If The Nehor agrees with the supremacy clause than he does not believe in Democracy, at least not in its pure form. If he does not believe in Democracy than why the worry?

"We have specific limits on majority rule. You can't vote to take someone's Constitutional rights away." - Correct, that's be cause, as I noted, we are a Republic and of a federalist nature. that means we elect people to represent us instead of voting directly on issues and we provide certain rights. The manner of the way we grant rights is by guaranteeing that the federal government does NOT do things ('negative liberties"), not by actively guaranteeing freedom. The former impedes and prevents government intrusion in people's lives whereas the latter pushes the government to get involved in people's lives.

The whole "we're a republic not a democracy" schtick is tedious.

Your take on the nature of rights in the United States is odd. You seem to fear the federal government but somehow trust state governments. You seem to oppose the 14th Amendment because proactively guaranteeing rights is bad but as long as it is not the federal government infringing on them they can be taken away by other levels of government and other organizations. I am convinced your form of government would lead us to a horrible oppressive society and will fight against any attempt to implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

That's not racist at all. Obama has a Muslim past and Islam is not a race. It is highly wrong and hatefilled so that supports one part of The Nehor's assertion, the very part I did not challenge him on. During the 2008 campaign I got anti-Mormon venom from them as well. Was that racist?

Breitbart is a crazy site. I occasionally looked through it for news until the last election. The hate spew they gave, both mai posters and commenters, to Ted Cruz drove me away to the point that I have never looked there again for news.

Yeah, I am sure Islamophobia and racism have no correlation at all.

Sarcasm.jpg

 

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

By the way, what were the usernames of the two idiots you cited? I betchya they used pseudonyms and thus I challenge you to explain a way to me as how it can be determined as to how sincere these posters are. That's another challenge I gave to The Nehor.

So your theory is that people hurling racist slurs and xenophobic hate are actually perfectly normal well-adjusted people who are not sincere and believe all races and religions should live in harmony. They just hurl insults like this for fun? That is your explanation? The racists do not actually mean it? Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If you were black and that anti-Mormon venom was peppered with comments like massa' nigroll and 1001 other highly racist memes, yes, it would be racist.

You use a pseudonym. I use a pseudonym. The Nehor uses a pseudonym. Most the people on this board, even the mods, use a pseudonym. I assume what you post is sincere, but you're right, I can't know for sure.

I use Darren 10 because I could not use Darren. But Darren is my actual name. My last name is Zechiel and I live in Spring Texas. All of this I have already shared at various times on this forum. 

As for you and Nehor, your pseudonym is constantly used as is his. I constantly interact with you and him. Thus I can accurately tell if you are sincere and legitimate. This includes my being able to tell that neither one of you troll on the internet, at leadt not on this forum. 

How can you tell such things with people if you do not interact with them but merely glean the words of their posts? 

Yes, Nigroll is bad and racist. That's one racist comment you shown out of how many? How many fo we need to facilate the Obama wants to destroy America haters as racist? 

I for one think Obama wanted to "fundamentally change America". That naturally meant to destroy, even by merely altering them,  fundamentals, which goverened American government and American life. While "Obsma wants to destroy America" was not my primary message fo anyone ever, I can definitely empathize with those who would say it. And the few people I personslly knew first hand and online who would say such a thing never held Obama's race against him, nor demeaned it. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/24/2017 at 3:48 PM, The Nehor said:

Due process is not a basic right the federal government should guarantee? What is wrong with you?

While States and local governments are closer to the people that is not always a good thing. The smaller the government the fewer the people you have to corrupt to make it oppressive. If the oppressors are the majority (see that recently removed insane sheriff in Arizona) they can get away with it. At that point you need someone more detached from the fray to step in and slap that government around. LDS should be all for that. Governor Boggs did not need more independence from federal oversight.

Also you cannot be sure your way would have provided both. Even if it did it would have been much slower to create racial equality.

"While States and local governments are closer to the people..,"

EXACTLY why you would want the bulk of governmental power to rest in the states, not the federal government. When state governments go bad it is far easier to correct them by you than that of the federal government. Government is needed and I trust local government far more than our national one when it comes to legislating morality. 

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html

Zuckerburg can do this right now with a mere stroke of a pen with everyone employed with facebook. Givevthrm free money and evaluate how it works out. 

Same goes with states. Let them be our nation's experimental areas and see what works and change what doesn't and do so in each respective state. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"While States and local governments are closer to the people..,"

EXACTLY why you would want the bulk of governmental power to rest in the states, not the federal government. When state governments go bad it is far easier to correct them by you than that of the federal government. Government is needed and I trust local government far more than our national one when it comes to legislating morality. 

But being close to the people is a mixed bag. Sometimes distance is valuable as it avoids local feuds. If Jesus had gone before a Roman magistrate not so tied to local politics he probably would have been exonerated.

I don't trust any of them to get it right so I want both strong enough to smack each other around a bit. Definitely inefficient but more likely the tension will lead to a fairer outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I for one think Obama wanted to "fundamentally change America". That naturally meant to destroy, even by merely altering them,  fundamentals, which goverened American government and American life. While "Obsma wants to destroy America" was not my primary message fo anyone ever, I can definitely empathize with those who would say it. And the few people I personslly knew first hand and online who would say such a thing never held Obama's race against him, nor demeaned it. 

Whether its anti-Obama or anti-Trump, there's a middle ground that get's washed out by extremely loud voices. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I'm also not an global elitist out to fundamentally destroy America by turning it into a socialist welfare state. Likewise, I think its possible to not be a fan of Obama and not be all the things (racist, fearmonger etc.) that are too often associated with Obama's online haters.

I think much of the hatred of Obama comes from the overwhelming excitement the progressives had when he was first elected. The narrative was that America has finally overcome its racist past by electing an African American. Somehow I think that narrative offended many people who overcompensated with birtherism and by constantly referring to the President as Barrack Hussein or Barry Soetoro, to always remind us that this Muslim Kenyan is a foreigner bent on destroying America. He is not one of us. You might find it to be harmless anonymous trolling, but I see it as proof that people of the wrong color will never be considered full Americans. They will always be outsiders. 

I don't think its racism so much as it is fear of losing identity. But its very difficult to distinguish between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html

Zuckerburg can do this right now with a mere stroke of a pen with everyone employed with facebook. Givevthrm free money and evaluate how it works out. 

I'm all for social programs, but Zuckerburg's going at it wrong. Here's Trump saying pretty much the same thing, that the federal government (not the billionaires) should step in and do more for the poor:

http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/FtDA7wyi-jEuQjxp9

Its interesting that now that Trump is President, he's changed his tune and is slashing all funding for social programs while passing the burden onto local benefactors. But local governments and wealthy individuals don't want that responsibility. If Donald Trump fails to invest in social programs in his role as a billionaire businessman and also in his role as President Trump, then its pretty clear that there's a problem. This is why social programs exist in the first place. To assure that people can survive while everybody else bickers over who should pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...