Calm Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Yes. Totally so. That is one of my serious grievances with Australian politics. And the politicians' concept of "democracy".Having lived in Canada for a considerable time (but still not long enough....sigh), I can categorically state that there is a huge difference between the concepts of how the provinces should relate to each other and how the American states relate to each other. In some cases the costs for transporting product across provincial borders across the country was so expensive that many truckers and other transport options chose to ship down to the States, ship it across the States and then bring it back up into Canada. There was a much greater sense of independence it seemed to me as opposed to interdependence, something I never really notice in my travel across the States even though each state pushes its own personality to the fore when one is in it. The gap between the East and West Coast of the US is a short hop over compared to the Grand Canyon between the East and West of Canada.I do not know if this attitude is consistent with Australia, but if so it explains to me the horror Ray has for the lack of 'borders' in the US when it comes to politics (and many other things as well).
USU78 Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 One aspect that is fascinating to me is the reversal between what the gay activists are seeking now and what early Saints desired.Now the goal is to encourage active governmental recognition and support, back then the goal was to discourage governmental involvement.Definitely a different attitude to what the government's role in one's life should be.....You've got it wrong, ol' pal cal. The activities in CA were largely in protest of the imperial judiciary having overturned the people's express will in defining marriage. The protest vote that was the pro Prop 8 vote hated having the agenda of a vocal, self-seeking, and, IMNSHO dangerous minority forced upon the sovereign people by a corrupt and tendential judiciary.JSJr used the judiciary to thwart the murderous designs of corrupt slavers and bigots: All hail habeas corpus. He didn't use the judiciary to overthrow the sovereign will of the people on such specious grounds as penumbra.
Calm Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 You've got it wrong, ol' pal cal. The activities in CA were largely in protest of the imperial judiciary having overturned the people's express will in defining marriage. The protest vote that was the pro Prop 8 vote hated having the agenda of a vocal, self-seeking, and, IMNSHO dangerous minority forced upon the sovereign people by a corrupt and tendential judiciary.JSJr used the judiciary to thwart the murderous designs of corrupt slavers and bigots: All hail habeas corpus. He didn't use the judiciary to overthrow the sovereign will of the people on such specious grounds as penumbra.I was thinking more of Utah and I can see parallels between the proProp 8 people and the Saints there where the Feds brought in judges in an attempt to enforce their preferred definition of marriage against the stated wishes of the people's will in defining marriage.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I was thinking more of Utah and I can see parallels between the proProp 8 people and the Saints there where the Feds brought in judges in an attempt to enforce their preferred definition of marriage against the stated wishes of the people's will in defining marriage.In an ideal, but perhaps unrealistic world, this is how it should be. And the people of California, including the 700,000 or so Mormons living in that state, should be the ones to decide the outcome. Not "donations" from either the pro or con forces outside California.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Your original gripe was about out of state money coming from outside sources crossing state lines. And as Juliann and I have been saying. More Utah Money went to no-on-8 than on yes-to-8. So lets eliminate the out of state money and see how the percentages shake out.I don't care how they "shake out". If Obama, for example, tries to enforce Gay marriage against the overall will of the American people - I will oppose that too. It would be wrong, and undemocratic. You doubt I would fight that? Then you don't know me or my motives.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 In an ideal, but perhaps unrealistic world, this is how it should be. And the people of California, including the 700,000 or so Mormons living in that state, should be the ones to decide the outcome. Not "donations" from either the pro or con forces outside California.Aaaaaaa... last time I checked only Californians, including the 700,000 mormons living in the state, were able to vote on prop 8 no matter how much money was spent on either side both in and outside the state.Your complaint doesn't hold water. No votes were paid for in or outside California, the People of California voted their voice.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Aaaaaaa... last time I checked only Californians where able to vote on prop 8 no matter how much money was spent on either side both in and outside the state.Your complaint doesn't hold water. No votes where paid for.Spare me your semantics. "Paid for" votes isn't the issue. It's about winning hearts and minds through paid for "advertising", and agendas outside California.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Spare me your semantics. "Paid for" votes isn't the issue. It's about winning hearts and minds through paid for "advertising", and agendas outside California.Well ray... since you keep on bouncing back and forth on the ping pong table and cant decide wether you want to stay in or out of California. Im outa here.(Wifey is calling to come to bed) But Ill just close with this... No matter how much advertising was paid for by anyone. Californians voted on it, Calfornians decided it. And whats funny is. The 2% wagged the dog. Who knows... maybe Mormons just saved Sodom. Lot found his 10 righteous souls.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Who knows... maybe Mormons just saved Sodom. Lot found his 10 righteous souls. The Mormons have power to do nothing. Only as it is granted to them by God. So spare yourself the vanity of thinking that "the Mormons have power". 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I would still like to hear what other Church leaders have to say about Oaks' speech, and whether they agree. The Church should stay out of politics [emphasis added].Thanks, Ray, for helping reinforce precisely why Elder Oaks's address is both needed and timely. Apparently, there indeed are people who think that religious groups really have no place in the democratic process.
Calm Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 In an ideal, but perhaps unrealistic world, this is how it should be. And the people of California, including the 700,000 or so Mormons living in that state, should be the ones to decide the outcome. Not "donations" from either the pro or con forces outside California.I don't know, Ray. Seems more isolated than ideal to me. My siblings and I were born in Florida, Tennessee, California and Illinois. My two kids were born in two different states as were my husband and I. I will likely never live in California again, but it is my birthplace, I still have family there and I still care about what happens there (and there has been over the past several decades a huge influx of Californians into Utah and I suspect they care as much as I do).
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I would still like to hear what other Church leaders have to say about Oaks' speech, and whether they agree. The Church should stay out of politics.It astounds me that people can say things like this and then turn right around and say we have no reason to fear being disenfranchised.It is called freedom of speech: the right to express our views freely anywhere we wish in the United States. It is in the Constitution. You can look it up if you like.That is part of living in a free country. I can express my views on politics in California or Oklahoma or Maine. Neither you nor any politician has the right to tell me to shut up just because they don't like what I have to say. Seems quite a few people are forgetting that lately. Last I looked, this is still the United States and I don't need the King's permission to speak in California.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Thanks, Ray, for helping reinforce precisely why Elder Oaks's address is both needed and timely. Apparently, there indeed are people who think that religious groups really have no place in the democratic process.I'm sure when Jesus was so unjustly treated by the lawyers, the judiciary, and the religious bodies of his time, he felt certain that "justice would prevail". I'm sure he was deeply concerned about the politics of the day. I'm sure he belonged to the Jewish Democratic Party, and possibly voted against mandatory circumcision. I'm sure he was a member of "the committee". I'm sure Jesus was, in fact, a bureaucrat with partisan political allegiances. I'm sure. I'm sure.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 That is part of living in a free country. I can express my views on politics in California or Oklahoma or Maine. Neither you nor any politician has the right to tell me to shut up just because they don't like what I have to say. Seems quite a few people are forgetting that lately. Last I looked, this is still the United States and I don't need the King's permission to speak in California.Buddy, I didn't tell you to "shut up". I'm just expressing my opinion that people like you and Oaks are talking gibberish. Now why do I feel like I'm among dedicated Pharisees?You gonna ban me for that, Julie? Well go ahead.
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Buddy, I didn't tell you to "shut up". I'm just expressing my opinion that people like you and Oaks are talking gibberish. Now why do I feel like I'm among dedicated Pharisees?You gonna ban me for that, Julie? Well go ahead.As a matter of fact, you have repeatedly said that neither I nor my church has any right to express our opinion on political matters in California, or in the case of my church, the right to express any opinion whatsoever. If that is not telling me to shut up, I would like to know what is.Your hypocritical and contradictory arguments are gibberish. I spoke the plain truth. So did Elder Oaks.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 As a matter of fact, you have repeatedly said that neither I nor my church has any right to express our opinion on political matters in California, or in the case of my church, the right to express any opinion whatsoever. If that is not telling me to shut up, I would like to know what is.Your hypocritical and contradictory arguments are gibberish. I spoke the plain truth. So did Elder Oaks.CFR. Where did I tell you to "shut up"?
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 1- Admission of guilt does not constitute probable cause for arrest, much less conviction. 2- Have you, or anyone else from local leadership, followed up with the detective(s) assigned to investigate the matter? What you see as disinterest is probably just higher priority cases taking precendence.Baloney! People are sent to prison all the time for confessing to crimes.It sounds like you believe that hate crimes against Mormons should be much lower priority than hate crimes against others. Why am I not surprised? First you deny that there are such crimes, then when presented with evidence of them you pooh-pooh them as not being that big of a deal. You have absolutely no credibility now. You appear to be the sort of thug who pretends to disapprove of hateful acts, denies them when they occur, and ultimately blame the victim when all else fails. Does your bigotry and hypocrisy know no bounds?
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 CFR. Where did I tell you to "shut up"?When you said that we have no right to express our opinion in California. Are you really that stupid, or is it merely a pretense that you keep up in order to avoid having to admit your hypocrisy?
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Baloney! People are sent to prison all the time for confessing to crimes.It sounds like you believe that hate crimes against Mormons should be much lower priority than hate crimes against others. Why am I not surprised? First you deny that there are such crimes, then when presented with evidence of them you pooh-pooh them as not being that big of a deal. You have absolutely no credibility now. You appear to be the sort of thug who pretends to disapprove of hateful acts, denies them when they occur, and ultimately blame the victim when all else fails. Does your bigotry and hypocrisy know no bounds?It probably doesn't. I so, so hate Mormons. In fact, I hate them so much that I've lost all credibillty among Ex-Mormons for defending them. Yea, they are just vermin. Those Mormons. If I could just get this gut-wrenching hatred of them out of my pathetic anti-Mormon system. No, my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'm sardine bait. I really, truly "hate Mormons". I'm officially an "anti-Mormon". Woe is me.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 When you said that we have no right to express our opinion in California. Are you really that stupid, or is it merely a pretense that you keep up in order to avoid having to admit your hypocrisy?I didn't say you have no right to express your opinion. I just said that Californians should decide their fate. Not Utahns. Is that so hard to understand?
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It probably doesn't. I so, so hate Mormons. In fact, I hate them so much that I've lost all credibillty among Ex-Mormons for defending them. Yea, they are just vermin. Those Mormons. If I could just get this gut-wrenching hatred of them out of my pathetic anti-Mormon system. No, my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'm sardine bait. I really, truly "hate Mormons". I'm officially an "anti-Mormon". Woe is me.Cute, Ray. You take a reply to another poster and pretend that it is directed against you, then pretend to get all offended over it. Good one.
cjcampbell Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I didn't say you have no right to express your opinion. I just said that Californians should decide their fate. Not Utahns. Is that so hard to understand?CFR that Utahns decided Californians' fate.But in fact you went a lot further than that, demanding that the church stay out of politics altogether and pretending that no one else in the country has any stake in California's laws. Since you are completely incapable or simply refuse to understand your direct attacks on our civil rights, I believe further debate with you is pointless.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Cute, Ray. You take a reply to another poster and pretend that it is directed against you, then pretend to get all offended over it. Good one.And you are nothing but Mormon vermin! I, I hate you...beyond words...Oh yeah, I'm also a "pretender". How could I forget to add that minus to my pathetic apostate and unprincipled character? Marvels never cease in the process of vain self-justification. Pardon me. Some honest self-assessments are in order. I'm apostate scum.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I believe further debate with you is pointless.Can we drink to that? (You can have Dr. Pepper if you feel rebellious. I'll have a beer)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.