USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I smell dramatic irony here.USU "Or is it mendacity?" 78
frankenstein Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 i say do it. send our army to our border and just watch that country collapse even more.
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 Please stay out of the thread, Francis, if you have no interest in engaging the topic.
jwhitlock Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I see the fulfillment of prophecy in such things.
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 I see the fulfillment of prophecy in such things.Not sure I'm following you here, jw. Please to explain!
frankenstein Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Please stay out of the thread, Francis, if you have no interest in engaging the topic.you provide nothing for discussion other than a name, a place, and one of the five senses; yet it is the responsibility of the members of this board to use their telepathy powers to discern what you want discussed. perhaps you could provide why, you smell irony, what is ironic about any of it. what are you thoughts on the issue, should the LDS Church cave to this pressure. Should the LDS maintain its seemingly ambiguous stance on immigration?--------------nothing will make either side happy. The Church issues a statement that acknowledges the right of Countries to enforce their laws. (1 up for those opposed to open borders)Yet the Church sends/sent illegal aliens to serve as missionaries in the United States. (1 up for illegals; and 1 up for befuddlement to LDS persons who believe that obeying the laws of land is important to righteous membership in the LDS Church, and the whole "honesty" issue.)I still say, do it; have Mexico refuse American missionaries. Its not as though there are not plenty of Missions for Americans to learn Spanish, experience the Spanish culture, or to see poverty (not that poverty has anything to do specifically with Mexico). So all in all it would seem there are plenty of places that benefit the American just as serving in Mexico would.If Mexico does not want Americans there, fine, there are plenty of Mexican LDS members who can serve their fellow Countrymen.
jwhitlock Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Not sure I'm following you here, jw. Please to explain!Helaman 13:14
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 If Mexico does not want Americans there, fine, there are plenty of Mexican LDS members who can serve their fellow Countrymen.And yet here you go and stumble on the ZIP code of the fundamental irony in RLV's demand . . . and official Mexican State policy.
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 Helaman 13:14Good. Love Old Shmuel's stuff, and I quite agree with you here . . . White Horse Prophecy, not so much, and I was afraid you were going to take us down that there rabbit hole. My apologies!
jwhitlock Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I am following this mini-trend of countries spouting off about denying missionaries visas - irony aside - with some interest. Don't know if it will turn into something more concrete at this point; just one of many undercurrents setting the stage for things to come.
Pahoran Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I smell dramatic irony here.USU "Or is it mendacity?" 78Are you talking about this story?If so, Senor Vargas is simply being an agitator. How can the Church possibly be held accountable for a debate in which it is not participating?It's a lot like how certain rich ambulance-chasers love to sue the Church for gazillions of dollars when an ex-member does something wrong in his own home.Regards,Pahoran
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 Are you talking about this story?That's the Yutz himself, Governor.
CQUIRK Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I'm laughing at both the story and the idea that this guy will actually get his way.
Vance Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Does he suppose that extortion will work?Does he not see that this attempt at extortion says FAR MORE about his character and that of his ilk than it does about anyone or anything else?Irony indeed.
Jaybear Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Does he suppose that extortion will work?Does he not see that this attempt at extortion says FAR MORE about his character and that of his ilk than it does about anyone or anything else?Irony indeed.I don't see the irony. Please explain. Extortion requires the making an illegal threat. This is not extortion. This is politics. The individual is under the perception that the LDS Church has the ability to influence legislation introduced in the state, and is seeking to pressure the LDS Church into stepping into the picture.
USU78 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 I don't see the irony.Alas, not unexpectedly.
Jaybear Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Alas, not unexpectedly.Well instead of insulting me, why don't you explain what you see as the irony?
ERayR Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I don't see the irony. Please explain. Extortion requires the making an illegal threat. This is not extortion. This is politics. The individual is under the perception that the LDS Church has the ability to influence legislation introduced in the state, and is seeking to pressure the LDS Church into stepping into the picture.Extortion does not require that the action be illegal it can be oppressive.
Jaybear Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Extortion does not require that the action be illegal it can be oppressive.I didn't say the action had to be illegal. I said that the threat has to be illegal to be considered extortion. The threat he has made is not a criminal threat, its a political threat. BTW, I figured out the irony. It ironic that people here are complaining that the LDS Church may be dragged into a political dispute.
ttribe Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 BTW, I figured out the irony. It ironic that people here are complaining that the LDS Church may be dragged into a political dispute.Perhaps you can suspend your cynicism for a moment and think through the reasons why the Church would have a vested interest in voluntarily involving itself in one political issue and not the other?
Bsix Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I said that the threat has to be illegal to be considered extortion.Funny, the dictionary says nothing about a threat having to be "illegal" to be considered extortion. I think that Jaybear is confusing the definition of words...again. The threat he has made is not a criminal threat, its a political threat.I don't think he is making a threat. I think he is asking the Mexican government to take a discriminatory action against the LDS Church. My limited understanding of the Mexican Constitution is that Mexico doesn't have the freedom of religion enjoyed in the United States. It seems that the Mexican Government could discriminate against the LDS Church if it wanted to. It would illegal in this country for the government to unilaterally refuse visas on the basis of religion.Six
Calm Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 If they really want pressure to be put on the US government by its citizens, then Mexico should start withholding tourist visas. I suspect that would generate more pressure from the US tourist agencies as well as individual citizens then focusing on the LDS Church.Of course, there is a very good reason why they won't do that. Money is more important to them then this issue.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.