Jump to content

When Democrats Dared


USU78

Recommended Posts

I like silly as much as the next brain-dead follower of Attila . . . but that kinda doesn't belong in this here thread, Nehor.

USU "Jus' sayin'" 78

Link to comment

I like silly as much as the next brain-dead follower of Attila . . . but that kinda doesn't belong in this here thread, Nehor.

USU "Jus' sayin'" 78

Maybe it's inappropriate, but I cannot imagine any thread where he could have posted it and been even in the slightest bit in context. And I have always wondered who really killed JFK.

Link to comment
Maybe it's inappropriate, but I cannot imagine any thread where he could have posted it and been even in the slightest bit in context. And I have always wondered who really killed JFK.

That might be, of course, that it has nothing to do with the raison d'

Link to comment

Sadly, both major political parties appear to have moved toward more extreme ends of the political spectrum since those more moderate times.

JFK wouldn't be a Democrat today I believe, the Democratic Party of JFK was the last true moderate democratic party in US history. After LBJ and his "Great Society" the democrats have been helplessly and unyieldingly bent on making America a socialist nation. JFK wasn't about a big brother federal government that taxed and controlled every thing it's people did. He was a great leader and a true democrat, he was not a liberal socialist, like the current leadership of the Democratic Party are.

The democrats have a great idea that people shouldn't stay poor and that we need to look out for the well being of out least able members of society. The problem is that they have an unconstitutional and immoral plan to attain that goal, and there means will never obtain what they desire. Liberal policies never reduce poverty they only increase dependence on the state, which ultimately prevents people from becoming self sufficient and move out of poverty.

Link to comment

The democrats have a great idea that people shouldn't stay poor and that we need to look out for the well being of out least able members of society. The problem is that they have an unconstitutional and immoral plan to attain that goal, and there means will never obtain what they desire. Liberal policies never reduce poverty they only increase dependence on the state, which ultimately prevents people from becoming self sufficient and move out of poverty.

You make them sound so Christ-like. Perhaps they have been reading 3 Nephi too much.

Link to comment

You make them sound so Christ-like. Perhaps they have been reading 3 Nephi too much.

Taking people's resources against there will is NOT Christ like, conservatives are the biggest block of philanthropists in the United States, not liberals. Conservatives are Christ like, they believe in VOLUNTARY giving on ones's resources to help the poor and those in need. Christ never forced anyone to give up anything, the only biblical figure that ever sought to force anyone to do or give anything was Lucifer.

Socialism and the current leadership of the Democratic Party are NOT Christ-like, they are following the deceptions of Lucifer and seek to take away the agency of man which is our most precious gift from God.

Socialism is evil, it is a lie of Satan and we need to stop it at all cost. Liberal who are generous with the money they rob from the people through taxation is not being generous nor are they following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Your flawed view that Christ ever forced a single person to give anything ever is repulsive and offensive. I suggest you show any support that Christ ever supported forced relocation of resources, of course you cannot because Christ is not evil like Lucifer is!

Added by Edit:

Your position that only Democrats think the poor should be looked after, shows your ignorance. Republicans desire to eliminate poverty, because poverty is a determent to all, the difference is they address poverty the proper way through donating to non profit organizations that help those in need. The Democrats seek to make a new slave class of dependents on state aid, because it guarantees them a job and keeps the poor and uninformed constantly voting for the democrats so they can continue to receive there state hand outs. Socialist do NOT seek to help anyone, they seek to keep people dependent on the system so that they cannot ever become self reliant and no longer in need of state assistance.

The Democrats seek to keep the poor dependent on the state, they are not trying to eliminate poverty, because eliminating poverty means they loss millions of bought voters. Entitlements are unconstitutional and are immoral, it is nothing more than legal vote buying at it's worst.

Link to comment

If you haven't already read it I recommend the book or DVD "Presidents and Prophets." Presidents of the church have often had good relationships with Presidents of the country.

Link to comment

I'm a Democrat, and I dare to speak well of Christians--even Mormons! 'Course, I'm not POTUS... (or am I? You never know who might be behind that screen name!) :P

Good job with the subterfuge Mr. President. Getting your rabid enemies to call you a secret Marxist Muslim means you are electable and a lesser evil.

Imagine if they found out you were a secret LDS sympathizer. ;)

Link to comment

Good job with the subterfuge Mr. President. Getting your rabid enemies to call you a secret Marxist Muslim means you are electable and a lesser evil.

Imagine if they found out you were a secret LDS sympathizer. :P

Thanks for getting us back on track, Nehor.

I was kinda thinking of the DNC meeting about 8 years or so ago . . . when they booed the BSA color guard.

Thus revealing how far they'd gone.

Link to comment

Thanks for getting us back on track, Nehor.

No problem, sorry for the derail.

I was kinda thinking of the DNC meeting about 8 years or so ago . . . when they booed the BSA color guard.

Yeah, it was pretty sad. I admit I have no idea why they invited them to do it.

Link to comment
Yeah, it was pretty sad. I admit I have no idea why they invited them to do it.

In my business, we infer intent from actions. People tend, at least one some level, to intend the inevitable consequences of their acts. Since the folks who put the thing together and invited the SBA color guard had to have known that Spielberg and his allies had thrown the SBA under the bus in favor of their favorite victim group, and those Spielberg allies would indeed react badly to those little kids' presence in uniform, they intended the result.

Thus demonstrating themselves to be the enemies of virtuous youth.

Link to comment

In my business, we infer intent from actions. People tend, at least one some level, to intend the inevitable consequences of their acts. Since the folks who put the thing together and invited the SBA color guard had to have known that Spielberg and his allies had thrown the SBA under the bus in favor of their favorite victim group, and those Spielberg allies would indeed react badly to those little kids' presence in uniform, they intended the result.

Thus demonstrating themselves to be the enemies of virtuous youth.

I doubt that it was that calculated. I suspect that those who invited them didn't expect that kind of a reaction from their presence. As a political move it's idiotic. Hard-core haters of BSA are already on their side and pandering like this won't increase their support. All they did was possibly alienate those who enjoy or sympathize with BSA.

I admit I don't think the LDS Church is wise to continue to use BSA as their youth program. When it was mainstream it made sense. Now we are financially holding them up with our support. The LDS Church almost has the BSA in a financial blackmail situation. If we pull out they will suffer tremendously.

I think the LDS Church is more then capable of creating a great Young Men's program without Scouting support. We did great with Young Women's. We can also get away from Scouting fundraisers and sending some of our scouting money to administrative leadership that would be drastically reduced if we ran the program internally.

Oh well, I expect it won't happen as long as President Monson is in charge unless the BSA goes REALLY off the rails.

Link to comment

I doubt that it was that calculated. I suspect that those who invited them didn't expect that kind of a reaction from their presence. As a political move it's idiotic. Hard-core haters of BSA are already on their side and pandering like this won't increase their support. All they did was possibly alienate those who enjoy or sympathize with BSA.

I admit I don't think the LDS Church is wise to continue to use BSA as their youth program. When it was mainstream it made sense. Now we are financially holding them up with our support. The LDS Church almost has the BSA in a financial blackmail situation. If we pull out they will suffer tremendously.

I think the LDS Church is more then capable of creating a great Young Men's program without Scouting support. We did great with Young Women's. We can also get away from Scouting fundraisers and sending some of our scouting money to administrative leadership that would be drastically reduced if we ran the program internally.

Oh well, I expect it won't happen as long as President Monson is in charge unless the BSA goes REALLY off the rails.

Subjective intent wasn't what I was talking about, and, yes, I agree they probably didn't expect the extent of the outrage in those present at the horror of clean-cut pre-teen boys in uniforms upholding the State Flag and the Stars & Stripes.

Yet prosecutors since there were such in the world prove objective intent from just such things. Subjective intent isn't interesting, since self-deception is so prevalent in the human beast. The Fraud says, "Well, sure, I didn't tell them the "diamonds" were really zircons and thus worth $300 instead of $30,000, but I didn't do anything wrong! I always intended to replace them when I got over this financial hump."

Link to comment

Maybe it's inappropriate, but I cannot imagine any thread where he could have posted it and been even in the slightest bit in context. And I have always wondered who really killed JFK.

See the documentary "Watchmen", they touch upon it....

Link to comment

If you haven't already read it I recommend the book or DVD "Presidents and Prophets." Presidents of the church have often had good relationships with Presidents of the country.

Read it at my grandmothers. Quite interesting. =).

Link to comment

I would argue World War I was a political accident.

That's another example of what I refer to as "Objective Intentionality." Subjectively? Of course they weren't planning for trench warfare and millions dead.

Link to comment

I would argue World War I was a political accident.

The outbreak of the War was not an accident at all, the higher ups in Europe understood that war was inevitable and guided Europe towards war, just like many US politicians knew that the Civil War was inevitable years before it actually happened, and guided the US towards that conflict.

What I think was an accident is the carnage and loss of life in both wars, but this is the reality of all wars. No war goes as quickly or as smoothly as the politicians plan. No one in the US planned or was prepared for the carnage of the Civil War and how long that bloody affair would drag out, the same applies to WWI no one planed for the war to be a stalemate and for the world to be dragged into a long and costly conflict.

So ultimately I have to disagree, World War I was planned (the key players knew that they were starting a war, and knew that the war was going to happen), the carnage and loss of life though was not only unplanned, but unimaginable in a pre WWI world. The tactics had yet to catch up with the modern technologies and the unforeseen consequence was the loss of millions of your men in the trenches of France. As we are counciled repeatedly, we can never control the consequences of our actions, once me make decisions the consequences are out of our hands.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...