What Is The Meaning Of The Parable Of The Nobleman And The Olive Trees?

[DragonLancer]

The Coming of the Lord by Gerald N. Lund on scribd has some interesting LDS teachings on the

Second Coming.  It seems they had disregarded what Joseph Smith said about the saints re-taking

that land by force.  Apparently some disaster would happen in the east to allow the saints from

Salt Lake to basically travel there unabated.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

I have this book in print form but have not read most parts of it for a very long time.

I just remember that he was quoting multiple statements from Wilford Woodruff saying that there would be people alive in his generation that would see the Second Coming, but that was one of those things where President Woodruff was "speaking as a man" because it was not fulfilled.  Or you have to twist things a bit to come up with a faith promoting explanation.

 

I will have to read the text again...  But what I hear you saying is that there is a competing concept out there in Church Tradition saying that we won't need to fight some enemy to take Jackson County but will just be able to take it when it has been wiped clean.  I will have to examine what you are saying in the text again, but I don't think that those statements were made in context with what Joseph Smith was saying.

 

I recall the "Yellow Dog" prophecies attributed to Heber C. Kimball saying things like that, but at this point, it is my feeling that does not exclude some of the Elders of Israel being involved in the last battle of a war before they can take possession.

 

I don't want to take a strong position on this yet until I examine what you are talking about.

[Vance]

Indeed, it tells all that I understand and cane identify intentionally overdone caricatures. When someone who is one of those caricatures reads the article it just does not work as well.

Or when someone reads it and recognizes it as a bunch of ignorant drivel written to feed the authors ignorant fellow believers.

 

Oh, and though it might get me banned, Free Enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty than of the political "isms" which you support.

 

[Vance]

You should forget about the article in the Onion. Stick it to Nehor to defend socialism and modern social justice.

"Social justice" has been miss spelled from its first introduction into this thread.  The correct spelling is "social just us".  It is not about providing Justice for all, but rather it is used by poverty pimps and race hustlers to enrich themselves, and politicians to increase the power and burden of government on the producers.

 

Socialism, by its definition is doomed to failure.  It has failed and will fail to lift people out of poverty EVERY time it is tried.  But that is not its real objective.  Its real objective is to enslave the people.  In that regard it is quite successful.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Vance

[The Nehor]

Or when someone reads it and recognizes it as a bunch of ignorant drivel written to feed the authors ignorant fellow believers.

 

Oh, and though it might get me banned, Free Enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty than of the political "isms" which you support.

 

 

You may want to avoid using the word ignorant in that post. The 'isms' being discussed are economic 'isms' not political ones as you ignorantly say. The syntax is horrible too. Taken literally you are saying that free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty then it has these 'isms' in question. I doubt that is what you meant.

 

You are also wrong. I only support one economic 'ism' without reservation and that is Zionism which, it is promised by God, will end poverty so capitalism's comparative track record with my 'ism' is rather shoddy.

 

In the absence of Zionism I am in favor of capitalism with some strong controls and restraints on it which you would probably call socialist. Some of them even are.

 

 

"Social justice" has been miss spelled from its first introduction into this thread.  The correct spelling is "social just us".  It is not about providing Justice for all, but rather it is used by poverty pimps and race hustlers to enrich themselves, and politicians to increase the power and burden of government on the producers.

 

Socialism, by its definition is doomed to failure.  It has failed and will fail to lift people out of poverty EVERY time it is tried.  But that is not its real objective.  Its real objective is to enslave the people.  In that regard it is quite successful.

 

The reflex hatred of social justice manifested so often is discouraging. Reminds me of the End Timers and their belief that the Antichrist will come in the name of peace. Therefore they distrust anyone in favor of peace. They become so paranoid about wolves in sheeps clothing that they want to murder the sheep to make sure no wolves sneak in. "Social just us"? Clever sloganeering but that is all it is. Of course movements to make things more fair can have bad people hanging on. No social or economic movement is pure. Most unashamed and racists vote for what I assume is your side (and often mine). If we kill any movement that does not have a totally pure base then Martin Luther King was a monster, the American Revolutionaries who founded this nation were greedy jerks protecting their own political and economic power from those who saved them in the last war, the Mormons are all like Bennet and are just after lots of sex under the guise of polygamy, etc. So why are your thought overlords hating on this one movement in particular? You are distinctly unsuspicious about their motives.

 

You might want to call up the Europeans, many of whom practice a kind of market socialism (a blending of capitalism and socialism) and tell them they are all slaves. Amazingly survey data suggests they feel happier and more secure than Americans. If they are slaves why do they seem to think they are more free? I don't think the European system would work as well in the United States. We need our own system which will, like all others in history, be a blending of lots of different economic systems to try to find the sweet spot that maximizes benefit to all.

[Vance]

You may want to avoid using the word ignorant in that post.

I used it correctly, that article was written by the ignorant for the ignorant.

 

The 'isms' being discussed are economic 'isms' not political ones as you ignorantly say.

That is debatable.  Soviet SOCIALISM (also known as communism) and National SOCIALISM (also known as fascism) were political systems.  It could be said of them that they were masquerading as economic systems.

 

The syntax is horrible too. Taken literally you are saying that free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty then it has these 'isms' in question. I doubt that is what you meant.

 

Yea yea, I wrote in a hurry.

 

What I meant was that free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty that any type of socialism ever has or ever will.  Quite frankly, to me, the fact that you want to (some how) meld socialism with capitalism is an implicit admission that socialism alone is doomed to fail. 

 

You are also wrong. I only support one economic 'ism' without reservation and that is Zionism which, it is promised by God, will end poverty so capitalism's comparative track record with my 'ism' is rather shoddy.

1) I have been talking about free enterprise, not capitalism.

2) The foundational principles of Zionism are diametrically opposed to the foundational requirements of socialism.  That is why is surprises me whenever a faithful Latter Day Saint supports socialism of any type.

 

In the absence of Zionism I am in favor of capitalism with some strong controls and restraints on it which you would probably call socialist. Some of them even are.

In the absence of Zionism I favor free enterprise and oppose socialism in all of its varieties.

[Vance]

The reflex hatred of social justice manifested so often is discouraging.

The reflex embracing of "social justice" manifested so often is what is discouraging.

 

Reminds me of the End Timers and their belief that the Antichrist will come in the name of peace.

 

He will come in many forms to deceive as many as possible.  He will even come in the name of "social justice" if it will gain him numbers.

 

Therefore they distrust anyone in favor of peace.

We have the standard for judging.  You know, "by their fruits" and all that.  Socialism has failed to lift people out of poverty EVERY TIME it is tried.

 

That should be a clue.

 

And "social justice" has been used to enrich the poverty pimps and race hustlers.  It is currently being used to encourage and justify looting. 

 

That should be a clue.

 

They become so paranoid about wolves in sheeps clothing that they want to murder the sheep to make sure no wolves sneak in.

 

And some are so enamored with false notion of a government enforced utopian society that they can't see the wolves dressed as sheep.

 

"Social just us"? Clever sloganeering but that is all it is.

Ah, yes, let us disregard those that use "social justice" to extort for their own personal enrichment.

 

Pay no attention to the wolves in sheep clothing.

 

Of course movements to make things more fair can have bad people hanging on.

Bad people hang on because they know that they can use "social justice" not to bring "fairness" (however you want to define it) but enrich themselves.

 

No social or economic movement is pure.

Well, at least none of those that are insisting that more power be given/taken are pure.

 

Most unashamed and racists vote for what I assume is your side (and often mine).

You assume wrong.

 

If we kill any movement that does not have a totally pure base then Martin Luther King was a monster, the American Revolutionaries who founded this nation were greedy jerks protecting their own political and economic power from those who saved them in the last war, the Mormons are all like Bennet and are just after lots of sex under the guise of polygamy, etc.

A very clear display of your lack of logic.

 

So why are your thought overlords hating on this one movement in particular?

LOL!!  It is more important to ask you, "So why are your thought overlords loving this one movement in particular?"

 

You are distinctly unsuspicious about their motives.

Who is this phantom group that you suggesting?

 

Are you referring to those that want to preserve my economic liberty by working to reduce the size of our overly intrusive government?  

 

Yup! "They" MUST have ill motives behind wanting for me to keep more of my hard earned money to use as I see fit.  I must admit that I can't see what their nefarious motive is.  Why don't you point it out for me.

 

You might want to call up the Europeans, many of whom practice a kind of market socialism (a blending of capitalism and socialism) and tell them they are all slaves.

They are slaves.  The insidious part of it is that they don't know it.

 

Amazingly survey data suggests they feel happier and more secure than Americans.

So?

 

Slaves can feel very secure.

 

Feelings   . . . Whow  ow ow Feelings.

 

If they are slaves why do they seem to think they are more free?

Because they have been brain washed.

 

I don't think the European system would work as well in the United States. We need our own system which will, like all others in history, be a blending of lots of different economic systems to try to find the sweet spot that maximizes benefit to all.

WHAT a BUNCH of UTOPIAN hogwash.

 

Free enterprise as practiced in America, until recently, has brought more people out of poverty and produce more wealth than ANY OTHER SYSTEM in the history of the world.  And yet, here you are, wanting to flush it down the toilet for a system that has ALWAYS FAILED.

 

And you call me ignorant.

[Vance]

In regards to "fairness"

 

Is it fairness for someone to work for and earn something only to have it taken away (legally by the government of course) and given to someone who refuses to work at all?

[The Nehor]

That is debatable.  Soviet SOCIALISM (also known as communism) and National SOCIALISM (also known as fascism) were political systems.  It could be said of them that they were masquerading as economic systems.

 

The Soviet system was characterized by government ownership which is communism not socialism. National Socialism (i.e. Nazi Germany) was not socialist. The party was formed around that concept but once Hitler had power he tossed socialism aside. The economics of the Third Reich were somewhat insane but Hitler and his economic cronies made pacts with the businesses building his war machine and they made huge profits until the war was lost. He did not do much to make sure the worker had a part in ownership of the means of production. You do not find much socialism in there which is that the worker or the people own the means of production and cooperatively manage the economy. Calling things socialism does not make it so whether it is Hitler doing it or (in this case) you doing it.

 

In fact pure socialism would be a system in which a worker gets a job and over some time would have part-ownership of the means of production/company. In other words it would look like corporate executives who get lucrative stock options. When things fall apart government bailouts compensate the wealthy for their losses. There is a reason that our system is mocked as "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else". Yet anti-socialists always target those unhappy with capitalism and not those actually practicing socialism. Easy to pick on the weak I suppose. Single working mothers are helpless after all. If you pick on the elites they might crush you.

 

In regards to "fairness"

 

Is it fairness for someone to work for and earn something only to have it taken away (legally by the government of course) and given to someone who refuses to work at all?

 

If my career continues as it has I will probably be making six figures in a few years. I work 40-50 hours a week. I know families with two working parents working 60 hours a week each who make less then I do alone and struggle with finances. Is that fairness? Or does fairness only serve as a bludgeon with which to bludgeon these "lazy" people with and fairness can be safely ignored in all other contexts that do not involve your silly caricatures?

 

And you call me ignorant.

 

Yeah, you clearly do not even know what socialism is while you rail against it. That is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

[Vance]

The Soviet system was characterized by government ownership which is communism not socialism.

 Actually, they claimed it was "the people" that had ownership, "the government".  And they call it the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST

Republics.

 

Now you can claim that they weren't socialist all you want. But they claimed that they were.

 

National Socialism (i.e. Nazi Germany) was not socialist. <Snipped irrelevancies>

Again, they claimed to be socialist.  Now you claim that they weren't.

 

You do not find much socialism in there which is that the worker or the people own the means of production and cooperatively manage the economy.

WOW THAT is exactly what the Soviet SOCIALISTS claimed they were doing.  The "socialism" you are describing is no different than communism.

 

Calling things socialism does not make it so whether it is Hitler doing it or (in this case) you doing it.

And you claiming that they weren't socialism just because it ended up differently than you expect (and it is only your expectation) doesn't mean that your version of socialism won't end just as badly.

 

In fact pure socialism would be a system in which a worker gets a job and over some time would have part-ownership of the means of production/company.

Oh right, and some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat hundreds of miles away is going to make sure that happens for some nameless, faceless worker hundreds of miles away.

 

And you call me ignorant.

 

In other words it would look like corporate executives who get lucrative stock options.

Oh right.

 

When things fall apart government bailouts compensate the wealthy for their losses.

Oh, so there would be no consequences for mismanagement.  Hey wait a minute, that is call crony capitalism and it is currently being practiced.  And the cost of all this mismanagement and corruption is being place upon our children and grandchildren.

 

Not going to work out well.

 

There is a reason that our system is mocked as "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else". Yet anti-socialists always target those unhappy with capitalism and not those actually practicing socialism.

Ok, so crony capitalism is socialism?

 

As an "anti-socialist" I am against crony capitalism.  I am against government bailouts, the only exception could possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, when said bailout is used to cover the losses CAUSED by the government.  But IF the government would keep their noses out of where they don't belong, THEN NO bailouts should EVER be given.

 

If my career continues as it has I will probably be making six figures in a few years. I work 40-50 hours a week. I know families with two working parents working 60 hours a week each who make less then I do alone and struggle with finances. Is that fairness?

It might very well be.  You might just actually be producing more wealth than they.

 

AND, you are ALWAYS FREE to give away more of your money to the needy.  I doubt anyone will stop you.  And I dare say that I trust you to dispose of your income charitably than I do the government.  Too bad you don't feel the same about me.

 

If you came up with a product that increased worker productivity by 5%, how much of that 5% are you worth?  How much of that 5% would you be paid?

 

Or does fairness only serve as a bludgeon with which to bludgeon these "lazy" people with . . .

Actually, mother nature used to be the bludgeon for the lazy.  Now using the principles of socialism, the productive the ones that are constantly and increasingly being bludgeoned.

 

and fairness can be safely ignored in all other contexts that do not involve your silly caricatures?

Ok, so you do think that taking something (legally by the government of course) from someone who worked for it and earned it, and giving it to someone who didn't work for it and did not earn it is, to you, fairness.

 

Yeah, you clearly do not even know what socialism is while you rail against it. That is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

Feel free to define it for me.  I have clearly shown, that historically, what was sold as socialism, one type or another, ended up badly.  So how do we know that what you are peddling is any different?

 

As defined here,http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Both of the systems I have mention are indeed socialistic.

 

So, again, please feel free to define it for me.  And then I can explain why it won't EVER work.

[Vance]

May I suggest that you socialists take a state, I suggest one that has been or is,

 

1) an economic powerhouse.

2) already socialist leaning.

 

and turn it into your socialist utopia.  Perhaps California, or New York. And when (I chuckle with using the word "when" because it can NEVER happen, but I digress) you have been successful, all of us anti-socialists will come running with a giant hand full of crow to eat.

 

BUT until you demonstrate it SOMEWHERE ELSE I will continue to fight it all I can.

[strappinglad]

In a fair world , Kobe Bryant would be paid only $ 100,000 dollars a year for playing a GAME and the masses would be charged only $2 to see a GAME. Bill Gates would be paid only $ 200,000 dollars a year and a computer would cost $ 10. Government bureaucrats , who would be paid only $ 50,000 a year, would see to it through powerful legislation written by politicians who would VOLUNTEER their time. See? , if I were in charge...

 

 

  Now, any more discussion about rodheadlee's OP?  Sorry, I got off topic !

Edited May 17, 2015 by strappinglad

[The Nehor]

 Actually, they claimed it was "the people" that had ownership, "the government".  And they call it the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST

Republics.

 

Now you can claim that they weren't socialist all you want. But they claimed that they were.

 

 

 

Again, they claimed to be socialist.  Now you claim that they weren't.

 

Yeah, because if you call something something it must be true. The North Korean government is called the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. That means that they are a democratic republic just like the United States. Are you that naive about North Korea too?

 

 

And you claiming that they weren't socialism just because it ended up differently than you expect (and it is only your expectation) doesn't mean that your version of socialism won't end just as badly.

 

 

 

Oh right, and some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat hundreds of miles away is going to make sure that happens for some nameless, faceless worker hundreds of miles away.

 

And you call me ignorant.

 

I am not an advocate of pure socialism or even mostly socialism. Try and pay attention. Just because you are a right-wing caricature does not mean anyone who disagrees with you is the equal and opposite caricature.

 

 

Oh, so there would be no consequences for mismanagement.  Hey wait a minute, that is call crony capitalism and it is currently being practiced.  And the cost of all this mismanagement and corruption is being place upon our children and grandchildren.

 

Not going to work out well.

 

Ok, so crony capitalism is socialism?

 

As an "anti-socialist" I am against crony capitalism.  I am against government bailouts, the only exception could possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, when said bailout is used to cover the losses CAUSED by the government.  But IF the government would keep their noses out of where they don't belong, THEN NO bailouts should EVER be given.

 

When people claim that socialism is not pure evil you ask me to produce a flawless socialist state which I cannot do and do not expect to find as I do not find the idea workable.

 

When someone points out a flaw in the most powerful and longrunning capitalistic society in existence you whine about how cronyism ruined it. So can I claim that the Soviet Union was ruined by cronyism too and if they had just gone for a cleaner version of communism it would have worked? That seems to be your argument.

 

 

It might very well be.  You might just actually be producing more wealth than they.

 

AND, you are ALWAYS FREE to give away more of your money to the needy.  I doubt anyone will stop you.  And I dare say that I trust you to dispose of your income charitably than I do the government.  Too bad you don't feel the same about me.

 

If you came up with a product that increased worker productivity by 5%, how much of that 5% are you worth?  How much of that 5% would you be paid?

 

LOL! So because I have been blessed with certain skills and intelligence which are gifts from God I should be monetizing them for my own gain? Can I do that with the gift of prophecy too?

 

 

 Actually, mother nature used to be the bludgeon for the lazy.  Now using the principles of socialism, the productive the ones that are constantly and increasingly being bludgeoned.

 

 

 

Ok, so you do think that taking something (legally by the government of course) from someone who worked for it and earned it, and giving it to someone who didn't work for it and did not earn it is, to you, fairness.

 

It is still amazing to me that Ayn Rand and her ilk have actually convinced the wealthy that they are the abused and disadvantaged in society in stark opposition to all of recorded history. Evidence that the prophecies that people will become stupid in the last days are being fulfilled.

 

Then again King Benjamin did tell us that the poor deserve it and that we need to let the wrath of God fall on them for their sins and that we should withhold our help so they will suffer. Oh wait......no. Despite recent conference talks and Doctrine and Covenants scriptures that beat us over the head with the idea that wealth is not a sign of divine favor or hard work and poverty is not a sign of divine disfavor or laziness some are more willing to follow Rand then the scriptures.

 

 Feel free to define it for me.  I have clearly shown, that historically, what was sold as socialism, one type or another, ended up badly.  So how do we know that what you are peddling is any different?

 

As defined here,http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Both of the systems I have mention are indeed socialistic.

 

So, again, please feel free to define it for me.  And then I can explain why it won't EVER work.

 

I did define it.

 

May I suggest that you socialists take a state, I suggest one that has been or is,

 

1) an economic powerhouse.

2) already socialist leaning.

 

and turn it into your socialist utopia.  Perhaps California, or New York. And when (I chuckle with using the word "when" because it can NEVER happen, but I digress) you have been successful, all of us anti-socialists will come running with a giant hand full of crow to eat.

 

BUT until you demonstrate it SOMEWHERE ELSE I will continue to fight it all I can.

 

I am not a pure socialist. I am not even a mostly socialist. I do not believe there is such a thing as a socialist utopia. Someone learned how to argue from radio shows and is not sure how to discuss things with someone who does not fit a mostly mythical stereotype. I just keep watching you beat that straw man to death and wonder if you will ever realize that I am actually over here.

 

I do not want a pure socialist state. I do not want a pure capitalist state either. We see those too. Haiti for example is dog eat dog with little to no social safety net. Why are free enterprise advocates not heading there in droves?

[Vance]

Yeah, because if you call something something it must be true. The North Korean government is called the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. That means that they are a democratic republic just like the United States. Are you that naive about North Korea too?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

 

Again, just because you claim those governments weren't socialist doesn't make it so.

 

I am not an advocate of pure socialism or even mostly socialism.

Good, we are making progress.  And when you give it up all together my work will be done.

 

Just because you are a right-wing caricature does not mean anyone who disagrees with you is the equal and opposite caricature.

Right-wing?  I seriously doubt that I would fit into your definition of "right-wing". 

 

But I do believe that idle should not eat the bread of the labor.  That those who produce more wealth should get more wealth.

 

When people claim that socialism is not pure evil you ask me to produce a flawless socialist state which I cannot do and do not expect to find as I do not find the idea workable.

This is a change of tune for you.  We are making progress.  Socialism, in any form, does enslave people, so yeah, I do think it is evil.

 

When someone points out a flaw in the most powerful and longrunning capitalistic society in existence you whine about how cronyism ruined it.

The introduction of progressive and socialistic elements into what used to be our free enterprise system has resulted in undesirable consequences.  You seem to not grasp the difference between free enterprise and capitalism.  Free enterprise has brought more people out of poverty than any other system.  And the United States of America, even with her flaws, has liberated more people than any other country in the history of the world.  And we didn't do it for the spoils of conquest, but for the love of liberty.

 

So can I claim that the Soviet Union was ruined by cronyism too. . .

As ALL socialistic endeavors are doomed to.

 

. . .  and if they had just gone for a cleaner version of communism it would have worked? That seems to be your argument.

You aren't paying attention.

 

So because I have been blessed with certain skills and intelligence which are gifts from God I should be monetizing them for my own gain?

 

You really aren't paying attention are you. 

 

How does increasing EVERYONES' productivity result in ONLY your gain?

 

Can I do that with the gift of prophecy too?

How does having the gift of prophecy ONLY help you?

 

Evidence that the prophecies that people will become stupid in the last days are being fulfilled.

Yup.  Getting sucked in by catch phrases like "social justice" and "its for the children" and "we have to destroy it to save it".

 

Then again King Benjamin did tell us that the poor deserve it and that we need to let the wrath of God fall on them for their sins and that we should withhold our help so they will suffer. Oh wait......no. Despite recent conference talks and Doctrine and Covenants scriptures that beat us over the head with the idea that wealth is not a sign of divine favor or hard work and poverty is not a sign of divine disfavor or laziness some are more willing to follow Rand then the scriptures.

Again, you are not paying attention.  King Benjamin was speaking to individuals about being charitable.  He was not speaking about using the force of government to take from the producers and giving it to the indolent.  He as king could very well have instituted such a system IF that was desirable but it wasn't, and he didn't want to enslave his people, which he knew would be the result of such an implementation.

[Vance]

I did define it.

Well, stupid me, I must have missed it.  Could you be so kind as to repost it or point me to the post in which you did it?

 

I am not a pure socialist. I am not even a mostly socialist. I do not believe there is such a thing as a socialist utopia.

GOOD!!! we are making progress.

 

Someone learned how to argue from radio shows and is not sure how to discuss things with someone who does not fit a mostly mythical stereotype.

Change that from "radio shows" to left wing college professors and I think it describes you.

 

I just keep watching you beat that straw man to death and wonder if you will ever realize that I am actually over here.

WOW, my thought EXACTLY. 

 

I do not want a pure socialist state.

I see this as progress.

 

I do not want a pure capitalist state either.

 

Just like socialism, there are many forms of capitalism.  The only form that I am defending is FREE ENTERPRISE capitalism.  A fact that so far you haven't grasped.

 

We see those too. Haiti for example is dog eat dog with little to no social safety net.

Just like Hong Kong before it was transferred back to the communists.  And yet it didn't have the poverty of Haiti.  Lack of "social safety nets" do not automatically mean poverty.  Even the US, rocketed to prosperity without any government "social safety net".

 

Why are free enterprise advocates not heading there in droves?

As you should know, but are obviously ignorant of, lack of "social safety nets" does not equal free enterprise.

[The Nehor]

Good, we are making progress.  And when you give it up all together my work will be done.

 

This is a change of tune for you.  We are making progress.  Socialism, in any form, does enslave people, so yeah, I do think it is evil.

 

I have not changed my stance on anything. You made assumptions about what I believe and they were wrong. I outright stated them and you still hold fast to your inane assumptions. This silly declaration of progress is deeply stupid. Most of your responses are a bunch of feeble, failed "gotcha" attempts where you are under the delusion you are being clever and winning some kind of points for your team while you regurgitate endless declarations. You are a walking caricature of what is wrong with discourse in America and why we are sliding downhill.

 

I am done here. Good luck in finding your pure free enterprise utopia where the "producers" can do whatever they like unchecked. I hope you still want it when you find it. I am terrified of what I and the Book of Mormon suspect it will inevitably become.

[ERayR]

I have not changed my stance on anything. You made assumptions about what I believe and they were wrong. I outright stated them and you still hold fast to your inane assumptions. This silly declaration of progress is deeply stupid. Most of your responses are a bunch of feeble, failed "gotcha" attempts where you are under the delusion you are being clever and winning some kind of points for your team while you regurgitate endless declarations. You are a walking caricature of what is wrong with discourse in America and why we are sliding downhill.

 

I am done here. Good luck in finding your pure free enterprise utopia where the "producers" can do whatever they like unchecked. I hope you still want it when you find it. I am terrified of what I and the Book of Mormon suspect it will inevitably become.

 

We do not all come from the same place.  Some of us have a great fear of what you advocate.

 

I and others are terrified and think your utopian ideas have already produced what the Book of Mormon warned against.

 

Just a few thoughts from my point of view.

[Vance]

Yeah, because if you call something something it must be true.

Like "social justice" right?

 

LOL!

[Vance]

You made assumptions about what I believe and they were wrong.

Back at you.

 

I outright stated them and you still hold fast to your inane assumptions.

Back at you.

 

Most of your responses are a bunch of feeble, failed "gotcha" attempts where you are under the delusion you are being clever and winning some kind of points for your team while you regurgitate endless declarations.

Back at you.

 

You are a walking caricature of what is wrong with discourse in America and why we are sliding downhill.

Back at you.

 

Good luck in finding your pure free enterprise utopia where the "producers" can do whatever they like unchecked.

You really are obviously clueless about what "free enterprise" actually means.   And it is obvious that any attempts a dialog about it with you are a waste of time.

 

I hope you still want it when you find it.

 

I only wish it were available.  But alas, we are doomed to not see it again until the Savior returns.

 

I am terrified of what I and the Book of Mormon suspect it will inevitably become.

Free enterprise was what King Benjamin and King Mosiah were all about.  Not the heavy hand of government extorting from the worker to give to the indolent.  They were about the producers, of their own free will, helping to feed and cloth the poor.  They were not about a permanent government created underclass.