Here We Go Again

[The Nehor]

On 9/2/2018 at 1:04 AM, Anijen said:

What happened to respect, decorum? Nehors post totally lacked etiquette and was in poor taste. Tacenda's post backing up and supporting such hate filled vile should be ashamed. Political differences are an absolute, however, it is no cause for fomenting animosity and justifying that hatred because they disagree with who the President is simply childish, selfish, loathing, and filled with self righteousness.

Your different political opinions is just that (an opinion) and does not justify the nastiness.

The current President is an autocrat opposed to the very basis of our government and freedom. You could write the same thing up to defend Hitler after his party was swept into power but there is a difference. When your method of governing is explicitly at odds with the founding principles of the nation you should not be able to get into office in the first place. And yes, there is cause to foment animosity and hatred in this case.

If you believe the founding principles of the United States such as partisan blindness in regards to enforcing the law impartially are just, like, your opinion, man then I would argue that you are part of an existential threat to the United States.

On 9/2/2018 at 12:56 AM, Anijen said:

I found Neehors post very offensive personally and there is nothing wrong with patriotism, celebrating our veterans who died for the freedom. I find all those who kneel and show disrespect to this country, flag, veterans and my father!

 

I feel this quote by Nehor is extremely vulgar and disrespectful regardless of his hate for President Trump.

I am very disrespectful and contemptuous of the person currently holding the office of President. He is eroding the very foundation of a nation I love. He is abusing something I love for his own gratification. It is not a difference of opinion. I have had many Presidents I disagreed with (all of them on at least something), some I thought made dumb decisions (most of them), and some I thought did things that were disgraceful to the office. Not since Nixon have we had anyone actively taking steps to tear down the standards and virtues that keep our democracy going. You cannot pretend he is business as usual.

i have nothing again patriotic displays or respect for veterans. The sad truth is that enforced respect for national symbols is a standard tactic of tyrants. That respect should flow naturally. If it has to be enforced it is already tyranny. That you equate someone making a symbolic gesture of protest of a perceived injustice as an attack on your Father is troubling. Did your father fight and die for injustice? What is it about this simple gesture that so many find uncomfortable? And even if you do find it uncomfortable, so what? Being uncomfortable is part of living in a free society. People are going to disagree. They are going to disagree with things you reverence or even find sacred.

If you want to live in a society where national symbols are sacrosanct North Korea is always looking for token defectors. There is no disrespect for national symbols there. Russia is also much better. Why do you want coercion on this point?

[The Nehor]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:33 AM, Gray said:

Whether or not you agree with discrimination based on gender, governments have every right to expect organizations that accept government funding to follow government regulations. This spirit of lawlessness in the name of "religious freedom" is a plague.

I saw a story on Reddit not too long ago. A gay guy was in a relationship and he was very wealthy. He died and his sister was the executor of the estate. The will gave several million to his current partner but under pressure from her ultra-religious family they decided that since homosexuality was a sin they would not give him anything as it would be rewarding sinful behavior. The money was thrown throughout the family and quickly spent. The partner sued once he got a copy of the will.

The writer of the Reddit post was the executor’s sister and was asking how they could get the case dismissed as it was discrimination against their religious views. I really hope they all end up in prison.

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

ultra-religious family

Is there not a way to make your entirely off topic point without name calling?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Is there not a way to make your entirely off topic point without name calling?

Would you prefer “homophobic”?

Also, it was on-topic. It shows how stupid some people are about what they think the  First Amendment is. Just like the topic we are discussing.

Edited September 14, 2018 by The Nehor

[Mansquatch]

Here's how I see it laid out plain and simple:

Step 1 - Group B steals money from Group A as a whole
Step 2 - Group B offers extorted funds to Group C
Step 3 - Group C receives extorted funds
Step 4 - Group B says Group C must put children in situation that Group C views as unhealthy by including all of Group A as candidates
Step 5 -Group C cries foul, even though they are the recipient of extorted funds

Don't be surprised when you make a deal with the mafia and they change the terms of your contract on you.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The current President is an autocrat opposed to the very basis of our government and freedom.

 

As a libertarian I am opposed to Trump's style.  However, I cannot discount the fact that the American people voted for him, knowing full well of his proclivities.  This isn't a case where, as in Nixon, perfidy came to light after the election.  The people wanted an autocrat.  They wanted a sexist.  They wanted protectionism.  Blame the American people and the system of voting we have.  I don't. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[Walden]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As a libertarian I am opposed to Trump's style.  However, I cannot discount the fact that the American people voted for him, knowing full well of his proclivities.  This isn't a case where, as in Nixon, perfidy came to light after the election.  The people wanted an autocrat.  They wanted a sexist.  They wanted protectionism.  Blame the American people and the system of voting we have.

The American people didn't vote for Trump, he lost by 3 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in power, not the populace.

[Bob Crockett]

14 minutes ago, Walden said:

The American people didn't vote for Trump, he lost by 3 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in power, not the populace.

You are splitting hairs.  The American people voted him in using constitutional principles to do so. Somewhere along the line the founding fathers determined that some votes would count more than others.  Whereas I find such a principle obnoxious as a libertarian, it is a feature of republican government that in some cases some votes count more than others. 

I voted for Hilliary as I thought she would be the better president, but I had to hold my nose to do so.  Until the electoral college is abandoned, Trump won with the vote of the American people.  Today, it doesn't seem appropriate to condemn Trump for the qualities that brought him in.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[Mansquatch]

13 minutes ago, Walden said:

The American people didn't vote for Trump, he lost by 3 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in power, not the populace.

Every president is put there by the electoral college. (unless someone gets assassinated or something)

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

As a libertarian I am opposed to Trump's style.  However, I cannot discount the fact that the American people voted for him, knowing full well of his proclivities.  This isn't a case where, as in Nixon, perfidy came to light after the election.  The people wanted an autocrat.  They wanted a sexist.  They wanted protectionism.  Blame the American people and the system of voting we have.  I don't. 

I do not discount that fact either. And yes, I do blame those who consciously elected an autocrat. I blame those pretending he is not an autocrat both on the streets and in the halls of Congress. I respect the results of the election but I do not respect what is going on and the sooner enough people wake up and end this farce the better.

Hitler was put into power legally. And no, Trump is no Hitler. Hitler had ambition and drive. Trump just wants to be worshipped and loved while not doing anything. Ironic that the Baby Boomers should pick as their last hurrah someone who exemplifies their caricature of a Millenial.

1 hour ago, Walden said:

The American people didn't vote for Trump, he lost by 3 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in power, not the populace.

The Electoral College made sense to the founders as they rightly feared the will of the people. Unfortunately instead of electing wise people to select a candidate we elect shills and the whole thing is meaningless. Everyone gets upset at the whole stupid thing around election time and then nothing is done about it as everyone forgets. Political parties would probably hate the change in any case. It would mean having to campaign in non-swing states.

Edited September 14, 2018 by The Nehor

[Walden]

5 minutes ago, Mansquatch said:

Every president is put there by the electoral college. (unless someone gets assassinated or something)

My point was that the people didn't put him in power, the system put him in power....but we are getting off the original topic

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Mansquatch said:

Here's how I see it laid out plain and simple:

Step 1 - Group B steals money from Group A as a whole
Step 2 - Group B offers extorted funds to Group C
Step 3 - Group C receives extorted funds
Step 4 - Group B says Group C must put children in situation that Group C views as unhealthy by including all of Group A as candidates
Step 5 -Group C cries foul, even though they are the recipient of extorted funds

Don't be surprised when you make a deal with the mafia and they change the terms of your contract on you.

Ah, a taxation is theft guy. How droll.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I saw a story on Reddit not too long ago. A gay guy was in a relationship and he was very wealthy. He died and his sister was the executor of the estate. The will gave several million to his current partner but under pressure from her ultra-religious family they decided that since homosexuality was a sin they would not give him anything as it would be rewarding sinful behavior. The money was thrown throughout the family and quickly spent. The partner sued once he got a copy of the will.

The writer of the Reddit post was the executor’s sister and was asking how they could get the case dismissed as it was discrimination against their religious views. I really hope they all end up in prison.

Wow, what a bunch of vultures.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As a libertarian I am opposed to Trump's style.  However, I cannot discount the fact that the American people voted for him, knowing full well of his proclivities.  This isn't a case where, as in Nixon, perfidy came to light after the election.  The people wanted an autocrat.  They wanted a sexist.  They wanted protectionism.  Blame the American people and the system of voting we have.  I don't. 

The Russians put their thumb on the scale, so while a minority of voters should have known better, it's not just down to them.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Walden said:

My point was that the people didn't put him in power, the system put him in power....but we are getting off the original topic

Like that didn't happen eons ago.

[Mansquatch]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, a taxation is theft guy. How droll.

How is it not theft?

Is it not the root of the whole problem in the OP?

[Bob Crockett]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Russians put their thumb on the scale, so while a minority of voters should have known better, it's not just down to them.

And I don't see anything wrong that.  When J. Reuben Clark was in power he sent gunboats to Nicaragua to oust the lawful government to protect US Oil.  The US has lobbyists for Parliament.  What is wrong with a foreign government trying to influence an election?  Now, if the Russians used unlawful means, that is a different question.  But what Congress defines as unlawful election tampering is just more of the same -- worship entrenched power. 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Okay.

 

The problem is that civil societies as a whole may not always be choosing the better part. Then peer pressure works the wrong way. Smoking is one of those things where for many decades it was the cool thing to do. Fortunately science and the ugly reality of the spread of lung cancer has tempered that a lot.

Glenn

Glenn

Agreed completely. Peer pressure is amoral by its nature. It would be nice if society was built on Christian principals and were dedicated to living them in a thoughtful manner. That is not the case today and though I think there possibly were times when humans in the world lived a more moral lifestyle, it is not reflective of our societies today. 

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And I don't see anything wrong that.  When J. Reuben Clark was in power he sent gunboats to Nicaragua to oust the lawful government to protect US Oil.  The US has lobbyists for Parliament.  What is wrong with a foreign government trying to influence an election?  Now, if the Russians used unlawful means, that is a different question.  But what Congress defines as unlawful election tampering is just more of the same -- worship entrenched power. 

If you don't see anything wrong with a hostile country attacking our democracy, there's not much I can tell you.

Yes, they used unlawful means.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Walden said:

The American people didn't vote for Trump, he lost by 3 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in power, not the populace.

That's a lame response as if the election were decided by popular vote rather than the electoral college then the candidates would have spent money very differently, visited states differently etc. You can't extrapolate from the popular vote to who would win were the electoral college not present. Secondly the public could have removed the electoral college if they wanted to. Both candidates and parties knew what constituted a winner. Saying the electoral college made Trump win is just sour grapes. I strongly dislike Trump and what he's done. But he won according to the rules of our election.

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Russians put their thumb on the scale, so while a minority of voters should have known better, it's not just down to them.

The way the Russians affected the election was by dumb ads on Facebook and posts on Twitter and maybe by wikileaks releasing some of Clinton's shady practices in the primary debates. That was dwarfed by Clinton's emails being in the press particularly once Comey took to the press discussing the Weiner issue. Blaming Russia for Trump's win is stupid. Blaming the press makes far more sense. But let's be honest, nominating a candidate under FBI investigation isn't exactly a smart thing to do. Especially when she's among the most unpopular candidates in postwar history surpassed only by Trump. I'll blame the R base for nominating Trump even though he was given billions in free advertising by the press who liked his obnoxious style. But Ds need to take responsibility for nominating Clinton rather than someone like Biden who almost certainly would have defeated Trump.

Edited September 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Mansquatch said:

How is it not theft?

Is it not the root of the whole problem in the OP?

Taxation is not theft,

And no.

[Mansquatch]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Taxation is not theft,

And no.

You can assert that all day. That doesn't make it true. Here's the math:

Taxation = taking money from someone else against their will
Theft = taking anything from someone against their will

Taxation is theft.


It is the root of the whole problem in the OP since without the funds being stolen in the first place, there would be no contention as to what the recipient of the stolen funds has to do.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Mansquatch said:

Taxation = taking money from someone else against their will
Theft = taking anything from someone against their will
 

Theft = taking anything from someone against their will in an unlawful fashion.

So if you don't pay your car payments and the repoman comes, it's not theft even if it's against your will.

You may not like to pay taxes, but so long as it's done legally then it's not theft.

Edited September 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And I don't see anything wrong that.  When J. Reuben Clark was in power he sent gunboats to Nicaragua to oust the lawful government to protect US Oil.  The US has lobbyists for Parliament.  What is wrong with a foreign government trying to influence an election?  Now, if the Russians used unlawful means, that is a different question.  But what Congress defines as unlawful election tampering is just more of the same -- worship entrenched power. 

You do not see anything wrong with a hostile foreign power attempting to influence an election?

Yes, I know it has a storied history. My favorite was the British attempts to get Roosevelt re-elected in 1940. Lobbyists are generally not working for another government. They are working for foreign corporations. There are exceptions but you generally have to register that status which severely limits your activities in the US. Influencing an election would not be a permitted activity.

However, it is against US federal law for a foreign national to spend money to influence a US federal election. It is a crime for a US citizen to coordinate, assist, or conspire in such an effort. Everyone but Fox News and Trump’s sychophants knows this is not legal. It is a nice try to float this defense but is blatantly false. They are just hoping if they lie enough times people will start to believe it. It has worked for them so far.

Now, it is hard to prosecute a foreign national. Mueller has issued quite a few indictments against Russian nationals in his investigation but they won’t be prosecuted. The more practical way we deal with foreign governments meddling in our elections is punishing the nation as a whole with sanctions or whatever. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Mansquatch said:

You can assert that all day. That doesn't make it true. Here's the math:

Taxation = taking money from someone else against their will
Theft = taking anything from someone against their will

Taxation is theft.


It is the root of the whole problem in the OP since without the funds being stolen in the first place, there would be no contention as to what the recipient of the stolen funds has to do.

Head on over to Somalia where they accept your values. Let us know how it goes.

Taxation has been around since the advent of government itself. God approves government in general in our scriptures. God does not condemn taxes in general. It is clear that even righteous governments in the Book of Mormon had them. But go ahead and be a pedantic nut and tilt at those windmills.

And again, check out taxless Somalia. If you need help getting together funds to get there let me know. I would be willing to contribute as I believe it would be in my rational self-interest to do so.