The Nehor Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 11 hours ago, strappinglad said: Three guesses as to what is Canada's national sport. No fair googling ! Gonna guess curling.
Bernard Gui Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 Another shooting at a family park in Federal Way last night. One dead, three seriously wounded, one of them a kid just leaving the park with his parents. Shooter was a woman. This less than a mile from my son Artisticosso’s home.
The Nehor Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 Portlan police claimed they found this in a bag on site at a protest: First off, that is either the most incompetent molotov maker in history or those are fake. Mason jars? Really? Not usable at all. Then there are the magazines. Why would protesters stash magazines in a bag on site instead of carrying them. And why are they covered in paint? Wait, didn't you guys just get splashed with paint last night? That color paint? And isn't that the ammo for your weapons? Oh c'mon, put some effort into your drop terror kits.
The Nehor Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Nehor, you're turning into Dwight Shrute. When the world goes mad the absurd man is king.
Bob Crockett Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 Not that you're wrong. I think it is more compelling that these guys border on obesity and wear their hats on backwards.
pogi Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 (edited) On 7/28/2020 at 10:47 AM, Bob Crockett said: A close study of the sermons of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith shows that they despised or distrusted the federal government and the constitution. "Close study"? Ok, what do you have to show me that he "despised' or "distrusted" the constitution? CFR I think your "close study" overlooked basically everything he ever said about the constitution. Yes, he distrusted the federal government, but only because he felt that they were not protecting his constitutional rights. Quote Relationship with the Constitution and U.S. Government Joseph Smith had a very positive relationship with the U.S. Constitution, having inherited a strong love for it from his patriotic ancestors. The Prophet’s relationship with the U.S. Government, however, was not a positive one. Joseph Smith and the Saints he led had serious problems and conflicts with several state governments and with the federal government. These conflicts developed from persecution which arose against the Saints, most heavily in Missouri. The Saints believed their constitutional rights had been violated because they had been deprived of their right to worship as they believed. The Constitution gave them these rights, but the government failed to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. In an effort to plead this case, Joseph Smith and others traveled to Washington, D.C. in 1839, carrying with them petitions from the Saints outlining their losses and grievances. Although they met with several government leaders, their pleas for redress and help fell on deaf ears, as when President Martin Van Buren told them, “Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you” (TPJS 302, compare 327). Quotations As the President of the Church 1.1. Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. (D&C 58:21) 1.2. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land. (D&C 98:5–6) 1.3. We think it would be wise in you to try to git [sic] influence by offering to print a paper in favor of the government as you know we are all friends to the Constitution yea true friends to that Country for which our fathers bled. (PWJS 287) 1.4. And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you— According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I [the Lord] have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles. (D&C 101:76–77) 1.5. Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever. (D&C 109:54) 1.6. Be wise; let prudence dictate all your counsels; preserve peace with all men, if possible; stand by the Constitution of your country; observe its principles; and above all, show yourselves men of God, worthy citizens. (MFP 1:74–75) 1.7. While other men were peacefully following their vocations and extending their interests they [the Saints in Clay County] have been deprived of the right of citizenship, prevented from enjoying their own, charged with violating the sacred principles of our Constitution and laws. (MFP 1:78) 1.8. By their complying with your request to leave they [the Saints in Clay County] are surrendering some of the dearest rights guaranteed in the Constitution of our country; and that human nature can be driven to a certain extent when it will yield no further. (MFP 1:80) 1.9. The Constitution of our country [was] formed by the Fathers of liberty. . . . Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty. (HC 3:9) 1.10. Blessed be the memory of those few brethren who contended so strenuously for their constitutional rights and religious freedom, against such an overwhelming force of desperadoes! (HC 3:59) 1.11. Having an opportunity of speaking to General Wilson, I inquired of him why I was thus treated. I told him I was not aware of having done anything worthy of such treatment; that I had always been a supporter of the Constitution and of democracy. His answer was, “I know it, and that is the reason why I want to kill you, or have you killed.” (HC 3:191) 1.12. Where has the genius of the pedistal [sic] of the laws and constitution of our boasted country fled? (PWJS 419) 1.13. Hence we say, that the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. . . . We say that God is true; that the Constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true. (TPJS 147–48) 1.14. I ask the citizens of this Republic whether such a state of things is to be suffered to pass unnoticed, and the hearts of widows, orphans, and patriots to be broken, and their wrongs left without redress? No! I invoke the genius of our Constitution. I appeal to the patriotism of Americans to stop this unlawful and unholy procedure; and pray that God may defend this nation from the dreadful effects of such outrages. (HC 3:332) 1.15. Your constitution guarantees to every citizen, even the humblest, the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. It promises to all, religious freedom, the right to all to worship God beneath their own vine and fig tree, according to the dictates of their conscience. It guarantees to all the citizens of the several states the right to become citizens of any one of the states, and to enjoy all the rights and immunities of the citizens of the state of his adoption. (HC 4:37) 1.16. Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to peices [sic] and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction. (WJS 416) 1.17. This people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.—Then shall the Lord say: Go tell my servants who are the strength of mine house, my young men and middle-aged, etc., Come to the land of my vineyard and fight the battle of the Lord. Then the Kings and Queens shall come, yea the foreign saints shall come to fight for the land of my vineyard, for in this thing shall be their safety and they will have no power to choose but will come as a man fleeth from a sudden destruction. I know these things by the visions of the Almighty. (Joseph Smith Collection; from an address given 19 Jul 1840) 1.18. The Mayor, Aldermen and Councilors [of the City of Nauvoo, IL], before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation that they will support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State and that they will well and truly perform the duties of their offices to the best of their skill and abilities. (HC 4:240) 1.19. We may continue to expect the enjoyment of all the blessings of civil and religious liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution. The citizens of Illinois have done themselves honor, in throwing the mantle of the Constitution over a persecuted and afflicted people. (TPJS 185) 1.20. I am tired of the misrepresentation, calumny and detraction, heaped upon me by wicked men; and desire and claim, only those principles guaranteed to all men by the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Illinois. (HC 5:15) 1.21. The Constitution is not a law, but it empowers the people to make laws The Constitution tells us what shall not be a lawful tender The legislature has ceded up to us the privilege of enacting such laws as are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States. . . . Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No! . . . The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself. I am a lawyer, I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies. This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God. The Constitution is not law to us, but it makes provision for us whereby we can make laws. Where it provides that no one shall be hindered from worshipping God according to his own conscience, is a law. No legislature can enact a law to prohibit it. The Constitution provides to regulate bodies of men and not individuals. (HC 5:289–90; also in TPJS 278) 1.22. In the month of May 1843. Several miles east of Nauvoo. The Nauvoo Legion was on parade and review. At the close of which Joseph Smith made some remarks upon our condition as a people and upon our future prospects contrasting our present condition with our past trials and persecutions by the hands of our enemies. Also upon the constitution and government of the United States stating that the time would come when the Constitution and Government would hand [sic] by a brittle thread and would be ready to fall into other hands but this people the Latter-day Saints will step forth and save it. General Scott and part of his staff on the American Army was [sic] present on the occasion. I James Burgess was present and testify to the above. (WJS 279; from James Burgess Notebook, LDS Church Archives) 1.23. I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the High-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. (TPJS 302–03) 1.24. I want you to hear and learn, O Israel, this day, what is for the happiness and peace of this city and people. If our enemies are determined to oppress us and deprive us of our constitutional rights and privileges as they have done, and if the authorities that are on the earth will not sustain us in our rights, nor give us that protection which the laws and constitution of the United States and of this state guarantee unto us, then we will claim them from a higher power—from heaven—yea, from God Almighty. (Discourses Delivered by Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young 1; also in HC 5:466; WJS 217) 1.25. If we have to give up our chartered rights, privileges, and freedom, which our fathers fought, bled, and died for, and which the constitution of the United States and of this state guarantee unto us, we will do it only at the point of the sword and bayonet. (Discourses Delivered by Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young 4; also in HC 5:468; WJS 218–19) 1.26. We have not enjoyed unmolested those rights which the constitution of the U.S.A. and our Charters grant. (Discourses Delivered by Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young 4; also in HC 5:469; WJS 219) 1.27. Shall we longer bear these cruelties which have been heaped upon us for the last ten years in the face of heaven, and in open violation of the constitution and law of these United States and of this state? God forbid! I will not bear it. If they take away my rights, I will fight for them manfully and righteously until I am used up. We have done nothing against the rights of others. (Discourses Delivered by Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young 5; also in HC 5:471; WJS 220) 1.28. The benefits of the constitution and laws are alike for all; and the great Eloheim has given me the privilege of having the benefits of the constitution and the writ of habeas corpus. (Discourses Delivered by Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young 5; also in HC 5:471; WJS 221) 1.29. [Governor Ford] is sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and also of this State [Illinois], and these constitutions guarantee religious as well as civil liberty to all religious societies whatever. (TPJS 311) 1.30. I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground. Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury. The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.” (HC 6:56–57; also in TPJS 326–27) 1.31. We believe in enjoying the constitutional privilege and right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own consciences. (HC 6:92) 1.32. I would admonish you, . . . to read in the 8th section and 1st article of the Constitution of the United States, the first, fourteenth and seventeenth “specific” and not very “limited powers” of the Federal Government, what can be done to protect the lives, property, and rights of a virtuous people, when the administrators of the law and law-makers are unbought by bribes. . . . And God, who cooled the heat of a Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace or shut the mouths of lions for the honor of a Daniel, will raise your mind above the narrow notion that the General Government has no power, to the sublime idea that Congress, with the President as Executor, is as almighty in its sphere as Jehovah is in his. (HC 6:160) 1.33. The Constitution, when it says, “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum. (HC 6:198) 1.34. The aspirations and expectations of a virtuous people, environed with so wise, so liberal, so deep, so broad, and so high a charter of equal rights as appears in said Constitution, ought to be treated by those to whom the administration of the laws is entrusted with as much sanctity as the prayers of the Saints are treated in heaven, that love, confidence, and union, like the sun, moon, and stars, should bear witness, “For ever singing as they shine, The hand that made us is Divine!”. . . I will adopt in part the language of Mr. Madison’s inaugural address: “. . . to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities.” (Powers and Policy of the Government 6, 10–11; also in HC 6:198,201) 1.35. I would not have suffered my name to have been used by my friends on anywise as President of the United States, or candidate for that office, if I and my friends could have had the privilege of enjoying our religious and civil rights as American citizens, even those rights which the Constitution guarantees unto all her citizens alike. (HC 6:210) 1.36. If I lose my life in a good cause I am willing to be sacrificed on the altar of virtue, righteousness and truth, in maintaining the laws and Constitution of the United States, if need be, for the general good of mankind. (HC 6:211; also in TPJS 332; WJS 320) 1.37. The constitution expects every man to do his duty; and when he fails the law urges him; or should he do too much, the same master rebukes him. (HC 6:220) 1.38. Joseph commenced the organization of a Council for the purpose of taking into consideration the necessary steps to obtain redress for the wrongs which had been inflicted upon us by our persecutors, and also the best manner to settle our people in some distant and unoccupied territory; where we could enjoy our civil and religious rights, without being subject to constant oppression and mobocracy, under the protection of our own laws, subject to the Constitution. (Young, “History of Brigham Young” 328) 1.39. To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress Assembled: Your memorialist, a free-born citizen of these United States, respectfully showeth that from his infancy his soul has been filled with the most intense and philanthropic interest for the welfare of his native country; and being fired with an ardor which floods cannot quench, crowns cannot conquer, nor diplomatic intrigue corrupt, to see those principles which emanated from the bosoms of the fathers of seventy-six, and which cost the noblest talents and richest blood of the nation, maintained inviolate and perpetuated to future generations; and the proud eagle of American freedom soar triumphant over every party prejudice and local sinistry, and spread her golden pinions over every member of the human family, who shall stretch forth their hands for succor from the lion’s paw or the oppressor’s grasp; and firmly trusting in the God of liberty, that He has designed universal peace and goodwill, union, and brotherly love to all the great family of man, your memorialist asks your honorable body to pass the following . .. Ordinance for the Protection of the Citizens of the United States Emigrating to the Territories, and for the Extension of the Principles of Universal Liberty. (HC 6:275) 1.40. Joseph Smith has offered and does hereby offer these United States, to show his loyalty to our Confederate Union and the Constitution of our Republic. (HC 6:276) 1.41. Judge Thomas has been here and given his advice in the case, which I shall strictly follow until I hear from your Excellency, and in all cases shall adhere to the Constitution and laws. (HC 6:480) 1.42. We have never violated the laws of our country. (HC 6:498) 1.43. Come, all ye lovers of liberty, break the oppressor’s rod, loose the iron grasp of mobocracy, and bring to condign punishment all those who trample under foot the glorious Constitution and the people’s rights. (HC 6:499) 1.44. Genl. J. Smith . . . briefly explained the object of the mob and showed that they waged a war of extermination upon us because of our religion. He called upon all the volunteers who felt to support the constitution from the Rocky Mountains to the* Atlantic Ocean to come with their arms, ammunition & defend the constitution. (WJS 383–84) 1.45. We have ever held ourselves amenable to the law . . .. I am ever ready to conform to and support the laws and Constitution, even at the expense of my life. I have never in the least offered any resistance to law or lawful process, which is a well-known fact to the general public. (HC 6:526) 1.46. We have never gone contrary to constitutional law, so far as we have been able to learn it. (HC 6:539) 1.47. If there is trouble in the country, neither I nor my people made it, and all that we have ever done, after much endurance on our part, is to maintain and uphold the constitution and institutions of our country, and to protect an injured, innocent, and persecuted people against misrule and mob violence. (TPJS 385–86) 1.48. Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, “The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.” It will be so. (JD 7:15; quoted by Brigham Young) 1.49. We are friendly to our country, and when we speak of the flag of our Union, we love it, and we love the rights the Constitution guarantees to every citizen. What did the Prophet Joseph say? When the Constitution shall be tottering we shall be the people to save it from the hand of the foe. (Tyler 350; quoted by Jedediah M. Grant) 1.50. It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he [Joseph] said something like this—that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it. (JD 6:152; quoted by Orson Hyde) 1.51. My sisters, My remarks in conclusion will be brief. I heard the prophet Joseph Smith say if the people rose up and mobbed us and the authorities countenanced it, they would have mobs to their hearts’ content. I heard him say that the time would come when this nation would so far depart from its original purity, its glory, and its love for freedom and its protection of civil rights and religious rights, that the Constitution of our country would hang as it were by a thread. He said, also, that this people, the sons of Zion, would rise up and save the Constitution and bear it off triumphantly. (Snow, Eliza R. 556) 1.52. And then you would have “further truths from the teachings of the Prop/if [Joseph Smith].” . . . And he taught us relating to the Kingdom of God, as it would become organized upon the earth through “all nations learning war no more,” and all adopting the God-given constitution of the United States as a Paladium [sic] of Liberty and Equal Rights. (Johnson 5–6) https://rsc.byu.edu/latter-day-prophets-united-states-constitution/joseph-smith Edited July 29, 2020 by pogi
Bob Crockett Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 (edited) You are really deceived. In a sort of right wing way. That's OK. Brigham Young was adamantly against the assertion of federal authority and railed against federal institutions and the constitution itself. All of his various quotes against the government were compiled in Shadow or Reality by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, and I've looked them up. I refer you to that. This article summarizes that. The quotes I could cite are from the JoD or reported in the Deseret News. Quote The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black‑hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10:110 Further, Joseph Smith disavowed his support for the Constitution when he established the Council of Fifty with his plans to overthrow the U.S. Government. Brigham Young settled in the SL Valley, leaving the United States, to escape the constitution. He negotiated with Mexican authorities for the right to arrive. He also had discussions about settling on Vancouver Island. At the time, he wanted to ensure that the members could practice plural marriage. (To be announced publicly 5 years later.) Although plural marriage was prohibited by Mexican Law (and not, by the way, prohibited by US Territorial law), Brigham Young thought that Mexico would never prosecute. So the church settled in the most northern extreme of Mexico where there were no Mexican authorities, thus stepping out of U.S. jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that peace was extremely short-lived. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed September 14, 1847, or weeks after the Saints arrived in Mexico, ceding the Salt Lake Valley to the United States. This forced annexation of Mexican Territory had disastrous consequences. The early Saints thought they had basic Mexican homesteading rights in the settlements, but all that was extinguished. Federal surveyors came into town and basically disenfranchised all the Saints and their possession. There are numerous accounts of the hostility shown federal surveyors. I have found in researching Brigham Young over the years that various right wing groups cherry pick his various statements over the years to paint the picture that he was a patriotic fellow and supported federal authorities. It just isnt' true that he was a U.S. patriot and thought the constitution was God-breathed. I love him all the more for it. When the D&C talks about the inspiration of the constitution, you must recall that at the time the major political controversy was as to the Divine Right of Kings. The D&C was calculated to overcome that theory with a sort of Divine Right of Government in the U.S. So, the idea of a constitution was considered inspired, as that hadn't happened with success before, but not the idea that God breathed the text of the U.S. Constitution. He didn't. I don't even believe that he breathed the scriptures. Edited July 29, 2020 by Bob Crockett
mfbukowski Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Here's the local article about the protest and the presence of the Boogaloos. https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2020/06/02/hundreds-gather-peaceful-vigil-las-cruces-honor-george-floyd/5314449002/ Scroll down a bit and you'll find the section on them. Here's a picture from the article: From wikipedia: Hey, thanks! Wasn't aware of them!
Ahab Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 18 hours ago, pogi said: You say that you weren't, but you seem to keep doing it. You seem to be downplaying police brutality by claiming that they have a hard job. Why can't you just admit that there are bad cops that do bad things and they need to be called out. You seem to think that calling out bad cop behavior is somehow speaking negatively about cops in general. Yes, they have hard jobs, that doesn't give them a pass. They are not "collectively" doing their jobs as well as they can. There are bad cops out there, like it or not. Yes there are bad cops doing bad things but on the whole, collectively speaking, the Police are trying to do their jobs as well as they can. A few bad apples do not spoil the whole bunch, in this type of thing. The ones who mess up will receive the appropriate corrective actions... the Police even include people called to be corrections officers... as the system works all of that out. You don't seem to understand what I meant by saying "there must needs be a learning curve". Everybody makes mistakes and bad judgment calls, with some learning quicker than others after receiving the appropriate corrective actions. When a minority percentage of Police officers mess up you should not give up on the whole bunch. The Police are the people who do some of the dirtiest work in civil societies, and I am thankful we have those people who we call the "Police" to do the good work that they do. 18 hours ago, The Nehor said: And there we completely disagree. I insist that they are, speaking collectively, not doing their job well enough at all and it is not a learning curve issue where they are slowly getting better. Listening to the n word and casual racism getting tossed around on the police scanner when they think no one is listening, their hair-trigger attacks, and their deceptions calculated to protect themselves and each other from the consequences their actions makes me fully in favor of defunding the police and coming up with a new solution to law enforcement. This one isn't working very well. Listening to the police and some of the threats not to do their job that have been bandied about and with their whimpering "you will be sorry when we are gone" just makes me even more eager to get rid of the current institution. If you are willing to not do your job because people aren't being nice to you I can totally see you hurting and killing people for kicks. I also would prefer a smarter version of law enforcement. Just south of me down in Austin the police tried to improve their image by showing a big collection of thank you cards from the community. It took all of five minutes for people to look at the photo and realize the writing on several of the cards were all in the same handwriting and that none of the envelopes had postage on them. If you are going to lie to people to try to make them like you at least have the dignity to put a little effort into it. They doubled down claiming the cards were dropped off (plausible) and that a volunteer wrote messages on all the outsides of the envelopes (stupid) so that they would know it was something happy. They could have substantiated this story by opening the cards and showing the interiors which were purportedly done by kindergartners and shut the whole thing down if their story were true but........nah. It was just pathetic. If you are incline to give them the benefit of the doubt you can look at their categorical denial that they used tear gas on a certain date until video evidence was shown and their creative descriptions of several other encounters before and during the protest that do not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, we disagree, it seems. Enough said.
The Nehor Posted July 29, 2020 Posted July 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Yes there are bad cops doing bad things but on the whole, collectively speaking, the Police are trying to do their jobs as well as they can. A few bad apples do not spoil the whole bunch, in this type of thing. Weren't you advocating that violence is permissible against entire crowds for a few bad actors in that crowd? Groups of civilians should be held to a higher standard than people that are given a near-monopoly on legal physical force? Also, that is the worst saying to use. The saying is that a few bad apples SPOIL the bunch. Actually the original saying was that one bad apple spoils the bunch. The moral is clear: GET RID OF THE BAD APPLE!!!! We tried that but the supposedly good apples tried to cover for the bad apple so we realized the bunch was already spoiled so now we want to throw out the bunch while people complain that if we throw out all the apples we will not have apples to eat. We suggested getting new apples but they seem to hate change and just want to keep eating the spoiled apples and mandate that everyone else eat them too. The people whose families are dying from spoiled apples are understandably perturbed. 2 hours ago, Ahab said: The ones who mess up will receive the appropriate corrective actions... the Police even include people called to be corrections officers... as the system works all of that out. You say that as if it is proven and that there were not coverups to prevent corrective action. I envy your view of the world where you trust the system to work but it doesn't. Institutionally police departments are VERY difficult to clean up. Problem officers are occasionally fired if the press gets bad enough or the crime is egregious enough but they often just move and join a new department. 2 hours ago, Ahab said: You don't seem to understand what I meant by saying "there must needs be a learning curve". Everybody makes mistakes and bad judgment calls, with some learning quicker than others after receiving the appropriate corrective actions. These are not just mistakes or bad judgement calls though if those result in dead people you may want to hire people who do not make said mistakes. Many of these acts are malevolent. They are evil. They are wicked. Giving them a chance to learn from such acts is (I guess) part of mortality but they should not do it with a temporal "license to kill". 2 hours ago, Ahab said: When a minority percentage of Police officers mess up you should not give up on the whole bunch. The Police are the people who do some of the dirtiest work in civil societies, and I am thankful we have those people who we call the "Police" to do the good work that they do. No, there are much dirtier jobs. Being an Uber driver is more dangerous than being a cop. So are being a logger, a fisherman, or a farmer. When the institution protects the bad actors the institution has to go. The goal in defunding police is to rebuild law and code enforcement to make it safer for everyone and to have better societal outcomes for everyone. The reason police perform many of the dirtiest jobs is they have been wanting them all so they get a bigger budget. If we had a better social service police would not need to do wellness checks, try to handle the mentally ill, or deal with traffic violations. I am not convinced they are doing a 'good job'. The people teaching their kids how to deal with police without being shot sure don't think so: This isn't hyperbole or overblown though it is cut for dramatic effect to some extent. 1
rodheadlee Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 On 7/28/2020 at 11:46 AM, Bob Crockett said: What borders on stupidity? Mexico and Canada. I disagree. As Iay in the bottom of my boat in Mexico listening to bullets whizzing overhead, on 4 different occassions, I was really missing the 2nd amendment. Watching families pinned down on the docks and me not being able to shoot back really bothered me. 3
The Nehor Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 Ahab, here is a case showing what happens when the police "make a mistake". The police originally claimed it was an emergency domestic situation. It was a noise complaint from a neighbor. They were mocking the complainant when they arrived assuming the whole thing was hyped. The 911 call did make it seem like the caller was just making things up to get the police there. Not sure if it was annoyance with the noise complaint or some other reason (grudge maybe). It is the middle of the night. Police show up and knock on the door and identify themselves as police but not loud enough to guarantee those inside could hear the identification and moved away from the door so there was no way the occupants could see them through a peephole. A man opens the door carrying his gun (understandable since someone is knocking in the middle of the night). The police panic and start yelling. The man does not advance or point the weapon at the police and gets down on at least one knee saying "Woooah! Woah!" and starts raising his hands. One of the officers shoots him three times in the back. I had a hard time seeing how it could be in the back. I guess the shooter was at an angle. No aid is rendered until medical aid arrives and the woman in the house is ordered to come out in a surrender stance and not allowed to go to or aid or comfort her dying boyfriend. The cop eventually starts explaining how the man moved towards them with the weapon (did not happen). Later when medical help arrives the victim is pronounced dead on the scene. So, a man gets a knock on the door in the middle of the night. According to woman at scene they had gotten strange knocks in the night earlier in the month so he was nervous. He most likely did not hear them identify themselves as police and comes to the door with a weapon. The cops panic when they see the gun and start screaming "hands". A mistake (this video shows a man being killed so viewer discretion): I am beginning to understand all the anecdotal reports I see about ex-military people who become cops being disgusted by the lack of trigger discipline and loose ROE. Kind of frightening that military forces fighting insurgents overseas in a war zone are disgusted by the relative lack of trigger discipline of police dealing with their own civilian population. Use of force experts have brought up the usual explanation that it would only take a split second for the victim to raise the gun and fire and they are ABSOLUTELY right. One of the first rules of anyone teaching combat is that "action beats reaction". The safest thing to do was to kill him but the safest thing was not justified. However, he had done nothing wrong and was complying with instructions and had done nothing to suggest he was going to attack. If we are going to have an armed populace (and we are) then police need to take that risk when someone is surrendering. One thing that annoys the hell out of me in these videos is the panicked cop yelling "Hands! Hands!". You see it in most videos of this nature and psychologically it is the wrong move. Yelling at an agitated or scared individual is confusing. Calmly but forcefully giving instructions is the best option. Better yet some tests have shown that you can better detect aggressive intent more quickly if your orders are calm and forceful. This gets worse when the officers are shouting multiple instructions "Hands up! Down on the ground!" This confuses the suspect and leads to jerky agitated movement which too often ends in getting shot. 2
poptart Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 Here's a few questions for the police and military people out there, do any of you see the price of guns going down? Buddy was just soaked for an ar-15, big time. Thing is it was the last one on the shelf so he had to get the "tacticool" special. Cop friends I have tell me this probably won't stop, besides the current events we have a depression looming plus this kind of civil unrest probably isn't going away anytime soon. What about supply? Think we'll see the gun manufacturers (The good guys) start cranking out more product? Blows my mind just how much a PSA ar-15 goes for. Supposedly the guy who started that company had the idea of putting an ar in the hands of every law abiding American citizen. Hoping them, rock island and all the others who make affordable firearms crank their factories into overdrive. With the price of things and more cities wanting law enforcement to step down, i'm worried. 1
pogi Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 (edited) On 7/29/2020 at 11:00 AM, Bob Crockett said: You are really deceived. In a sort of right wing way. That's OK. Brigham Young was adamantly against the assertion of federal authority and railed against federal institutions and the constitution itself. All of his various quotes against the government were compiled in Shadow or Reality by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, and I've looked them up. I refer you to that. This article summarizes that. The quotes I could cite are from the JoD or reported in the Deseret News. Further, Joseph Smith disavowed his support for the Constitution when he established the Council of Fifty with his plans to overthrow the U.S. Government. Brigham Young settled in the SL Valley, leaving the United States, to escape the constitution. He negotiated with Mexican authorities for the right to arrive. He also had discussions about settling on Vancouver Island. At the time, he wanted to ensure that the members could practice plural marriage. (To be announced publicly 5 years later.) Although plural marriage was prohibited by Mexican Law (and not, by the way, prohibited by US Territorial law), Brigham Young thought that Mexico would never prosecute. So the church settled in the most northern extreme of Mexico where there were no Mexican authorities, thus stepping out of U.S. jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that peace was extremely short-lived. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed September 14, 1847, or weeks after the Saints arrived in Mexico, ceding the Salt Lake Valley to the United States. This forced annexation of Mexican Territory had disastrous consequences. The early Saints thought they had basic Mexican homesteading rights in the settlements, but all that was extinguished. Federal surveyors came into town and basically disenfranchised all the Saints and their possession. There are numerous accounts of the hostility shown federal surveyors. I have found in researching Brigham Young over the years that various right wing groups cherry pick his various statements over the years to paint the picture that he was a patriotic fellow and supported federal authorities. It just isnt' true that he was a U.S. patriot and thought the constitution was God-breathed. I love him all the more for it. When the D&C talks about the inspiration of the constitution, you must recall that at the time the major political controversy was as to the Divine Right of Kings. The D&C was calculated to overcome that theory with a sort of Divine Right of Government in the U.S. So, the idea of a constitution was considered inspired, as that hadn't happened with success before, but not the idea that God breathed the text of the U.S. Constitution. He didn't. I don't even believe that he breathed the scriptures. Your claim is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young despised or distrusted the constitution. You have failed to provide any reference where either of them say any such thing regarding the constitution. I suspect you have not read the following discourse which Brigham Young gave in the Utah Tabernacle (8 years after you claim he left the US to "escape the constitution") regarding his sentiment on the Constitution and the United States of America: Read the whole thing. It is very powerful, bur here are a couple snippets: Quote This government, so formed, has been blessed by the Almighty until she spreads her sails in every sea, and her power is felt in every land. The American Government is second to none in the world in influence and power, and far before all others in liberal and free institutions. Under its benign influence the poor, downtrodden masses of the old world can find an asylum where they can enjoy the blessings of peace and freedom, no matter to what caste or religious sect they belong, or are disposed to favor, or whether they are disposed to favor any or none at all. It was in this government, formed by men inspired of God, although at the time they knew it not, after it was firmly established in the seat of power and influence, where liberty of conscience, and the free exercise of religious worship were a fundamental principle guaranteed in the Constitution, and interwoven with all the feelings, traditions, and sympathies of the people, that the Lord sent forth His angel to reveal the truths of heaven as in times past, even as in ancient days. This should have been hailed as the greatest blessing which could have been bestowed upon any nation, kindred, tongue, or people. It should have been received with hearts of gratitude and gladness, praise and thanksgiving. ...How then should it be esteemed an object worthy of persecution that Joseph Smith, the man called of God to perform a work in restoring the Gospel of salvation unto the children of men, and his followers, true believers in his divine mission, should attempt to exercise the same privilege held sacred by all others, of every name, nature, and description, and equally so by them? Why should he and his followers be debarred the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of their consciences? Legally they cannot, and I will further state, that legally they have not. No! Whenever the iron hand of oppression and persecution has fallen upon this people, our opposers have broken their own laws, set at defiance and trampled under foot every principle of equal rights, justice, and liberty found written in that rich legacy of our fathers, The Constitution of the United States. ...I ask you, friends, how is this? Are not our religious sentiments as sacred to us as to any other portion of the community? And should it not be the duty, as well as the pride, of every American citizen to extend that provision of the Constitution to us which he claims for himself? And is not that sacred instrument invaded and broken as much in debarring and excluding this people from its privileges, rights, and blessings, as it would be if your rights and privileges were thus invaded? No, gentlemen, we have broken no laws, our Glorious Constitution guarantees unto us all that we claim. Under its broad folds, in its obvious meaning and intents, we are safe, and can always rejoice in peace. All that we have ever claimed, or wish to, on the part of the government, is the just administration of the powers and privileges of the National Compact. ...To accuse us of being unfriendly to the Government, is to accuse us of hostility to our religion, for no item of inspiration is held more sacred with us than the Constitution under which she acts. As a religious society, we, in common with all other denominations, claim its protection; whether our people are located in the other states or territories, as thousands of them are, or in this territory, it is held as a shield to protect the dearest boon of which man is susceptible—his religious views and sentiments. https://jod.mrm.org/2/170 Another: Quote 2.43. The first telegram that was ever sent over the transcontinental wire was by . . . President Brigham Young, . . . “Utah has not seceded, but is firm for the constitution and laws of our once happy country.” (JH [30 Apr 1889] 10; quoted by Heber J. Grant) Quote 2.44. I want to say to every man, the Constitution of the United States, as formed by our fathers, was dictated, was revealed, was put into their hearts by the Almighty, who sits enthroned in the midst of the heavens; although unknown to them, it was dictated by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ, it is as good as I could ask for. (Henry 678; also in Roberts, Mormonism 27–28) Quote 2.45. That people [the Latter-day Saints], whom the very great majority have striven to obliterate, will step forward and continue to honor the Heaven-inspired Constitution bequeathed to us so rich a legacy by our forefathers. (Hansen 166; from the Brigham Young Papers, Coe Collection, Yale University Library) Tons more here: https://rsc.byu.edu/latter-day-prophets-united-states-constitution/brigham-young I love this quote and think it sums up his sentiment (and mine) well: Quote 2.6. I arose and spoke substantially as follows: . . . I love the government and the constitution of the United States, but I do not love the damned rascals who administer the government. (JH [8 Sep 1851] 3–4) You misconstrue Brigham's discontent with how the constitution was mis-applied by some in government, to mean that he "despised" the contract. Quite the contrary. You are the one who is "deceived". Also, since when is being pro-Constitution "right wing"? Edited July 30, 2020 by pogi
Stargazer Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 To those of you responding to what I have written, my apologies for not reacting to you. I said I was done with the thread, and I am sticking to that. Except for this apology, of course.
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 On 7/29/2020 at 5:57 AM, Hamba Tuhan said: Cricket is a cult more than a sport. You'll never get it unless it gets you first. My first bishop here taught sport but admitted to me once that he found cricket less interesting than watching the grass grow. I would prefer to watch banana slugs crawl across a rotting log.
Ahab Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I would prefer to watch banana slugs crawl across a rotting log. Maybe you just haven't seen any interesting people playing the game. The more the players interest you, personally, the more you will usually enjoy watching them play.
Bob Crockett Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 Quote Your claim is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young despised or distrusted the constitution. You have failed to provide any reference where either of them say any such thing regarding the constitution. I cited you to the extensive compilation of anti-government quotes in Shadow or Reality. They are very extensive. See here. There's the oath of vengeance, as well. I've pointed to the Council of Fifty minutes; The overthrow of the United States government. In the Council of Fifty, Smith reportedly “prophecied the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years” (George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995], 129) The Reed Smoot transcripts provide plenty of references to oaths the Saints took to overthrow the U.S. government. United States Senate (1904b), pp. 152–53, 161. August W. Lundstrum: "We and each of us solemnly covenant and promise that we shall ask God to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation. There is something more added, but that is all I can remember verbatim. That is the essential part.…It was in regard to teaching our children and children's children to the last generation to the same effect." United States Senate (1904b), pp. 79, 149-149. J. H. Wallis, Sr.:"That you and each of you will never cease to importune High Heaven for vengeance upon this nation for the blood of the prophets who have been slain." I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. (DHC 5:393-94) While discussing a petition to Congress with the Nauvoo City Council, Smith “prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and god shall damn them. And there shall nothing be left of them – not even a grease spot” (Millennial Star v.22, p. 455). It isn't that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith despised the Constitution; they despised the government and prophesied its overthrow. Today, that would simply be considered treasonous and contrary to the constitution. When Joseph Smith ran for president, his platform did not advocate the constitution but instead urged numerous changes. At times, to curry favor with the United States, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said things which suggested they supported the government. But as soon as Brigham Young stepped out of the United States and entered into his arrangement with Mexico, he had lost faith in constitution and the government. Quote Also, since when is being pro-Constitution "right wing"? So this is why I detest right-wing politics. You fly the flag of the Constitution and say or imply that everybody on the left is a traitor. I am neither right nor left, but a libertarian. Libertarians, actually, tilt to the right in a big way but we don't necessarily believe that the constitution was breathed by God. The Constitution was a major accomplishment of man, but that is all it ever was.
pogi Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 19 minutes ago, Ahab said: Maybe you just haven't seen any interesting people playing the game. The more the players interest you, personally, the more you will usually enjoy watching them play. Maybe you haven't seen this: Yep, much better way to spend my time. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 On 7/29/2020 at 10:00 AM, Bob Crockett said: You are really deceived. In a sort of right wing way. That's OK. Brigham Young was adamantly against the assertion of federal authority and railed against federal institutions and the constitution itself. All of his various quotes against the government were compiled in Shadow or Reality by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, and I've looked them up. I refer you to that. This article summarizes that. The quotes I could cite are from the JoD or reported in the Deseret News. Further, Joseph Smith disavowed his support for the Constitution when he established the Council of Fifty with his plans to overthrow the U.S. Government. Brigham Young settled in the SL Valley, leaving the United States, to escape the constitution. He negotiated with Mexican authorities for the right to arrive. He also had discussions about settling on Vancouver Island. At the time, he wanted to ensure that the members could practice plural marriage. (To be announced publicly 5 years later.) Although plural marriage was prohibited by Mexican Law (and not, by the way, prohibited by US Territorial law), Brigham Young thought that Mexico would never prosecute. So the church settled in the most northern extreme of Mexico where there were no Mexican authorities, thus stepping out of U.S. jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that peace was extremely short-lived. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed September 14, 1847, or weeks after the Saints arrived in Mexico, ceding the Salt Lake Valley to the United States. This forced annexation of Mexican Territory had disastrous consequences. The early Saints thought they had basic Mexican homesteading rights in the settlements, but all that was extinguished. Federal surveyors came into town and basically disenfranchised all the Saints and their possession. There are numerous accounts of the hostility shown federal surveyors. I have found in researching Brigham Young over the years that various right wing groups cherry pick his various statements over the years to paint the picture that he was a patriotic fellow and supported federal authorities. It just isnt' true that he was a U.S. patriot and thought the constitution was God-breathed. I love him all the more for it. When the D&C talks about the inspiration of the constitution, you must recall that at the time the major political controversy was as to the Divine Right of Kings. The D&C was calculated to overcome that theory with a sort of Divine Right of Government in the U.S. So, the idea of a constitution was considered inspired, as that hadn't happened with success before, but not the idea that God breathed the text of the U.S. Constitution. He didn't. I don't even believe that he breathed the scriptures. Well, now I’m really confused. I read the discourse in JD10 that is cited in your post: Quote The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black‑hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10:110 Are you citing this as evidence that Brigham hated the Constitution?
pogi Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: So this is why I detest right-wing politics. You fly the flag of the Constitution and say or imply that everybody on the left is a traitor. I am neither right nor left, but a libertarian. Libertarians, actually, tilt to the right in a big way but we don't necessarily believe that the constitution was breathed by God. The Constitution was a major accomplishment of man, but that is all it ever was. I think this is all deserving of a new thread. I am just not buying it. The historical accounts are too numerous throughout each of their life-spans showing profound support for the constitution. I am not right wing. Many here have accused me of being far left-wing. They too are wrong. In many ways I lean libertarian, but y'all are often too extreme for me too. Most libertarians are constitution lovers by the way. Many believe it is inspired. Many liberals also believe it is inspired. That idea doesn't belong to one political party. I don't feel like I have a political home anywhere. I don't identify with any party. I agree it was a major accomplishment (I'm glad to see you come back around), but I believe the D&C in that it was an inspired accomplishment.
Ahab Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Maybe you haven't seen this: Yep, much better way to spend my time. When someone tells me they enjoy watching slugs on a log more than watching some young children they know playing cricket, I get the feeling that they like those slugs, a lot!
Bernard Gui Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Ahab said: Maybe you just haven't seen any interesting people playing the game. The more the players interest you, personally, the more you will usually enjoy watching them play. Nope. Watching a cartoon version, however, is a lot more interesting than watching the real thing. Edited July 30, 2020 by Bernard Gui
pogi Posted July 30, 2020 Posted July 30, 2020 20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: It isn't that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith despised the Constitution; they despised the government and prophesied its overthrow. Today, that would simply be considered treasonous and contrary to the constitution. I could have sworn you used the word "despised". Interesting. I prefer to let Brigham speak for himself: Quote To accuse us of being unfriendly to the Government, is to accuse us of hostility to our religion, for no item of inspiration is held more sacred with us than the Constitution under which she acts. Quote I arose and spoke substantially as follows: . . . I love the government and the constitution of the United States, but I do not love the damned rascals who administer the government. (JH [8 Sep 1851] 3–4) If that is "treasonous", then I guess I am a traitor too. They absolutely are mostly a bunch of "damned rascals".
Recommended Posts