Capitalist_Oinker

The "shortage of sellers" polemic always rears its ugly head whenever someone wants to hedge a quasi-pro-discrimination stance. But it's a specious argument at best.If a "shortage of sellers" is sufficient excuse for forcing an individual to sell a product or service to someone they would rather not sell to; then conversely, a "shortage of buyers" should be sufficient excuse for forcing an individual to purchase a product or service from someone they would rather not purchase from. It's impossible to logically argue that one is moral while the other is immoral. The sad fact of this whole sorry business is that the proliferation of anti-discrimination laws will prove to be an overflowing scourge on freedom and liberty, primarily because there's no limit to the scope of such laws. Almost any economic behavior (along with a great deal of other behaviors) can be defined as "discrimination". Is a college accepting students based on SAT scores not discriminating against those who don't do well on standardized tests?Is a restaurant serving expensive food not discriminating against the poor?Is a modeling agency hiring only thin, attractive women not discriminating against fat, homely women?When you purchase a hamburger from Burger King are you not discriminating against Wendy's?When you buy a PC aren't you discriminating against Macs? And if Blacks can be a protected class, why not Melungeons or Mestizos or Cajuns or Gaels?And if Muslims can be a protected class, why not Candomblists or Santeriaists or Jainists or Druids?And if Homosexuals can be a protected class, why not Asexuals or Pedophiles or Gerontophiles or Zoophiles?And as long as we're at it, why shouldn't fat, short, stupid, or ugly be protected classes? Where will this anti-discrimination idiocy end? Sadly, it won't, and the principles of "freedom of association" and "equal protection under the law" will ultimately end up null and void.

Ever since I wrote the above I haven't had a problem. Whoever you are, and whatever you did---Thanks!

I’m curious, RM? Can you explain why you believe it’s moral to FORCE someone to serve an individual they’d rather not serve for whatever reason, and can you also explain where the RIGHT to do so comes from?

You and I are in complete agreement here. I'll never understand how any Latter-day Saint can argue that he/she has a "right" to someone else's service, or a right to FORCE someone else to provide a service he/she thinks should be provided? It just boggles my mind.

I hope you're right but I'm skeptical. Obviously it depends on the judge and his political ideology. Yes, I know ideology shouldn't be a determining factor, but unfortunately it is, and it will become more so as time wears on. Personally I don't believe there should be ANY laws restricting discrimination by private individuals in their personal or business lives, unless of course they accept public money to do so.

Well, theoretically it would be a capitalist since no lawyer ever advanced beyond the heathen stage.

Maddy? You look more like a Kate Kelly to me.

Whoa! When you start questioning the scriptures you're on the road to apostasy, pal.

I believe we can surmise the answer to this question by consulting the scriptures. In the 7th chapter of Luke we read: 40. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he said, Master, say on.41. There was a certain Capitalist which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.42. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, had this man been a lawyer, would he have forgiven the debt?43. Simon answered and said, are you kidding me! He would have had both of them thrown into jail until they paid the uttermost farthing. 44. And Jesus said unto him, thou hast rightly judged. There's no need for any of you to look this up. I'm certain I copied it correctly.

Elder Packer may have said something to that effect, but if he did I'm betting he was quoting President Kimball, who wrote in his book (The Miracle of Forgiveness): "Another error into which some transgressors fall, because of the availability of God's forgiveness, is the illusion that they are somehow stronger for having committed sin and then lived through the period of repentance. This simply is not true. That man who resists temptation and lives without sin is far better off than the man who has fallen, no matter how repentant the latter may be. … His sin and repentance have certainly not made him stronger than the consistently righteous person." Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave an address at BYU in 1990 (See the July 1992 Ensign) where he said this: "Some Latter-day Saints who wrongly think repentance is easy maintain that a person is better off after he has sinned and repented. "Get a little experience with sin," one argument goes, “and then you will be better able to counsel and sympathize with others. You can always repent.” I plead with you, my brothers and sisters, my young friends and my older friends, avoid transgression! The idea that one can deliberately sin and easily repent or that one is better off after sinning and repenting are devilish lies of the adversary." Hope this helps!

Well, I think it's good to be ridiculed now and then. Keeps us humble. So if no one else will do it, what choice do I have? Just for a few minutes I'd like to talk to you as one Mormon to another---as someone who should at least be TRYING to show kindness and understanding toward a fellow Saint. You and I obviously aren't going to have many agreements regarding politics, at least until the Lord comes and explains the truth of all things. But in the meantime I'd like to attempt to explain something. You accused me of ranting about communism and that it seemed to be a common theme in many of my posts.Perhaps you're right. It is in fact something that concerns me a great deal, and as I said, I'd like to explain why. We know from the scriptures and messages from modern-day prophets and apostles that the principle of "agency" is not just essential, but CRUCIAL to the Plan of Salvation. Agency was the very precept we fought over in a pre-mortal heavenly war; a war Satan continues to wage here on earth today. He understands full well that the only way he can frustrate and impede the Plan of Salvation is by limiting agency. When we as Mormons fully appreciate the significance of the War in Heaven, we should immediately recognize the similarity between the forced righteousness program of Lucifer and the current program of collectivists here on earth. Whether they be Fabians, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Welfare Staters or whatever; the essence of the collectivist philosophy is that people just aren't intelligent (or benevolent) enough to do what is right. To remedy this problem, the collectivists (who believe they are the intelligent ones) seek for power to force the rest of mankind to adhere to their "enlightened" programs. Once we understand the great struggle over agency that occurred in the War in Heaven, we have the key for understanding the greatest conflict of our age, which is the struggle of free men against the all encompassing and supposedly all-wise state. This struggle and conflict is, as President David O. McKay said, "the problem of our time. It overshadows all other problems." We know from the BOM, that two great nations and peoples (Jaradites and Nephites) who previously occupied America, were destroyed prior to the arrival of the "Gentiles". Mormon tells us that an organization the Nephites referred to as the Gadianton Robbers were responsible for the overthrow and destruction of the Nephites (Hel. 2:13), while Moroni tells us this same organization was also responsible for the destruction of the Jaradites. (Ether 8:21) So who were these Gadianton Robbers?It's a certainty they didn't refer to themselves as robbers; in fact we know they considered themselves, their society and their works to be "good". (3 Nephi 3:9) As to who or what they were, their own words provide us with clues. Here is what one of their proponents (Giddianhi) wrote to the leader of the Nephites: "yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions…Or in other words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us…and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us---not our slaves, but our brethren and partners of all our substance." Now I ask you, does that not indicate that the Gadiantons weren't just some band of robbers, as robbers need victims to plunder, but rather, an organization based upon communistic/socialistic principles??In point of fact, both President David O. McKay and President Ezra Taft Benson have cited the marked similarities between communism and the Gadianton conspiracies in the BOM. Moroni pointedly warned us that when (note he said "when", not "if") we shall see these conspiracies come among us , we should "awake to a sense of [our] awful situation." For it cometh to pass, he said, "that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil…" Think about it, LG. Satan was successful in destroying the two previous nations that occupied America by overthrowing them using a conspiracy based upon collectivism. Does it not make sense that he would use the same exact conspiracy to overthrow and destroy us today? This is a conspiracy so subtle and so ingenious, that in the days of the Nephites it was able to "seduce the more part of the righteous" until even THEY "had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils." (Hel. 6:38) Can you not see the similarities?We have righteous members of the Church today who have come down to believe in communist/socialist principles, and even partake of their spoils (money and property taken from one person by force and subsequently received and accepted by themselves.) To wrap this little discourse up:I firmly believe that the Gadianton Robbers, who were responsible for the overthrow and destruction of the previous two nations that occupied America, are the equivalent of modern-day collectivists in the form of communists and socialists today. I believe that is why so many modern-day prophets and apostles have spoken vehemently against communism and socialism. I believe that is why Moroni so forcefully warned us not to "uphold" them and allow them to "spread over the nation". He saw what the result of such a course was for his own people, and he obviously doesn't want the same thing to happen to us. So if it appears that I spend an inordinate amount of time vilifying communism and socialism in my posts, I hope now you can understand why. Thanks for listening.(Or if you haven't got the audio version, thanks for reading.)

What I like about it is that it's true! If it weren't for that, a D10 Cat couldn't drag me into a church building.

What part of communism is garbage, LG?Is it the public school system?Is it a progressive or graduated income tax?Is it the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank?Tell me what part of communism you have a real problem with?Just as an aside, do you consider yourself a Socialist or is socialism garbage also? You wrote: "And those would be?" Apparently everything I’ve said so far. You wrote: “No, you did that all by yourself when you said you would trade your president for a neo fascist war criminal.” I did what all by myself?? I confess you've lost me.As far as Netanyahu being a fascist war criminal, that is merely your opinion. As far as I know he hasn't been convicted of any such thing.In regards to trading him for a would-be-dictator who regularly and willfully violates his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", (which isn't mere opinion) I plead guilty and unapologetic. You wrote: "You do know that communism and socialism aren't the same thing don't you?" No, but I guess I'm in good company. I'll just re-post (since no doubt you didn't read it the first time) what a prophet, seer, and revelator said about them: "The paths we are following will inevitably lead us to Socialism or Communism and these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties. Never forget for one moment that Communism and Socialism are state slavery."President David O. McKay used the phrase "communism/socialism" many times while discussing the issue. He rarely differentiated between the two, but maybe all that is just more "right wing garbage", huh?

I'm just giving you a hard time, LDG; I doubt anyone here has ever posted more than a few times without having to use the "edit" button that was fortunately provided.

Apparently not. I can't say as I've ever actually watched a Bugs Bunny cartoon, but my kids did when they were young and I guess I picked up on some things via the audio. I can say, however, that had I used the word "Moron" I would not have used a possessive apostrophe. But then I'm not a "teacher and an educationalist" so what do I know?

It isn't working for me. Ever since I signed up I have had a difficult time logging in, and the link provided here doesn't help. The odd thing is that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the problem. I can log in at work using Chrome, while IE 11 is sporadic. At home I have problems with both IE10 and Chrome. I try logging in using the login button on the forum page; I get a message telling me I'm not authorized to do that. I use the link provided here and I sometimes get the same message. Other times it shows that I'm logged in but I can't post. Other times it doesn't show that I'm logged in but I CAN post. Other times it shows that I'm logged in and when I try to post it immediately logs me out! And sometimes when I get logged in and try to log out I get the message that I'm not authorized to log out! I just keep trying until something works, but it certainly is annoying.

test

The sign clearly makes an exception for law enforcement officers, and seeing a man in a police uniform carrying a gun is a pretty common sight and I doubt anyone gets bug-eyed when they see it.

You'd better get used to it. It's a common occurrence with me.

Maroon is a term made famous by a cartoon character (Bugs Bunny) meaning a pushover, or one easily fooled. Maybe he added an extra "o" to indicate a double moron? You wrote: "All well and nice but I'm not a communist, don't believe in communism but also don't believe in right wing garbage either." So in your opinion, which of those prophets and apostles (perhaps all?) were spouting "right wing garbage". You wrote: "I blame the Martians, its always those pesky Martians... And communists.... No wait, you beat them... Its those pesky Moozlums!" Ah yes, a classic dodge. Run out of argument; ridicule the premise. How pathetic. You wrote: "The difference I see here is that God influenced the founding fathers and gave them the inspiration to write the constitution. Where as in the case of Ancient Israel God was an active part of the conquest of the land and the creation of ancient Israel." The story of America began long before the Founding Fathers. The BOM clearly explains that God motivated Columbus (many prophets and apostles have affirmed that the "man among the Gentiles" Nephi saw in vision was Columbus) to cross the waters to America.The BOM clearly explains that God motivated other Gentiles to travel to America also.The BOM clearly explains that God fought their battles and delivered them out of the hands of those who would have enslaved them once more.And as I've already pointed out, numerous prophets and apostles have spoken about America's DIVINE "preparation", "founding", and "destiny". President Benson spoke eloquently testifying that America was established by God to be His base of operations in the last days. But I suppose all of that is just more "right wing garbage"? I'm curious, LDG. Is there anything a prophet or apostle could say, that wouldn't square with your left wing ideology, that you would accept as being true?

I think "contention" occurs when "anger" is injected into a debate. And yes, I'm an expert on that. I have a pretty thick skin so it's VERY hard to offend me, but I can offend others with no effort at all and without trying. My best friend tells anyone who will listen that I'm the only human on the planet that can say "I Love You" and make it sound like a death threat.

Upon further reflection I'm going to disagree with myself. Anyone using the words "open carry" most likely knows what they mean, and as far as I can tell, Colorado allows local jurisdictions to ban open carry in certain buildings that are clearly posted. The sentiment is probably something like this: Hey all you open carry yahoos! If you want to conceal your firearm you're welcome to enter. But we're not interested in having a panic-stricken staff and patients just so you can make a political statement.

This thread has me thinking about a related subject. Have any of you who carry a gun (concealed or otherwise) actually used it to prevent a crime or possible physical harm to yourself? I'll start off by relating a story which happened to me about 18 years ago. I wasn't actually carrying at the time because I was returning from work where guns aren't allowed. But I had a Dan Wesson .357 mag in my truck and I was very much glad I did. Like I said, I was returning from work (driving a company truck) at the end of a later than normal shift. I was on my way to a company service center where I would leave the company truck and take my own truck home. The time was around 12:30 AM on a weeknight and so there was little traffic around. About a half mile from the service center a vehicle swung in behind me from a side street and the driver immediately pulled right up within a few feet of my rear bumper. I accelerated a bit to put some distance between us but he followed suit and was once again right on my tail. I had no idea what his problem was since I had not done anything to warrant his actions? We had sort of a back and forth until I reached the service center and pulled into the slot next to my own truck. I jumped out of the company vehicle, quickly unlocked my truck, and then reached in under the seat and retrieved my .357. While this was going on I watched the other vehicle pull in and park right in front of the company truck I had been driving, blocking it from pulling back out. Three men then piled out of the vehicle, one of whom was carrying what appeared to be an axe handle without the head. All three were cursing and I heard the words, "kill you, you ______". It was readily apparent they had been drinking. As the guy with the axe handle approached I brought the .357 up, cocked it, and said something to the affect that I wasn't in the mood to be pestered. No further explanation was necessary after the three of them saw the gun. They each scrambled back into their own vehicle while one of the men screamed at the driver, "Go, Go, Go." Obviously I can't say for sure what would have happened had I not had the gun? Maybe just before the axe handle came down the guy would have said, "hey dude, we were just funnin' with ya! You should have seen your face!" Whatever, but I can tell you without reservation that I was very, VERY grateful to have that gun!

Technically yes, but I'm betting it was written by some gun-ignorant boob that never had concealed carry even cross his/her mind.