Every Republican Presidential Candidate is Hitler

[Guest Godless]

Speaking of Hitler comparisons, I just noticed that we don't have signatures anymore. 

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

Speaking of Hitler comparisons, I just noticed that we don't have signatures anymore. 

I know. How else can I attract people to the greatest blog in the history of blogdom? 

Edited March 21, 2016 by MormonGator

[zil]

42 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I know. How else can I attract people to the greatest blog in the history of blogdom? 

You had a link to my site in your old sig?

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

You had a link to my site in your old sig?

That was part of our prenup, remember? 

[zil]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That was part of our prenup, remember? 

Ooooh, riiiight, wedded bliss made me forgot aaaall about it.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Ooooh, riiiight, wedded bliss made me forgot aaaall about it.

You are late on spousal support too, darling. 

[zil]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are late on spousal support too, darling. 

Pffff - I'm thinking you just lost the check.  Maybe you should check under the bathroom sink.

[Guest MormonGator]

Actually everyone, I'm sure my blog could take her blog in a cage match of blogs. Bring it on Zil. Bring it on. 

[zil]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Actually everyone, I'm sure my blog could take her blog in a cage match of blogs. Bring it on Zil. Bring it on. 

Right, just give me a moment to get some new things posted...

(In this case, "moment" should be understood as "between 3 and 6 months".  )

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Actually everyone, I'm sure my blog could take her blog in a cage match of blogs. Bring it on Zil. Bring it on. 

I believe it. Your "overrated bands" post was absolutely brilliant. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

People get the political spectrum wrong most of the time.  The extreme left is total government control over everything.  It is communism, fascism, totalitarianism et cetera.  (Socialism is toward the left as the government has a lot of control over most things.)  The extreme right wing is total lack of government or anarchy.  (Anarchy usually doesn't last long as another form government rushes to fill it and it is almost always tyranny.)

The Constitution as it was originally written is the moderate form of government.  It is between the extreme right and left wings of government.  Know your definitions of government so you may gain a clear picture of what to stand for.

[bytebear]

I would disagree with your assessment of the right.  It's Statism vs Federalism (i.e. Big government vs local government).  The right is fine with government, as are libertarians who are not anarchists. But they want real representation and a say in how their tax dollars are spent, ideally at a local level.  I..e no education spending or taxation outside the local school district, and no federal mandates or financial enticements or bailouts.  The Constitution was a minimalist form of government.

I also heard recently an interesting notion about Liberalism vs Conservatism when it comes to the Constitution.  Conservatives want to conserve the purpose and intent of the Constitution.  Liberals want to interpret and view the document liberally, allowing changes and modifications in the way the laws are enacted, interpreted and enforced.

I have a very liberal friend who recently began his career as an attorney, and his whole ideology is how he can get around the law and win at all costs, regardless of whether his view was constitutionally sound.  He is in his own little world, and literally thinks everyone must be just like him.  He recently stated something like "Well, everyone thinks X is wrong." and I left him gobsmacked when I stated, "No, half the country thinks X is right."  Left him literally speechless.

But there is an old saying.  Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats think Republicans are evil.

Edited March 22, 2016 by bytebear

[Jojo Bags]

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

People get the political spectrum wrong most of the time.  The extreme left is total government control over everything.  It is communism, fascism, totalitarianism et cetera.  (Socialism is toward the left as the government has a lot of control over most things.)  The extreme right wing is total lack of government or anarchy.  (Anarchy usually doesn't last long as another form government rushes to fill it and it is almost always tyranny.)

The Constitution as it was originally written is the moderate form of government.  It is between the extreme right and left wings of government.  Know your definitions of government so you may gain a clear picture of what to stand for.

Actually, they are both for government control over everything.  The Democrats are overt and the establishment Republicans are covert.  Both are crony capitalists and both are socialists.  They only differ in their brand of socialism.  Democrats are democratic socialists who push openly for a rapid acceptance of socialism without calling it socialism.  The establishment Republicans are Fabian socialists who are working covertly for a slower acceptance of socialism without calling it socialism.  The funny thing is, both are succeeding quite handily.

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 3/22/2016 at 10:35 PM, bytebear said:

Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats think Republicans are evil.

The extreme right is still anarchy and the extreme left is total government control in the political spectrum.  It is just now presently that most Republicans have shifted very far toward the left and Democrats have shifted even further left.  Both parties are becoming essentially the same (with the exception of a few representatives).  The definitions have not changed in the political spectrum.  Most representatives in both parties presently want to seize control of about everything which is not righteous.

The Constitution was good how it was written originally with the exception of slavery.  The Lord even approved of the Constitution (see Doc. & Cov. 98:5-7).  Yes it was a minimalist form of government.  As we as a nation have become more and more wicked we have formed our chains of bondage. 

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  -- John Adams

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats think Republicans are evil.

No, Republicans believe Democrats are the devil.  Democrats believe Republicans are Hitler.

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, bytebear said:

But there is an old saying.  Republicans think Democrats are wrong. Democrats think Republicans are evil.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No, Republicans believe Democrats are the devil.  Democrats believe Republicans are Hitler.

I believe that bytebear is correct because most conservatives (which should not be confused with Republicans, but for simplicity in this discussion, we'll conflate them) believe that progressives (again, not the same as the Democrat Party) are misinformed, or have not thought about the issues very deeply: they're just reacting emotionally.

Progressives, on the other hand, think that conservatives are evil because they do not want to use the coercive power of the state, the potentially lethal power of government, to force people to have the same outcomes, that they (the conservatives) must want the poor to be poor. It's absurd, of course, but that's what I've noticed when trying to have this kind of discussion with a progressive.

My F-i-L once assumed that "we can agree that people deserve to eat." I did not, because, if everyone deserves to eat, it means that those who do not produce food (or the means to exchange for it) have that right to force someone who does to give it to him. Except for children and the physically or mentally incapable (who, by nature, cannot produce enough to support themselves, and have a legitimate right to eat, as long as their parents produce sufficient), people who do not contribute to the general well being of their neighbors are those the scriptures say who do not labor, and should not eat the bread, nor wear the clothes of the laborer. He then said, "at least we can agree with King Benjamin {do not suffer the beggar to put up his petition in vain]." I can, and do, agree with that, but there is a huge difference between his propositions.

Progressives must ignore the very nature of mankind, not necessarily the "natural man", although that can be a part of it, when they assume that if each gets according to his needs, he will give according to his ability. It just ain't so. Further, it stifles, nay, it eliminates all progress to take away the ordinary benefits of creativity. Why invent the telephone if there is no way to reap the rewards that others will gain by it? Why develop the cell phone when the good from it goes to others, and not you? They want to control the schools to inculcate and indoctrinate the children of others to support their goals and means.

Conservatives are wrong, too, in that most of them (remember, I'm a libertarian) want to use the coercive. lethal power of the state to make everyone follow whatever "moral" path they believe correct. Drugs? Ban them, and put those who want to use them in prison (where they learn to be better criminals). Sex? Throw adulterers in jail, or take their stuff. This list, too, is nearly endless. They want to control the schools to inculcate and indoctrinate the children of others to support their goals and means.

Libertarians, on the other hand (no, there is no third — both of the above want to use the power of government to control), want persuasion, reason, demonstration to convert, to "teach … correct principles [so] they govern themselves." Is sexual fidelity good? Teach it, and show the benefits. Is charity (not welfare) good? Show how, by actions and precept. Et cetera, etc., &c. Brute force is for animals in the jungle. Mankind is a higher species, but we don't often act like it.

Lehi

[Guest]

My choice of words was:

1) Meant to be partially humorous (as if there's a huge difference in people's minds between the two).

2) Meant to provoke the images of the two motivations you spoke of (religious, vs. statist).

3) Meant to indicate the relative level of thought that goes into such ad hominem attacks against the other side.

[prisonchaplain]

20 hours ago, MormonGator said:

:: Sigh :: Can't imagine Paul Ryan and Obama hanging out like that. 

It may just be my perception, but Ryan seems like the type that would sit down with anyone willing to sit down and discuss intelligent solutions to government problems.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It may just be my perception, but Ryan seems like the type that would sit down with anyone willing to sit down and discuss intelligent solutions to government problems.

We agree. I don't think Ryan is the problem here. 

[anatess2]

PRISONCHAPLAIN!

I'm calling you out.  You said something about holding your nose... you mean Trump?  If so, give me a reason.  Be specific.  So we can discuss.

[LeSellers]

On 3/22/2016 at 4:06 AM, Still_Small_Voice said:

The Constitution was good how it was written originally with the exception of slavery.

The Constitution did not support slavery.

People imagine that it does for two (usually) reasons:

1) It did not forbid it.

2) It counted slaves as 3/5 of a person.

Both of these "reasons" are based in false premises.

First, slavery is an age-old institution: it has existed in every civilization since the first Enoch (Cain's grandson) founded a city. The slaves in what would become USmerica were not exported from Africa by white men, but by other Africans, including, notably, Muslims, and sold to the highest bidder. People do not know that the first slave owner in what would become USmerica was a black man who refused to let his indentured servant go free at the end of his term of service. People also forget that there were more white slaves in USmerica than black, and that the white slaves were mostly Irish and Slavs whose lives were of less value than were those of Blacks, and so were assigned more dangerous work. And it is also seldom remembered that USmerica's first war after independence was against the Muslim Barbary pirates who were taking USmericans as slaves as their right, since the USmericans were Christians (see the "Marine Corps Hymn": "… to the shores of Tripoli".). To have forbidden it would have been an anomaly, and even in USmerica, where there were widespread and deep feelings about it, it would not have worked because there were equally widespread and deeply felt convictions that it was both moral and necessary. Consider the fact that, to get the benefits of the Constitution, it had to be ratified. This surely would not have happened had the Document forbidden slavery outright.

Next, the Constitution did something unheard of: it did effectively forbade slavery by eliminating the importation of slaves after 1803. After that, only slaves born here could be held or sold to others. This fact is why there are so many Blacks in USmerica: those who came west from Africa were well cared for (as slaves go), while those who went east, to Arabia, were mutilated (castration without anesthetic or antisepsis), raped (their male children killed, btw), and tortured, and used as sex slaves. The odds of living to age 40 as a black slave in Arabia was about 20%. Slaves who went to the Americas could expect to live to age 60 or more, once they got there.

Second, the "3/5 of a person" canard is a willful misreading of the Document: the purpose of the 3/5 clause was not to count slaves as less than a person, but to limit the political power of the slave-holding states, while increasing the taxes they had to pay. The South wanted slaves counted as full persons for purposes of representation in Congress, but did not want them counted at all for taxation. The 3/5 compromise made the South pay more, and it reduced the representation in Congress. Both of these results benefited slaves and led directly to their freedom in 1865.

So, I ask, what do you mean by "… with the exception of slavery"? Keep in mind that White, English-speaking peoples were the first in the history of mankind to outlaw slavery, and, in USmerica, it cost the life blood of 200,000 men, not to mention the other 400,000 casualties, to make it  happen.

Lehi

Edited March 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Vort]

49 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Second, the "3/5 of a person" canard is a willful misreading of the Document: the purpose of the 3/5 clause was not to count slaves as less than a person, but to limit the political power of the slave-holding states, while increasing the taxes they had to pay. The South wanted slaves counted as full persons for purposes of representation in Congress, but did not want them counted at all for taxation. The 3/5 compromise made the South pay more, and it reduced the representation in Congress. Both of these results benefited slaves and led directly to their freedom in 1865.

Of all the lies told by the Left about the Constitution and slavery, this one rankles the worst. IT WAS THE SLAVERS WHO WANTED SLAVES COUNTED AS FULL PEOPLE. How hard is that to understand? The SLAVERS wanted slaves counted to increase their representation. The ANTI-SLAVERS wanted slaves NOT to count in the representation appropriation. The willful misunderstanding and propagation of the lies about this point demonstrate just how much the Left is untrustworthy and acts in bad faith.

[prisonchaplain]

20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

PRISONCHAPLAIN!

I'm calling you out.  You said something about holding your nose... you mean Trump?  If so, give me a reason.  Be specific.  So we can discuss.

I believe I said that holding my nose would not be enough...I'd have to cut it off. HOWEVER, that was if I ended up having to vote for the other candidate--because I could not vote for Trump.  I probably agree with Trump on about 60% of the issues--HRC about 20%. However, Trump strikes me as disingenuous, condescending, vulgar, and given to vindictiveness. One incident that struck was when he was asked about religious liberty issues, and his response was not a defense of the Constitution, or a recognition of pending issues like whether schools such as BYU will be required to provide housing for married gay students, but rather, "Don't worry, Christians.  I'll protect you."

The bottom line is that I do not trust him to be President.  Sometimes character and demeanor do matter more than policy.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I believe I said that holding my nose would not be enough...I'd have to cut it off. HOWEVER, that was if I ended up having to vote for the other candidate--because I could not vote for Trump.  I probably agree with Trump on about 60% of the issues--HRC about 20%. However, Trump strikes me as disingenuous, condescending, vulgar, and given to vindictiveness. One incident that struck was when he was asked about religious liberty issues, and his response was not a defense of the Constitution, or a recognition of pending issues like whether schools such as BYU will be required to provide housing for married gay students, but rather, "Don't worry, Christians.  I'll protect you."

The bottom line is that I do not trust him to be President.  Sometimes character and demeanor do matter more than policy.

I wrote a very long response to your post about voting Bush, Rubio, Kasich on another thread... it disappeared.  Before I spend another 30 minutes of my time re-writing the thing... can you see if that post is sitting there in lds.net neverland?

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 However, Trump strikes me as disingenuous, condescending, vulgar, and given to vindictiveness.

I agree PC. He also strikes me as misogynistic, obnoxious and ironically enough given another thread here-the high school bully at 68 years old.