Mormon vs Trump

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hyperbole?

Maybe. But for 2 mill?

 

[Lost Boy]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Do you think she meant she would have done it all herself? When Werner Von Braun claimed he could get the US to Mars by the mid-1970s, do you think he meant that he was going to build the rockets himself, with his own hands?

I understood Anatess to say that if you had handed her a million dollars, she could have had the site built and reliable and still made a healthy profit. Hyperbole? Probably not. But even if it were hyperbole, her point stands. Two billion dollars for a web site consisting pretty much of your vanilla front end UI and business logic that references an abstracted database set, is built every day all over the world. Even adding in security hardening requirements, this is not anything approaching a two billion dollar job.

LB, are you seriously trying to argue that the Obamacare web site was not a vast boondoggle that shamelessly overspent its need by a hundred times if not a thousand?

Of course I am not going to say healthcare.gov was completely overly spent.  Obamacare sucks and is a complete waste of money including the website.  

But to get it up and running and running smoothly would have taken at least a year and many people working on it.  I don't think it could have been done for a million.  Probably closer to a hundred million after you included all that was included included in the 2.1 billion dollars.

And yes, government has a hard time governing itself.  That doesn't mean a single payer system wouldn't work.  Government isn't the only thing that doesn't manage itself well...  GM, Chrysler, Big banks, etc.  All needed bail outs.

I would much rather see a good market solution for health care, but that is not being considered as far as I know.  As such the only solution on the table right now for Obama care is single payer.  Anybody with half a brain can see what direction we are headed.

So unless the Republicans pull their heads out, we are going to get a leftist version of Single payer that you nor I want.  It would be far better for the republicans to set it up, but there opportunity has been squandered.

[lostinwater]

18 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

 And for those who are opposed to universal health care.  What do you do for those out of no fault of their own not be able to pay for health care?  Do you just let them die?  What is your plan?

A----men!  

It's worth pointing out that letting private markets and charity do their magic is wonderful - as long as those processes work.  But the truth is that for a lot of people, private markets + charities fail - abysmally.  

What about the person experiencing homelessness who is having their legs incrementally amputated because of walking around in filth who needs to have their bandages changed?  

What about the person with paranoid schizophrenia who needs to pay for their medications?  

Do they go to the churches that refuse to help them because their charitable budgets are exhausted (or they say they are)?  Or do they go to the corporations - those beautiful conscience obfuscating entities that make so much of capitalism possible -  who care only about turning a profit for their shareholders?  And i've nothing against corporations, for the record.  Or to their families, who are so broken themselves that they can't possibly provide any meaningful help?  Do they turn to people like me, who scurry by them, providing only superficial help because to do anything else seems far too daunting?

If all those things fail, then what does one do?  Write them off as an unfortunate bit of collateral damage?   Blame them?  Tell ourselves it's all their fault?  Ignore their brokenness as it's effects spread like a cancer through our society.  Do we tell ourselves that their brokenness is because they aren't believing in our god, or attending our church, or not working hard enough?  i've certainly not proud to say i've tried all those things.  

i mean, what do you do when the only way our society (speaking generally) is willing to help them is through the inexpressibly corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy that we call government?  Not help them at all?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

But to get it up and running and running smoothly would have taken at least a year and many people working on it.  I don't think it could have been done for a million.  Probably closer to a hundred million after you included all that was included included in the 2.1 billion dollars.

I've heard interviews with experts in the field who weighed in on this.  And each of them said that if it were a private project and a private site, it would have only taken about 6 months and it would have been less than $10MM.

The problem is that when you're working on a government project, you have people in the government delaying the project for a year simply because the background of the homepage is the wrong color or pattern.  The bureaucrat says they want it green.  But that's the wrong color green.  And now they want a blue pattern on the green.  Now change the text.  Well, now the background doesn't go with the text. So change it to...

Then the button to click is the wrong size even though the specifications you gave at the beginning said to do it this size.  Now you want it to be a completely different function.  Instead of entering the data here per the specification, you now want it to be a link to a new page.  No, have it as a pop-up.  No, back to a form on the original page.  No, a new page with only the form.  No, the new page has to have instructions with the form.  No, the instructions must be line-by-line.  No....

It always works like this because no one in the government has "ownership" of the money.  They simply don't care.  On a private job, if you change something that was outlined in the original specs, that's a change order.  And if you issue too many change orders, the higher ups censure or fire the project manager.  But they don't do that in government because they don't care how much money a change costs.

This mentality is supposed to make healthcare cheaper?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

It's worth pointing out that letting private markets and charity do their magic is wonderful - as long as those processes work.  But the truth is that for a lot of people, private markets + charities fail - abysmally. 

I'd agree that they do now -- after four decades of liberals changing policies, laws, & regulations to get us to this mess in the first place.  Back in the 60s and 70s, it actually did a great job.

The problem was that just because it wasn't "perfect" (nothing is in this life) the Dems started calling the system "broken".  This was the mantra for the next four decades.  And with every change came a worse and worse system.

If you want a perfect system, you'll have to wait until the next life.  But if you want a system that was pretty darn good and took care of a LOT of stuff, go back to what we had in the 60s and 70s.  AND STOP EXPECTING PERFECTION!  Good enough should be good enough.  What we have after 40 years of Democratic policies is not good enough.

[lostinwater]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd agree that they do now -- after four decades of liberals changing policies, laws, & regulations to get us to this mess in the first place.  Back in the 60s and 70s, it actually did a great job.

The problem was that just because it wasn't "perfect" (nothing is in this life) the Dems started calling the system "broken".  This was the mantra for the next four decades.  And with every change came a worse and worse system.

If you want a perfect system, you'll have to wait until the next life.  But if you want a system that was pretty darn good and took care of a LOT of stuff, go back to what we had in the 60s and 70s.  AND STOP EXPECTING PERFECTION!  Good enough should be good enough.  What we have after 40 years of Democratic policies is not good enough.

Thanks @Carborendum

Could be.  Though my guess is that if we were to transplant the 60s welfare system 58 years into the future (ie today), that we'd have one whale of a mess on our hands.  i could be wrong though.  

Would be interesting to hear some perspectives of @JohnsonJones or others who remember that time.  

i guess i see liberal and conservative ideologies as two parts of the same solution.  And that the longer that both parties try to destroy the other, the faster we'll continue to decline.  Not saying that you do that - not at all.  It just seems like both parties are bent on mutual annihilation.  

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Carborendum

Could be.  Though my guess is that if we were to transplant the 60s welfare system 58 years into the future (ie today), that we'd have one whale of a mess on our hands.  

Of course we would—but the mess would be the result of half a century of progressives’ carefully undermining the family structures that made the old system work.

This is the really pernicious aspect of modern progressivism, IMHO—they blunder about making messes, and then try to co-opt *my* property and limit *my* rights in a never-ending effort to fix the broken stuff that I warned them all along not to touch in the first place.  

It is a terrible thing to die because one couldn’t pay a doctor.  It is an even worse thing to die because there just aren’t any doctors, because no one ever found it worthwhile to get medical training.  Progressives are very good at identifying what’s wrong with the status quo, but in my experience they don’t tend to put a lot of thought into the question of why things aren’t exponentially worse than they are.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Of course we would—but the mess would be the result of half a century of progressives’ carefully undermining the family structures that made the old system work.

 This is the really pernicious aspect of modern progressivism, IMHO—they blunder about making messes, and then try to co-opt *my* property and limit *my* rights in a never-ending effort to fix the broken stuff that I warned them all along not to touch in the first place.  

Thanks.

So you don't think that the liberals (modern progressivism, or whatever label you want to use) have contributed anything valid to the discussion?  That the world would be a better place if people who think opposite of them had absolutely gotten everything they wanted?

And i don't mean this to be one-sided.  i readily admit that if people were to make the mistake of listening to me as much as i want them to at times, that we'd be in a horrible situation.  Honestly, i'm not sure that people haven't *already* listened to me too much....  

Edited November 29, 2018 by lostinwater

[Just_A_Guy]

24 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

So you don't think that the liberals (modern progressivism, or whatever label you want to use) have contributed anything valid to the discussion?  That the world would be a better place if people who think opposite of them had absolutely gotten everything they wanted?

And i don't mean this to be one-sided.  i readily admit that if people were to make the mistake of listening to me as much as i want them to at times, that we'd be in a horrible situation.  Honestly, i'm not sure that people haven't *already* listened to me too much....  

For someone who abhors absolutism, you seem a little quick to pigeonhole me as an absolutist.  

What I have said, I have said.  

What I have not said—I have not said.  

[Fether]

48 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What I have not said—I have not said.  

Not for long!

48 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Liberals have contributed nothing to anything. And I hate puppies

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

For someone who abhors absolutism, you seem a little quick to pigeonhole me as an absolutist.  

What I have said, I have said.  

What I have not said—I have not said.  

Thanks.  

So i really didn't mean to label or pigeonhole you as anything.  i thought the second paragraph tempered the first.  That was my intent at least.  But, knowing that you are a reasonable person, if it came across that way, then it was an flaw in how i expressed myself - and given that, i definitely owe you an apology.

[Guest]

On 11/28/2018 at 8:54 PM, Lost Boy said:

Socialism  --  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange OF NON-PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Fixed it for you.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 7:34 AM, mirkwood said:

You can call the sky  pink all you want, that doesn't make it so.  

You can tell the entire world that the definition they use is wrong, but except for the .001% that agree with you, it's not going to change the definition the world uses.

So, as you say, you can deny the sky is blue all you want, but that doesn't make it pink.

You are CONFUSING Contemporary Communism with other definitions.  It is like the word GAY.  You are trying to say the First Presidency does NOT approve of Gay Traditional Marriage with the word Gay used in the 1940 context (meaning happy) and condemned them all by lumping it in with a more contemporary usage of Gay Marriage (meaning a joining of two Homosexual individuals in a legal recognition now called Gay marriage).

In essence, you are trying to say the First Presidency does NOT want a Traditional Marriage to be Gay  (meaning happy and joyful) because of what they've said.  It does not matter that the CONTEXT is something different.

Trying to deny water is wet does not mean that water suddenly is not wet.  Trying to insist that the word GAY ONLY refers to homosexuality or those who are homosexual today does NOT change the definition of the past or references that utilize it in a different context.

We have certain forms of economic and government systems.  United Order or Law of Consecration is NOT one of those defined systems.  The world has categorized what system the original Christians utilized in the Book of Acts.  If you do not agree with that, what system do YOU think the Law of Consecration falls under and what would you like to educate the rest of the Billions of people in the world on this?  It is absolutely NOT Capitalism, it is not a Republic, a Democracy, or even a Constitutional Monarchy.  It is not a Theocratic Republic, it is not even a Democratic Constitutional Republic with Capitalism as it's economic standard.

Do you even KNOW what the different systems ARE in relation to what we are talking about?

Edited December 2, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 3:29 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Of course we would—but the mess would be the result of half a century of progressives’ carefully undermining the family structures that made the old system work.

This is the really pernicious aspect of modern progressivism, IMHO—they blunder about making messes, and then try to co-opt *my* property and limit *my* rights in a never-ending effort to fix the broken stuff that I warned them all along not to touch in the first place.  

It is a terrible thing to die because one couldn’t pay a doctor.  It is an even worse thing to die because there just aren’t any doctors, because no one ever found it worthwhile to get medical training.  Progressives are very good at identifying what’s wrong with the status quo, but in my experience they don’t tend to put a lot of thought into the question of why things aren’t exponentially worse than they are.

I don't know if that is the case, but I DO think there is something terribly wrong with our system today.

Prior to the ACA passage (and even until certain points of it came into effect just a short time ago) I was on the Gold plan of our Health care insurance.  It meant that I paid my insurance out of my paycheck each month (it had been going up for years, but I think it was around $400) and then EVERYTHING was paid for.  Everything was covered in my insurance plan.  For someone who is older (and yes, they say use medicare...but my insurance I feel was FAR better and I had far more choice in my local area of doctors that accepted it and doctor's attitudes vs. that of medicare) that is worth it's weight in gold.  If you ever get hospitalized for a few weeks, GOOD insurance is simply something that you love to have.  When you see something like a 100K medical bill (and there are those that have more) that Gold plan was wonderful.

With the ACA it was reduced so that my payments were slightly lower but not enough today to really matter to me, BUT only 80% is covered.  There are some items which are only 50% covered.  That same medical emergency could have cost me upwards of 40-50K!  That a LOT of money...simply put. 

In that light, the ACA is NOT something that I favor in how it operates.  I WOULD think a single-payer healthcare system would be better for those who have high medical bills.  It works against those that are young or those who are exceptionally healthy as they pay FAR more than they need. 

I know the system works well in some countries (Germany, I hear it works well in some Nordic nations as well) and works poorly in others where there are LOOOOONG wait times and bad policies.

I think that there could be a better medical policy in place.  I find it mind boggling that if I get cancer these days I could go bankrupt (due to how the ACA changed my policies) simply because I can't afford the medical bills.  However, that was also a very likely thing for many who could not (or refused to pay for) the Gold/Platinum plans previously as well.  To me, there has to be a better way where ALL can get the healthcare that we spout is so wonderful in the US.

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You can tell the entire world that the definition they use is wrong, but except for the .001% that agree with you, it's not going to change the definition the world uses.

 

I've been telling them that I'm a Christian.  I guess I better change that since they define the word the way they want it to mean.

Nah, I'll stick with what God has taught me.  You are straight up wrong JJ.  You should go spend some time learning what God has told us about the topic through his Prophets and Apostles.

I've already offered you up examples.  You can choose to ignore, or learn.  The ball is in your court, but I can't make you play.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

[1] I don't know if that is the case, but I DO think there is something terribly wrong with our system today.

. . . 

[2]I think that there could be a better medical policy in place.  I find it mind boggling that if I get cancer these days I could go bankrupt (due to how the ACA changed my policies) simply because I can't afford the medical bills.  However, that was also a very likely thing for many who could not (or refused to pay for) the Gold/Platinum plans previously as well.  To me, there has to be a better way where ALL can get the healthcare that we spout is so wonderful in the US.

1.  Perhaps; but as it goes to my point, maybe we should start asking to what point the pre-PPACA mess was a result of prior government action.  

2.  If ten people put in a forty-hour workweek to keep me alive, why shouldn’t I have to pay them for four hundred hours of their time—and, if I don’t have the money for that, liquidate my non-exempt assets through bankruptcy in order to at least partially compensate the people who, you know, saved my freaking life?

[Tyme]

5 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I've been telling them that I'm a Christian.  I guess I better change that since they define the word the way they want it to mean.

Nah, I'll stick with what God has taught me.  You are straight up wrong JJ.  You should go spend some time learning what God has told us about the topic through his Prophets and Apostles.

I've already offered you up examples.  You can choose to ignore, or learn.  The ball is in your court, but I can't make you play.

Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that you're both partially right? Man, LSD people crack me up.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 8:45 AM, mirkwood said:

I've been telling them that I'm a Christian.  I guess I better change that since they define the word the way they want it to mean.

Nah, I'll stick with what God has taught me.  You are straight up wrong JJ.  You should go spend some time learning what God has told us about the topic through his Prophets and Apostles.

I've already offered you up examples.  You can choose to ignore, or learn.  The ball is in your court, but I can't make you play.

I think you are egging me on.  MOST of the world considers Mormons as Christian so that's a strawman to begin with.  You are referring to a very small number of Evangelicals and others who try to label Mormonism as Non-Christian.

On the otherhand, you cannot change the definitions of something.  WHAT form of government or economic system do you THINK it falls under.

United Order and Law of Consecration are NOT considered official forms of either of those.

And you'd just be a laughing stock if you try to claim it is Capitalism, a Republic or Democracy.

The Communal property idea (where property is not owned, but given over as property of the community or commune, or held in common between them and given as per individual as needed or the necessities are met by usage of common property) is Communism (though some would have stated it is more an early form of Socialism, which I can see that point of view).

That the community is ruled or governed by a Theocratic or Religious group that determines the needs and grants each as per their needs is the Religious portion.  Hence why it is KNOWN as Religious Communism. (and as it was practiced by the Early Christian Church from the time of the Apostles, and is the example set out for those seeking to follow this particular form, it is known as Christian Communism).

Another parallel example to try to help you understand what you are stating due to your misunderstanding.  A guy is driving 150 MPH down the Highway and swerving recklessly in and out of traffic between cars.  You manage to pull him over and start to cite him (among other thngs) for reckless driving.  He tells you...that's incorrect.  Legally, he was following the law.  The Law is called the El Ron law and it says that he HAS to drive like that. 

Are you going to cite him as following the El Ron law?  Is he correct?  Is that going to be recognized in the Court?

I believe, if you aren't actually trying to egg me on, is that you are confusing MARXISM or Contemporary Communism which is the opposite of Religious Communism as far as who regulates and controls it.  I've said this before.

As I said, you probably have a HARD time with this because you can't differentiate the terms between what you learned when you were younger, and what the terms actually mean.

If you DO not agree, then once again, POST what form of government (and United Order is NOT a form of recognized government, NEITHER is Law of Consecration) or economic system you think it falls under. 

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 11:39 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Perhaps; but as it goes to my point, maybe we should start asking to what point the pre-PPACA mess was a result of prior government action.  

2.  If ten people put in a forty-hour workweek to keep me alive, why shouldn’t I have to pay them for four hundred hours of their time—and, if I don’t have the money for that, liquidate my non-exempt assets through bankruptcy in order to at least partially compensate the people who, you know, saved my freaking life?

1.  That's a GOOD thing to ask.

2.  Well, I think the idea behind insurance is the same behind auto insurance or any other form of insurance.  For example, at $400 a month that I was paying for the Gold/Platinum plan was actually just a portion of the payment.  My Employer paid another $1100-$1200.  Overall, that would be around $1500 a month we'll say.  Over the course of 10 years that means a total of $180K was paid out.  Even if we take out my 100K in medical expenses, that leaves 80K overage.  That pays for others who may have had a disaster.  What I get instead is peace of mind in case something drastic ever does happen.  Plus, because as an employment benefit my employer paid that other portion, it is still paid as part of my compensation for work, or as a perk.

The idea than is even if I do not need it, I get peace of mind.  If someone else has a disastrous incident, than the money already in the system pays for their injury, ailment, or illness. 

The other side is contracts.  The insurance company tries to negotiate with the medical provider on terms and costs.  The more money they may spend with that provider, the bigger their bargaining chip.

With universal healthcare, the idea is that there is only ONE major insurer and if you don't negotiate or do business with them, you get no business at all.  That means you get NO money.  Some money is better than none.  Hence, it gives the advantage to the universal healthcare.

NOW, as mentioned, the problem is if the amount offered is too low, then no one wants to be a healthcare provider and suddenly you do not have enough healthcare providers for the population. 

You need to balance the two.  Germany has done a pretty good job (and you can make 6 figures as a doctor I believe, in Euros [which is greater than dollars] which is not a BAD living.  In addition, that is better for some family practice and other General practitioners than what they may even do in the US.  On the otherhand, though you can still make a GREAT salary as a specialist, you may not make as much in Germany as the US, but there are other perks as well which keeps enough of them in Germany).

This is NOT necessarily the best or only answer though. 

I think that something should be done to reduce the costs in the US.  The US has the best healthcare in the World (my opinion) but it's healthgrades have been falling in recent years.  I think a LOT of that has to do with people who COULD be treated but are not being treated because they do not have the money to afford it, especially when it falls to quality of life health issues rather than necessary health issues.

[Guest]

On 12/2/2018 at 3:27 PM, Tyme said:

Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that you're both partially right? Man, LSD people crack me up.

Are we having a Spock moment?  Have you done a little too much LDS?

[Guest]

On 11/29/2018 at 4:14 PM, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Carborendum

Could be.  Though my guess is that if we were to transplant the 60s welfare system 58 years into the future (ie today), that we'd have one whale of a mess on our hands.  i could be wrong though.  

Would be interesting to hear some perspectives of @JohnsonJones or others who remember that time.  

i guess i see liberal and conservative ideologies as two parts of the same solution.  And that the longer that both parties try to destroy the other, the faster we'll continue to decline.  Not saying that you do that - not at all.  It just seems like both parties are bent on mutual annihilation.  

I wasn't talking about welfare.  I was talking about healthcare.  You were making a fairly general statement.  But the topic for the past few posts before yours was all about healthcare.

I'm not sure how the general welfare system has changed between then and now.  I haven't looked much into it.  But as I recall, the system back then wasn't abused nearly as much as it is now.  The percentage of people on it seemed less.  I'd have to look up the actual statistics.  But that's my perception of having lived back then.

[mirkwood]

You clearly are having a HARD time understanding this: Communalism is not Communism. 

Or perhaps you just disagree with the prophets and apostles?

 

The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life. ... The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.

~J. Reuben Clark Jr.

 

Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the Gospel plan ... The United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies.

~J. Reuben Clark Jr.

 

Communalism is community owned properties, associated through a federation of communities.

Communism abolishes private property ownership.

The United Order/LOC functions under private property ownership.

I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you than the above statements from Elder Clark.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Communism is to the United Order, as sex trafficking is to plural marriage.  

Edited December 4, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

I wrote up a great detail regarding misunderstanding terms and other things, but now I am just going to erase it.

Why?

There's no point. 

You've been telling me that you are calling me on the telemarketer with your cellular teleprompt for several posts now, never realizing that the word is actually telephone. However you are so fixated that the word tele must mean one and ONLY one thing to you, that you cannot see what the actual discussion is.

I don't think you are going to ever get unfixated on the word Communism as per what you feel it MUST mean, regardless of various meanings...thus this discussion, no matter HOW much logic or sense I use to try to explain it, will never go anywhere.

Have at it as you want.  We just won't see eye to eye on this (though I find it funny that you try to use Clark's own words to refute other words Clark stated himself in other settings.  He showed a distinct understanding between the common usage of Communism in his day, and what is known as Christian Communism. He also understood the implicit domain of the commonly understood term in his day and used it in the context of the majority of a common term rather than the more individualistic references that he did in other discussions on the matter regarding early Christianity. Thus, from those who know his own statements pertaining to it, one could actually see your statements as being somewhat humorous...though I doubt that was your intent).

Anyways, this conversation is going no where and I think if I let my first posting in this spot stand it would just perpetuate us continuing to go in circles.

In that, let me post a quote that you can appreciate...as a peace offering so that you are mollified to know that I do know somewhat of what was spoken and the context of it, even if we disagree on the specific terms of a thing.  Historians would see it as the context of who and what it was referring to and KNOWING what it was referring to rather than laying it as a blanket term as you have, but regardless it can be seen as a great irony from the perspective you have laid out, or justifying the difference of definitions that I have pointed out.  Either way, it can be seen as a common interest point that you probably will read your way, and I read as mine.

Quote

We must ever keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communist strategy. Communism is fundamentally socialism. We will never win our fight against communism by making concessions to socialism.

Ezra Taft Benson

Ah, and one more that actually conceptualizes our disagreement to the whole, for as a Historian or even as a Political Science major would understand, this epitomizes WHY Religious Communism is actually the exact opposite of Marxism or Contemporary Communism, while you would understand it in a completely different way, but at the same time with the same meaning.

Quote

Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan.

Ezra Taft Benson

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

You've been telling me that you are calling me on the telemarketer with your cellular teleprompt for several posts now, never realizing that the word is actually telephone. However you are so fixated that the word tele must mean one and ONLY one thing to you, that you cannot see what the actual discussion is.

This doesn't make sense.

Communism has a specific meaning.  You can't just use it arbitrarily and expect people to understand you.  This has nothing to do with fixation.  In the same way that EAT and CONSUME have different meanings even if it has the same effect of moving food from mouth to stomach.