Why do Third Hour forums have so many openly right-wing biased news articles?

[mirkwood]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Finally using your English degree dude. 

Willie sucks.

[person0]

Would you prefer that we post biased leftist articles and then fact-check them and pinpoint all the falsehoods?  Seems like that would take a lot more effort.

[Fether]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The left wants to take from you so that you cannot give to the poor.  They will do it and try to take all the credit for it so that government can be bigger to take away all our rights as well as our money.

You make a great point here. Charity, and service are very important, but the true reward and purpose of these things is to become more Christlike. If the government  is taking the money from you and forcefully giving it to the poor, the whole concept of charity is lost.

[prisonchaplain]

If I am not mistaken, the left perceives private charity and service, not as love, but as condescension. You are not a better person giving to one less fortunate. You are a privileged citizen paying your just dues so that a disadvantaged fellow citizen can be given his/her reparations for past and current injustices.  

Edited April 29, 2020 by prisonchaplain

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Would you prefer that we post biased leftist articles and then fact-check them and pinpoint all the falsehoods?  Seems like that would take a lot more effort.

Apparently our right wing extremism drove the pomegranate off.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Apparently our right wing extremism drove the pomegranate off.

Pomegranate leaves.

[prisonchaplain]

True confession...I'm gonna miss the pomegranate. I kinda like the stuff . . .

 

[Guest MormonGator]

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah. I addressed this.

Here are several problems with this statement.

1. If we take your position (and I don't) then our ability to support the poor completely needs ENOUGH people helping. Just because there are poor, doesn't mean no one is helping.  That's just plain ignoring the facts.  The "poor" are going to be around 10% of a thriving, free society (as Jesus said, "the poor ye shall always have among you").  To support them completely in a financial manner would require 90% of the people to give about 10% to support the poor.  So, even if 60% of the people were giving 10% to help the poor, then there would still be some that are not taken care of.  It's not that we DON'T.  It's that the requirement to solve the problem using this mindset is virtually impossible.

2. Your underlying philosophy is that unless we give stuff to them, then we're not helping them.  No.  Jesus' method is not to take the man out of the slums.  He takes the slums out of the man.  Then the man takes himself out of the slums.  In my work with the poor, I've seen this play out 1000 times.  Give them money for emergency items only.  Anything else is simply enabling them.  And it is a careful balancing act.  So, believe it or not, we often err on the side of compassion.

3. We don't want them to starve.  So, regardless of your claim that we allow people to starve, we do give food and money and support to the poor who really have nothing.  But that's just never enough for you to notice.  Partially because we don't do it to be seen of men.  And your condemnation of things you know little about is quite arrogant and judgmental.

Yes, we do.  I don't know who you're talking about or who you hang around with.  But all of my extended family takes care of each other.  And all the friends that I have also take care of their families.  In fact, I know of only one person in all that network of individuals who is in a retirement home.  And that woman decided to go there on her own even when she was invited to live with family.  And even in that assisted living home, she still has family come over there every day to take care of things that the attendants don't take care of.

And guess what?  She's the most liberal person I've ever personally known.  And she chose that path because she's also one of the richest people I've ever known.  And she's never given a dime to the poor.  Why?  Because she figures that government will take care of it.

It is when government "takes care of it" that we stop caring about each other.  She's living proof of it.

I'm going to ask you to clarify.  Either they didn't do it, or they did it better. 

I'm going to take this in stride and interpret it to mean that there are always people who do something, but never enough to end poverty entirely.  That's true ("the poor ye shall always have among you").  And, yes, they did it better in past generations.  But the cause is where we disagree.

Again, I wonder who you're hanging out with.  Yes, I've heard of people doing this.  But regardless of having an R or a D on their voter card, these are not conservatives. I've only known two examples personally.  One was a very liberal home. The daughter was trying to find someone to live with as soon as she turned 17.  Yeah, she ended up bedding down with a sugar daddy.  Do you really believe this was a person raised with conservative values?

The other did it after the man-child made it pretty clear that he had no intention of ever getting a job.  This was after much forbearance, accommodation, and pleading from the parents.

On the flip side, I've seen what happens when you enable adult children living with you.  That, too, is a cause of poverty.  I've seen it first hand with the people I work with quite often; and it ain't pretty.  If those truly were the only options, I'd pick kicking them out.

I agree. The liberals need to help out and get government out of it. Help us take the slum out of the man, so he can take himself out of the slum.

We've had this discussion before. And you're using terminology that doesn't line up with today's vernacular.  There is a HUGE difference between government MANDATED social programs vs. individuals coming together as a group to help on another.   HUGE.  There have been numerous statements by general authorities calling such government programs "Satan's substitutes" for divine principles.  It was compared to "love" vs. "lust".

If after all this time, you don't see the difference, then you seem to be oblivious to the principle of agency.

Yes, I agree that the Democrats of the past weren't so bad.  I even liked Kennedy for a number of reasons.  He made some major mistakes like most presidents.  But for the most part, I liked him.

Today's Democrat platform doesn't have anything that I would vote for.  They "claim" to do an awful lot that would seem to be appealing.  But their actual practice is far from solving any purported problems that they seem to rail against.

My impression on this is that 

1. The Dems who are still supporting old fashioned moral values are being pushed out of the party.
2. Republicans who allow immoral behavior are not "supporting" it.  They are supporting freedom of choice.  While Dems require that you "celebrate" it and condemn Christian morality.
3. Corrupt politicians are on both sides of the isle and both sexes.  And if you don't believe me, just google the word "throuple."

You're conflating several things here.  Separate them and you get a bit closer to truth.

Can you be a "good latter-day saint" and not care much for the Constitution?  Certainly.  No one has argued otherwise. But you're saying we're wrong for thinking something we've never thought.  I'll make the TRUE point a little further down the page.

We believe the Constitution is divinely inspired.  The D&C says so.  It was never intended to be a basis for religious worship.  It was God's ordained method of running earthly governments in the latter days.  It was written in a manner that its principles would only work with a moral and religious people.  It depended on churches to be free to do their jobs without government interference, so that the principles of the Constitution would be sufficient to run an earthly government.

Most conservatives tend to believe similar things, although not because of direct scriptural guidance.  However, they look to statements about the Bible dividing up three branches of government, etc.  No.  Christians in general tend to believe in the principle that God is the author of our freedom to choose.  Christians tend to believe that the Constitution was written to help protect those freedoms.  As we stray from the Constitution, we stray from those protections. And as we stray from those protections, religion in general will be threatened.

I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise.  I don't know of ANY politician in recent memory that has advocated for anything else.

I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise.  I don't know of ANY politician in recent memory that has advocated for anything else.

I believe the problem we have is that when you say "not just the rich" that evokes again the idea that if government doesn't take care of it, then no one will.  FALSE.  It's virtually free to all right now.  MANY simply don't avail themselves of all the aid that is out there.  And when they do, they simply can't make the cut or they just don't have the drive to continue.

Worse, is that they choose fields of study that don't improve the human being at all.  Improving the human being is what education used to be about.  But today's universities simply don't.  You teach at a university or college, don't you?  Think about 100 students being taught by one of those "liberal professors" that you mentioned in another thread.  How many of them are becoming better human beings or coming closer to God because of that instruction?  Unless you're at BYU or a similar themed Christian university, I think you'd have a hard time finding the majority of those 100 students turning to God.

I've already gone into that in depth.  Take the slum out of the man, he takes himself out of the slum.  Take the man out of the slum, he'll just go right back to it.

I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise. The thing you don't see is that bills that are titled with "feel good labels" that sound all 'green' aren't really doing anything to change the environment for the better.

There are, however, ways that government can actually apply meaningful laws to help protect the environment.  And we have many such things on the books.  And every conservative I know of support them.  If you want to go in depth on that, start a new thread and ask "How do conservatives help the environment."

I'm glad we agree on at least one thing without reservation.

Yes, I believe the majority of Republicans have abandoned the idea of being fiscally conservative.  Only a few still do.  On the other hand, NONE of the Democrats do so

I'll defer to @Vort's statement on that.  Diet Coke/Heroin.

1. There are many things you address here, but one item you stated several times was to take the slum out of the man, rather than the man out of the slum.

I don't recall the Lord EVER teaching this...ever...though if you can find it among the words the Lord stated in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon...it could be an interesting read.

We DO know that King Benjamin (in Mosiah) said to give to the poor, and if you could not, say you would in your heart.  We read that the Law of Consecration was enforced under penalty of DEATH by Peter and the other apostles using the Lord's power (and that's a little more forceful than jail in today's socialistic system even).  We know that the Book of Mormon (and also that little part about Peter and the death of a few of those who lied about giving all their stuff to the church) that everyone had things in common, there were no rich or poor among them.

That seems pretty much taking men out of the slums and trying to do away with it.  We even have examples of them trying to institute it in Joseph Smiths time, and a more successful form being instituted in some communities during Brigham Young's time. 

I have a feeling, the LORD, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Peter would all be ridiculed and thrown out if they tried to institute their ideas of communal utopian societies (also known as socialism today) among many of the Saints today. 

Even the Democrats are not pushing for reforms as stringent as theirs.

 

2.  The other item that I found interesting about your comment was I went down the Democrat line of their stances.  You basically said that the conservatives you know agreed with many of the Democrats stances...but those stances are NOT reflected in the Republican stances.  Those stances may be something some Republicans agree with in the idea, but not with what they do.  Most are against quotas for hiring women and minorities while also ignoring the idea of inequal pay and opportunity.  They turn a blind eye to many of the things the Democrats focus on...but with good reason.  Most of those may be mentioned, but they are not the FOCUSES of the current republican party.

Theirs as of 2016 (when Trump ran) seemed to be (as found in their official platform)

a.  Rebuild the economy and create jobs.  Fair and SIMPLE taxes and winning trade policies.  Focusing on economic growth by deregulating much of the government involvement.  Increase the private sector.  One part of this was also to reduce the Debt (ironic, they have done the exact opposite).

b.  Make the Government a Constitutional Government in the way the REPUBLICAN party interprets the Constitution (not necessarily HOW it IS interpreted, but specifically how THEY see it through their modern lenses).  Part of this is defending Marriage from the Judiciary (which, thus far, I have not seen them do).  Support strong families (once again, I think they forgot this one).

c.  Investment in Energy via all forms (thus petroleum as well as others such as solar).  Do away with environmentalist and "radical" thoughts and instead replace the preserve the environment with the idea that the environment is already improving itself...stop the distortion of the EPA's interpretation of the regulations.

d.  Preserve and balance the Budget (I think they abandoned this one).  Change the Taxes to something simpler (and if what we got is their interpretation of simpler, I think even I could come up with a simpler code than they did) and get rid of corruption in the IRS.  Audit the Pentagon.  Advance Term limits (yeah...another one I think they were blowing smoke about). 

E.  Cut regulation.  Cut regulation.  Cut regulation.  (from areas of education, to taxes, to businesses.  I think they've done some of this under Trump).  Repeal the ACA (they forgot this one).  Get the government out of student loans and other financial items. 

F.  investment in military (though they also want to audit the Pentagon...I actually see a conflict of interest there) and support their veterans.

These are very different goals overall than that of the Democratic party.

As I said, I see both parties have things that are good, but overall, I see BOTH PARTIES as EVIL.

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If I am not mistaken, the left perceives private charity and service, not as love, but as condescension. You are not a better person giving to one less fortunate. You are a privileged citizen paying your just dues so that a disadvantaged fellow citizen can be given his/her reparations for past and current injustices.  

I don't think that is so.  It was more of how to tackle a problem that existed and if we can find a better solution.  Thus far, we haven't found better solutions. 

I have visited nations where the conservative ideals are held in how they feed the poor.  They have an awful lot of people starving in those nations, some of which are muslim, some which claim to be Christian.

The problems then is, if not enough people are helping the poor or giving them a place to live, how do we solve this problem.  Thus far, there have been no perfect solutions given by men (the lord has one, but even then they enforced it via an apparent death penalty if the situation with Peter is any indication).  Even then, we still have homeless and the poor in the US and other nations. 

I think in many ways the Poor situation is better in the West (the US, and more especially in some parts of Europe) where a poor individual may live as a king compared to the REAL areas where socialistic ideas such as social security do not exist.  There, the poverty seen can be extreme.  It can be shocking to those who have not seen it before.  These are not pleasant memories.

People put forth getting rid of Welfare or Social Security (and eventually, they both will collapse under their own weight with the way our budgets are going), but the question is then, how to replace it.  The churches can ALREADY provide charity, and if they provided enough, there actually would be no reason to have government housing (churches provide it instead) or food (churches provide it instead).  The churches could show solve these problems...but thus far in the US, this has not happened. 

WHY is this?

Many suppose that Democrats are not religious.  This is false.  There are MANY Christians in the Democrat party.  I think a bulk of the African American Christians are actually liberal leaning or Democrats for example.  They already know that they cannot deal with this item with their churches alone.  If they donated all they had, it still would not be enough.  Thus, they realize the idea, but they try to have a way to do charity for those in need the best they can, even if it is done by the governments.   They do not feel that just suddenly stopping welfare will actually solve the problem.  If you take away the help without anything to replace it with...all you've done is make the problem worse, more people will be hungry and homeless.  Without something there that logically and reasonably (and can be shown...not just an idea tossed around) that will be a better solution than what we already have, they are loathe to stop the welfare and social security programs.

They have a focus on charity, it may not be the same focus as others, but they are trying to fulfill the idea of helping the poor as the Lord would the best way they can see how.  They KNOW they alone cannot do it, and their churches are not able to do it (as they see it), however, there are MANY Christians that are democrats that want these programs because they are Christians...not because they see private charity and service as condescension. 

Now, there are those who are NOT Christians and democrats, but you can say the same about Republicans have those who are also not Christians.

There are plenty of Democrats that are also Christians, but choose to focus on the charity they see welfare and social security provide. 

[prisonchaplain]

@JohnsonJones is largely right. There are many sincere folks left, right, middle, etc. They welcome help wherever it may come from. Still, they prefer government-run programs, perceiving them as just and dispassionate. At the same time, some dogmatic liberals oppose private charity as inherently condescending and too often run by groups who's true agenda is religious proselytizing. This explains, at least partially, why liberals tend to give far less to charity, but are quick to lobby for more taxation and government-run social programs.

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Where do you find these?  It's perfect.

Sometimes comedy is simply truth distilled.

[Guest MormonGator]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where do you find these?  It's perfect.

Sometimes comedy is simply truth distilled.

Babylon Bee.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Babylon Bee.

Oh, duh...  I'm still waking up.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Oh, duh...  I'm still waking up.

No worries bud. 

You should see the memes I don't post. Good stuff on the cutting room floor!