Sign in to follow this  
NeedleinA

Liberals in the Church

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Yup, totally agree. In fact, you can easily make the libertarian case against abortion. Easily. Both Austin Peterson and Ron Paul are pro-life. 

Here's a great summary of the pro-life libertarian argument. 

https://reason.com/2015/08/14/sorry-rand-paul-haters-pro-life-libertar/

That's pretty much where I stand.  My Pro-Life stance isn't based in religion, but in individual liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

And then you have me, whose political positioning is best described as Socialist Libertarian. 

But I don't have a political party that represents my political beliefs. :(

I've got you covered brother. I found the Libertarian Socialist caucus of the Libertarian Party. I didn't even know these people existed. I don't have any idea how big the organization is, but their Facebook page has over 12000 likes https://dsa-lsc.org/. This links to their homepage.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I view that most Libertarians are for less government, or a weaker central government.  They still view government as essential, but it should restrict itself to essential things rather than spread out and be as involved. 

Correct. I'm no anarchist. In fact, I think anarchy is just as dangerous as socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 9:00 AM, laronius said:

Yeah, the term conservative as used by the average person here in the US is definitely different than the classical sense of the word. Here we associate it with a close adherence to the Constitution while perhaps internationally the freedom aspect really isn't relevant. 

Hence my post on page 1 clarifies the descriptor "Liberal" as used by Pres. Harold B. Lee.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Nothing to do with religion or faith.  And there are flaws with linking this to any conservative legislation or agenda.

I agree that it has nothing to do with religion or faith, but (most) conservatives do indeed support loosening pollution restrictions.  I think you know this.  

Quote

Directly protecting pedophiles from punishment.  California SB-145 (2019).

I looked at the bill and agree with you.

Quote

Removing "under God" from the pledge.

From a constitutional standpoint, why should it be there?   It wasn't added until 1948.

Quote
  • 9th circuit completely nullified the conviction of a muliple murderer because at the end of the trial, after receiving the death sentence from the jury, the judge declared "May God have mercy on your soul."

That's horrible.  When did this happen?

Quote

Freedom From Religion Foundation

I don't know much about them, but there should be a seperation of chuch and state.

Quote

War on Christmas.

It doesn't exist.  No one is punished for saying Merry Christmas. If anything the real war on Christmas is the over-commercialization of it.

Quote

Recent destruction of Catholic churches across the country.

That is horrible.

Quote

Handmaid's Tale - cultural phenomenon"

I had to look it up, but what does this have to do with liberals vs conservatives?

Quote

I can't operate my business without having to purchase abortion & contraceptive insurance coverage for my employees -- until this recent court decision.  But the liberals were still pushing for it -- and will continue to push for it.

Abortion I can see, but contrceptives are none of the employers business.   

If they employer was a shaker and was against reproduction for religious reasons, could he or she fire an employee who got pregnant?

What if the employer was against blood transfusions or immunizations because of religious reasons?  Should he or she be able to deny insurance on those grounds or fire an employee for getting one? 

 

 

Quote

 

Quote
  •  
  • Quote

     

    • People are assaulted and murdered for daring to utter the phrase: "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter."
    • People are being fired for wearing a MAGA hat.
    • Fights have broken out because people are wearing a MAGA hat.
    • Lives were ruined because they were wearing a MAGA hat

     

    That should never happen.  People are assaulted for their race and religion too.   None of it should happen.  Ever.

Quote

You'll have to explain this one.  I don't know of any conservatives who are saying,"I never want to see another tree for as long as I live!"  Conservation is actually a conservative principle.  That doesn't mean we never do anything to  change our environment.  It simply means we have to control what we do in a measured manner.

Here is a response I had for someone who said that anything that protects the environment, wildlife refuges, wilderness, etc. is agaist freedom:

You say that "tree huggers" care nothing about liberties.   These lands belong to We the People.   They don't only belong to a miner, logger, rancher, or whomever, even though they also belong to those people as well.   If the majority of Americans enjoy having some areas set aside for wildlife refuges, are you saying they have no rights?   

Having rights doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want wherever you want.   Families should also have rights to have places to go and to get out and enjoy nature.

I am not against mining (I am a former mining engineer), logging (my house is built of wood), ranching (I descended from a long line of ranchers), nor am I against roads (I am currently a highway engineer [private company]), but things like national parks and wildlife refuges are also important.

People whom enjoy wildlife and wild areas should also have a right to enjoy views God's creations (or natures creations if you happen to be atheist-that's your choice).   

As a freedom loving American, I hope that I always have places where I can go out and experience and enjoy nature.   Those freedoms are also very important.

Quote

We could say the same to you.

If I was the one saying that all conservatives are bad or that they should leave the country (as the person has said about liberals many times), then yes you could.  In fact, you should.

That comment is directed towards the person I am responding to, not all conservatives.

Do I think you should leave the country because you are a conservative?  No, I do not.  I disagree with, but still respect your (referring specifically to you) beliefs.  
 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2020 at 12:01 PM, Scott said:

I agree that it has nothing to do with religion or faith, but (most) conservatives do indeed support loosening pollution restrictions.  I think you know this.  

Conservatives working to loosen anti-pollution regulations are like people who don't want government mandated facemasks... they don't believe the pollution reduction rendered by the regulation is significant enough or even existent to warrant the restriction.

And environmentalists use the same argument as mask-karens... if you don't approve of the regulation you must not care about the environment!  It's so stupid it's not even worth a first-grade exercise in dialectics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding masks

Well, related to Utah (and the rest of the US), I understand Walmart is going to institute a corporate wide mandate for all customers to wear masks when shopping.

The only problem I have with that, is whether they will supply masks for people to wear.  What happens if someone who has no masks available, and cannot obtain one, tries to go shopping?  I hear that in Utah some stores are making them freely available?

AS long as they are available, as the store is private property (even if a public company), they can make whatever rules they want on their property.  I think it is also a good idea.  I'm just wanting to go to walmart and stock up on free masks (I have some made by my lovely wife, and they are excellent masks, but I only have two or three of them and different looks are good from time to time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Regarding masks

Well, related to Utah (and the rest of the US), I understand Walmart is going to institute a corporate wide mandate for all customers to wear masks when shopping.

The only problem I have with that, is whether they will supply masks for people to wear.  What happens if someone who has no masks available, and cannot obtain one, tries to go shopping?  I hear that in Utah some stores are making them freely available?

AS long as they are available, as the store is private property (even if a public company), they can make whatever rules they want on their property.  I think it is also a good idea.  I'm just wanting to go to walmart and stock up on free masks (I have some made by my lovely wife, and they are excellent masks, but I only have two or three of them and different looks are good from time to time).

In my town, stores are required to provide customers with disposable masks.  That includes Walmart.  Sometimes the door-checker doesn't know that they have to provide masks to those who doesn't have one to comply with the county mandate.  So you might have to go to a manager to get one.

I am 90% sure all counties that have a mandatory mask mandate require all businesses to provide the disposable masks to their customers.

Now, about Walmart mandating masks.  I'm 100% fine with that.  It's a private business and they can require anything they want.  People who don't want to comply have many other shopping choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Conservatives working to loosen anti-pollution regulations are like people who don't want government mandated facemasks... they don't believe the pollution reduction rendered by the regulation is significant enough or even existent to warrant the restriction.

Yes, I have heard that arguement, however I fail to see why tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths, plus millions of health problems wouldn't be considered "significant enough" to warrant restrictions.

To me doesn't make sense that pollution restrictions are considered an infringment on freedom, while forcing your pollution on someone else isn't an infringment on their freedom.

Although we agree on many things, we will never agree on this particular topic.   

It's more than just pollution too.  For some reason conservatives in this region at least tend to be anti-protected nature areas.  They seem to think that people who want to go see nature shouldn't have the right, while anyone who wants to destroy the land does, and I mean that in the most literal sense.  In Florida it isn't as big of a debate/topic as it is out West.   

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, I have heard that arguement, however I fail to see why tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths, plus millions of health problems wouldn't be considered "significant enough" to warrant restrictions.  


To me doesn't make sense that pollution restrictions are considered an infringment on freedom, while forcing your pollution on someone else isn't an infringment on their freedom. 

You're talking about masks?  Show incontrovertible evidence that ANY mask (and not the N95 or the Respirators) reduce deaths and health problems by such a degree as to overcome the risks provided by mask wearing - health concerns of prolonged non-regulated-mask wearing plus the concerns that made mask wearing in public banned in Florida from 1951 to 1981... plus the freedom of expression infringement that caused the mask ban to lose its teeth in 1981 which is also applicable to its twin sister of mandated mask wearing... etc. etc.

Smoking has incontrovertible proof of its health impacts not just on one's self but also on others.  Even THAT was not banned in all public places in the entire nation as it is considered an infringement of freedom.  Only 26 States banned it.  Yet... you don't hear too much about smoking karens.

 

24 minutes ago, Scott said:

Although we agree on many things, we will never agree on this particular topic.   

It's more than just pollution too.  For some reason conservatives in this region at least tend to be anti-protected nature areas.  They seem to think that people who want to go see nature shouldn't have the right, while anyone who wants to destroy the land does, and I mean that in the most literal sense.  I guess in Florida it isn't as big of a debate/topic as it is out West.   

Conservatives, not so much.  Libertarians, very much so.  They all get lumped on the same bucket usually.  The concept is not about "protection".  The concept is about Private Property.  In the East, there is not much State-owned property like there is out West.  American tradition (conservatism is rooted on tradition) is built on Private Ownership.  The environmentalist debate is that only the State can protect the environment whereas private owners cannot.  Libertarians, of course, take the very opposite position - the State cannot be trusted to protect anything but its own interests.  It even sucks at protecting enumerated freedoms how much more for State-owned property.

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You're talking about masks? 

No; that's a different topic. 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The concept is about Private Property.  In the East, there is not much State-owned property like there is out West. 

I definitely support having public lands.

There needs to be a place where anyone can go to visit nature and do healthy activities.

Anyway, there was more to that out west, but I have to go to bed now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

No; that's a different topic. 

I definitely support having public lands.

There needs to be a place where anyone can go to visit nature and do healthy activities.

Anyway, there was more to that out west, but I have to go to bed now.

I'm impartial to public lands even though I don't believe that the same land made private would prevent people from visiting nature and doing healthy activities.  What it does do is make environmentalists put their money where their mouth is and take on the responsibility of taking care of the land rather than leaving the work to elected officials who puts his hat out to the highest paying lobbyist every few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scott said:

Yes, I have heard that arguement, however I fail to see why tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of deaths, plus millions of health problems wouldn't be considered "significant enough" to warrant restrictions.   

Those aren't the numbers or conditions I'm concerned with.

My problem with most environmental regulations are that the reality of how they are legislated, regulated, and enforced doesn't provide the purported benefit.  Catalytic converter is a prime example.  Mandated seat belts was another.

Now, give me a clean bill with REAL measures that would REALLY required reduction of emissions.  Then allow the industries involved to come up with their own methods of meeting those requirements, then I'd be all for that bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Those aren't the numbers or conditions I'm concerned with.

My problem with most environmental regulations are that the reality of how they are legislated, regulated, and enforced doesn't provide the purported benefit.  Catalytic converter is a prime example.  Mandated seat belts was another.

Now, give me a clean bill with REAL measures that would REALLY required reduction of emissions.  Then allow the industries involved to come up with their own methods of meeting those requirements, then I'd be all for that bill.

Somewhat connected, but not the same topic.

You are an engineer, maybe you can explain this to me.

With the clean energy movement there has been a move to go to electric cars.  When I look at it, it does not seem to be all that much cleaner to me, it just moves where the pollution occurs at.

The chemicals and process to make the actual batteries are rather extreme and create a great amount of pollution in and of themselves.  Then, once the batteries are finished (they have a limited lifetime and then the don't really charge) they are toxic, far more than most materials used in automobiles. 

Add to that, even after the above, you still need to charge them with electricity.  That is not fuel you are burning in the car itself, but it DOES come from somewhere.  Unless that energy is solar or wind (some may say nuclear, but nuclear has it's own waste problem with nuclear waste which is something that does not just go away, and can infect groundwater as Germany found out, and is rather dangerous in and of itself to the environment...not to mention when a nuclear plant has an accident), it is being generated by some form that also creates pollution.  I'm not sure of how much, but if it takes 8 hours to charge a vehicle (I think they've cut it down considerably with some these days, but many of those depend on a massive charger which expends a LOT more energy than the standard hookup), that's a LOT of electricity (and thus pollution) which is also generated.

To me, it would appear if you take all of the above, it probably equals around the same amount of pollution a gasoline vehicle would create.  It's just not created purely at the combustion engine of a vehicle's local level.  Thus, there really is not any true benefit (unless electric cars get dirt cheap, in which case it may be cheaper than fuel...but with how much electric cars cost in comparison to what they can haul, they still don't seem as efficient in regards to load carrying and price to comparative combustion vehicles).  It just moves where the pollution occurs rather than actually reducing it.  Am I completely off base on this, is this a fallacy, or am I somewhere near what is occurring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Somewhat connected, but not the same topic.

You are an engineer, maybe you can explain this to me.

With the clean energy movement there has been a move to go to electric cars.  When I look at it, it does not seem to be all that much cleaner to me, it just moves where the pollution occurs at.

To a large extent, you are correct. 

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The chemicals and process to make the actual batteries are rather extreme and create a great amount of pollution in and of themselves.  Then, once the batteries are finished (they have a limited lifetime and then the don't really charge) they are toxic, far more than most materials used in automobiles. 

This has been true in the past, and even to a large extent in the present.  But battery technologies today are getting much more environmentally friendly and longer lasting.  With greater efficiency and longevity comes greater power-to-pollution ratios.  And this is due to the free market motivating better solutions, not government mandates.

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Add to that, even after the above, you still need to charge them with electricity.  That is not fuel you are burning in the car itself, but it DOES come from somewhere.  Unless that energy is solar or wind (some may say nuclear, but nuclear has it's own waste problem with nuclear waste which is something that does not just go away, and can infect groundwater as Germany found out, and is rather dangerous in and of itself to the environment...not to mention when a nuclear plant has an accident), it is being generated by some form that also creates pollution.  I'm not sure of how much, but if it takes 8 hours to charge a vehicle (I think they've cut it down considerably with some these days, but many of those depend on a massive charger which expends a LOT more energy than the standard hookup), that's a LOT of electricity (and thus pollution) which is also generated.

Two things:

  • Large power plants are much more efficient (fuel-to-energy produced ratio) than small internal combustion engines.  AND they are more efficient at screening out pollutants in the exhaust system (energy-to-pollution ratio).  Some effluent from power plants are clean enough that you can breath them without noticing anything amiss.  (Still unhealthy, but just not as detectable by the human nose).
  • The greatest efficiency (considering energy-to-pollution ratio) is with Nuclear and Thermal Solar.  Photovoltaics are now showing to arrive at that level of efficiency due to the greater longevity that has been discovered for solar panels. 

So far, the primary reason we're not going with Nuclear is that government is blocking it.  It has become too expensive to meet all government mandates.  But if we cared about the energy-to-pollution ratio, then nearly every major city in the country would be on nuclear.  It is the cleanest (and cheapest, if not for government) there is.  But the average person is so scared of radiation because they don't understand all the numbers behind it.  So, it is suppressing the natural free-market forces to go that route.

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

To me, it would appear if you take all of the above, it probably equals around the same amount of pollution a gasoline vehicle would create.  It's just not created purely at the combustion engine of a vehicle's local level.  Thus, there really is not any true benefit (unless electric cars get dirt cheap, in which case it may be cheaper than fuel...but with how much electric cars cost in comparison to what they can haul, they still don't seem as efficient in regards to load carrying and price to comparative combustion vehicles).  It just moves where the pollution occurs rather than actually reducing it.  Am I completely off base on this, is this a fallacy, or am I somewhere near what is occurring?

I hope I answered that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To a large extent, you are correct. 

This has been true in the past, and even to a large extent in the present.  But battery technologies today are getting much more environmentally friendly and longer lasting.  With greater efficiency and longevity comes greater power-to-pollution ratios.  And this is due to the free market motivating better solutions, not government mandates.

Two things:

  • Large power plants are much more efficient (fuel-to-energy produced ratio) than small internal combustion engines.  AND they are more efficient at screening out pollutants in the exhaust system (energy-to-pollution ratio).  Some effluent from power plants are clean enough that you can breath them without noticing anything amiss.  (Still unhealthy, but just not as detectable by the human nose).
  • The greatest efficiency (considering energy-to-pollution ratio) is with Nuclear and Thermal Solar.  Photovoltaics are now showing to arrive at that level of efficiency due to the greater longevity that has been discovered for solar panels. 

So far, the primary reason we're not going with Nuclear is that government is blocking it.  It has become too expensive to meet all government mandates.  But if we cared about the energy-to-pollution ratio, then nearly every major city in the country would be on nuclear.  It is the cleanest (and cheapest, if not for government) there is.  But the average person is so scared of radiation because they don't understand all the numbers behind it.  So, it is suppressing the natural free-market forces to go that route.

I hope I answered that question.

It did!

I probably am one of those (average person) who is scared of radiation, and it probable it is because I don't understand all the numbers behind it. 

Thanks for the information!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
On 7/16/2020 at 9:33 AM, Carborendum said:

Those aren't the numbers or conditions I'm concerned with.

Why isn't it concerning?  Just asking.

On 7/16/2020 at 9:33 AM, Carborendum said:

Catalytic converter is a prime example. 

What's wrong with catalytic converters?   They work quite well.

On 7/16/2020 at 9:33 AM, Carborendum said:

Now, give me a clean bill with REAL measures that would REALLY required reduction of emissions.  Then allow the industries involved to come up with their own methods of meeting those requirements, then I'd be all for that bill.

I'm with you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
On 7/16/2020 at 12:14 AM, anatess2 said:

I'm impartial to public lands even though I don't believe that the same land made private would prevent people from visiting nature and doing healthy activities.

It would make it harder for sure.  If the US had "right to roam" or "freedom to roam" laws like just about every other civilized country, it wouldn't be so bad.  But my own opinion is that we need public lands and natural areas (wilderness areas, national parks, etc.).

Quote

 What it does do is make environmentalists put their money where their mouth is and take on the responsibility of taking care of the land rather than leaving the work to elected officials who puts his hat out to the highest paying lobbyist every few years.

I'm sure a lot of environmental groups would love to take care of the land if it were ceded to them.  😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott said:

Why isn't it concerning?  Just asking.

What I was getting at (which I attempted to communicate through the rest of my post) was that most often we can agree on the actual problems.  It is

1) The priorities and

2) the solutions

that we disagree on.

Priorites are because of a dozen factors.  What if we did X, would it help?  How much would it help?  Would it be possible with current technology to significantly change thePM2.5s that you're talking about?  It isn't just the thing that is wrong.  It is the other dozen questions that we get disagreements on.

4 hours ago, Scott said:

What's wrong with catalytic converters?   They work quite well.

They work well for a few years.  But they get worse and worse as they go.  Eventually, they get to the point where it makes emissions worse than if the car didn't have them at all.

As efficient as most cars are today, the emissions of a many new economy cars without a cat-con would pass emissions tests.  And with proper maintenance, they could continue to do so for many years.  But a 7-10 year old car can be tuned up perfectly, but the cat-con needs to be replaced in order to pass emissions.

4 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm with you on that.

That's what I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2020 at 5:25 PM, Scott said:

They don't try and remove God from society either, though they do try and remove it from government.

Keep telling yourself that.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/20/gavin-newsom-sued-over-ban-against-home-bible-stud/

If you think it is just about Corona, then why don't they do the same thing to ban protests?

I'm not saying the following as a beat down.  I'm saying this to beg you to honestly consider where all the signs are already showing us that the Democrat ideology is taking us.

You can keep defending Democrat actions or claiming it is an outlier.  But eventually, you'll see the Democrat states tightening the screws still further on religious liberties even in the home while letting liberal and libertine ideals run society amok.  Then you can rest on your laurels of pollution control, abortion rights, racial justice, and freedom from religion.

Will it be worth the price?

I honestly believe the majority of Democrats, liberals, and leftists don't want that.  But they continue to support politicians and legislation that eventually takes us there.  Most don't realize that 90% of Democrat politicians are FAR FAR left candidates because the individual Democrat themselves are fairly moderate.  But they just keep giving power to the far left candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the ward I live in is pretty close to 50-50 on Democrats and Republicans. Members bring up politics far too often, IMO. Whenever I'm teaching a Sunday School class and someone interjects with a political comment, I usually respond by saying, "Hey, if you have something political to say, please save it for a testimony meeting." Politically-charged comments are inevitably going to irritate someone in the class. Most people can see that my comment is facetious, and it quickly diffuses an otherwise tense situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2020 at 10:01 AM, Scott said:

 


  • People whom enjoy wildlife and wild areas should also have a right to enjoy views God's creations (or natures creations if you happen to be atheist-that's your choice).   

    As a freedom loving American, I hope that I always have places where I can go out and experience and enjoy nature.   Those freedoms are also very important.


    People whom enjoy wildlife and wild areas should also have a right to enjoy views God's creations (or natures creations if you happen to be atheist-that's your choice).   

    As a freedom loving American, I hope that I always have places where I can go out and experience and enjoy nature.   Those freedoms are also very important.

 

As a former member of Greenpeace, I once thought the best way to preserve nature was to leave it alone.  Unfortunately - nature will do rather horrible things to itself.  The Church has done some interesting research of church owned land and nature resource management and has demonstrated that by managing and developing natural resources that domestic ranching can be maximized, human recreation can be increased and wildlife can be better balanced for healthier and increased populations - all on the same land. 

I was hiking alone in the Unitas and one morning I was sitting in front of my tent cooking breakfast on my camp stove when a cow moose with a calf wandered into my camp.  Being careful not to startle my guests I remained calm and quite - the calf walked up to me and nudged me with it nose while the mom stood and watch from about 3 feet away.  After the nudge the two wandered off.  But you would think by now that visitors to Yellowstone would have learned not to try to pet a random bison or take a selfie next to a bull moose.

 

The Traveler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2020 at 6:05 PM, Carborendum said:

Keep telling yourself that.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/20/gavin-newsom-sued-over-ban-against-home-bible-stud/

If you think it is just about Corona, then why don't they do the same thing to ban protests?

I'm not saying the following as a beat down.  I'm saying this to beg you to honestly consider where all the signs are already showing us that the Democrat ideology is taking us.

You can keep defending Democrat actions or claiming it is an outlier.  But eventually, you'll see the Democrat states tightening the screws still further on religious liberties even in the home while letting liberal and libertine ideals run society amok.  Then you can rest on your laurels of pollution control, abortion rights, racial justice, and freedom from religion.

Will it be worth the price?

I honestly believe the majority of Democrats, liberals, and leftists don't want that.  But they continue to support politicians and legislation that eventually takes us there.  Most don't realize that 90% of Democrat politicians are FAR FAR left candidates because the individual Democrat themselves are fairly moderate.  But they just keep giving power to the far left candidates.

One thing we should all learn about politics - If someone want to know what Democrats sand for and believe - they should not get their information for understanding from Republicans - and vice versa.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One thing we should all learn about politics - If someone want to know what Democrats sand for and believe - they should not get their information for understanding from Republicans - and vice versa.

 

The Traveler

One thing I learn about politics - Republicans don't always know what the Republican Party stands for... same for Democrats and the Democrat Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this