guy sajer wrote:Anyone else get the feeling that Coggins/Plutarch/Enter the Dragon/Bishop Lee/etc. has a burr up his backside where it comes to liberals?
Did one scare you when you were a kid or something?
Your all-consuming hatred of well-spoken members of the Church who can write and hold a job is amazing.
I am a left-wing liberal. My second cousin is Mitt Romney but I support (not just soulfully, but with my wallet) Bill Richardson, and if he fails, I will support Hillary Clinton. Where you got the idea that I was a right-winger is just beyond me. You just make sure you ascribe things you hate to good members of the Church.
P
We need to get you and BC talking. He claims that if you are a left-wing supporter or a Democrat, there is no way you can be a good member of the Church. I told him he was wrong. Scary...I think we would be on the same side of that argument. LOL
guy sajer wrote:Anyone else get the feeling that Coggins/Plutarch/Enter the Dragon/Bishop Lee/etc. has a burr up his backside where it comes to liberals?
Did one scare you when you were a kid or something?
Your all-consuming hatred of well-spoken members of the Church who can write and hold a job is amazing.
I am a left-wing liberal. My second cousin is Mitt Romney but I support (not just soulfully, but with my wallet) Bill Richardson, and if he fails, I will support Hillary Clinton. Where you got the idea that I was a right-winger is just beyond me. You just make sure you ascribe things you hate to good members of the Church.
P
We need to get you and BC talking. He claims that if you are a left-wing supporter or a Democrat, there is no way you can be a good member of the Church. I told him he was wrong. Scary...I think we would be on the same side of that argument. LOL
My pal (there (I go, name dropping as Rollo likes to assert) is Elder Steve Snow, whom I believe was former chair of the Democratic Party in Utah; certainly was a demo State Senator. He appeared on this morning's world wide broadcast to ward leaders.
The thing I really hate about the democrats is their willingmess to tax high income earners.
Gazelam wrote:Why do you diagree with him on this? I think taking 40% of a persons income is very low. : p
The State of California then taxes at the 12% rate.
The Democrats propose to increase taxes above 40%. During the Vietnam War, a surtax was imposed (I wasn't earning much income then), leading to a max rate of 70%.
The Book of Mormon, in a couple of places (Mosiah, I think) condemned levies of 50%.
This is all quite interesting. Plutarch's dislike of taxing high income earners is a major difference within a party whose entire economic platform is constructed on an ideology of populist class warfare (which is itself founded upon a deep seated philosophical animus toward, or fear of, high income earners in the private sector, which ultimately traces its ideological patrimony back through the Frankfurt school intellectuals, to Gramsci, and hence to Marx himself).
I would probably, at the risk of offending Plutarch, which I don't want to do, have to agree with bc, but with the proviso that in some cases this would be an issue by issue thing, not a blanket statement about any individual just because of party membership.
I became an independent about two years ago, for the simple reason that the Rupublican Party had by that time at least, so abandoned the Classical Liberal ("conservative") principles, to which, (except for the Libertarians, who have never had a snowball's chance of ever electing a major candidate) it has in the later part of the 20th century been the only home. So I'm an independent. Am I a "moderate"? No. I have a distinct and systematic political philosophy to which I am both committed and about which I am passionate. If you were to ask me what things I disagreed with about my previous party, my list would be far longer than Plutarch's.
One of my favorite GAs, Hugh B. Brown, was, I understand, a staunch Democrat (but, it must be said, that was a far different Democratic Party from another generation. I'd still agree to disagree with some of what it stood for, but the modern party is...well, never mind for now.)
As far as all this goes, I don't thnk you're going to be able to foment a falling out between me, Plutarch, and bc over politics. Nice tactic, but no go, at least from my end.
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
I won’t be voting for Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries, however if it does come down between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in the General Election, then I will definitely be voting for Mitt Romney.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
“There’s no church-directed view,” Mr. Romney said. “How can you have Harry Reid on one side and Orrin Hatch on the other without recognizing that the church doesn’t direct political views? I very clearly subscribe to Abraham Lincoln’s view of America’s political religion. And that is when you take the oath of office, your responsibility is to the nation, and that is first and foremost.”
I call him smart. I would be worried if he didn't see polygamy as bizarre. Good on him for calling weird weird. That's promising.
It seems like Mitt will say anything to appear 'mainstream' to the electorate. First, he describes a current LDS doctrine/belief (even still practiced in some limited cases), and to which his ancestors were staunch adherents, as "bizarre." Second, he claims that as president his duty is "first and foremost" to the nation, which would seem, at least theoretically, to be inconsistent with his temple loyalty oaths (particularly in light of the long admired LDS prophecy/belief that it will be the LDS priesthood to save the nation when the Constitution "hangs by a thread"). I have no problem with Mitt running for prez; I just think he ought to be a little more honest about his religion.
In this day and age it is unlikely that he would encounter a scenario wherein the two oaths would conflict. He's a modern day Mormon, not Brigham Young. I wouldn't consider him hypocritical, I'd call him savvy. I am not going to criticize him for being a cafeteria Mormon.
"I think one of the great mysteries of the gospel is that anyone still believes it." Sethbag, MADB, Feb 22 2008
Unless I'm mistaken, Mitt Romney is supposed to speak on Fox News in an episode entitled "Mr. and Mrs. Happy Handbook" on the subject of a happy marriage, it shows on my tv as showing at 1:00 today.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato