Politics, The Chosen Land, and Why we Fight

[_Coggins7]

Yes, so are most vet's according to the empirical evidence. The vet of Hollywood and popular political mythology is a tall ideological tale, and nothing more. The long haired, homeless, drugged out motorcycle riding misfit is primarily a creation of the cultural Left and Hollywood (i.e., the cultural Left). They exist, but they are a distinct minority.

[_Coggins7]

[

quote="Miss Taken"]Truth Dancer, I think that Capitalism is America's God for good or ill. I also think that the wealthy few have always run countries.

Except that the wealthy few in the case of America are a relatively small gaggle of like minded lawyers, politicians, environmentalists, and federal judges.

The rich can be destroyed by the state at any time at a stroke, if they don't make themselves useful.

[_Mary]

Coggins! I have enjoyed reading all your responses. I guess I did use a bit of that 'hyperbole' that Ray referred to in one of his posts!!!

The English I think do have a certain cynicism about all things American and the American political system for what it's worth. All that has been kind of
blown up too by America's foreign policy particularly in recent years. Blair won't be remembered positively in many ways and will be perceived as Bush's poodle. Hopefully, Brown will steer a slightly different course.

Mary

[_The Nehor]

When the pre-millenial purges begin the United States is in trouble and the LDS not living the gospel in the worst trouble of all.

I assume you mean spiritually, or is God going to actually be fair from an earthly perspective rather than random as He is now. Then you can get on board with the new "saved by grace" LDS doctrine and say, "You know the SOBs in power, were made that way by their upbringing and even though they weren't very good people, they did there very best so they'll be just as well off in the next life as those who they made suffer." After all it's not really about what type of person you became, but whether some bishop or society decides that you're trying very hard or not.

The statement above seems to be nothing more than a classic fear and control statement. LDS not living the gospel are the worst off. What about the people who rejected it from the start, never even considered trying to live right? What's so much better about that than the person who exerts himself for a time and then burns out? In my judgment this isn't fair and it simply doesn't add up. Yet the people making these statements don't really care about fairness and whether it adds up. They're really only interested in intimidating the people they have under their spell.

Seriously Nehor, people have been making these bold predictions about the 2nd coming for some time. They give these simplified views of how it's going to be. Yet when it really comes, things will seem just as random as ever and all we'll have to make sense of it is some complicated apologetic explanation like we have now.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is a God, he isn't around and he hasn't started settling the score on anything yet. He's just letting things go with no noticeable intervention. Are you saying He's actually going to do this at the 2nd coming? Are we actually going to know He's intervening?

I don't expect it to be nearly as cut and dried as I make it sound.

[_The Nehor]

1. We do not live in a democracy. If we did, however, it is far more likely that Capitalism would be destroyed by democracy than the other way around.

2. Capitalism is liberty in the economic sphere; it is economic freedom. The general term for this is property rights, and they are of the unalienable sort. Without them, the rest of the rights in the Constitution are utterly moot.

3. Nibley was an economic illiterate who's views of the possibilities of human social organization were quite naïve, although he was brilliant in his sphere of expertise. The question is, of course, what do we mean when we say "law of consecration"? What do we mean by "communal living" and do we really understand what we're getting into when we pine away for it?

There is an inviolable and unequivocal tension between the collective and the individual and always will be until all men are angels. Until that time, "communal" living, without the deep, direct, and unfettered oversight of the Holy Spirit will end where all such experiments have always ended, in failure or human disaster. To the extent the original United Order worked, it worked to the extent free agency and property were respected.

However, that situation was a situation of naked survival in an unforgiving desert that had to be built up and made productive. There is no reason to believe that the United Order practiced then was in any manner fully revealed, or that it was revealed in a manner consistent with how it might be revealed if brought back into practice at the present time.

I'm coming in late to the discussion but huh?

You make it sound like we're saying that the United Order was and will be easy when it comes. It will be hard. There's a reason it's the last of the covenants and the one we can't live. Subordinating our economic selves to God is harder than anything else (including bring sexual passions into line). It will be bliss but it will take a lot of work to get the thing done on an individual level. It will take huge amounts of discipline to remind yourself day by day why you should not take advantage of the system and carve out a little economic empire of your own (which is what destroyed early attempts).

We may not be angels Coggins but we're commanded to be. My understanding of an angel is a person who just happens to be dead. Might as well be angelic here.

[_ajax18]

I think Coggins was right about every one of those except #40. If you mean can a white man get off the ground, than yes I agree. But by no means can a white man jump as well as a black man. Anyone who can't see that is truly blinded by PC BS and isn't as concerned with the truth as promoting some other agenda.

[_Nephi]

I think Coggins was right about every one of those except #40. If you mean can a white man get off the ground, than yes I agree. But by no means can a white man jump as well as a black man. Anyone who can't see that is truly blinded by PC BS and isn't as concerned with the truth as promoting some other agenda.

I would have to disagree here, and I cite this as my source. He points out that race does not qualify as athleticism. In fact, one strong point he makes is that many athletes in sprinting who hold world records are from West African descent, but they are also from Native American and European descent. When compared to sprint runners who are from West African countries only (no mixed heritage) we find NO record holders from these countries directly, which implies that race (at least the color of their skin) is not a factor in their athletic abilities. It could be where they trained, or how they trained, or a whole slew of other things.

He also goes to point out that when people believed the Boston marathon was ran (assuming 2003 by copywrite of interview) many expected a black man to win it, when (in fact) a South Korean won it. I do believe that race does not reflect upon athleticism.

So, for your claim, I must CFR, please.

[_barrelomonkeys]

So, for your claim, I must CFR, please.

I don't think anyone cares about references here. :)

But call all you like.

[_Ray A]

He also goes to point out that when people believed the Boston marathon was ran (assuming 2003 by copywrite of interview) many expected a black man to win it, when (in fact) a South Korean won it. I do believe that race does not reflect upon athleticism.

So, for your claim, I must CFR, please.

The South Korean, Lee Bong-Ju, was a rare exception. Kenyans have won 15 out of the last 17 Boston Marathons. This doesn't prove by any means blacks are superior. Kenyan long distance runners usually begin very early, often running everywhere because of poor transport. They also have the advantage of training at high altitude. It's notable that Kenya stands out for these reasons, while other African nations don't fare as well in distance running.

http://www.magicalkenya.com/default.nsf ... cument&l=1

A point of trivia on a subject that interests me.

[_ajax18]

So, for your claim, I must CFR, please

Guys my point seem so obvious I don't even know why you care to argue it. Just look at an East African. Look how long his limbs are in comparison to his body. Look at his affinity towards a lean body mass. Of course a mixed race person could win a sprint and no sprinting speed doesn not have anything to do with skin color, but it has everything to do with the length of your limbs vs. the length of your torso, amount of fast twitch vs. slow twitch muscle fiber, the size of your achilles tendon. Guess which racial group has the advantage in these things? You may have white in you and still be fast and a good jumper, but if you don't have any black in you, you're not going to be able to keep up. Oh no, but we dare not mention that. That would mean we're different. Let's pretend we're not so nobody is offended. Political correctness, a true enemy to science and those who want to know the truth.

I agree with the reference that there is more genetic variability in a human population than outside it. Obviously there is more variation amongst subSaharan Africans because this is where mankind started. Amerinds and Europeans are actually genetically closer than subSaharan Africans.