DiscussMormonism.com

Pasted below is the site to read his FULL speech at the "Press Club". VERY interesting that it has been nipped & cut by the media to keep his main thrust generally in the shadows of traditional white male supremacy.

"Liberation Theology" is cracking open the door that COULD reform Christianism. I hope the paste works, and that some will endure its length.
http://www.latimes.com/features/religio ... 4972.story It isn't in blue, but the the address is there, i think? Comments, thoughts?? Roger

It's Socialism designed to debase White economic and political power.

antishock8 wrote:It's Socialism designed to debase White economic and political power.

That would make it some what unacceptable in a Capitalistic white-male dominated political system. Too bad???? What's to fear? Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:

antishock8 wrote:It's Socialism designed to debase White economic and political power.

That would make it some what unacceptable in a Capitalistic white-male dominated political system. Too bad???? What's to fear? Roger

It's definitely unacceptable in a Capitalistic white-male dominated system, but since said system is based on freedom and democracy all that needs to happen nothing and the system will eventually reflect the society it represents. Los Angeles elected its first Hispanic Mayor, a black man has a good chance of winning the Presidency, and the Browning of America is happening very rapidly.* There's nothing to fear, really, from that reality. The amalgamation of the human race is an inevitability as long as we keep open trade routes, free enterprise, open commerce, and knowledge exchange is accessible.

What, however, is diconcerting about Socialism is the basic premise that the State owns all property and is responsible for the distribution of wealth. It's been a historically proven fact that Socialism retards human greed, which is the key factor linked to innovation, production increases, and the increase of wealth on a national and individual level. As far as I'm concerned, the best approach to balancing national interests versus individual interests is moderation. As long as the government is tempered in its wealth redistribution efforts, and the money is spent on expediting infrastructure I'm good. People being productive through inducement, ie reasonable jobs (defense, megaprojects, education, etc...) on behalf of the government is a good thing. A welfare state works against an innovative soceity, in my opinion.

*I was at a park yesterday Somewhere in North Carolina. You would have thought we were in Mexico. However, that's a good thing since it was Mexicans actually using the park en masse. When they're not all 'esse'd' out, Mexicans are great. They're out and about. They're vibrant, work hard, and contribute toward the community far better, in my opinion, than the red neckery the South has. I'd much rather see a bunch of Mexicans out, playing futbol, than a bunch of Red Necks out doing whatever it is they do. Am I self-loathing because I'm a white male and feel this way? No. I just recognize that an infusion of new blood into a soceity isn't always a bad thing. Anyway, 10 years ago you would not have seen this many Mexicans, and with our current border policy I suspect the Mexican population in the US will easily double in the next decade.

Hi Antishock, i'll inject in bold to your posted below:

It's definitely unacceptable in a Capitalistic white-male dominated system, but since said system is based on freedom and democracy all that needs to happen nothing and the system will eventually reflect the society it represents. RM: True. Just be patient. Evolution is slow. Los Angeles elected its first Hispanic Mayor, a black man has a good chance of winning the Presidency, and the Browning of America is happening very rapidly.* There's nothing to fear, really, from that reality. The amalgamation of the human race is an inevitability as long as we keep open trade routes, free enterprise, open commerce, and knowledge exchange is accessible. RM: Agree & add honest, unpredjudiced education.

What, however, is diconcerting about Socialism is the basic premise that the State owns all property and is responsible for the distribution of wealth. It's been a historically proven fact that Socialism r*****s??? human greed, which is the key factor linked to innovation, production increases, and the increase of wealth on a national and individual level. As far as I'm concerned, the best approach to balancing national interests versus individual interests is moderation. As long as the government is tempered in its wealth redistribution efforts, and the money is spent on expediting infrastructure I'm good. People being productive through inducement, ie reasonable jobs (defense, megaprojects, education, etc...) on behalf of the government is a good thing. A welfare state works against an innovative soceity, in my opinion. RM: I think we in North America tend to be self-congratulatory, and turn our bad eye and unhearing ear to philosophies of most genres from other centres of enterprise/socio-economics/politics et al that shed light on our own what-evers. To our detriment. (continued below :-)

It seems to me that the negative view of Socialism has been force-fed the NA masses by the system it seriously threatens--Capitalistic greed in its worse self-serving forms. I would not approach this subject with Coggins, i know him too well--LOL!

But as you said "...moderation..." That is a key word. It begins when thinking people examine a proto-type and begin to "modify" it through R&D, trial & error until it works as the inventor envisioned, but could not by him/herself bring it too its 'perfected' state... In our socio-economic world the concepts of democracy, communism, capitalism, socialism, facsism, totaltarianism, anarchy, monarchy, etc. etc... each have pluses and minuses.

As humans advance civily it is obvious the individualist Mountain Man image is a nostolgic/romantic relic that served its purpose. We have always advanced by cooperation among people focused on a project larger than themselves. From sailing to a new land, to exploring space.

It was such a goal hatched in the collective minds of Communist Russia, not Stalinised Russia, that "innovated" Sputnic, the first of anything into space. Remember, that was after losing 25,000,000 lives in WWII and being bombed into near starvation and property damage unimaginable by we who lived unscathed in Canada & the USA. I'll spare you further ranting, for now...:-)

Also in the "Best Countries To Live In" recent researching--ya gotta thank modern technics, no more parochialism--the Scandinavian countries top the list. All of which are based on modified socialistic priniples and policies. These, and other advanced countries, laugh at the absurd CEO salaries and the biased distribution of USA company earnings between stock holders and those who actually produce/sell the product (think Walmart ;)... OK--:-)

"Liberation" from ignorance, deception, misinformation, manipulation, intimidation, prejudice, discriminations and lies is needed to fill the vision of that guy who said, "luvyerneighbor". As i sees it... Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison It was such a goal hatched in the collective minds of Communist Russia, not Stalinised Russia, that "innovated" Sputnic, the first of anything into space. Remember, that was after losing 25,000,000 lives in WWII and being bombed into near starvation and property damage unimaginable by we who lived unscathed in Canada & the USA. I'll spare you further ranting, for now...:-)

Please explain this . It was not some collective goal. It was an individual, Korolev, who against much opposition pushed Sputnik. Krushchev and the leadership had no idea what a propaganda coup it would be. I was at a celebration on 3/18 of the successful launch of Vanguard 1.

http://www.vanguard-one-50th-anniversar ... ments.html

See also the presentation my dad gave last year on the subject:

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/e ... ibrary.ppt

richardMdBorn wrote:

Roger Morrison It was such a goal hatched in the collective minds of Communist Russia, not Stalinised Russia, that "innovated" Sputnic, the first of anything into space. Remember, that was after losing 25,000,000 lives in WWII and being bombed into near starvation and property damage unimaginable by we who lived unscathed in Canada & the USA. I'll spare you further ranting, for now...:-)

Please explain this . It was not some collective goal. It was an individual, Korolev, who against much opposition pushed Sputnik. Krushchev and the leadership had no idea what a propaganda coup it would be. I was at a celebration on 3/18 of the successful launch of Vanguard 1.

http://www.vanguard-one-50th-anniversar ... ments.html

See also the presentation my dad gave last year on the subject:

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/e ... ibrary.ppt

Hi Richard, nice to read You again. Did you read Rev Wright's speach, sited in my OP?

I read the Vanguard 50th article. Thank you, very interesting. It must have been a nice experience for you to have attended. Was GWBush there? Unfortunatelty, i could not get the presentation your Dad made. Items that come "Find" rather than "Open" just do not work for me.
Your Father must be quite a man. A real honour for him to be awarded by the President of The USA. Quite an Avitar! :-)

You are correct about the Soviet's "propoganda coup". It sure arroused the USA into action. I Googled Sputnik to confirm the launch date: October 4th, 1957. Followed by a much larger # 2 shortly there after. Pasted below is comment re Vanguard:

The United States tried to gain a foothold on the High Ground with the satellite Vanguard but it exploded on the launch pad and everyone laughed at the U.S. silly; some called it the "Kaputnik." And it wasn't as bad as just a launch failure, the vanguard satellite only the size of a grapefruit. The Sputnik 1 was 184 pounds and the Russians launched the previous month Sputnik 2 which was 1100 pounds and carried a live dog, Laika. There were lots of finger pointing, yelling, but also some had said that Sputnik didn't pose an immediate military threat. Although the same vehicle that can put a satellite into orbit can also vault a nuclear bomb across continents, nobody had solved the problem of shielding a satellite, or a warhead, during atmosphere re-entry. But it was that blasted "beep, beep, beep" every 90 minutes reminding the U.S., "Razzzzzz, we beat you!"

Personally Rich, i think it too bad the space-race was run as a competion motivated by fear, and a one-upmanship struggle for power. Had it been directed by a spirit-of-cooperation we would be living in a vastly better world, IMSCO, that is. Especially do I find it disconcerting that Christianism didn't present itself in a model different from that of Communism.

But that's all in the past, right? Now THE American-Christian-President tells the world "...history proves peace can't be made by dialogue with yer enemies. Ya gotta kill 'em!" Then the old-guy running, LOL! to take over the camp repeats the same nonesence?!?! "God Bless America!" I hope.

Well "God's" trying. But that old Devil makes folks think and say bad things about the man who believes "Peace-makers are a blessing." (That's in the Bible.)

Wadaya think Richard? Is it time to talk, or do we just wait for the rapture et al? Warm regards, Roger

RogerBut that's all in the past, right? Now THE American-Christian-President tells the world "...history proves peace can't be made by dialogue with yer enemies. Ya gotta kill 'em!"

Richard Where did he say this? Did Chamberlain bring peace in our time. He waived the treaty signed by Hitler. Did he abide by it? Édouard Daladier was cheered by the French and thought, "you fools".

Roger But that old Devil makes folks think and say bad things about the man who believes "Peace-makers are a blessing." (That's in the Bible.)

Richard There's also a passage about people crying peace peace where there is no peace.

Roger Wadaya think Richard? Is it time to talk, or do we just wait for the rapture et al? Warm regards, Roger

Richard Well, I'm not pre-mil. I don't think talking with Iran will get us anywhere. Cutting off its gas imports would be more effective.

richardMdBorn wrote:RogerBut that's all in the past, right? Now THE American-Christian-President tells the world "...history proves peace can't be made by dialogue with yer enemies. Ya gotta kill 'em!"

Richard Where did he say this? Did Chamberlain bring peace in our time. He waived the treaty signed by Hitler. Did he abide by it? Édouard Daladier was cheered by the French and thought, "you fools".

RM: It's 2008, not 1939. Transparency of issues, their proponents and opponents brings better informed people to issues that centuries ago was impossible. The past resolution model--military-might--is now seen to be everything but flawless. Seldom worked in the long term. Nations, as we have them are simply remants of Empires.

Being number-one (anything) is THE step that preceeds decline, whether rapidly or gradually. To be in denial of that historical reality is to bring into question the credibility of those stagnated in past practice.

Unfortunately war-mongers, to this point in time, appealed to the ignorant in their nationalistic diatribe, honouring, "God, King and Country!" Now that simple math reveals bankruptcy that accompanies such egomania, the Battle-cry is finally being drownd out by the cries for Peace that honour "Humanity, Society, Life and Community!"

Roger But that old Devil makes folks think and say bad things about the man who believes "Peace-makers are a blessing." (That's in the Bible.)

Richard There's also a passage about people crying peace peace where there is no peace.

RM: That's Ezek 13:10... An interesting read about daubers who use poor morter on the wall. Could be the problem?? The "Wall" was not built to stand. But to decay and reveal the wall's foundation was not of the character/integrity the builders pretended... Long before Jesus of Nazareth proponed Peace... Begs the question of throwing good $$ after bad??

Roger Wadaya think Richard? Is it time to talk, or do we just wait for the rapture et al? Warm regards, Roger

Richard Well, I'm not pre-mil. (RM: Did you mean to say 'pro-millennium'??) I don't think talking with Iran will get us anywhere. Cutting off its gas imports would be more effective.

Richard, You are certainly not alone with your opinions. OTOH, nor am i. Of course we can both point to confirmations of our positions. Personally, I see too much disparity between haves-&-haven'ts; too much injustice, greed and indifference that in my opinion stems from our past indoctrinations. Which i think Rev J. Wright was addressing. Truth will triumph only when errors of the past are acknowledged AND rectified. Are "we" up to it?
Warm regards, Roger