Nancy Pelosi couldn't be as stupid as she seems could she? Here she was last week talking about how the government giving more money to planned parent hood claiming it would be "financial stimulus" because it would save states money in health care. Translation = the more babies we abort the less people we have to pay for. Not only does she neglect the simple fact that economies are made up by these things we call "people" and that less people means less participants in this economy but her words betray a deeper philosophical ideal. This underlying philosophy penetrates many aspects of the world, from Catholics preaching original sin to global warmers calling man evil, this is that man kind is inherently evil and bad.
This is one philosophy where we as LDS people declare to the world that we are of divine origin and therefore have the potential for a divine destiny. This would then mean that every human life is sacred and should be held up as one of the most sacred elements of this world. Liberals along with many "Christians" however view humanity as inherently bad. Liberal logic says that if we just stopped procreating like rabbits then there would be more of the worlds resources available for Nancy and her chosen offspring which she and her political friends deem worthy of life. Also if there where less people then there would be less pollution and less urban sprawl, less guns, less of all those people who disagree with them and so on.
Christendom is no better though and philosophically similar to liberals. According to them our only purpose is to praise God and EVERYTHING we do is not good enough. We are born guilty thanks to Adam and are therefore expected to accept guilt for a sin we never committed. Liberals are no different, we are expected to accept guilt for our nations sin of slavery though no one today was held nor held slaves. Both require that we accept guilt for actions we never had a hand in, it is therefore through this guilt that they assume their power over us.
Reading between the lines we see the true hatred and selfishness of philosophies. On the same coin we need to also see clearly who actually is philosophically on our side. Those not firmly planted in the soil of belief in humanity's capacity and divine destiny are ideology different then us and therefore can not ever come to the same conclusions about what we can as Gods children achieve.
This is one philosophy where we as LDS people declare to the world that we are of divine origin and therefore have the potential for a divine destiny. This would then mean that every human life is sacred and should be held up as one of the most sacred elements of this world. Liberals along with many "Christians" however view humanity as inherently bad. Liberal logic says that if we just stopped procreating like rabbits then there would be more of the worlds resources available for Nancy and her chosen offspring which she and her political friends deem worthy of life. Also if there where less people then there would be less pollution and less urban sprawl, less guns, less of all those people who disagree with them and so on.
Christendom is no better though and philosophically similar to liberals. According to them our only purpose is to praise God and EVERYTHING we do is not good enough. We are born guilty thanks to Adam and are therefore expected to accept guilt for a sin we never committed. Liberals are no different, we are expected to accept guilt for our nations sin of slavery though no one today was held nor held slaves. Both require that we accept guilt for actions we never had a hand in, it is therefore through this guilt that they assume their power over us.
Reading between the lines we see the true hatred and selfishness of philosophies. On the same coin we need to also see clearly who actually is philosophically on our side. Those not firmly planted in the soil of belief in humanity's capacity and divine destiny are ideology different then us and therefore can not ever come to the same conclusions about what we can as Gods children achieve.
Hooray!!!! Good points M. Galt! While I hate the debate of abortion you have eloquently described why it is Evil in a logical and simple way. Abortions are simply pulling out of this world the possibility of the next great mind or person who can stimulate the economy through their actions.
ReplyDeleteAlso James and Great White Hope need to stop posting two times a day! And need to stop bickering like an old married couple who are discusted by each other after 50 years of marriage. M. Gault your posts are good you need to get the fire back in your belly. I like the recent posts of Us vs. Them. Furthermore, perhaps it is time to get a female perspective. Perhaps crayon face, liberty and justice, and Mrs. Great White Hope should post. I am sure they have an interesting perspective and I think you guys are little full of yourself.
Nancy Pelosi is demonstrating more than just liberal logic, she is demonstrating female logic. This is not a slam on women, but there is a pattern here:
ReplyDeleteWomen buy useless things on sale and say that we SAVED money through the process of spending money. Why not choose to not spend the money to begin with and really save money?
Nancy Pelosi is saying essentially the same thing. Lets spend money NOW thinking it will be better than paying full price later. This just seems flawed to me.
Additionally, if Nanci is really that concerned about a burden on the health system then why push for nationalized health care? Why endorse a welfare programs where individual parents receive money back from the government for having more kids?
If she really wants to fix the problem, sometimes "feeding the beast" is not the answer.
The above statements of James in now way reflect the opinions of M.Galt and in now way does he want the repercussions that will surely fall on James to come on M.Galt.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear a woman deny or contradict what I just said about their spending habits.
ReplyDeleteI still like women, my statement was that of observed behavior not a judgment that they are sub-human.
Oh James you are completely retarded! Bad forum!!!! This logic is simply liberal and has nothing to do with the shopping patterns of women. And I don't have to tell you the STUPID things that men spend money on under the same disguise. I bought my husband a gun for Christmas for "home protection" two days later he goes out with his friend GWH you know who you are, and buys ANOTHER gun!!! That’s right under the disguise of "needing" it for home protection....People, not just women use this logic. Here is where Nancy's argument makes no sense she wants our Children, grand children and great grandchildren to pay for the mistakes of this generation. Nancy could give a rats A about anyone.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that you agree then that women do use this tactic? I didn't men don't. I just used women to demonstrate this pattern. The posting was about a woman, so I made the parallel.
ReplyDeleteSince you didn't deny it, but agreed enough with me to augment the principle even further that would make you as retarded as I am, right?
James, Your logic is spot on. I find though that when I buy something for myself, whether a gun or a DVD, very rarely will I say that I bought it because it was "on sale" and I use what I buy. I think that James touched on women buying things because they are "on sale" but they are not always things that are needed or even wanted. My beautiful wife will do this sometimes when we go grocery shopping. She will pick up a product and say, "This is on sale, maybe we should get this." to which I reply, "Why the hell do we need that?". That lets her know that I do not think we need or want that.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note I wanted to comment on something that M. Galt touched on, the comparisan of liberals and religious fanatics. When I was a teenager and was trying to decide which political party to allign myself with I went to my father and asked him the difference between R's and D's. He gave me this simple synopsis and said to choose a side and he would tell me what I was. He said, "One side sees man as inherintly evil and thus needs more government over him to ensure that when given the choice between good and evil he will choose good. The other side believes that man is inherintly good and when given the choice between good and evil he will choose good. For this reason there is little need for lots of government because he can be trusted." I chose the latter of the two and he announced that his boy was a conservative. I am tired of Dems telling my how Bush has screwed up MY LIFE and how they are going to fix it. My life is good. I live with very little debt and do not travel outside my means. The church has told us time and time again to live this way. Let's find a way to spread this mentality to the world.
Good to have you back on the blog Edgar. I like the approach you gave about considering which party treats people as inherently good and allows them the freedom to chose it.
ReplyDeleteYour argument does hinge on these two parties standing for more or less government. However, and I think M. Galt might even agree with me on this, the Republicans are not for limited government like they used to be. Principally speaking though, your criteria for choosing a party is well founded. The party or rather the principles and actions that lead us closer to freedom is a noble standard to judge against.
Your old man put you right in the same political box he has seen life through, that being one with only two sides. When we see life this way then we have to pick one or the other and thereby get trapped into voting for "the lesser of two evils" because if you don't vote at all then you are just un-American.
ReplyDeleteThere are in fact other choices, and truly if we take Edgers old man's example we would choose Libertarian. As near as I can tell this is the only party that includes pot smokers, gun nuts, and all the rest into one group. This is because we stay the hell out of each others business. As long as your operation in freedom does not interfere with some one else's then have at it. This I would say is the truly trusting way of thinking. The one draw back with this is that both democrats and republicans like to tell other people how to live their life if its no smoking in restraints or higher taxes to pay for lazy people its all philosophically the same.
Although there are more than a mere choice between the one or the other. The "other choices" are simply lesser than the one and more than the other. The way I see it, there is Good and Evil, Hot and Cold, Wet and Dry, etc. Other than that there are merely attempts to approach either Hot or Cold with the result of reaching neither. ie. lukewarm, somewhat cold, kind of hot....etc. That illustrates the vital importance of the spirit because it helps man discern in his decision making between A and A prime. Not just making a good decision rather than a bad one among many, but making the BEST of the good decisions.
ReplyDeleteGWH,
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with that is that we are not always given the hot and cold choice. In this last election I saw lukewarm and "freeze your balls off" cold. The way I see it, as we get closer to the second coming there will cease to be a political hot or cold and we will only see luke warm. As far as M. Galt and the libertarians go I think that we are both in the same boat. If I could vote in an Arizona primary and be a registered Constitutional Libertarian I would be, but the card still reads Rep. till I can vote my conscience and not be penalized for not "belonging" to one or the other. M. Galt is a strong believer of privitization when it comes to people staying the hell out of his business and he will stay the hell out of yours. I tend to follow this as well and hope others will catch on.
Well.....change comes from the collective decisions of individuals and until individuals "vote their conscience" rather than "the lesser of two evils" it will be how you predicted. I gladly voted my conscience in this last election and I am truly satisfied with my vote even though the state of AZ would not allow Alan Keyes on the ballot.
ReplyDelete