In stark contrast to the
Niblet Awards that
Molly has brought to our attention, I wish to have our own awards. Over the past almost two years that Spirit of the Law Blog has ben in existence, we have been exposed to some interesting aspects of what is termed "LDS Blogging". The world of LDS blogs seems to be dominated by those who find fault with the church, who feel that apostles are wrong, and that the only way to true enlightenment is in rejecting the religion that they cowardly claim as their own. This would seem to be the most true when speaking of those who talk about doctrine, politics, and moral standards. It would seem that there is a great separation happening between those who actually believe in the religion and those who wish the religion believed in them. For this purpose I wish to introduce the Spirit of the Law Awards (otherwise known as the Tare of the Year awards):
Blogger most likely to apostatize next (also known as the Tare of the Year):
Most ridiculous LDS Libtard article (liberal for those who are unfamiliar with the term):
Favorite Comment by a Libtard:
And now for our own awards (call it market research - so feel free to give your reasonings with your answers.)
Favorite 2009 Spirit of the Law Blog Posting:
Worst 2009 Spirit of the Law Blog Posting:
Feel free to comment with your response. Happy voting.
Can we nominate socialists posts? (just confirming rules and regs)
ReplyDeleteNominate whatever post you wish - socialists posts are acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI am all in favor of these awards my number one concern however is that they are not self serving enough to us. Is there a way they could make us more popular and satisfy my ego for self accolade any more?
ReplyDeleteWe could add a category of best M. Galt posting?
ReplyDeleteI would like to nominate the entire dissentinginpart blog.
ReplyDeleteHere is my nomination for favorite libtard comment:
ReplyDeleteBlogger Steve M. said...
Latter-day Saints.
Ya jackass.
January 5, 2010 9:12 PM
He is so eloquent!!... and argues in such a way that no one can dispute what he says. If only I had communication skills like his.
Wow you can narrow Steve M.'s eloquence to just one comment? You deserve an award Crayon.
ReplyDeleteI would like to nominate Steve M. For Libtard of the Year 2009 for his comment: "I frankly don't give a shit what you and your ultra-conservative friends over at "Spirit of the Law" think. You and your buddies are petty, bigoted, and narrow-minded. I hope that there are few Mormons who share your views."
ReplyDeleteFollowed with his comment:
You might want to take note of the LDS Newsroom's essay, The Mormon Ethic of Civility.
It's just classic. Here's to you Steve M.
Steve M. is classic, and his use of the English language is stirring as it is appropriate for an LDS blog. Steve's ability to call names like "asshat" and then say that other are calling him a "bad person" when no one had is amazing. Perhaps Steve could get an award for "Best display of progressive/commie double standard."
ReplyDeleteI think the Reed's have to be nominated based on sure volume of ridiculous postings arguing spelling and punctuation. I liked that the Reed's would get cornered on a subject, be proven wrong and then not bring the subject up again thereby admitting the depth of their ignorance. I think we are still holding our collective breath for answers on certain subjects.
Maybe we aren't going far enough back though. Dose anyone remember the nudist Mormons? Now there was some crazy stuff.
The Nudist Mormon thing did get, and is still our reigning all time comment leader. Back in June 2009 is when that post hit the fan.
ReplyDeleteI can see that being up on the list for sure. Would someone like to take it upon themselves to let Steve M and the Reed's know that they are now nominated? Perhaps they would like to campaign for or against the nomination.
I'd gladly let them know but I'm banned from their blog.
ReplyDeleteI nominate the entire blog, betterlifesociety.wordpress.com, for Tare of the Year.
ReplyDeleteThey're a relatively new blog, but they're hate-spewing posts exceed anything I've read on an LDS blog.
Still mulling for other nominations.
Research completed.
ReplyDeleteFavorite comment by a Socialist:
"What exactly is so monstrous about this [healthcare] bill? It is pretty modest." made by Chris Henrichsen during a FMH discussion. He teaches at BYU and is very pleased about his being a Socialist professor at BYU. Frightening.
I second the betterlifesociety page. Wow, they got it BAD! I have not spent anytime on their site but that is garbage. How exactly do they propose a better life? To crap on the church and its members? I think I may second your vote on that Molly.
ReplyDeleteWow. That BetterLife site is.... Wow. I am nearly rendered speechless.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the nudist mormons thread. THAT was an epic thread that was rivaled (in my experience) only by the whole mormonblogs affiliation cancellation fiasco.
I feel like I need a shower after perusing that other site. [shudder]
I just had a 'peek' at the nude website that has links to the Church website in its disclaimer notice...tricky. Lawdy, Lawdy. My Bigmama would turn over in her grave.
ReplyDeleteI find it is just terrible that permission has to be asked before any 'material' is reproduced. That kind of ruins the fun.
I definitely vote that this site has to receive some recognition...after all, who else among us is willing to bare what they have for our beliefs?
I have another post nomination:
ReplyDeletehttp://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/fight-racism-oppose-the-american-renaissance-conference/
I was particularly offended because now, not only am I am southern lame-brain conservative, but a redneck with smelly-t shirts and racist.
C'mon, though...smelly rednecks? This post started with southern bashing and quickly devolved into something much worse.
So now anti-racism is socialist? What a world.
ReplyDeleteI read that post and I never saw anything in it that suggested that all Southerners and conservatives are racists. He did say the white supremacists would have to cover up their smelly confederate flag shirts to make themselves look more respectable. That does not imply that all people that honor the confederate flag are racists, only that racists tend to honor the confederate flag. Basic logic.
I also saw you, Molly, buddy-ing up with one of racists, Don, and praising his common sense logic.
Excuse me, Spencer, for disrupting your dream...but Don and I were discussing something off-topic, and I said so.
ReplyDeleteAnd I never said anti-racism was socialist. You assumed that this particular nomination was what I was referring to in my first post here...WRONG.
As far as The Mormon Worker post, Tariq's response to my belief that the Confederate Flag is a part of our southern heritage and that the War was more about state's rights was,
"To say that confederates were fighting for liberty or “state’s rights” is to completely ignore the fact that black people are human too. So, the confederate flag, or, I should say, the smelly confederate flag, is a symbol of racism, and a very brutal, cruel form of racism too."
He called me a racist.
Boy.... Spencer, way to go for taking things out of context. The "common sense" logic that Molly praised was in re Global warming and his view of knee-jerk attempts to "halt" the climate change, etc.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it has anything to do with his views on race, etc. Just because you find common sense in one thing a person says, does not mean that you accept in toto everything that person says, or find everything that person says to be common sensical.
So if a person came to your site and starting spewing ugly racist hate, including "science" that "proved" blacks are dumber than whites because of genetics and that we should just ship them all back Africa, would your response be: "Oh, you're a scientist! I'd like to get your common sense opinion on global warming"?
ReplyDeleteMy reaction would be: "Go to hell, racist."
Wow, a comparison between global warming and racism. I never thought I would see that coming. But since it has come up let me say why this is probably the case in a rationally thinking world.
ReplyDeleteRacism is about hate, it is about feelings and preferences. Global warming is about the temperature of the earth. They are two very different things that no matter how you try to spin it, Spencer, cannot be dealt with the same way.
If science is saying that there has been an increase in the average global temperatures and they have historical data to show that, fine. That is not up for dispute. Then by that same sense of logic when the world has shown trends where it has cooled in its average temperature they should be willing to recognize that when it has happened as well. Fair?
Where this jumps past science, and where more environmentalists and even some scientists go too far is when they HYPOTHESIZE what is causing the global warming. Remember, science once thought that the world was flat. Other than compiling historical data, science is largely hypothesized opinion, educated guessing, and making predictions for the future. In the world of man science does not equal fact.
Therefore, even if "science" is used to support a position of hate, that doesn't change it from being hate. Just because you use "science" in trying to compel everyone to follow a global warming scare tactic, or to adopt a society of eco-friendly behaviors, doesn't make it fact.
What I find conflicting in the logic of most left wing environmentalists is how they can be for being conservative in the way we use the resources of the earth, conserve energy, conserve water, reduce waste through recycling, etc; yet these same people spend the limited resources of tax payers and government like there is no end. Is it not hypocritical to force everyone to use restraint and prudence in their personal resources and extravagance and reckless abuse of government resources and tax payer dollars?
Molly, did you read James' response? Because you made the connection between the science of racism and global warming, that was not just an example I made up.
ReplyDeleteNo, Spencer, as Iguana Montana pointed out, Molly was not making that connection, you are. I am saying, and so is IM that they are not meant to apply to the same conversation.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't understanding, James. Molly literally asked the racist scientist to come and comment on her post about global warming after reading his screeds about how blacks are genetically dumber than whites. It is not a connection I am just making up to make a point.
ReplyDeleteSpencer may have one upped Steve M.... Give me time to rethink my nomination
ReplyDeleteI don't know, the sheer volume of Steve M is hard to beat.
ReplyDeleteI agree... Steve M. has Volume of Craptitude on his side.
ReplyDeleteThat's the one problem with these awards... It's like judging degrees of crazy.
Better yet, it is like asking which of three sewers smells worse.
And speaking of which, my Word Verification appears to be "Sewshie" which is, of course, a meal prepared of raw fish caught in the sewers. How appropos.
Spencer:
ReplyDeleteIt's you who do not understand. I didn't bring up global warming until Don did, and I then invited him to join the discussion we were having at our blog.
Racism had nothing to do with my discussion with him. HELLO.
Sorry I was late posting, guys, I'm trying to work to make money, so I won't have to apply for unemployment and ask Spencer to contribute.
I'm lost? This thread has throwen me out the back side of everything. Up is down and down is up.
ReplyDeleteM Galt:
ReplyDeleteWe're dealing with Spencer who wants me to be a racist because I disrupted a racist chat and asked a scientist, off post, about HAARP technology which led to one statement from him about global warming. Spencer objects because he somehow, someway connects my comments to racism.
I'm sure, in his mind, there MUST be some connection, but we, for the life of us, cannot make it one.
Read the comments, follow the links, and see if that helps catch you up. I wonder why Spencer didn't make his nomination for the awards? Would that be like the pot calling the kettle black?
ReplyDeleteCan we spell L-I-B-T-A-R-D?
ReplyDeleteCrayon is right...does Spencer have a blog?
ReplyDeleteDemonstrably false, Molly, you approached him first about HAARP when the discussion had been only about IQ up to then, and you are the first person to bring up climate change, when you invited him to your blog.
ReplyDeleteI had read that post previously and saw how awful it became when the white supremacists came on and defended their racism with "science." Then I saw Molly, not being a racist, that is not my accusation, but not condemning the white supremacists and actually buying into the idea that at least one of them was a legitimate "scientist." Then I saw that it was pointed to in this blog as something bad, as if asking people to stand up against white supremacy and racism is a bad thing. If someone implied in a comment that all conservatives are racist, that is wrong, but the post itself and the defense of that position was admirable, in my opinion.
Now, I probably shouldn't have even come and gotten involved here, as this appears to be a tight-knit blog community without a lot of interference from outside, and I mean you all no ill-will, I just thought singling out that post was wrong.
Spencer, anyone is free to comment on the blog regardless of persuasions or opinions. But just be aware we will call you on your statements, especially ones that draw on a post from another blog let alone the side comments of others that are not or have had no history with this blog. Molly brought this post up because we are voting on blogs, blog comments, and blog commentary. She was giving this post as her nomination.
ReplyDeleteBut since this has turned into one giant blob of confusion perhaps it is best that we move on?
Spencer, I did say, "off topic" before I commented, indicating what I was about to type had nothing to do with the topic.
ReplyDeleteIf you had bothered to read my comments completely, you would have noticed that I thought that conversation was wayyyy out of hand early on and very inflammatory.
I agree, James. Where are we with nominations?
ReplyDeletefavorite SOTL blog posting:
ReplyDeleteWWSD?: What Would Santa Do? AND
BOO!
I'm into Holidays.
Sorry everyone I was joking around, I got it all just thought the back and forth was funny.
ReplyDeleteInstead of going back and forth like this can we just do this? Molly, are you indeed a racist red neck? Do you believe other people with different skin colors are naturally or inherently inferior?
Spencer, are you willing to accept Molly’s statement?
All kinds of people with wrong ideas have some forum of right, even if we have to dig real deep to find it. Throwing it all out because of a person’s one stand seems very intolerant; after all I learned in collage that if we don’t believe in cultural relativity then you are a real bad person.
I think however I can speak for everyone, Spencer included that racism is an outmoded way of thinking…that is unless you find yourself locked up in prison, and then apparently from everything I have read race is all you have. The alternative (male rape) doesn’t sound like that much fun. So barring this unfortunate possibility rubidium is out, even then its not “racism” racism, more like “birds of a feather flock together” mentality.
M Galt:
ReplyDeleteKudos for your solution.
Racism and "redneckism" can be mutually exclusive.
I am a kinder, gentler redneck which varies from the less kind, less gentle type that is most often referred to when describing southerners. I did, however grow up in a mill village and am the product of poor mill workers who worked hard to give me a better life than they had.
We do own a pickup and a shotgun (they are separated, however - gun is under the bed). I don't drive the pu, and I don't shoot the gun.
I do not wear T-shirts, and if I am smelly, it's from an over spray of parfum rather than lack of a shower.
I am not racist. I have never been a racist.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
I believe certain cultures have aspects of inferiority as compared with certain aspects of other cultures. I was going through cultural awareness training in preparation for going to Iraq, and did you know that upwards of 80% of the Iraqi populace practice arranged marriages between first cousins? Interesting factoid by the state department. They also practice polygamy there, so not only do you produce inbred children with one first cousin spouse, but you can produce multiple inbreds with multiple 1st cousin spouses. Now before someone jumps down my throat and accuses me of being the "r" word, I would like to point out another cultural inferiority - cannibalism. There are multiple inferiorities amongst cultures throughout the world, as compared with others. I would say an inferiority of Western culture would be from my perspective individualism and a hyper-focus on individual wealth. I know it's hard to believe that a conservative would say something so mistakenly liberal. Well, it's not just liberals that care about a sense of community and their neighbors, I just believe it should be an individual choice to do so, and not something forced upon us by an all powerful government. So phhhht to you Libtards.
ReplyDeletePerhaps these words from Dallin H. Oaks in his article "Weightier Matters" offers these words in comparing the American culture with others and how we should approach those of other cultures. Perhaps defending stands that show how other cultures are not as good as ours, falls under this same idea of not celebrating or focusing on what differentiates us as much as what can make us more unified:
ReplyDelete"The word diversity has legitimate uses to describe a condition, such as when one discusses “racial and cultural diversity.” Similarly, what we now call “diversity” appears in the scriptures as a condition. This is evident wherever differences among the children of God are described, such as in the numerous scriptural references to nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.
Yet in the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus did not pray that His followers would be “diverse.” He prayed that they would be “one” (John 17:21–22). Modern revelation does not say, “Be diverse; and if ye are not diverse ye are not mine.” It says, “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27).
Since diversity is a condition, a method, or a short-term objective—not an ultimate goal—whenever diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, “What kind of diversity?” or “Diversity in what circumstance or condition?” or “Diversity in furtherance of what goal?” This is especially important in our policy debates, which should be conducted not in terms of slogans but in terms of the goals we seek and the methods or shorter-term objectives that will achieve them. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be shown to lead to unacceptable results. For example, if diversity is the underlying goal for a neighborhood, does this mean we should seek to assure that the neighborhood includes thieves and pedophiles, slaughterhouses and water hazards? Diversity can be a good method to achieve some long-term goal, but public policy discussions need to get beyond the slogan to identify the goal, to specify the proposed diversity, and to explain how this kind of diversity will help to achieve the agreed-upon goal.
Our Church has an approach to the obvious cultural and ethnic diversities among our members. We teach that what unites us is far more important than what differentiates us."
You guys! "Libtard" is freaking hilarious. I've always said that all liberals are retarded, but I've never thought to combine them in into one word! Genius! It's like they are so mentally retarded, that's the only way they could hold beliefs that they do. They are like those down syndrome people that look and talk funny: retarded!
ReplyDeleteYou know who would find that word hilarious if only he weren't a libtard himself? Rahm Emanuel.
We can all agree Rhambo is a Libtard, but I'm a little uncomfortable combining humor with the mentally handicapped such as downs syndrome children. When I think of a Libtard or the word "retarded" I think of something that impedes something else, like flame retardant. A libtard is a liberal who has damned their mental progression with a brick wall of indignance and pride. So Libtard is essentially one who impedes progress of thought through their illogical and emotional adherence to an ideology which is detrimental to society all packaged under the guise of being the very things they are not....such as open minded and progressive.
ReplyDeleteOh, retard like flame retardant, I see. Whatever helps you sleep at night, friend.
ReplyDeleteYes, not making fun of the handicapped or laughing at their expense certainly helps me sleep better.
ReplyDeleteGWH do you think we are stupid? (wait don't answer that). I don't believe for a second you think that Libtard has something to do with they are retarded in their progression due to their reluctance to accept your way of thinking. Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteYou mean they are liberal and retarded. I did. Why? Not to insult retarded people, but because I think liberals are not smart people. Guess what, most retarded people are called retarded because of some mental impairment. If there is no mental impairment what do we call them.... that's right handicapped. Retarded is a term that we reserve for those who have mental impairment. So I correctly and accurately used the term to mean that I think liberals have some kind of mental impairment.
I sleep just fine - because I am honest - not perfect, but honest. So GWH give me a break. You meant they are retarded.
I have no expectation for liberals to accept my way of thinking. They will not. They are emotional not logical. Therefore they retard/inhibit their mental progress. I'm certainly not "PC" nor do I expect that from anyone on this blog, but it does make me somewhat uncomfortable to laugh about "retards" and those "downs syndrome kids". It's just not right. And I'm not being sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteWhat I like about "libtard" is that it is an easy way to convey a couple important things about myself:
ReplyDelete1) I have no class. Not only that, but I don't even want to have any class. You see, I have no desire to suppress that part of me that thinks and feels inappropriate things. Just because society in general has decided that a certain way of thinking or expressing myself is harmful and that respect for others is, in sum, a better way to act, I don't care. I don't care because I have this vague idea that class=PC, and PC seems like a liberal thing.
2) I am intellectually shallow. Because I don't have the requisite capacity to understand and appreciate differences of opinion, nor the intellectual curiosity to follow such lines of thinking, it is easiest for me to use cliches and generalizations. Instead of coming to terms with a complex world, I can just say that all liberals are retarded and move on. There is no need for me to delve any deeper. And even though I am missing out on meaningful insights, I don't care because I don't have the mental capacity to appreciate such things to begin with. Original and complex thought are foreign to me.
So, again, good work on "libtard," there are millions of similarly classless anti-thinkers that will praise the blog "The Spirit of the Law."
Way to have a spine "Anonymous". Lets be clear on something. No one is making fun of down syndrome people. You set that argument up and used it to "intellectually" tear us a new one. The term Libtard is meant to say that we think people who believe in the liberally way of thinking are wrong. They are wrong because liberal ideology is stupid or lacking in intelligence.
ReplyDeleteWebster defines retarded as "slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress" . This has nothing to do directly as a definition of people with a medically valid reason or this. Retarded is simply a state of being that is slow or limited. That is how I (and many others) view liberal ideology. This has nothing to do with intellectual curiosity or not being open minded. I know what liberals believe, what they think, and how they wish to see public policy. I think it is not only wrong, but it certainly is not intellectually based. For that reason, I don't see how I can be intellectually curious of something that is not intellectual to begin with.
Plus, political correctness is a farce. I am not going to call someone intellectually challenged when anyone who is not intellectually challenged knows what that really means - they are not smart or stupid. It means they are not smart-for whatever reason.
Guess what - I don't think that the liberal approach to politics, society, are smart. I don't agree with it. I feel that it is wrong. I am not going to speak kindness towards that which I consider wrong. I see no point or benefit in trying to sugar coat things in society that I feel are not right just for the sake of holding hands and playing nice. The last I checked, God is clear when dealing with us, so we should be clear when dealing with one another. When I disagree with something I am going to say that it is wrong, and why it is wrong.
I have a down syndrome brother-in-law. Do you know what he calls some of his down-syndrome friends or bad drivers on the road? Retards. Yeah. He calls people retarded. Are you going to chastise him too?
Anon - I don't know if you're serious or are patronizing this blog, but I have to say; if you're serious then that's a shame. It's a shame first, if you think that being shallow and having no class are stereotypical of conservatives. It's a shame second, that you have no qualms about behaving that way. This is going to be a shocker coming from me, but a fact of life is that we interact with people who are different from us every single day from womb to tomb. So in a gospel context Jesus said love everyone - so here's a question. Can we love an enemy? We're commanded to do that too.... so what does that mean? War can be justifiable so how can you love an enemy the same time you are engaging in the destruction of an enemy? What exactly does it mean to love one another? I can say from personal experience that loving someone is not synonomous with getting along with someone all the time. There are times to compromise, and there other times where compromise ought not to be placed on the table. So the point of what I'm getting at is I recognize that liberals are my brothers and sisters, do I love them?...... I don't think I'm there yet, but I begrungingly tolerate liberal individuals so maybe that's the first step. That said, I will fight liberal IDEOLOGY to my grave because it is in direct congruence with the ideology of Satan - restriction of agency.
ReplyDeleteOK. I have had an epiphany. (oooh. Big word for Monday morning.) As much as I acknowledge Steve M.'s libtardosity (libtardaciousness?) I have to nominate as the "favorite comment by a libtard" ANYTHING posted in the comments by Mr. Anonymous. They seem to make the most salient points while...Oh, wait. I am wrong.
ReplyDeleteThey always seem to make the most random personal attacks and attempts at "ironic humor" or "sarcasm" while remaining safely behind their little wall of anonymity.
Real brave, libbies. Real brave. Way to stand up for your belief systems. Way to go.
I am so impressed, here's your nomination.
And I typed this VERY SLOWLY, because I know you all have difficulty reading.
Yes, because "James", "MGalt", "GreatWhiteHope", etc. are so open and transparent. So if I had just made up some name that couldn't be traced all of the sudden I'd have a spine?
ReplyDeleteI won't respond to GWH because as I've read what he has written I can only surmise that he is perhaps a teenager or at least the least intelligent person you have on this site, and I don't waste my time on the immature.
James, however, at least seems thoughtful, if misguided and recalcitrant, so I don't mind responding. How can you say with a straight face that one political ideology is, as a whole and in general, not intellectual? Do you honestly believe that all liberals are "slow or limited", and "not intellectual."
I have met General Authorities that are openly politically liberal; there are apostles and prophets that are and have been political liberal (though they certainly never make a point of it); I have known scores of bishops, stakes presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, nursery leaders, sunday school teachers, primary teachers, ward mission leaders, and YM and YW leaders who are politically liberal. There are millions and millions of liberals in America alone (not counting the billions the world over) who are politically liberal. They are school teachers, janitors, delivery persons, engineers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, PhDs in every conceivable science and discipline, business owners, executives, run non-profits, and every other type of profession you can imagine. They range from very moderate to very liberal, they each have their own brand of liberalism and way of thinking through the issues. And rest assured, they are complex and difficult issues. There are no easy answers or quick fixes, and a plurality of opinions and points of view is needed.
In response to all of this, you wrote "I think liberals are not smart people" and "I think liberals have some kind of mental impairment." This shows such a simplicity of understanding of the world and, as I correctly pointed out before, a shallowness of intellectual thought that it is almost too below the internet itself for you to have a blog.
I have no problems with people disagreeing with liberal thought, and arguing vehemently against it, I do the same with conservative thought, but this childish simplification and generalization is hurtful to America and a disservice to yourself.
Finally, "I am not going to speak kindness towards that which I consider wrong." Just like the Savior taught!
"And I typed this VERY SLOWLY, because I know you all have difficulty reading."
ReplyDeleteThe striking level of mature thought and human interaction continues.
Ruse is over Anon. You are either one or both of the Reeds or Steve M incarnate. You can still comment here out in the open, you can step out of the closet because we put into practice the policy of freedom of speech. It's not just lipservice like everything is with you libtards. See the true "progressives" are conservatives because they don't mindlessly vote for some candidate who walks around all day long saying change, change, change, change, change, change ad infinitum. We want good change, not just any old change or as in Obama's case communist change. And by the way I'm so sick and tired (yes both) of people continuing to justify Obama's spending as it being "Bush's fault". So if Bush is so wrong why do we want to continue down the path Bush outlined and at an accelerated pace. STOP SPENDING! And why with all of the problems economically, financially, politically, etc, with all those horrendous problems causing suffering of the majority of Americans does Obama then focus time and energy on a non issue such as allowing gays to openly serve the military. It's absurd. Why not focus energy on something actually important. Because....wait for it, SUPRISE Obama doesn't care about the United States! He's like every other self serving politician that likes power and money and does what they can to further themselves. What a disappointment....... Well I'm not disappointed because I saw through all his BS and what he stood for from the get go. I'm disappointed with all the Libtards who put him in office so now we all will have to pay the price. Thanks for the compliment by the way Anon/Steve M/Reed. My High School quote was You can only be young once but you can always be immature. I'd rather be immature than a mindless libtard. Loser! Ha ha ha. You're gay, homo!
ReplyDeleteOh an I meant that you're gay in the most offensive way possible, as in being gay is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAlmost as striking as posting anonymously so that your own site cant be filled with all kids of postings from people who disagree with you. You talk about reasonable thought but have only shown your own ability to fight in the same muck you claim to have distain for. My thinking (though it is only a guess because you refuse to post anything that would allow us to reference your actual thought.) is that if you do have a blog or comment site is filled with equally disparaging comments towards those that do not believe in your political ideas.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure many people throughout the churches history have called themselves "liberal", JS himself encouraged the people to be liberal in their political ideas. The rub is that "liberal" is a term that originally described those that advocated personal freedom and lack of government intervention in peoples personal life's. These advocates of liberalism fought for economically liberal ideas that would free business and persons to follow their own direction without the controllers of society, our self appointed all knowing heads of what is best for everyone else telling them what they should do.
Unfortunately as is generally the case with most good things the idea is taken over by counterfeits. In this case those who advocate "freedom" through "liberalism" today do so knowing that what they advocate is nothing more then freedom from personal responsibility and a political system designed to take care of all those dumb people out there who don't know how to make the right choices.
So Anonymous, how about you just show some of your actual beliefs by posting a hot link to your own writing? If your not willing to play that game then just go home. If the terms here offend your sensibilities show us what a high standard you have set in your own life. Or even better prove my thinking right, don't do this and keep your double standard hidden from us and keep talking from your vaulted anonymous position.
To Mr (who seems to want to remain) Anonymous, do I really believe that all liberals are retarded. No, of course not. The people themselves can be kind, they can formally educated in some cases. However, the ideology itself lacks intelligence significantly. Give me one ideology that is decidedly liberal (not just interpreted to be such) but an official concept that is intelligent. Go ahead I am waiting.
ReplyDeleteIn the mean time. Because you pulled the GA, Apostle, card I am going to have ask, which ones so I can check your claims? Please remember that the term liberal is different than being a democrat. I personally hold them to be very different ideals and ways of approaching public policy.
So my criticism of your blog is that it appears from what you've written that you generalize all liberals to be the same: they are all retarded, they lack intelligent thought, etc. I think this is far too simplistic a view of the world, even dangerous, and beneath critically-thinking adults. Your responses are the following: Obama hates America! You're gay, homo! Get a blog! You probably do the same thing! Liberals are dumb and just help those that are worthless themselves!
ReplyDeleteLook, I don't have a blog, I don't know why it is so important for me to have a blog. So if I don't have a site of my own that I can point you to, why should I make up some name for you? Who cares? And I can assure you that if I did have a blog I would try my very hardest not to resort to name-calling, childishness, or rude behavior. My goal is to critique the ideas, not the people themselves.
I like that James is now backing away, little by little, from hyperbole of this site, admitting that liberals can be intelligent and kind people. That is a nice step forward. I feel the same about conservatives. I will stop short of saying that conservative ideas are wholesale unintelligent, as you persist in doing, but we have a start.
Pres. Faust and Hugh B. Brown are your most prominent apostles that skewed liberal. Pres. Faust worked in Pres. Kennedy's civil rights department of the AGs office and has been quoted as saying he is fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I don't doubt that he would disagree with some of the Democrats' current positions, like most Mormon liberals do, but he was a self-described liberal. Pres. Brown had well-documented disagreements with then-Elder Benson on political matters and is generally understood to be a political liberal. These and others are easy to look up. We don't know the political persuasions of most apostles, which I think is a good thing, but we get nuggets here and there which show that there is plurality of political thought among them.
Now, lets see, an intelligent liberal idea. I hesitate to even begin to name some because I know that your knee-jerk reaction is to simply call stupid that with which you disagree, but for the sake of a good time I'll give it a try. I think the idea of ensuring that every American has adequate health care is intelligent. It certainly has its pros and cons, but in my opinion it is intelligent to remove the inefficiency from the market which precludes the poor from having health care. It would mean fewer sick days for those people and less missed work, and it would mean less strain on the insured who are picking up the full tab for the uninsured, for instance. I also think that placing an emotional importance on it is a sign of intelligence. We want people to be equals, we want to remove the damage caused by the uninsured being destroyed by medical bills, etc.
One other, then I will allow you to tell me that my ideas are stupid and that no intelligent person could hold these political beliefs. I think stressing environmental preservation over resource extraction and consumption is intelligent. We live in a world of limited resources and now that we coming down to the last of some of these resources it would be intelligent for us to be conservation-minded. If we take measured steps no to wean ourselves from dependence on fossil-fuels and hyper-consumption, the transition to an economy based on clean, renewable energy will be less jarring. It is intelligent to think of the future and plan decades in advance. It is intelligent to leave untrammeled wilderness for future generations. It is intelligent to strive for cleaner air and water. It is intelligent to ensure more biodiversity.
ReplyDeleteThere are also, in my mind, spiritual benefits to many of my liberal positions, which I won't go into here because you would guffaw. Does this help?
Now, I'm not offended by your site, I don't care that much about it to be offended. I don't have dainty sensibilities, I can handle criticism. I think your portrayal of liberals is childish and shallow, I won't back away from that. But I felt it was a good opportunity to call you on it. It hasn't helped, but I feel better anyway.
Anonymous, I am not "backing away" I am clarifying. I never said all liberals were retarded. I did say that liberal ideology is retarded. I am not simple enough that I can't separate the two.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the term liberal is concerned, the term that many of the early brethren used had little to do with what it means today. Social liberal today means pro-choice, national health care, gay rights, etc. Many of them grew up in the early 1900's with apostles like John A. Widtsoe. Their declarations of their political beliefs differ. Liberals even in the day of Kennedy were more conservative than some republicans today. For that matter it is all relative. For more on Elder Widsoe's definition to "Liberal" read this post. Yes it is from our blog but I think it puts into better perspective the frame of dialog in which these examples were speaking.
How about this Anonymous, how about I offer you the ability to post right to the main board of our blog. We want to offer the opportunity to all view points to express themselves in a reasoned manor. Your last few comments seem to be well thought out and posting to the main page would offer you the opportunity to explain them in greater detail.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind there will be open discussion and most likely disagreement on them as the two points you listed I do not agree with but I assure you that any disagreement will be civil as long as your postings reflect the same attitude. Also we all limit ourselves to one or two postings a week on days no one else has a post coming out and they can’t be novels, keep the length similar to what you see here.
Reply back and let me know if you’ll take me up on this. You would make me amazingly happy because to date not one socialist/liberal/commie Mormon has taken me up on this offer.
To approach your national health care argument let me first see if I can counter your argument that this is intelligence. First of all, you are taking rhetoric and calling it intelligence.
ReplyDeleteCurrently in this country everyone has access to health care. As the laws currently state, no one that comes into an emergency room is allowed to be denied health care. So in respect to the first part of your argument, that it is intelligent policy to give everyone equal access to health care, I agree and that is why it is already in place as such. Therefore no need for reform if your argument is based on equal access. That part of things "ain't broke" so why fix it?
Medical insurance is not a right unless your contracts with the insurance company are in default. Should a medical insurance provider deny coverage when they are contractually obligated to do so, then there are laws in place to remedy the problem. In this way one has a CONTRACTUAL right to medical insurance. I do realize that in this respect the laws could be strengthened toward the consumer as even government insurance denies people whom they have claimed to provide for. But until there is a contract I see no practical reason to force a contract to be in place. If the goal of the government is to keep costs down so that everyone can afford health care, forcing companies to take on bad risk policies, in turn forcing them to increase rates, is bad business sense, it is counter-productive, and therefore not intelligent. This idea will also have the reverse effect upon which it was originally predicated.
As far as environmental policy goes, rhetoric is again taken too far and called intelligence. Just because a person is not an environmentalist does not mean that we believe in extraction and consumption. God said that we should replenish the earth, not that we shouldn't use it. In fact, doctrine would say the opposite it perfectly true. That the earth has been given to us for our use, but that we are to replenish what we use. In this sense environmentalist's are the extreme not the standard in my opinion. I believe in recycling, I believe in planting trees and picking up my trash; I believe in doing good for the environment - but I am not an environmentalist. To give an example of how environmentalism has gone too far I will use the recent legislation mandating the sale of light bulbs. I believe that if new fluorescent light bulbs are more efficient and it saves people money, then the market will switch to that naturally. No need for the government to mandate it. As a matter of fact, to only allow certain light bulbs to be purchased, in a way, dissuades future progress. LED's are far superior in energy consumption and environmental concerns (meaning when an LED breaks it doesn't let toxic gases into the air) so why not go to that route? Because it really isn't about efficiency it is about government control.
Florescent bulbs are bad for the environment good for energy consumption. So it is really a shift of what is "best for the environment". Shifting problems is not intelligent, it is lazy public policy.
In both of these cases I would say that the principle is no different than conservatives or anyone else in this country - we just differ slightly on how those goals are to be brought about. I care about the environment, but mother nature doesn't takes its cues from government. Health care is a great thing to have, but I think if the government gets out of the way things would be better.
Why are these two liberal approaches not intelligent? Because the consequences of their rhetoric based policy creates the opposite effect of what they claim to intend. And like in the health care system there is a jump in logic. There are a few things wrong with the system so rather than fix the problems, liberals wish to completely overhaul it. Intelligent people fix problems, they don't create new ones.
Rhetoric is simply the art of persuasion. Rhetoric and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. But it is interesting to see you dismiss any argument that you don't agree with as rhetoric, while you make arguments in substantially the same fashion and call it intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree that all Americans have access to emergency care, but two points: First, emergency care is not enough. In order for our health care system to run efficiently and reduce costs is for more Americans to have preventive care. Those without insurance do not get preventive care and, even worse for the system, do not seek emergency care until the last possible moment, when the costs and risks are the highest. That is a heavy cost for society. Second, which is related, is that if all Americans had adequate insurance those high costs would not be foisted on those of us lucky enough to have insurance.
The only reason you place such an emphasis on the contract side of health insurance is because that is the system we set up. We are free to change the system if we believe we can make it better. I never said health insurance is a right, but it is within our power as citizens of a democracy to say that we think it is best for our nation as a whole to cover all Americans. No need for contract rights with corporations that only care about making money at the expense of covering the population. The free market works extraordinarily well in most cases, but an exception is the health care industry. Pure profit motivation is at odds with providing health insurance. It is perfectly intelligent to suggest we switch to a system that emphasizes the latter rather than the former.
As for the environment, I'm not sure I see your point. You don't call yourself an environmentalist so environmentalism is therefore unintelligent. Again you've fallen into the trap of generalizations. You assume every environmentalist is the same and, in your opinion, extreme. There is, in fact, every flavor of environmentalism imaginable. The core principle is the same, sacrifice on some level of consumption for the protection of the Earth, but it is by no means a monolithic movement.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not government intervention is necessary is a matter of taste, I suppose. The free market has failed in many sectors and regulation has been needed many times. Sometimes regulation succeeds, sometimes it fails. The nation marches on anyway. There is wisdom and intelligence in seeing that if we change to CFLs it will save billions of pounds of pollution in our air and in the long run be cheaper. Sometimes it takes a little nudge to get the ball rolling. Its not like the government is going to come around to everyone's house next week and force the switch.
Finally, M.Galt, why on Earth would I want to join a site that calls me a libtard and says my political beliefs are unintelligent? Perhaps you missed where I said I thought this site's generalizations and cliches were childish and shallow? Yes, its definitely hard to believe no liberal has taken you up on your offer to join.
I thought you said you can handle criticism? In fact, I think that is a direct quote, "I can take criciticism." from someone who goes by an anonymous moniker.
ReplyDeleteSorry, it is, "I can handle criticism."
ReplyDeleteAnd that’s what I thought. Give a liberal/socialist/commie an opportunity to make us all look bad with their superior thoughts and they chicken out because they know their ideas won’t hold up under examination.
ReplyDeleteThanks for furthering the stereotype I have developed of people with your political ideas. The offer still stands though, just think how cool it would be if you converted us all to your way of thinking, you could tell all the other liberal/socialist/commies how you turned us all out.
As for your arguments about the health care stuff, let’s accept your premise that health care needs to be reformed. The next question would then be “in what way should we reform it?” Do we do as you suggest (well come to think of it you haven’t put for the any options only the murky idea that you are for a government take over) and allow the government to handle every single person in this countries health care? Or do we go with a free market approach?
If we take your route then I should expect that you could produce an example of where the government has run anything that comes in under or at budget and provides a superior service when compared to a privet program.
If we take the free market approach lets look at food. Is food any more or less important to human survival then health care? For the sake of the argument let’s just assume they are equal. The food service in this country with little more then product safety specifications has lowered food cost and time devoted to producing food steadily to the point that I can get a hamburger with enough calories to support life each day for a dollar or less. The free market for food has allowed privet individuals and companies the opportunity to produce products that people want to buy while at the same time keeping them alive longer then at any point in history.
If health care was allowed the free market style of food production, distribution and sales then we would have more options at a cheaper cost then any government program could ever option.
The fatal flaw to you and every other left winger on this issue is that you suppose that an all powerful government can presuppose every concern, need, want, and desire of every single person in this whole country. I propose the radical idea that there is no way any human or group of humans can suppose knowledge that only God has. As such the free market is the only way people will ever get the needs they need met.
To the health care argument, for me preventative care is taking care of your body, eating right, exercising, not drinking alcohol and smoking, etc. These are all things that are considered preventative and they don't require an insurance company to provide them.
ReplyDeleteProfit does in some ways put motivations at odds with health care. But this is most true with people who are improperly motivated regardless of whether the government is involved or not. I am getting tired of people thinking that companies are the only people concerned with money. The government is always looking for ways to get more money from the people. You tell me that a Senator that is pushing health care is properly motivated and their support for it has nothing to do with paying back their special interest money and I will call you a liar. The Senators who are pushing for this stand to make millions during their tenure and after. It is a well documented fact. So it isn't like government is purely motivated in how they are going to run health care. Fraud in government contracts is rampant in this country, wait till they get their hands on health care.
For me the government is there to protect the rights of the citizens, not provide all the services the citizens feel are too expensive to pay for themselves.
And lastly, call it rhetoric, call it whatever you want. When you follow a principle or practice that fails and will continue to fail, that is unintelligent. The government sought to "fix" certain problems in the great depression with Social Security - a now soon to be bankrupt system that has drained billions of tax payer dollars to fund everything but a reasonable retirement. I understand that much of the same mentality that was used to get SS passed is being used to put in place national health care. The reality is nothing the government does is more efficient than the private sector. NOTHING. If you want to plant the seeds of a health care system that is going to be under funded vs. a private profit motivated health care system, I will choose the later.
And so if costs are soaring now with the cost cutting profit generating model, it would stand to REASON that having an inefficient, corrupt government come in and offer health care will do nothing other than cause costs to increase and the quality of care to come down.
In a metaphorical sense what the government is proposing sounds to me like amputating a broken arm instead of simply fixing the broken arm. This to me sums up why this is an illogical idea. It is also my belief that this mentality applies to much of what liberals believe in.
Consider for a moment (Anonymous) how far phones and telecommunications have come since being de-regulated. Cell phones, VOIP, internet on cell phones, etc. I have magic jack which is only 20 dollars year for free phone calls the whole year. Now consider how things are with the power companies. They have not been deregulated. What do we have, blackouts, power shortages, inefficient power. And to think that corporations are corrupt organizations, lets look at a regulated company from the government - ENRON, case closed. Image your local hospital earning the government contract for your health care "utility". Not a pretty picture. I look to the progress made with phones and telecommunications and I look to the energy issues; then apply that to the health care industry and see all the progress that is being made through charities and through private practices throughout the country, all the medical advancements that pour into our system, and then bring that to a hault using the power company model. That is why the government is proposing. It would seem to me that for the government to fix a problem, they can't be creating one at the same time. History has shown that making something like this, Social Security, Power regulation, etc, have all been sloppy and inefficient next to the options and advancements that have come through government getting out of the way.
For a blog whose bread and butter is over-the-top generalizations and strawman arguments, you, M.Galt, take the cake with this little beauty:
ReplyDelete"The fatal flaw to you and every other left winger on this issue is that you suppose that an all powerful government can presuppose every concern, need, want, and desire of every single person in this whole country.
Kudos to you. When you use a definite like the many in that statement, it automatically undercuts your argument and betrays a lack of depth.
First, I explicitly said just up thread that I think the free market works in most situations. I just said it! And I believe it. Second, most liberals agree with me. Third, I cannot think of a worse comparison that with food. The only reason we are talking about health care is because there is a very real problem that many millions of Americans are dealing with. Decades of the free market approach have brought us to this problem. If the free market hasn't exactly worked, maybe more regulation or government-created exchanges or even a single payer system might work better. Other countries have tried these approaches in dozens of different ways, some have worked rather well and some haven't. We should be able to come up with a system that works beyond just the market approach we are dealing with now.
Conversely, there is no widespread and urgent dilemma in the food industry. The free market is working there. I can't imagine how you thought that was a good comparison.
Now, you've called me chicken, which was really hurtful. But I like the tough-guy approach. It reminds me of Back To The Future II where Marty McFly would cave any time the bully called him chicken. But I want to become a famous guitar player so I'm not going to fall into your trap. And its not my fault that you are not mentally dexterous enough to avoid stereotypes, which are the hallmark of a lack of critical thinking.
GWH, what does one have to do with the other? I think I've taken your criticisms pretty well here (maybe not batting 1.000, but I'm doing okay), but why would I purposely expose myself to people calling me retarded because of my political opinions? Would you? This is kind of fun, but I don't want to be a permanent member of your little blog, here, I have some self-respect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security is the one system that actually works! It's been on the books for, what, 80 years now and is still solvent for years to come. The reason insolvency is approaching is because too many people had their hands in the cookie jar. Left to itself, it would still be going strong. And it is available to every retired American, rich or poor, and has kept millions of retirees out of poverty.
ReplyDeleteNow, James, I agree that there are certain inherent inefficiencies in government-run programs, and I agree that individual elected officials do act in self-interest. I think the best thing to do, as an aside, would be term limits for federal offices. Often their self-interest, though, is simply to get re-elected, which means they want to solve some problems and work to improve our lives. Happy voters = reelection. Not always successful, but neither is the free market. Neither is perfect, so why automatically dismiss one source of problem-solving? We are never going to get a perfect system, so we bargain and trade and go back and forth and do our best.
I just think that some problems are too big and important to leave to individuals to solve on their own, or to corporations to solve through profit motivation. Not all problems! I never said that! You are right that the market (gently regulated) works best in most cases, but something like health care might need a problem solver whose reach and power goes a little further.
We have a basic difference here, I won't convince you that I'm right, but I'd like, more than anything in the whole wide world, is to convince you that I'm not retarded for thinking it. Alas, I will likely fail.
For the record, in response to Mr Anonymous's statement, "You don't call yourself an environmentalist so environmentalism is therefore unintelligent. Again you've fallen into the trap of generalizations."
ReplyDeleteTwo things, First, a blog is hardly the place to give too many specifics for every example of every degree of belief in any creed. It is impractical to deal with specifics in a blog setting and to be able to talk about anything to any comprehensive level. This is for discussion, not a research paper. So we deal with the generalizations only, not the exceptions to the rule.
Second, as far as the implications of all of your comments Mr. Anonymous, it would seem that you have a problem with me saying that what I believe is intelligent and anything i don't believe is unintelligent. You say this as if this is a negative or a bad standard to keep for ourselves.
Of course I believe what I believe to be intelligent. I enjoy and embrace truth. Why would I want to follow something that I feel is not intelligent? Would you rather I say, "I believe stupid things and that suits me fine"? So for the record, of course I believe what I believe to be intelligent. If I don't believe in it, I have most likely determined it to be less preferential than what I DO believe in, and in some cases I have determined it to be down right unintelligent. It sounds to me like you have a different standard. Perhaps YOU believe in things you think are not intelligent? As for me I believe what I believe because I think it makes sense and is therefore intelligent. You can believe whatever you want, but intelligence is my standard. Guilty as charged.
Jacob S, or Anonymous, whatever you wish to call yourself (yes we got your slip up finally) your statement, "Social Security is the one system that actually works! It's been on the books for, what, 80 years now and is still solvent for years to come. The reason insolvency is approaching is because too many people had their hands in the cookie jar." is a direct contradiction of yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou make the unsubstantiated statement that Social Security is a system that works (I am laughing so hard inside right now) and that it is solvent for years to come, yet you then say in the very next sentence that it is insolvent. Thank you so much for making all our points with such clarity.
Anonymous AKA Jacob S.
ReplyDeleteHere is the cool thing about being a moderator of a blog, we get to select if we want to be emailed every comment that is posted on our blog, a tool I actually take advantage of. So when you slipped up and posted a comment as your online persona “Jacob S. from the Mormon Left blog it showed up from me. It also showed up from me when quickly deleted your posting and then re-posted it under “Anonymous.”
So with these peaces of evidence in my hands I am able to deduce that you lied when you said you didn’t have a blog for us to come and check your ideas out at. Now why is it that some one who is LDS would lie about such a simple matter of if they have a blog that they post to or not? Wouldn’t this lie when caught cast a shadow on every posting you make? I’m at a lose, please explain why you would lie to us about such a simple matter and why after you are caught in this lie we should believe or lend credence to anymore of your arguments after you felt it necessary to lie about such a simple thing? If your lying about such a small matter what else are you lying about? Maybe all these left leaning LDS people you have talked about?
So here we have a self proclaimed Latter Day Saint who feels justified in lying as a means to prove his point. If this doesn’t speak volumes about your side, your lack of confidence in the connection between socialist politics and the faith you claim to hold but do not exercise I don’t know what does.
You got me guys. Honestly, I wanted to talk with you but I didn't want what happened to Steve M to happen to me. I thought I'd take a low profile at first before going all in. Sorry for the deception.
ReplyDeleteM. Galt...
ReplyDeleteAs a "good" Latter Day Saint, can you honestly justify calling Jacob S. out like this? You've just slumped to the very level you've accused him of- actually much lower. Pathetic.
You've just lost a follower.
JLL
So hears the problem Jacob S, you perfectly illustrate the left in every way…lying to try to prove your point. In fact lying is pretty much the only way anything left leaning gets accomplished. I thought when entering the Mormon blog world I could have a rational discussion with people of apposing views but in almost three years I am sad to report you are the rule, not the exception for the left in the church….very sad….I thought our shared faith would set us up for good discussion.
ReplyDeleteAs apposed to you we are perfectly confident in our positions and don’t feel that lying is a “must do” to get it accomplished. In all honesty I am/was more then happy to offer you a place to post and get your “progressive” ideas out there. I know this may be hard to understand for some one who feels deception is a good way but we are so confident in our beliefs that it doesn’t bother us to have some one post something different, we don’t ban people from our blog like Steve S. and we don’t lie like yourself, what you see is what you get.
And lets try to move forward with honesty, its not deception, we call it lying. The sooner you can own up to it yourself the better off you will be. Well that’s assuming you actually apply your new found moral standard to your political thought I guess.
JLL,
ReplyDeleteReally? I catch the guy lefty lying; call him out and some how I’m the bad guy? Yeah that makes a lot of sense. If catching political liars is some how against your political and ethical code maybe this blog isn’t for you. Jacob S. has a blog called “The Mormon Left” if you’re into lying, fantasy and other left wing ideas maybe your better off over there.
Come back any time.
M. Galt...
ReplyDeleteBy your actions, you have absolutely come to be the "bad guy"! I'm not condoning Jacob's actions in any way here. I don't know Jacob at all. Yup.... he lied. BUT, you've managed to prove that your pride is more important than doing what's right. Your comments, both here and on the Mormon Left, are mean-spirited, cruel, and not the words of a "good" LDS person.
And you are completely wrong and out of line to say that all lefty's lie to prove their point. Thats the most asinine comment I've ever heard.
JLL
I lied. I used bad judgment. I was hoping to avoid what is happening right now where someone from this site bombs mine. I wanted to ease into this relationship a little bit. This is not the end of the world, though, and I would suggest we keep it civil.
ReplyDeleteWow, the mote in one eye is that people lie, the other is capitalizing on their sin (yes lying is a sin). Perhaps we should move on since we are up to 82 comments on a blog posting looking for nominations of trivial awards to liberals are unintellectual liars. Not where things were meant to go here.
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps it is time to move one to other postings. For the record, not matter how "un-civil people have come across in this blog, everyone has been free to express themselves and everyone is free to disagree with anyone.
Jll
ReplyDeleteI thought you weren’t coming back?
Just in case the Social Security stuff went unattended in the verbal fray, I wanted to add more proof the idea that social security is not a solvent program.
ReplyDeleteRead this link when you have a chance.
Jacob S.
ReplyDeleteI’ve got my ounce of flesh on this one. Thanks for owning up to it at least, some one else would have just not posted back.
What have we learned? Maybe we should all use better langue and avoid terms like “libtard” and maybe we should all strive to be more honest in our ideas and so on.
While you may not have wanted your site blasted this is exactly what people from the left do to our site. (you included) We are OK with it though because again we really do believe in the open expression of ideas, even if don’t believe in your ideas. I was very series in inviting you to post on our blog…nit so sure now but please come back and share your ideas, just be ready to defend them against people who are going to come at them with both barrels.
Okay, I think we are all okay now. Sorry again. Please feel free to come to our site and discuss the issues as well.
ReplyDeleteAs for Social Security, the point I was trying (inartfully) to make was the following:
1) Social Security has had a very long existence.
2) After 80 some years, SS is still solvent, and will be for a number of years to come.
3) We know it won't be solvent forever, perhaps 10 or 20 years down the line.
4) The reason is that it has been used for non-SS spending.
5) Left insular, it would be solvent perpetually. Your link itself noted that it has been funding the rest of government for some time.
I think its benefits over the past decades far outweigh its negatives.
I just want to chime in that I'm not relinquishing my use of the term Libtard. If anything this entire commentary has solidified the use of it, due to libtarded behavior.
ReplyDeleteTo say the system is solvent for years to come then say it only has 10 more years left seems to be a contradiction. I read the article and I read the part where it said that it was doing fine until everyone was dipping their hands into the pool. But you missed how that was the case. They had to raise taxes before they were able to get that surplus. To compare terms, for the government we call it surplus, in business it is called profit. In other words, the government was profiting off an increase in taxes - the system wasn't "working" that is why they did that.
ReplyDeleteSo on the one hand you are right. The system was making money until everyone dipped their hands into the pot. That was true about my own incomes as well until the government started dipping their hands in it.
In the end we can debate on why the system failed, but the fact without debate is that yet another government program failed. There are multiple reasons why we have every reason to think that the same will be true of national health care.
@ James S.--
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify my earlier post: I was lashing out at not YOU, Mr. Anonymous, but at all who choose to post under "Anonymous." In other words, the faceless legion that is "Mr. Anonymous."
If you look back at the history of this blog you will see numerous instances of "Anonymous" posting to take personal attacks and potshots at most posters and many postings. I am sorry if it sounded as if I were singling you out.
I hope that clarifies things.
I respect your fears about the attacks on your own blog. I have faced them myself. I have been personally banned (and had my blog banned too) from several blog aggregates simply because I choose to comment on SOTL once in a while. I have been attacked by those on the left who have visited my blog--you won't find a lot, however. While I respect freedom of speech in political thought and in ideology, my blog is mostly about personal experiences and observations, only sometimes dabbling into politics. Most of the negative comments I have received came from obvious left-leaning sites, and were personal attacks against my wife and family and so were deleted. That's what comes of the "bloggernacle" wars apparently.
Anyway, all this to say: as a reader and frequent commenter to SOTL, I would have no problem with you as an alternative voice if the moderators will have you. I've perused some of your posts on your own blog and, while I think you and I are standing on opposite sides of a GREAT divide, politically, I see that you put thought and effort into the things you believe.
I will also admit to having found a few points you made where my head nodded in agreement.
Well, I'm going to be the self stated voice of reason in this whole invite the lefty to the Spirit of the Law blog in order to get an alternative perspective business. Initially I was suprised by M galts extending the offer but as I thought about it I thought the idea was not too shabby. Then as it turns out Mr. Anon is a liar and used all sorts of typical Lefty Libtard rationalization to justify his dishonesty, I am wholeheartedly opposed. How could you trust the post let alone the information given to back up anything he might say after having set such a precedent. It's like Clinton lied to his wife but we as a nation can trust him.... it doesn't make sense. I know all of this is not important because he already turned down the offer but I'm just saying.....
ReplyDeleteIM,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of posting on the main page James and I wanted you to start posting on the main page. Let me know if you’re interested.
@M.Galt & James: I'd be honored.
ReplyDelete