The caucus system is the best way to make sure grass roots movements can work
over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone with $100,000 can go
against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.Most people that
want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they
don't have as much power as people that show up to the caucus meetings. It
doesn't take money, you just have to show up.What we need are more
people getting involved earlier, not shutting down the system that protects us
from the power hungry people wanting to take over.
"consequences to gay marriage that affect a straight marriage"First of all, you ignore the decline of marriage in Canada and European
nations that have so devalued marriage as to make living in sin and even
homosexual coupling its legal equal.Second of all, you artificially
limit unwanted, negative affects only to those who are in real marriages. What of the loss of religious freedom and freedom of speech when
ministers are arrested simply for peacefully preaching to their congregation
that homosexual conduct is sinful or when classic rock and roll songs are banned
from the radio for using a word that also means a bundle of burning sticks?
Those are recent headlines from Canada.From the US we have small
business owners being cited simply for peacefully declining to do business with
those who flaunt homosexual conduct. A church is fined for not making its
reception center available for homosexual "wedding" ceremonies.
Fertility doctors fined for referring homosexual couples to doctors who don't
have moral objections to their lifestyle rather than providing non-emergency,
elective services himself. Even SLC/SLCo force private landlords to rent in
violation of their moral beliefs.Tolerance? Diversity? Hardly.
Immigration is multi-faceted problem and requires a multi-faceted solution.Enforcing employment laws against the officers and HR directors of
companies will dry up jobs for illegal aliens.Requiring proof of
citizenship to get welfare will eliminate that draw for those who come not so
interested in otherwise honest work.Better border security will make
it more difficult for criminals to enter the nation illegally.Eliminating birthright citizenship for children born here to illegal aliens
will eliminate that draw.And interior enforcement with a lifetime
ban on legal re-entry for any illegal alien caught in our nation after some
reasonable date, will provide yet another incentive to self-deport.Those who focus on only one aspect are not serious about solving this problem.
Liberals focus on business but ignore border security, enforcement, and
birthright citizenship. Too many on the right ignore the role of business.
Those who are serious include each aspect.Once the flow of illegal
aliens is stemmed, we might find that we do want or need additional legal
immigrants. But until we stem the illegal tide, how do we know one way or the
other for sure?
DougB | 10:35 a.m., Interesting point of view. While I
have made my opposition against Prop 8 clear previously... the vibe
I get from LDS members (Of which, I am not) is that many favor the rights of
immigrants as a moral issue, but find themselves conflicted when trying to
adhere to the laws of the land when it comes to immigrants. The
villification of immigrants aside (headless bodies, Jan Brewe) many view
immigrants first and foremost as people, which is good. And some who live in
America may actually be decended from immigrants themselves. while I
have yet to see any consequences to gay marriage that affect a straight
marriage, my stance on immigration is that if we start shutting DOWN the
companies that HIRE illegal immigrants of any flavor, we then stop the demand
for anyone to come into this country illegally, AND stop any abuse to illegal
workers. (i.e. less than minimum wage, no legal recourse in abuse, no FMLA,
etc) Your thoughts?
Yes, but what I find disappointing, is that -- in my own community at least --
many of those who were so adamant about the right of the LDS Church to enter the
Prop 8 discussion are now condemning the Church for entering the HB116
discussion.I'm fairly libertarian and I might have ignored Prop8,
had my Church not taken a stance. As it was, here in Utah I didn't vote on it
or do anything really, but I took time to read both points of view because the
Church felt it so important to preserve the current protected definition of
marriage as between a man and a woman. I was genuinely interested in all the
ramifications of why they would enter that argument when I might have been
inclined to just not worry about it.In this case, I already held
opinions found in the Utah Compact; I was already OK with HB116. So I was
delighted (instead of intrigued) when the LDS Church jumped into the argument
with the stances they articulated.I just feel that those LDS who
advocated rethinking the consequences of Prop 8, might also be well served in
re-thinking attitudes about immigration.
DougB | 7:30 a.m., A valid point. But the LDS church
also came out specifically favoring Prop 8, HB116, etc. This is not
new for this church to support a political issue.
One of the things I find most fascinating about this debate is the fact that the
LDS Church issued an official statement *in favor* of the immigration laws
passed in Utah this year and *specifically* singled out HB116 for clear approval
in that statement.
Any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who comes out in support of HB116
deserves to lose the next election. And, yes, it will be a litmus test.
Turning Utah into a Sanctuary state should be of enough concern to the average
Utahn that I can't see why anyone would be able to get elected with that
Obama 2012. Easy.
"Both parties will need to nominate mainstream, problem-solving
candidates."Are the 'mainstream' candidates really the only
problem-solvers? I hope that's not what you meant. Nationally, 'mainstream'
candidates have given us trillion dollar deficits and wars in more and different
places in the middle-east. It usually is the fringe that sticks to principles
of financial sanity and the rule of law. But once again, Mr. Webb decides to
deride people who actually believe anything in order to defend the status quo,
even long after the quo has lost its status. (I got that description from a
poster depicting Congress)