Quantcast

Comments about ‘Romney argues case for cultural conservatism’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 16 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@RanchHand:

"You can no more separate religion and politics than you can separate democrats from liberals."

I think that happened back in the 1980's when the Democratic congress would tax the working poor to pay for subsidized health insurance for retired millionaires (Medicare) or when they spent the social security surplus to make the deficit look smaller (raided a pension fund) or in 1991 they spent less on helping the homeless in 1991 than the Bush administration proposed.

One can't separate the Democrats from PC.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Speaking at Liberty and talking about how marriage is tool for fighting poverty was in fact invoking a liberal argument. Supporting marriage is a liberal value because it fights poverty because it reduces out of wedlock births.

It might increase their imagination so that they being to think what else can be done to fight poverty.

(I wonder if that is why some people are criticizing or belittling this: they are uncomfortable with a Republican invoking what should have been a Democratic argument).

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Oops! I have to correct my missive posted at 8:17 pm. It should have started with:
"@Redshirt" rather than with
"@Ranchhand".

I apologize to both Redshirt and RanchHand.

I can't see how anyone can claim that Obama is Moslem. What is the evidence? Why would the Moslem Brotherhood support him? If he did have a connection with the Moslem Brotherhood why isn't he putting more pressure on Israel rather than giving them a pass?

Esquire
Springville, UT

Which is more conservative, freedom to live your life as you determine and choose, or having conservative institutions (including churches and government) dictate and compel you in how you must live your life? What a conundrum, right?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
"Every man is free to choose his church, but he is not free from the consequences of making a poor choice"

So you think Romney deserves whatever anti-mormonism gets thrown his way because people have a right to hold politicians accountable for what they consider to be "poor choices" in religion? Or let me guess... you think this is something okay to fire at Obama but not at Romney?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@alt134;

The only "right choice", according to every Mormon, is the one they made. Everybody else gets to "suffer the consequences".

They just don't see their own hubris.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Esquire" but your ilk does not advocate for freedom to live life as you choose. The liberals are intruding into our lives at an unprecidented rate. Your ilk would force those who are successful to pay for those who are irresponsible.

The conservative does maintain freedom, while your liberal ilk "dictate and compel you in how you must live your life". Just look at the number of regulations that they have enacted since 2009.

You claim you want freedom, yet you and your ilk vote for people and policies that put government in charge of your life. Just look at Obama's "Julia" slide show. Where is the freedom there, somebody has to pay for it, and why society take care of people from cradle to grave?

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

Ilk four times in one comment. Did you just learn a new word?

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Redshirt1701, so what is my "ilk"? Someone who does not agree with you? I stand on my premise and strongly assert that conservatives are as hypocritical on the issue of freedom as anyone on the face of the planet.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Esquire" your ilk are the hard core leftist liberals.

You may stand on your premise, but it is a premise that is based solely on opinion and lacks any facts to support it.

Simply put, freedom is inversely proportional to regulation. Liberals regulate, and seek ways to regulate more. The more regulations there are, the less freedom we enjoy.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

@ RedShirt 8:26 a.m. May 18, 2012

"Simply put, freedom is inversely proportional to regulation. Liberals regulate, and seek ways to regulate more. The more regulations there are, the less freedom we enjoy."

Its probably semantics but.. Does this mean the more Commandments and directives there are the less Free Agency there is?

Ball is in your court, Redshirt...

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"Your ilk would force those who are successful to pay for those who are irresponsible."..like those darn old people, those ingrate disableds, the poor children,who are daily being taught to mooch (if they just went to bed hungry they'd soon learn true values).

PS. business regulations under Obama are fewer than under Bush...fact.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Hank Pym" no, Free Agency is not something that government can take away. Governments can take away freedom, which is not necessarily equal to agency.

To "pragmatistferlife" why should you pay for the retirement of somebody who refused to save for their own retirement? Isn't that irresponsible?

What about people who are claim disabilities who are not really disabled, yet claim the benefits?

What about the parents who are poor because they thought that dropping out of Highschool and getting pregnant at age 16 because their boyfriend said that he would take care of them?

What about the poor children who have breakfast at home, then go so school and get the federally funded breakfast and lunch, then go home and have steaks because their parents WIC account had too much money in it?

Again you are wrong about Obama and his business reglations (obama has only approved fewer new regulations, the regulations are still adding up):

See "Obama's regulatory flood is drowning economic growth" in the Washington Examiner.

"Obama Wrote 5% Fewer Rules Than Bush While Costing Business" at Bloomberg

"Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" US News.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

@ RedShirt 11:14 a.m. May 18, 2012

That was not the point of my analogy. Gov'ts are akin to regulation not agency. Nice attempt @ obfuscation, though.

There is; As people/corporations are going to do what they feel are in their best interest whether is physical survival or the fiscal bottom line.

I guess this means Darwin > Adam Smith

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Hank Pym" then what was the point of your analogy. Your analogy was quite clear that you assumed that that Commandments limited Agency. Now, it appears that you are backtracking and trying to coverup you mistake, rather than admitting that you are wrong.

People/corporations will always do what they feel is in their best interest with respect to physical survival, the fiscal bottom line, or to maintain their power or position.

Adam Smith and Darwin are at best parallels. But, that is better than the alternative, which is socialism and its eugenics parallel.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments