I'll take this rant seriously when a Republican proposes a budget that
spends only 15% of GDP, which is what taxes currently bring in. Till then,
it's just blowing smoke.
Hate to break it to you Kim, but you have fallen into the rut of thinking that
the GOP is not guilty of overspending. Granted, so are the Dems.But, the GOP's thirst for unfunded Wars and lower taxes play a huge part
of the problem.According to the very conservative Cato Institute
(started by Charles Koch)"President Bush has presided over the
largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B.
Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland securityTotal government spending grew by 33 percent during Bushs first term."And all this with a GOP controlled house and senate.I hate
to break it to you, but we are our problems are not caused by the GOP
compromising with the big spending Dems.They are quite capable of
overspending (including people like Paul Ryan) as the best of the Dems.History has shown that.
Oh, good grief, Kim. You apparently don't want to live in a democratic
republic. You want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship where a Christian
social & fiscal conservative controls everything and you never have to deal
with opposing viewpoints. No wonder there has been talk of secession from your
side. If there was a nice blank spot on the map you could all run off to and
form your own walled-off insular nation of laissez-faire theocrats, I'd say
go for it. But there isn't, so you're stuck living in a nation with
people of different opinions. Get used to it.The rest of your letter
includes nanny state blather, regurgitations on liberal media boogeymen, and
starry-eyed mythology about our nation's origins. Those are tired old
talking points typical of a voter who feels disenfranchised after losing an
election. Nothing substantive or remotely relevant there.
If you compromise your principles too much, you lose your soul, your morality,
your purpose! That's how liberals become liberals-no principles. Everything
is ok! There is no right or wrong and everything is relative! Only your FEELINGS
matter. Sound familiar?
I feel sorry for those who believe this nonsense.Hey Kim....your guy Bush
is not a democrat, and he nearly sank us all.The next time the GOP
reaches across the aisle to work with the Dems on ANYTHING will be the first.
As Emajor said mountainman..you apparently don't want to live in a
democratic republic..and I would add reality. Compromise happens not because
you lose your principles but because you've lost your power/influence.
Compromise simply means you get what you can when you can. You
think you're going to lose your soul if you comprimise with a
liberal...no..what you're going to lose is elections and any further
opportunity to influence political outcomes. Whine all you want but this
country (out of neccessity) is becoming both socially and politically center
left. Center left means libertarian on social issues, more keynesian than
austrian on economic issues, and Hamiltonian in their view of the role of
government is society.
@ pragmatistferlife. All I am saying is there are things all honorable people
will not negotiate; their values, their freedom, their principles and their
sacred honor. These things we will not surrender. If we do, what have we become?
To some these things are just "words". To others, they are the standards
by which we conduct our lives.Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Mountanman,Your point about principles is absolutely true. But this
is not about whether we are loyal to our families, the gospel, or even our
nation.Our current situation is about political decisions. There is
nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about this level of taxation or that
level of spending. High spending in times of war may be quite moral but less so
in times of peace. When facing large debts, cutting spending that we would
normally not want to cut and raising taxes to levels we do not like, may also be
quite moral.My point is simply that there is no particular rate of
taxation or spending that is moral or immoral. The morality comes into play
when considering what we can afford and how these decisions affect future
generations.The reason compromise is so important is because if we
do not have some, NOTHING will get done. You need votes to move legislation.
Period. And, if we do nothing, the nation will continue on an unsustainable
course. In my book, that would be immoral.For our politicians on
both sides, I think much of this is more about power and influence than morality
"righteous principles...fiscal conservatism and the free enterprise
system"I just love it when people lump these terms together as
if conservatism and capitalism were somehow ordained of God. The fact is that
there are many people living in a variety of monetary and government systems
throughout the world who are living righteous lives. In fact the dominant
religion of Utah promoted the United Order at one time, where each received
according to his needs, but it was abandoned because people were not
"righteous" enough to live it.Until one side can prove the
that their platform is te absolute perfect one for everyone to live by,
compromise is the only way for us to progress. Dictatorship has never been a
re: Mountanman 7:28 a.m. Dec. 12Blindly following an absolute,
carved in stone, w/ no deviation plan. Gee! Where have we heard that before and
how did it work out?
Hank. Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who has done that?
But there are absolutes in the world, its called truth; things as they really
are, as they always have been and as they always will be.
Mike Lofgren, was a Republican aide and Congresssional staffer for nearly 30
yrs, the last 16, as an analyst on the House and Senate Budget Committees. Upon
retiring he wrote a scathing critque of his own party, stating:"I could see the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an
otherwise routine legislative procedure, used 87 times since World War II, to
concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis, to get what they wanted, by
literally holding the US and global economies hostages.... the
Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in
a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of
the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate
confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican
filibuster. ..It is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now
become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in
the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined
minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to
undermine democracy itself."
Yes, mountainman, there is a thing called truth.But it is very, very
frequently tossed aside by you and other posters here. Here is one example from
a few days ago in which one of our frequent posters slips and allows the truth
to come out""procuradorfiscalTooele, UT 4:38
p.m. Dec. 9, 2012Re: "Procura: With views like yours . . . ."My views are completely irrelevant to facts."That tells it
all. So I submit respectfully the question, if someone feels facts are
irrelevant, is that truth?
@Mountanman -- And so I infer that you think that a top tax rate of 35% is one
of those absolutes, the truth, something that can never be compromised on. This
is what we're talking about compromising on. Not murder.
MountanmanHayden, ID@ pragmatistferlife. All I am saying is there
are things all honorable people will not negotiate; their values, their freedom,
their principles and their sacred honor. ============ Mountaman, Get off you moral High-Horse.You whine higher
taxes on the upper 1% to help pay for Bush's 2 un-funded wars, about
yet supported the same goon who actully DID strip away FREEDOM - and introduced
America to Ghestapo citizen spying, and ven maockingly sugar coated calling it
the ficticous "Patriot Act"...and you bought it hook, line
and sinker.Your sense of honor means nothing, becuase you
don't even know what Freedom means.Freedom to you is right near
and dear to your keester - it's only your wallet.
I would like to know what exactly conservatives compromised on. Remember now, we
were already trillions in debt when Obama took office. So I don't want to
hear anything about the ACA. Did Democrats want Medicare part D?Did Democrats push for these tax cuts?Did Democrats desire 2 unfunded
wars?Were Democrats in the White House when TARP was passed?Were
Democrats in control of Congress and the White House when Clinton's surplus
was quickly turned into trillions in debt?Were Democrats in control when
stimulus package after stimulus package was passed from 2000-2008?Finally, who was the last GOP President who balanced the budget? Any ideas
@One old man. I guess you will have to decide what truth means to you. @Wonder. If I knew a 35% tax rate on a minority of citizens would be the
"true" solution to our economic problems, I would be all for it. The
truth is, there is no amount of taxation that can sustain our government's
spending as it is. The truth is our government spends too much money, money we
don't have; hence our $16.2 trillion and growing by over a $1.5 billion
everyday debt. The truth is unless we control our spending, our economy can not,
will not survive.
Those who believe in law and who have integrity insist that Congress limit
itself to do only what we, the people, have authorized it to do. Those who do
not believe in law insist that Congress can do anything at any time and that one
segment of the population, the fictional "rich guy" pays for
everything.Principles guide everything that we do. If we are
principled, we NEVER do anything at the expense of someone else nor do we pass
our responsibilities onto others. If we have no principles, we don't care
how much someone else is hurt, as long as we get what we want.We
have the right to expect the Federal Government to limit itself to only do those
things that we have authorized it to do. If we have principles, we will loudly
object any time the Federal Government exceeds those limits.Compromise is not possible when some people willingly reject the Constitution
and then demand that we go along with them. No person with principles will
participate in illegal activity. Any program not authorized by the Constitution
is illegal on the Federal level. No compromise is possible.
I understood that "raising taxes" is against Conservative Republican
values. If they do nothing, taxes WILL go up. If conservatives compromise, at
least they can negotiate some restraint in the increase. What an extremely odd
letter "Conservatives should do nothing, and let taxes rise a lot".
What exactly have Republicans compromised on?
Agreed, Mountain.But to me, and others like me, Truth is something
precious and is based entirely on facts. If facts do not support what we try to
say, then we are not being truthful.The rants of Rush and Glenn and
Sean and others are not facts and cannot be used as the basis for truth.And if truth is not there, then what do we have?May I submit
that the lack of truth is a lie?
If the debt is the #1 issue for the GOP then they should absolutely just let us
fall off the cliff. The mandatory cuts and tax increases will take huge bites
out of the deficit and have us paying off the debt in no time!But at
what cost? Guess we'll find out if they don't compromise!
There is a war going on in America. Only it’s not between Republicans and
Democrats, it’s business versus the people. The writer is
correct that our nation was started out by businessmen, They were seeking to
keep the profits of the new world to themselves and not share it with overseas
businessmen. They must have been lacking in funds to pay for
soldiers so they came up with some grandiose promises like equal opportunity,
all men are equal, liberty and justice for all. Of course the ordinary people
ate it up hook line and sinker. They won the day and even started out to prove
up on their promises. But then they had to deal with the
businessmen in charge of the colonies. The result of that gave us the Bill of
Rights and allowed the colonies to maintain their monopolies in what became
states. Up until the latter part of the 1900s it seemed like the
people were winning in their efforts to be more civilized. It was then that
technology and size gave the advantage back to business. If we don’t
change, we may go back to the world in the 1800s
Emajor:Best comment I've seen in ages. Well said.Mike Richards:I'm getting weary of your absolutist
declarations of what can only be described as sweeping generalities. For
instance: "If we are principled, we NEVER do anything at the expense of
someone else nor do we pass our responsibilities onto others." I'm
sorry, but that is such simplistic thinking it deserves a quick response. In the
real world, organizations and individuals often have competing needs.
There's no getting around it, and if both follow their principles and try
to meet their needs, one or the other is going to come out damaged or
disadvantaged in some way. Unfortunately, in our society, organizations wield so
much power that it is the individual that is often harmed. If you can figure out
a way to prevent this, you'll deserve some sort of international award.
Until then, please spare us the shallow bromides.
once again the letter writer manages to belch out every talking point from the
past election and just like during the election they fail to provide any
evidence to support their claims. time for new talking points people these ones
have failed you.
The only truth you can rely on is the truth that you can never know the truth.
"That's how liberals become liberals-no principles. Everything is ok!
There is no right or wrong and everything is relative! Only your FEELINGS
matter. Sound familiar?"No actually, it doesn't sound
familiar. What exactly are you insinuating?
@HendersonThe Republicans HAVE compromised.....their honor, their
integrity, the truth, reality, ...
Kent,We live in a right/wrong world. It is very simple. You can
try to avoid making the "right" decision by telling us that doing the
"right" thing is not politically expedient. Obama does that all the
time. The "right" thing for him to do is to obey the Supreme Law of the
Land. That means that Obamacare would be retired. That means that taxing one
person at a different rate than another would be stopped. That means that
spending federal dollars on anything not listed in Article 1, Section 8 would
not ever happen. But, that does not further his agenda. That does not give him
the power and the influence that he craves; so, he lives in a "gray"
world where there is no right and there is no wrong; where there are no
principles that guide and restrict.Don't be fooled by cunning
and devious people who try to carefully lead us into their lair. Right is right
- all the time. Wrong is wrong - all the time.The federal level of
government is not authorized to "give" welfare. That duty is left to
the States and to the people. Right is right - all the time.
Mr Richards,Can you name a few politician who has ALWAYS "obeyed
the supreme law of the land"?Reagan? Bush? In your mind, what
politician does not qualify as "cunning and devious people who try to
carefully lead us into their lair"?Two or three politicians
would be plenty. Names please
Mike Richards,Although many things come down to right and wrong, not
all do. For many things the "good, better, best" model apply. And when
determining what is best in politics one must look at the possible.It was not ideal for our Constitution to wink at slavery. It was a political
necessity at the time. Without it, the Constitution would not have been
approved.Our current situation may be a bit less historic, but the
questions we face simply do not come down to a "right" or
"wrong" tax rate or spending level. We have to determine those.Yes, there are activities that the Constitution outlines and others it
does not. Which are allowed is determined by the very process outlined in the
Constitution in which the constitutional officers (President, Congress, Supreme
Court) each have their respective say.Of course we can disagree and
should feel free to do so. But the result of that process is, by definition,
legal and constitutional (and yes, that includes past decisions with which I
strongly disagree).So please. Let’s stop talking about
compromise as if it were evil. It is the soul of the Constitution.
On the contrary we'd be doing better if Democrats hadn't compromised
too much with Republicans. We've thrown away a few trillion dollars the
past decade on nonsense like the Iraq war and tax cuts for the rich which did
jack squat to create jobs.
Ah, Mike Richards,I believe in law, and I have integrity. Liberals
generally do. We just understand the Constitution differently than you do.
Congress DOES limit itself to only those things we, the people, have authorized.
Including, unfortunately, a whole lot of things you don't personally agree
with. Tough toenails, pal. I also agree that principles are important
and should guide us. That's precisely why I support President Obama. That
support is entirely consistent with Constitutional principles.
Mike in sandy. "Hey Kim....your guy Bush is not a
democrat."He could've fooled me. I thought he was the most
liberal president we ever had up until Obama. JFK looked like a conservative
compared to Bush.
Lds Liberal"You whine higher taxes on the upper 1% to help pay
for Bush's 2 un-funded wars, about yet supported the same goon who
actully DID strip away FREEDOM - and introduced America to Ghestapo citizen
spying, and ven maockingly sugar coated calling it the ficticous "Patriot
Act"."Yet you were calling for them to use this against the
seccessionist. Do you believe the patriot act is ok as long as it's Obama
who does it? That is pretty hypocritical.
Bottom line. There will be no incentive for either party to balance the budget
until there is a constitutional amendment that forces them to. In that
amendment there should be criminal penalties for congress if they fail to
maintain a balanced budget. Oh how I'd like to see Harry Reid, Nancy
Pelosi, and John Boehner in the same prison cell.
Re:MikeRichards"We live in a right/wrong world. It is very
simple."So what choice would you have made in the Garden of
Eden? Would you have chosen to partake of the fruit to gain knowledge? It's all very simple isn't it? Or is it?Life is not
simple. As Twin Lights and others have pointed out, life is complex and messy.
Sure, there is a spectrum with extremes at either end, but a lot of gray between
the extremes. Our Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, did not
always agree on what constituted the "correct" limits/interpretation of
the Constitution. If life were so certain and simple we could just turn
decision making over to computers.Re:The Fiscal CliffMy
guess is Republicans will wait to go over the fiscal cliff before compromising
on tax revenue. They have more to gain by voting for a middle class tax cut
after the rates go back up than voting to let rates increase for higher levels
of income. Income is taxed, not people. High income earners will also benefit
from the middle class tax cuts.
Mike Richards -- The opposite of "Compromise" is
Totalitarianism.That really is what you are "insisting" on.Is that really what you want? a Totalitarian regime? ==============@Anti Bush-ObamaWashington, DCLds
LiberalYet you were calling for them to use this against the
seccessionist(s). Do you believe the patriot act is ok as long as it's
Obama who does it? That is pretty hypocritical.12:37 p.m. Dec. 12,
2012No I do NOT believe the Patriot Act is OK -- Bush or Obama!I have integrity regardless as to who or what party it is!FYI -
Those who signed letters of session did so "PUBLICALLY".The Bush
Patriot Act allows spying in secret [as in the person is unaware his/her actions
are being monitored -- you know, PRIVACY.]There is a HUGE
difference.BTW- I hope you weren't little minded as to sign one
of those letters.Those who did are still considered traitors to this
Country by all definitions.Publically or Privately.
Where did you get the idea that conservatives compromise too much? You did not
give even one example. In the debt ceiling talks over a year ago the Republicans
leaders admitted that they got 90% of what they wanted. Is getting only 10% of
your demands an example of being uncompromising?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahKent,We live in a
right/wrong world. It is very simple. ============= So
why does the LDS 1st Presidency allow for safe and legal abortions in the
instances of Rape, Incest, Life and Health of the Woman, and Fetal viability?If you believe everything is either right or wrong, then I will
have to agree that EVERYTHING you say must be wrong!Good-day.
Flash, when you write: " In that amendment there should be criminal
penalties for congress if they fail to maintain a balanced budget," are you
sure you're not referring to the congress that allowed President Cheney and
his little buddy to put two wars on the credit card while at the same time
cutting taxes on millionaires, thus adding to an already large deficit?
There once was a man living in the Americas whose name was Zeezrom. He
delighted in twisting words. He distorted the meaning of statements to serve his
purposes. Most people in Utah know what happened to Zeezrom. Read today's
posts and see how many went to the "Zeezrom" school?Law is
related to "scope" or "sphere". All truth is related to the
scope or sphere in which it is given. Outside that scope or sphere, other laws
apply. In any case WITHIN THAT SPHERE there is right or wrong.Redistributing wealth is wrong according to the Supreme Law of the Land. It is
@mike zeezrom richards"Redistributing wealth is wrong according to
the Supreme Law of the Land. It is absolutely wrong."yet you
have no problem allowing for laws that allow for the consecration of that wealth
at the expense of everyone else.
The 1st Presidency and 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
SaintsTHE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of
communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy
the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny…ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced at the present
time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few
individuals. The very liberties… are endangered by the monstrous power
which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful
corporations… which, were it more equally distributed, would be
impossible… If this evil should not be checked, and measures
not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class
already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor,
the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history,
such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin----------------Absolutely Mike? -- So does this
make our Prophets: Right or Wrong, Good or Bad?I
follow our Prophets, and the redistribution of wealth.
Mike, Alma redistributed wealth. See Mosiah 18:27. He commanded his people to
share their substance with those who were less fortunate, and "if he had
more abundantly he should impart more abundantly." He didn't say
"pretty please" or tell them they could give up their stuff if they felt
like it. He didn't just leave it up to them. He commanded them.Similarly, Joseph Smith redistributed wealth, continually. And consecration
wasn't just a free-will offering. When establishing the law of tithing, the
revelation Joseph dictated, put it this way: "Verily, thus saith the Lord, I
require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop"
(D&C 119:1). Again, the word is "require."If
redistributing wealth is so wrong, why did God require it? Well, he gives us the
answer: "the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low"
(D&C 104:16).Apparently God was wrong in contradicting the
Supreme Law of the Land.
Mike Richards, A man who once lived in the Americas named King
Benjamin has also addressed your points as well.Mosiah 4:16-18"And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of
your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in
need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in
vain, and turn him out to perish. 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man
has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not
give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not
suffer, for his punishments are just— 18 But I say unto you, O
man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent;"It is not for your to judge nor to refuse to help those in need. I see a lot
of judging going on on this website regarding peoples' work ethic,
integrity, and socioeconomic status. The Lord has been clear with this. Let us live as King Benjamin suggested to SERVE our God by serving
others, NOT BY JUDGING THEM.
Just for all you sad Nellies out there complaining again about the rich not
paying their fair share, the top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes. To
them I say THANK YOU!!!!As an income tax payer, it would be nice if
I were actually appreciated for my contribution, regardless of the size of it.
But to hear the left, there is no appreciation of those who pay for the bulk of
the programs, just resentment. Human nature is to appreciate help given
occasionally, but help given constantly becomes expected instead of appreciated.
This is called an entitlement mentality and it is considered a thinking error.
It leads to resentment of those you depend on. I see plenty of that in the
opinions of the left.Please note, that this is not the same as the
social security retirement program, which people have paid into with a promise
of repayment at the end of their life. It is an entitlement, because they have
paid for it. Retirees are less likely to fall into entitlement thinking of
"I exist, I need, therefore you should give me."
Kim, we're moving on. You are not.
Kim - turn off the radio and TV, get off the web sites, and start doing a little
deeper research into our countries history. The myth that "hand outs",
corporate or otherwise, are a new invention, by the evil socialist, is just
plain false. Our country has a rich history of "handouts".Take the homesteading act. Millions of acres were hand out for free, with
simply a promise to live on the land enough to be given large tracts of land.
LIncoln gave the railroads a swath of land 20 miles wide across the country so
they could build their cross country railroad. None of the value of that land
was ever paid back. In today's dollars, both of these "handouts'
are valued in the hundreds of billions each. And both of these happened over
150 years ago.For the very first day of this nation, it was founded
on a compromise constitution. Many of the founding fathers were repulsed by
slavery, but compromised to keep this young nation together. It was only when
compromise died that North and South went to war.Compromise is what
enabled this country... not the other way around.
"Redistributing wealth is wrong according to the Supreme Law of the Land. It
is absolutely wrong."Umm.... where does the Constitution say
that? I agree with the principle, but where in the heck did you see that in
the constitution. I am assuming this is yet another claim that Taxation is a
form of redistribution. The unequal taxation - and taxation will always be
disproportionate - is by its own virtue giving unequal benefit to one group over
another. The Federal government every day redistributes wealth - has since day
one. It never hasn't. There never was, not a single day, where people
proportionally benefited from their taxes.@Henderson - could not
have said it better. Our poor constitution has been "Zeezrom"ed to
death by those who don't believe in a representative government where
people decide how they will take care of society's poor and needy through
their constitutionally elected representatives. The constitution
is designed to ensure no one group ever gets their way.
Kent,You have distorted the scriptures. Why? Why would you use the
word "commanded" when Alma did't use that word? He was addressing
the leaders of the church. They were to work for their own needs and not to
demand that others take care of them. That is 100% opposite of what you
posted.Obama demands that we labor to support him. He demands that
we labor to support those who follow him. He demands that we pay for the
government programs that others receive.That is not what Alma or
King Mosiah taught.If we believe in Christ, we care for the
unfortunate without being forced. If we believe in Christ we DON'T force
anyone to be charitable. Christ does not force us. Force is not part of his
agenda. It is part of Obama's agenda.Christ never compromised
his principles and he does not expect that we compromise ours. He never misused
scripture to prove his point nor did he misrepresent anything for any purpose.
J Thompson,I've read enough Christian scripture to know that there is
precious little supporting the hoarding of wealth, but much advising people to
share with the needy, with little mention of their worthiness or
government's role in the matter. Explain your way out of this
scripture: "'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your
possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then
come, follow me.' When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a
man of great wealth...'And again I say unto you, It is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of God'" Face it folks, wealthy Christians are
living in a real dichotomy. Natural instinct says they should be able to keep
their wealth, but most of Christian scripture says to give it up and follow a
higher calling. Don't blame the liberals for that one, we didn't write
Now I get it! Obama is just "suggesting" that we pay taxes so that he
can feed the hungry and clothe the poor. So many posters are telling us that,
just like Christ, Obama is using no force. They're implying that we will
have complete choice whether we want to be taxed or whether we want to hold on
to our money, or (heaven forbid) whether we want to help the poor ourselves.Look at how many have twisted the scriptures to "prove" that God
forces us to be good. Look at how many imply that Obama is just doing what
Christ would have done if he were the President.I may not be much of
a theologian, but I'm fairly certain that the words "Christ" and
"force" don't belong in the same sentence. I believe that much of
the Gospels cite the times and places when Christ severely criticized people who
twisted and turned his words. Christ did not compromise his
principles with the government. Not once. Never.
J Thompson.... one huge problem with your claim that you are being forced by
Obama to do anything. You see it is this concept of a democratically elected
government where the people select their representatives and leaders, and it is
the peoples will that is being acted out - Not Obama's, not any particular
party. This government acts as agents of the people.Now you might
not like who wins these elections. You might not like all the policies enacted.
But every 4 years for President, and ever 2 and 6 years for Congress, we choose
these people. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything in any dictator or
totalitarian like manner. "If we believe in Christ we
DON'T force anyone to be charitable" SInce when? We force people to
not drink or smoke. We force people to take care of their kids. We force
people to marry only certain people. We force families to educate their kids.
Christ following people force a lot of people to do the right things. Since
when was their an exception for Charity? Read Utah's history - Brigham
Young forced a lot of people to do the right thing, or leave.
UtahBlueDevil,Yes, you are right. The PEOPLE elected their
Representatives to REPRESENT them in Congress. Their Representatives were
elected because those Representatives rejected Obama's tax and spend
policies. If Obama cared enough to check, he would see that the election is
over, that he doesn't have to campaign any more, that Republicans were the
choice of the people and that Republicans will not sign on to his programs.Your understanding of government vs religion is interesting, but wholly
without merit. No one if forced to join a church or to be a member of a
religion. If you don't like the teachings of a church, you are free to
join a church that you do like. If your church teaches responsible behavior and
you reject that principle, then you can find a church that tells you to eat,
drink and be merry. That matter is between you and God.Government
doesn't work that way. Your choice is to pay taxes or to be imprisoned.
Government can destroy you if you disobey. God invites. Government forces.
J Thompson:"And again Alma commanded that the people of the
church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he
had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him
that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not
should be given."Please don't accuse me of distorting
scripture. If you don't like what they say, that's fine. But at least
read what they say. Alma's system of redistribution and Joseph Smith's
were far, far more progressive than anything our government has ever required.
Apparently you don't understand compromise. Compromise - Where you may not
wholly agree but you can go along with 70% of the decision. Henry Clay the
"Great Compromiser" kept the country out of war for many years. Good bad
or indifferent he knew the art of compromise. Our Founding Fathers Franklin,
Madison, Hamilton and the Chair Person Washington knew the importance of
compromise as with out it we would not have a Constitution.
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTUtahBlueDevil,Government
doesn't work that way. Your choice is to pay taxes or to be imprisoned.
Government can destroy you if you disobey. God invites. Government forces.7:59 a.m. Dec. 13, 2012============== How
ridiculous!No one in the evil Governement is "forcing" you or
anyone else to pay taxes.Go live an a cabin, with no power, water,
sanitation, garbage, roads, Police or Fire protection, raise your own food, and
Home School your own kids.America is a FREE country. have at it,
best of luck.If you want to live in our "Society", then YES, you're gonna need to pony up and pay for our shared collective
services. I realize this is irrational to you.Knowing
it's a form of Socialism and all, and you are very much against it -- But you are indeed free NOT to participate.No one will stop
you.But if you want what we have, you MUUT pay for it.BTW - Have a nice life.
In a perfect world Barack Obama would NOT be president and 55% of the people in
the US would NOT want socialism. Unfortunately the world is not quite perfect
and in the case of the US our national integrity has slipped into the gutter for
the majority. Things being as they are the GOP is caught with choosing between
ugly and really ugly. I say choose ugly and move on. Let Barack get his taxes
and spending and let him own the result. Unemployment will go up - way up -
especially in states already hurting like New York, Michigan, California etc...
but to be honest I couldn't care less. If you vote for socialism you get
what you pay for and that equates to misery!! If the 2 million registered
republicans who DIDN'T bother to vote (probably due to Romney being Mormon)
want to complain I say maybe you had better VOTE next time!!
Kent, When did God choose Obama to be His prophet? Do ypu really
think that Obama is God's spokesman on earth?
re:Kent C. DeForrestKent regarding Alma's statement to members
of the Church and Obama's message to our nation you are trying to compare
apples to cannon balls honestly. There is NO comparison or relation. Alma was a
prophet leader and the wealth that he asked to be imparted to help the needy WAS
actually used to help the needy because it was distributed by honorable men of
God instead of falsely squandered by corrupt politicians. Understand the
difference? Much of the stimulus money for example was given to down right
rotten to the core and corrupt Union bosses as payment for their voting loyalty
and not to the truly needy. In short much of the stimulus money was completely
wasted and was used BY corrupt men as payment TO corrupt men. Follow the money
trail!!! Communism is build on the foundation of wealth redistribution and I
would doubt you would equate Communism to anything but evil. America was founded
by inspired men on the principles of SMALL and LIMITED government which is
exactly opposite from the Obama plan. Please don't try to call evil good
and good evil!
@L WhiteSpringville, UTI may not be much of a theologian, but
I'm fairly certain that the words "Christ" and "force"
don't belong in the same sentence.6:53 a.m. Dec. 13, 2012--------- You aren't much of a Theologian. Of
course you are always free to choose.But, "Christ" also said that
even 1 of the very littleest of sins denies you all of his Kingdom in Heaven.It's called the "If you don't like it, leave."
clause.FYI - That same clause exists in our "free"
America.=========================== @Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahKent, When did God choose Obama to be His
prophet? Do you really think that Obama is God's spokesman on earth?12:45 p.m. Dec. 13, 2012What on earth are you talking about?
No one eblieves that.Besides - I thought you'd love Obama trying to
mimic the Bible. Isn't that what you Religous types are contantly trying to
do by legislating morality and copying Judeo-Christian Bible-coded laws.Who do you think you are, God's spokesman on earth?
re:Kent"Isn't that what you Religous types are contantly
trying to do by legislating morality and copying Judeo-Christian Bible-coded
laws."No Kent - it was our FOUNDERS who believed, taught and
LEGISLATED the Christian GOD into the very fabric our constitution on purpose.
"One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" were later
unanimously adopted by a nation of believers and patriots in former times unlike
the progressive atheists that we find in the democrat party of today. Recall the
DNC where an ugly chorus of boo's rang out when God was added back to the
party platform. I would highly recommend you read the book 1776 by
David McCullough and actually try to learn something about George Washington and
our founders. Washington "willingly" walked away from power after
"serving his country". Compare that leadership to the debauchery we see
in the White House today.
@JThompson - "If Obama cared enough to check, he would see that the election
is over, that he doesn't have to campaign any more, that Republicans were
the choice of the people and that Republicans will not sign on to his
programs."What? What election did the Republicans win? I am
sorry.... but the one I had in my country, Obama won the election, and the
Republicans lost seats. Hardly a sweeping change, but there is no math that has
Republicans winning the last election. But it does explain the disconnect...
somehow you live in a world where Republicans won.... huh.@Mike
Richards - Obama, a Prophet? You know, I thought I had heard all them all...but
thats a new one. Where did you come up with that one?@Patriot - in
your perfect world, there would be only one party with total control? And now,
the US is in the gutter because we don't have a totalitarian government? 2
million Republicans are anti Mormon? You do understand that the Republican Party
runs 3rd in registered voters behind Democrats and Independents... best you
start learning to get along rather than hoping to have it all your way. Not
going to happen.
What a bunch of "hypocrites". Sorry, but there is no other word that
describes what is going on.Christ had no use for
"hypocrites", those who twisted and turned his words to to prophets from
Adam down to his time on earth. Christ NEVER authorized the
government to be his method of Caring for the poor and the needy. He asked each
of us to roll up our sleeves and do whatever was necessary. There was no force.
There was no compulsion. There was only an invitation. He INVITED us to
help.Obama wants to force us. He wants to make the choice for us.
He thinks that his way is the way. He reminds me of the spokesman in that great
council whose ideas were rejected and who was thrust out because of
rebellion.There was no compromise then and there can be no
compromise now. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Forcing someone to do
"good" against his will is ALWAYS wrong,
@L White -- Then I assume all laws that regulate alcohol use and all laws that
prohibit same sex marriage, etc (all laws that prohibit something you deem to be
immoral) are Satanic, correct? Because God will never allow force to do what is
re:UtahBlueDevilYes my friend the majority of the US has fallen into
the gutter and that is precisely why you get elected officials like Barack
Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi,and on down the godless progressive line...
These politicians are great at politics but lousy at leadership and that is a
reflection of our country today. Take a look at the last election for a second -
you now have legalized Marijuana, government funded late term abortion,
legalized gay marriage and a majority party that BOO's GOD at their
convention. Add to that ugly mix of a growing entitlement culture that would
rather pick up their Obama welfare check and sit on their can than take a job.
Does this sound like the America of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson? It sounds
more like Sodom and Gomorrah!!! America today is not even a shadow of the
America of our grand parents. There is still roughly 35% in this country who do
reflect true traditional American values of hard work, morality, decency and
ambition but certainly not the majority and the election proved that once and
for all. As far as one party rule - I am a registered INDEPENDENT.
L WhiteSpringville, UTWhat a bunch of "hypocrites". Sorry,
but there is no other word that describes what is going on.Christ
had no use for "hypocrites", those who twisted and turned his words to
to prophets from Adam down to his time on earth. Christ NEVER
authorized the government to be his method of Caring for the poor and the
needy.============= Then why does an LDS Church Bishop
ask someone requesting help 1st ask if they are recieving Government Food
Stamps, Government UnEmployment, Government Medicare, Government Medicaid,
Government Free Lunch or reduced lunches, help from Family or Friends, ect.,
ect. The LDS Church is used as the course of LAST resort.And, Speaking of a "hypocrites", aren't YOU and your hubby
relying on Government Entitlements to get by on at this very moment?Christ NEVER authorized your retirement.
If the Democrats are in control, this postion favor of shutting the government
down to create conservative utopia. This is anarchy by definition.
Dive deeper in to the isolated right wing corne.
Compromise is basically defined as exposing ourselves and it creates
vulnerability. We as human beings are instinctively innocent and vulnerable by
nature and our survival depends on progressively learning not to do things that
expose and threaten us. So, when we reach into the flame for the first time and
get burnt, we tend to remember not to reach again. Our trust is adjusted by the
learned consequences for the the decisions we make. The issue we face in
politics as human beings is to trust one another. Our current political system
is a vulnerable system by its very nature and trust has to be honored for it to
work. The less we honor our promises, the less we trust. Its a vicious cycle. We
have to progressively find a way to change our system to reduce the
vulnerability of our trust and make it easier for politicians to learn to trust
one another and honor their promises to each other and their constituencies. If
we can focus on creating trust, we can learn to compromise and know we can reach
into a fire that has been reduced by our honor.