Andrew has a point. How can we take the religious convictions of a person
seriously when the same people have no problem saying vicious things about our
own president? Sure, it's "free speech", but just because we CAN
say something doesn't mean we SHOULD.
Amen. Related to this phenomenon is revering the Constitution as divinely
inspired, and believing in honoring and obeying the law of the land, but working
outside the legislative process to overturn the will of the people expressed as
The fanaticism, inauthenticity, irrationality, disrespect, extremism, and lack
of proper foundation for thoughts, words, and actions, actually lay with those
who set aside the principle of right and wrong (even when their religion teaches
it) in their determination to deny a lack of regard for such on the part of
oneself or others, Barrack Hussein Obama arguably being a notable example. In other words, to those who actually care about right and wrong, there
is nothing really "unfamiliar" about that which is wrong, when revealed
or discovered. Neither do they misidentify the enemy.
By virtue of being correct, you will be ridiculed.
The letter writer is correct. Unfortunate that the trait she described is
really difficult to see in yourself.
Evidently you were AWOL during the Bush regime. Pres. Obama has it pretty easy.
Completely agree with the letter writer.The latent racism is
disturbing also, I've been shunned by a few rabid conservative friends for
correcting their racist joke as not political, not about policy, just ignorant
racist jokes. It's sad how you think you know some people, only to learn
that this latent racism is just below the surface fueling their hate. Theirs
even the occasional "the church was wrong back in 78." Evolve people, we
are a society, try and act like one.
I have a vague memory of some particularly vicious things being said on these
comment boards about the previous president by the very people who appear
bewildered at Obama criticism. I, on the other hand, have been an equal
opportunity critic: I think both presidents have been unmitigated disasters.
Truth is relativity, only what I can relate it to. I can't relate to B.O.
I believe that the Deseret News should be a little more even handed with their
editorial comments and especially their choice of letters to the editor to be
printed.Many people look to the Deseret News for enlightment but
what is given I believe is right wing idiology.To me the constant
negative slant for anything to do with President Obama is tireing.Not all active mormons are right wing conservatives. It is
doubtful that this will make it past the censors but now you know my feelings
DN guidelines for why comments may be rejected:"Most comments
that are on-topic and not abusive will be posted. We hold those who submit
comments to the similar standards you've come to expect from a news
organization - where we accept a wide variety of points of view that add value
to a reader's experience. Comments allowed in mature, civil discussion may
not include personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including
symbol-replaced words), commercial promotion, incoherence, name-calling,
epithets or racial slurs,.."I often see name-calling comments
posted by DN moderators. A few times I have been the target. Yesterday
somebody referred to Obama as Obummer. Grow up people.
What is called extreme by the far left socialists trolls is what most of this
country has believed for most of this countries existence. Now that the far left
has taken over the media, they are attempting to rewrite history as usually just
like they brothers did in the old USSR and call us extremists. The simple fact
is this administration are attempting to destroy everything that makes America
exceptional and twist the country into a socialist dictatorship. So excuse us if
we don't want to give up the flag for the new hammer and sickle emblem just
Really, KDave? I don't recall anybody insisting Bush wasn't born in
America or demanding to see his birth certificate. I don't remember
anybody screaming "YOU LIE!!!" at him during a State of the Union
Address. Were there armed protesters standing around outside his speeches?
Trust me, I was around for them both and my memory's just fine...
Excellent letter. Very nicely written too.And Truthseeker, I too
have noticed that the DN comment moderators are very inconsistent in how they
apply their rules. I've had comments censored for reasons I can't
quite figure out, while seeing comments posted online that are in blatant
violation of one or more of the rules. Name calling, abusive language, personal
attacks, all caps. You name it. It appears. But mostly when the comment is in
line with the DN's conservative preferences.For sheer
entertainment value, though, I prefer the comments at the Trib's website.
Yes, it's a free-for-all, but some of the comments are truly hilarious. Not
much humor at the DN. It must be against the rules.
Isn't it just like Obama's supporters to vilify religion instead of
holding Obama accountable for what he has done as President?Does any
religion tell us to covet the possessions of some "rich guy"?Does any religion tell us to provide guns to Mexican gangs?Does
any religion tell us to make an oath to uphold the Constitution and then to
refuse to uphold the Constitution?Does any religion tell us to wear
the hat of Commander In Chief and then blame the destruction of four Americans
and a Consulate on a film?Does any religion tell us to reject the
4th Amendment and evesdrop on private conversations without a warrant?Does any religion tell us to use the IRS to harass conservatives?How long a list do you need to see that Obama has brought his own problems
upon himself and that blaming religion for his self-imposed problems is as wrong
as his other actions?
The letter writer has a good point. The problem has become that it's
easier to make personal attacks on the President (and his family), racist or not
(the same goes for Congress, governors, legislatures, bureaucrats, or your
fellow man, etc.), and call that an argument.The fact that some of
the responses to THIS letter include, "He did it first!," name calling,
and lists of reasons to justify themselves for making personal attacks, is a
great example of the problem.I think one of the biggest problems in
this country is that we've forgotten how to have an argument. Too many
people have forgotten how to use logic, reason, and facts and resort to
attacking the person and name calling. I'll readily admit, I've
occasionally done the same.The problems in this country aren't
going to be solved if all we do is criticize the person, yell across the aisle,
calling names, and making snide comments about the person.We all
need to relearn how to argue "the point" using intelligence and reason
rather than ad hominem attacks. If we all tried to rise above this a little
more, maybe things would actually get done.
Mike, That was one of the most off-topic, red herring posts I have ever seen.
Mike,I am an Obama supporter, but I don't vilify religion. I
support it.I don't covet the possessions of "rich
guys." But I do question how many of them acquired their riches and are
suppressing the wages of those who actually create their profit.Actually, the LDS Church, in its past, has given lip-service to the
Constitution but has refused to uphold it (setting up a theocracy, practicing
polygamy, etc.)Get over Benghazi. It was a minor misstep compared to
the whoppers we've seen in the not-too-distant past (Iraq, for
instance).If I'm not mistaken, the Patriot Act came during a
Republican administration.Religions don't tell the IRS to
harass conservatives. But neither did Obama.I haven't really
noticed that Obama is blaming religions for all our problems. Does Rush say
so?Finally, just wondering if you really believe all the stuff you
write in these comments. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but to
spew this kind of vitriol repeatedly, every day? You must be the most unhappy
person on earth.
Andrew,You must be a recent comer to these pages, or are intentionally
blind to the past. The gang of liberal posters on here were WAY more
disrespectful of President Bush his whole two terms than anything I've seen
written about President Obama.So I think there's a little
pay-back in it for some today.I agree it's not cool... but it
happens. What goes around eventually comes around. And it's not just a
religious thing. The people trashing Bush were not religious posters.
@NonconlibGet over Benghazii? A minor misstep...? Wow!
Tulip, Benghazi isn't even a misstep, it's simply one of 13 attacks
since 2000, and the four killed are four of 52. The ambassador killed the
second. The first killed under Bush, the first twelve attacks all under Bush.
This isn't intended to say it's Bush's fault, it simply is a
fact. Embassies, and consulates are dangerous places and come under attack
frequently. So Benghazi isn't that unusual. What is unusual is that
it's the first for Obama.
@mike richars.... you said"Isn't it just like Obama's
supporters to vilify religion instead of holding Obama accountable for what he
has done as President?Does any religion tell us to covet the
possessions of some "rich guy"?"I find these comments
most pious and arrogant. What make Mr. Richards think those who support Obama
are welfare recipients? What makes him think I covet anything he has.... or
that he has something I don't. What makes him think he is more spiritual,
or a better member of the church than I am? This idea of moral a
spiritual superiority is the mantra of a large group of these like minded
people. They portray an image that somehow we all lust after the riches that
people like Mike Richards has. I find this level of arrogance blindly aimed
at this nameless crowd most frustrating. It is attitudes like this that kept a
otherwise good many like Mitt Romney from becoming president. It is arrogance,
and disdain for neighbor, that has shut down lines of communication, the ability
to reason out problems, the capacity to move this country forward. It is a
stain on our nation.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTThe people trashing Bush were not
religious posters.5:47 p.m. Sept. 21, 2013======1.
True, I was not trashing Bush per se, but I was trashing his trampling of the
Constitution.2. I a VERY religious [LDS] person.3. This "only
Republicans can be good Latter-Day Saints" garbage has got to stop!
@pragmatistIt is simply a fact (your words not mine)...Benghazi has
been lied about since the beginning...not something I (and many others) care to
"get over". Bush should be accountable for what happened on his watch
and O'Bama should be accountable for what happens on his. I was commenting
on a post alluding to Benghazi...whether it's a "minor misstep"
compared to others or not...O'Bama should answer for it...truthfully.
Tulip, what the heck do you mean should be held accountable for it. He
didn't attack the embassy. Reinforcements were sent in 6 in all. They
arrived in time to help lock down the retreat. Seriously who cares what he
called it while it was happening or a day later. What he called it had no
material effect on the happenings or the outcome. Help was sent arrived, and
assisted in the securing of the remaining personnel."Bush should
be accountable for what happened on his watch". That's kind of the
point. He wasn't excoriated for one much less any of the twelve. My word
twelve compared to one. 52 dead compared to 4. I would think you would have
been screaming for his impeachment. But alas only Obama can commit that kind of
One thing I've never heard discussed about Benghazi is why Ambassador
Stevens chose to travel there at the time he did--anniversary of 9/11, major
protests/attacks against other embassies--if the security in Benghazi was
poor?I remember well conservatives calling liberals
"unpatriotic/un-American because they dared criticize the Iraq War.
Pragmatist, you're right. Let's just excoriate Bush.
@TulipYou seem to be missing the point.Why did
conservatives have absolutely nothing to say about the embassy attacks during
the Bush administration? Because there's a black man in the White House?
Tulip, "This isn't intended to say it's Bush's fault, it
simply is a fact. Embassies, and consulates are dangerous places and come under
attack frequently.". It's not Bush I'm criticizing it's your
Pragmatist, you're right again. My "hypocrisy" is the problem.
To me, it seems like hate coming from many people. You want your conversation to
get heated up really fast, just announce that you are a democrat. My uncle was
in a priesthood meeting when a man mentioned that he was a democrat. That was a
big mistake. They should have kept politics for some other time, but they
didn't. They ended up running the man out of the building, it got so heated
up!I think people are fanatic and very self righteous. They have it in
their head that the President shouldn't be there and they will bash him
until everyone agrees with them! It wouldn't matter what the President
does, it would be wrong! There is still an erroneous idea that to be a good
Mormon or christian, you have to be a republican! You know what that means to
those of us who don't agree. We are on the devils side! Give me a break.
Tulip, seriously you don't think someone can read through sarcasm to your
point that despite all the facts you still think Obama is the problem and
Benghazi is a shinning example. Dislike the President if you will but you would
serve yourself well to do so for legitimate reasons. Benghazi isn't one of
them. Nor is the IRS, episode, or the untruths about the ACA, or an ever
increasing fiscal debt, or any other of a litany, of claims of socialism.