Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Time to speculate on elections, immigration, etc.

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2011 2:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    May 9, 2011 11:48 p.m.

    "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.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    May 9, 2011 11:42 p.m.

    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?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2011 10:46 a.m.

    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?

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    May 9, 2011 10:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    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.

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    May 9, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Emophiliac Vernal, UT
    May 8, 2011 3:05 p.m.

    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 platform.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 8, 2011 2:47 p.m.

    Obama 2012.


  • Richard Saunders Provo, UT
    May 8, 2011 11:38 a.m.

    "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)