all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Dec 23rd 2005

dingy harry reid & the english language

his idiocy (or perhaps racism) is exposed by opinion journal:

OPINION JOURNAL: Last week Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate minority leader, boasted to a Democratic gathering that “we killed the Patriot Act.” Perhaps realizing that this was not the most appealing message to send to voters outside the Bush-hating base, Reid took to the Senate floor Monday and offered an apology of sorts:

DINGY HARRY REID: Mr. President, maybe I didn’t have the education of a lot of my friends. I was educated in a little school in Searchlight, NV. We didn’t have English class. Maybe my choice of words wasn’t perfect. Maybe I should have said we killed the conference report. But the fact is, that is what we had done. People can try to change the words and the meaning of it all they want, but that is what happened. I may not have the ability to express myself like the folks who were educated in all these private schools and fancy schools, but I understand the Senate rules. Everyone knows that cloture was defeated, killed, whatever you want to call it. That means that cloture was defeated and that bill is still before the Senate.

OPINION JOURNAL: This is the same Harry Reid who, a little over a year ago, called Justice Clarence Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court” because “I think that his opinions are poorly written.” If Reid’s literacy is as defective as he himself claims it is, doesn’t this make him, by his own standard, an embarrassment to the Senate?

Further, if Reid never even had an English class, what qualifies him to evaluate Justice Thomas’s writings? Or was he merely stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because of his race, in the manner of ignorant men throughout history?

wow. they always told me the trouble with lying is that you forget what you said and then contradict yourself later. what an embarrassment. whenever someone calls harry reid “dingy harry,” it is an insult to dingy people everywhere.

UPDATE: read about harry reid’s latest bout with racism

32 Responses to “dingy harry reid & the english language”

  1. Stephen Valentine

    Harry Reid’s the man. Match his wits to Bush’s anyday.

  2. ok. bush is stupid (e.g. “nucular” and “misunderestimated”).

    and reid is a stupid racist. (e.g. “i have no english training” BUT “i can tell that clarence thomas’ supreme court opinions are poorly written.”

  3. Stephen Valentine

    A republican calling a democrat a racist is like Hitler declaring the same of Ghandi. Oh I forgot, republicans are not prejudiced; they discriminate equally. If you’re not part of the Hee Haw club, you’re screwed. Indeed, is Harry Reid trying to curtail the gains of the Civil Rights movement or public assistance programs such as medicaid and social security? No, I think that would be the Bushman.

    As far as Harry Reid’s stupidity goes, you’ve made no case. So he doesn’t like Clarence Thomas’ legal opinions. So what? Have you ever read a patent or a legal opinion? Maybe you are a lawyer and so such things would appear to you to be written in normal English. I’m just a lowly scientist, and I can tell you for the rest of the world they are not. Harry Reid is infinitely qualified to critique Thomas’ (the harasser’s) legal opinions despite his defects in the English language. Quite frankly, I found “We killed the patriot act” to be well put.

    Finally, a republican calling Reid a liar is the pot calling the kettle black. Bush (WMD man, Rove –the leak), Cheney (the last throes of the insurgency, Halliburton), and Rummy (we have enough troops) are real models of integrity. Why stop there? How ‘bout DeLay and Frist? Anyway, you should lay off Reid and talk about something more substantive and defensible.

  4. A republican calling a democrat a racist is like Hitler declaring the same of Ghandi.

    by “ghandi” do you mean robert byrd?

    As far as Harry Reid’s stupidity goes, you’ve made no case….Harry Reid is infinitely qualified to critique Thomas’ (the harasser’s) legal opinions despite his defects in the English language.

    you’re right that i’ve made no case. harry reid just looks really stupid (and racist) saying that. that’s an impression, but you are right–it isn’t a case.

    is Harry Reid trying to curtail the gains of the Civil Rights movement or public assistance programs such as medicaid and social security? No, I think that would be the Bushman.

    the current social security plan, which forces payments into a practically no-yield retirement fund actually hurts low-income americans (those who, unlike the wealthy, cannot afford separate retirement savings accounts or other investments that actually earn a decent return). bush’s plan will benefit the poor more than it will benefit the wealthy.

    Anyway, you should lay off Reid and talk about something more substantive and defensible.

    you’re probably right. please tell me what i’m allowed to discuss on my blog. use the comments section below.

  5. Stephen Valentine

    Forgive me. I shouldn’t expect a Republican to be familiar with Mahatma Gandhi. Try Googling him. While you are at it, try Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, and Desmond Tutu. Instead of talking about the anomalous Byrd, let’s try Strom Thurmond or maybe Jesse Helms. C’mon everyone knows that the parties did a flip flop with regard to Civil Rights issues. All you have to do is read your high school American History textbook and you’ll see how Democrats lost the southern block. Good riddance I’d say; although, it has been difficult to win the presidency without them. Hard to believe that Republicans were more progressive at one time isn’t it? Except for the anomalous few (e.g., Byrd), the present position of each party with respect to Civil Rights legislation is quite clear.

    Social Security. Now you’re talking about something important. What part of “on average” do Republicans not understand? Doing better (on average) under Bush’s plan requires that some do worse. Let’s see, some out of millions of people. That’s a lot that do worse under Goofball’s plan. What about survivor’s benefits? Are people going to give willingly out of their private retirement accounts? Let’s not fool ourselves anymore. We don’t need to dismantle the most successful welfare program in the history of mankind so that the rich can be richer when they retire. We do need to quit doing the reverse Robin Hood and use the “tax relief” given to the wealthy to shore up SS for the foreseeable future. One more Google search for you. Try Jesus Christ and see what he told the wealthy man to do with his riches.

    You are right. It is your blog. I will refrain from responding. I was under the impression, however, that you welcomed comments and debate.

  6. doug

    You are right. It is your blog. I will refrain from responding. I was under the impression, however, that you welcomed comments and debate.

    Debate? Yes.

    Comments from trolls? No.

    And yes, you are a troll.

    A republican calling a democrat a racist is like Hitler declaring the same of Ghandi.

    Republican = Hitler. Nice.

    Oh I forgot, republicans are not prejudiced; they discriminate equally. If you’re not part of the Hee Haw club, you’re screwed.

    Did a Google search for “Hee Haw club”, and got some donkey t-shirt from Cafepress that is no longer on sale. After all, it is donkeys, not elephants, that go “hee-haw”.

    Harry Reid is infinitely qualified to critique Thomas’ (the harasser’s) legal opinions despite his defects in the English language.

    Ahhh the memories…Anita Hill…the last woman liberals cared about who alleged sexual harassment.

    Forgive me. I shouldn’t expect a Republican to be familiar with Mahatma Gandhi.

    Of course not. We’re all members of your imaginary “Hee Haw club”.

    One more Google search for you. Try Jesus Christ and see what he told the wealthy man to do with his riches.

    Indeed. Jesus taught that people should render everything unto Caesar so that the government could establish widespread and effective welfare programs. You can find this in the New Testament book of Job.

  7. Stephen Valentine

    Dingy Harry Reid. You’re a troll. My but those are nice Christian things to say. You must be Mormon. Ah well, better to be a troll than a complete ass and intellectual midget such as yourself. Oh I forget these are Republican characteristics. Just look at Bush as you are trying to emulate him. And yes Jesus did advocate a welfare state. Try Mosiah 4:16-19 and 4 Nephi 1. Anyway, tchau, I won’t bother with this site anymore.

  8. I won’t bother with this site anymore.

    translation: I won’t bother this site anymore.

    Dingy Harry Reid.

    please! the dingy people are getting offended.

    And yes Jesus did advocate a welfare state. Try Mosiah 4:16-19 and 4 Nephi 1.

    yes, compelling citizens to contribute to good causes with the force of law has long been one of the lord’s tactics. you know what he always says– “free agency is a recipe for disaster!”

    You must be Mormon.

    yes, and i feel a strange sense of embarrassment with harry reid because he is one of my “peeps.”

    Ah well, better to be a troll than a complete a** and intellectual midget such as yourself.

    congratulations, i think you just qualified for the insult post.

  9. Stephen Valentine

    I can’t resist because you just invoked the free agency argument that all dingy Mormon republicans do. What would this wonderful experiment in capitalism be like if everyone just used their free agency? What kind of anarchy are you advocating? I’m sorry but you are right -yes, compelling citizens to contribute to good causes with the force of law has long been one of the lord’s tactics. Read your 12th article of faith and recognize that all societies have to dance with the devil a little or they cannot function. Yes citizens are compelled to participate. For example, if I don’t pay my taxes so the goofball can fight his war, I will be thrown in prison. The free agency argument doesn’t cut it.

    Glad to hear I made the insult post. Did I win anything?

  10. Did I win anything?

    you have won all of my love and admiration.

    What would this wonderful experiment in capitalism be like if everyone just used their free agency?

    uh, i don’t know. but it’s sometimes called the “free market” so take a guess.

    Read your 12th article of faith….Yes citizens are compelled to participate. For example, if I don’t pay my taxes so the goofball can fight his war, I will be thrown in prison. The free agency argument doesn’t cut it.

    yes it does (if you will stop changing the argument). my support for the war (and compulsory taxes) is completely different than jesus christ’s support for a zion “welfare” state. his desire is for us to become like him. we can only undergo this spiritual change by voluntarily changing our minds and hearts. forced government taxes for welfare would achieve the outward result (of money for the poor), but does nothing to effectuate the inward, eternal change with which christ is concerned.

    the economic support we are providing for the liberation of the muslim world has never been intended to help americans achieve righteousness. we are pursuing a secular interest in safety and security (a-la alma 43).

    we believe in being subject to our laws and government. since our government is democratic, we can change it by political means. this includes altering a failed social security system.

  11. Steve

    Let’s follow the logic here. You’re saying that since both phrases contain the word “free”, that God sanctions free market economics. Oh that is rich! What about some of the ill effects of free market economics such as the emergence of sweatshops, child labor, corporate exploitation (human and natural resources), and human trafficking? He must be really happy with our free market economics since it dictates the worth of souls here on earth. I’m sorry but my D&C says that the worth of a soul is great in his eyes. You Republicans don’t even believe people should earn a livable wage as free market economics should determine their value.

    So what you are saying is that Christ only wants us to take care of the poor –via civil governments- once we have all achieved a true Christ-like state. I guess he doesn’t really care about whether or not the poor are fed; he’s just concerned about our (the wealthy) development. That is completely asinine! Of course he wants us to use governments to ameliorate the conditions of the poor (his children) here on earth! I agree with you that he wants us to develop the gift of charity; but, why not try the axiom (combining J Golden and Spencer W. Kimball) “do it, damn it”? Faith and growth in the gospel only come about as we apply gospel principles in our lives. What, practicing charity (as a nation) will only help us become more Christ like! No kidding! It doesn’t work the other way around as you suggest. Wait to help the poor! Wait for what?! The Millennium? We of all people should be encouraging the government to help in the care of the poor.

    I’m not changing the subject. I guess my point went over your head; I’ll dumb it down a little. You suggest that a civil government that collects taxes to feed the poor strips away the free agency of individuals. I state that you should not have a problem with this because every government sets up laws –even in the free market world- by which citizens are governed. Since we are told to support civil governments (AF 12), we are thus required to relinquish some of our free agency. My free agency was stripped away in the support of Ronny Reagan’s massive military spending campaign and in King George’s blunders.

    Nice segue into your next point. Yeah we’re really planting a Jeffersonian Democracy in the heart of the Muslim world, aren’t we?! We’re really whipping those Gadianton Robbers! To plagiarize from a nice bumper sticker –I wonder how our oil got under their (Gadianton robber’s) lands. They must’ve stolen it. Don’t try to combine Iraq with the war on terror. Even your captain Bush had to concede that Iraq and 9-11 are not related. We now know that Bush planned to go in long before approaching the UN and weapon’s inspectors were given a chance. If not for his lying, at least for his stupidity and ineptness, Bush should be impeached.

    Finally, I don’t know what you’re smoking! Social Security is not a failed system. Yes, as we have borrowed from the trust fund and as we have inadequately supported it, it will go broke. However, it is far from a failed system. That is, if administered as intended (and indeed as it was) it will prevent the horrible level of poverty among the elderly that was rampant prior to its realization. Again, let’s roll back the tax cut on the wealthy (make them pay their fair share) and let’s shore it up so that it will last into the foreseeable future.

  12. You’re saying that since both phrases contain the word “free”, that God sanctions free market economics. Oh that is rich!

    you are proving yourself a very inept reader. i merely implied that people are able to use their “free agency” in a “free market.” that the free market may occasion both good and bad consequences (just like agency) should be obvious. i’m not defending the free market as “more christian” than a state-run economy.

    Wait to help the poor! Wait for what?!….We of all people should be encouraging the government to help in the care of the poor.

    Here is a history of the lds church’s caring for the poor, from providentliving.org:

    In 1851 Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, instituted a program for teaching Native Americans to farm. In 1906, the Church shipped flour and wheat to millions suffering from famine in China and to those devastated by earthquake and fire in San Francisco. At the end of World Wars I and II, hundreds of tons of food, clothing, and medicine were sent to the people of war-torn Europe. Today, the Church’s efforts to care for those in need occur through both Deseret Industries and Humanitarian Services programs.

    Deseret Industries was established in 1938 as a single thrift store. Today, there are 46 stores serving the people in seven Western states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. For the Deseret Industries store nearest you, click the “Locations” link on the toolbar.

    In 1985, in response to growing concern over the hunger, illness, and suffering continually afflicting millions of people all over the world, the Church formally organized its humanitarian efforts. Its first project provided emergency relief supplies to thousands of starving people in sub-Saharan Africa.

    In 1996, the Church formed Latter-day Saint Charities to help carry forth humanitarian activities in select countries worldwide. Latter-day Saint Charities is a private, 501(c)(3), non-profit charitable agency. Latter-day Saint Charities is a member of InterAction and the American Council for Voluntary International Action, the largest alliance of U.S.-based international development and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations.

    Today, the Church has provided humanitarian relief and support to 147 countries worldwide.

    and from somewhere else:

    Marian G. Romney, past councilor in the First Presidency said, “Unfortunately, there has been fostered in the minds of some an expectation that when we experience hard times, when we have been unwise and extravagant with our resources and have lived beyond our means, we should look to either the Church or government to bail us out. Forgotten by some of our members is an underlying principle of the Church welfare plan that “no true Latter-day Saint will, while physically able, voluntarily shift from himself the burden of his own support [or the support of his family].”

    the lds church is doing a ton to help governments in the care of the poor and needy. the lds church has a model welfare program that should be emulated by the government. it teaches self-reliance (another eternal principle–sorry!) rather than the dependence fostered by the 1960s welfare reforms. those expansive changes swelled the dole to overflowing by encouraging idleness and discouraging marriage, among other things.

    churches should be given more support by the government to help the poor using their own methods (which are more efficient and individualized than the government’s). the lds church stands ready to help, as do the catholic charities, and other organizations. the democratic party and the aclu are working against any such partnerships, because they violate the sacrosanct “separation of church and state.” i’m sure you’re very proud of their work, though.

    Bush should be impeached.

    We are told to support civil governments (AF 12)

    please help me with the incongruity of the above statements, when combined with your criticism of my desire to change social security.

    Don’t try to combine Iraq with the war on terror.

    al-qaeda & zarqawi get to, but i can’t? now you’re just being unfair.

    [Social Security] is far from a failed system.

    i got a letter from the SSA telling me my retirement age has been raised from 65 to 67. this is a failure. i also got a letter telling me my retirement benefits (assuming i am able to continue working through my extended working years) will be approximately 70% of what i would have gotten with full benefits. “full benefits” means a return of approximately 1.5% above inflation. this is a failed “savings” program. to participate in this “savings” program, i am prevented access to approximately 15% of my earnings. investment experts are very consistent in saying that if one can put away 10-20% of his income over his lifetime (beginning in his early 20s), and earn a 6-8% of return, he will retire a millionaire. the problem for the poor is, after SS and medic-whatever are taken out, they cannot afford to put an additional 10-20% away. they’re too poor!

    by the way, if you really want to get energized about being a righteous christian democrat, start reading lydia cornell. [1] ::: [2]

  13. Stephen Valentine

    And you are proving yourself more inept a reader than I am. You are stating that people are able to exercise their free agency in a free market. I am saying that a regulated free market economy by a government that makes provisions for the less fortunate does nothing to take away from such individual’s right to choose good or evil. You intimate above that it does.

    I am well aware of the humanitarian efforts of the church as well as other religious organizations. Now we have to ask ourselves if those efforts are sufficient to meet the need. Of course the answer is no. Thirteen million American children below the poverty level and two million homeless people per year should really shame us. Then consider the fact that we’re the lucky ones living in the land of milk and honey. Obviously religious organizations do a great deal of good but their efforts need to be supplemented by governments. I, like you, would love it if enough fast offerings were collected to help all poor individuals but let’s face reality.

    I think you need to go back to Sociology 101. Poor people do not stay on the “dole” because they are lazy and dumb. Those stereotypes have long been debunked and are now held only by members of that infamous Hee Haw club. Many stay on public assistance (I won’t use your pejorative anymore) because that is the smart thing to do. Our wonderful free market economy hasn’t provided jobs for them of sufficient caliber to provide for health care, daycare, housing payments, or transportation (i.e., a living wage). I’m all for welfare reform provided we actually fund programs (a thorn in the side of Republicans) to provide adequate training so that these necessities can be obtained through gainful employment. Where this is not possible (e.g., cases of mental and physical illness, etc.) there needs to be a state-sponsored safety net.

    I am all for the government giving money to charitable organizations. The problem with religious organizations is that they tend to use the misfortune of others to proselytize. If money were only given to organizations who are not involved in such exploitation, many on the left would go along with you. I’m afraid that preventing such proselyting is intractable. Thus we are back to the government providing the relief.

    You’ve created the incongruity by taking the statements out of context. We should support civil government, not wicked leaders. Fortunately, in our government, we have the mandate to remove such morons. We exercised it with Bill Clinton (as we should have). Now it’s time to rid ourselves of mr. clownshoes and his cronies.

    Zarqawi. You mean the terrorist created by George Bush (another reason for impeachment). Al-qaeda in Iraq wouldn’t exist if Bush hadn’t lied to the world. Now our credibility is shot and, unlike the sympathy that was expressed for the US after 9-11, we are met with contempt and distrust around the world.

    Wow thank goodness for biotechnology and the SSA; now we can be active and productive into our seventies. I actually have no intention of retiring. They will have to carry my stiffened corpse from the lab, so I can’t really empathize with you there. Again, I say your problems could be fixed by making the wealthy (including corporations) pay their fair share.

    Right you are about the poor. Why not shift their unfair tax burden to the rich? GW does just the opposite. As I mentioned above (your incompetent reading shining through), many of these people would do worse under Bush’s plan. Also think about others that would actually benefit from GW’s plan. Pump and dump schemers as well as those wonderful providers of mutual funds (your Gadianton robbers). And don’t insult my intelligence with the few bad apples notion. Just curious, what kind of oversight will the federal government provide to protect us? Finally, you Republicans have never understood SS thinking of it as a retirement plan. It was never intended as such. But since you guys love your money (careful that’s the root of all evil)…

  14. doug

    Ah well, better to be a troll than a complete a** and intellectual midget such as yourself.

    “I am troll, here me roar!”

  15. Steve

    Republicans have two classic tactics when they can’t respond intelligently. Cheat (a la Bush and Tom DeLay) or punt. I see you have chosen the latter and removed my last post because you could not respond.

    Actually, you should be a Democrat because I don’t hear any roaring, just breying.

  16. doug

    I see you have chosen the latter and removed my last post because you could not respond.

    Your last comment was not deleted. It was caught by WordPress’ automatic spam filter. Heh.

    I’ve approved it and so it should appear shortly (look for it above, it was timestamped when you originally posted).

  17. I see you have chosen the latter and removed my last post because you could not respond.

    like so many of your statements in this thread, you assume too much. we have a spam filter. i don’t know what word or phrase triggered it; usually it is “p0ker” or “vi@gr@.” but perhaps the filter has grown wise to bogus arguments, too.

    I am saying that a regulated free market economy by a government that makes provisions for the less fortunate does nothing to take away from such individual’s right to choose good or evil. You intimate above that it does.

    actually, all i’m intimating is that christ would prefer individuals (instead of politicians) making the choice. you’re right that we all still have the power to choose good or evil whether the state regulates the economy or not. excellent point!

    governments, i agree, do some things that private charities can’t: (1) they make sure that everyone is treated equitably, and cover everyone when (as you note) private charities cannot shoulder the entire burden. at the same time, governments are inefficient. one study showed that just $0.53 of every dollar collected for welfare in the united states reaches someone in need (the UN is much worse). imagine if churches like the LDS church (“100% of donations goes to those in need) had that money. considering these issues, i would say that a very minimal “safety net” should be maintained by the government, but only to reach those that private charities do not, and to provide some help in extreme circumstances.

    The problem with religious organizations is that they tend to use the misfortune of others to proselytize. If money were only given to organizations who are not involved in such exploitation, many on the left would go along with you.

    exploitation? religiosity (as i’m sure you’re aware) helps marriages stay together, helps people get off drugs, helps them live more stable lives and hold jobs. religious communities provide a large support group, full of friends, potential networking contacts, and babysitters. tell your friends on the left that the “exploitation” will help the poor escape poverty.

    sustaining government. again, you have a READING PROBLEM:

    You’ve created the incongruity by taking the statements out of context. We should support civil government, not wicked leaders.

    but you tell me i can’t seek to democratically change what i think are inherently “evil” social programs? where is that out of line with AofF12? i’m not throwing molotov cocktails at people cashing their social security checks. seeking democratic change falls properly under “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

    Zarqawi. You mean the terrorist created by George Bush (another reason for impeachment). Al-qaeda in Iraq wouldn’t exist if Bush hadn’t lied to the world.

    ah, yes, i remember it like it was yesterday….after 9/11, zarqawi was one of our biggest sympathizers. he was seen flying american flags outside his cave. mosques flew banners declaring “not in our name,” while mullahs worldwide denounced the attacks. palestinians didn’t dance in the streets with joy.

    /sarcasm

    this is a very bad argument you have just made. i have heard some people argue that we created terrorism with our meddling in the middle east over the past 30 years. this, while it is no reason to abandon the fight, is at least plausible. your theory is utterly ridiculous. bush has made zarqawi famous, perhaps, but he has not made him the terrorist that he is.

    They will have to carry my stiffened corpse from the lab

    presumably a cessation of your commenting on this blog will coincide with this event?

    Just curious, what kind of oversight will the federal government provide to protect us?

    first, only a small percentage of a worker’s social security will be eligible for privatization. second, they’ll probably limit what degree of risk a SS-financed investment can have. third, they’ll come up with new restrictions every time they see a new loophole being used by some evil republican money grubber.

  18. Steve

    No unfortunately it has not. If it had, you wouldn’t be able to post anything.

    I agree with you that Christ would prefer that we make the choice to help the poor. The point that you are missing (described above – YOUR POOR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS AGAIN) is that he has no qualms with the government helping the poor. Trust me, he actually cares about them. I know that’s hard for a Republican to understand. Here’s some advice that my graduate advisor kept grinding into me, “It’s not all about you!” Take it.

    Hey I’m all for introducing the poor and down trodden to the Gospel. Don’t make them feel or indeed do not make the relief dependent upon their conversion. Irregardless of what you think, the majority of normal thinking people would say that exploiting the misfortune of others in this manner is unethical. By the way, were you one of those missionaries who “used the spirit” by following the obits? Maybe you’re just planning on a career as an ambulance chaser. I needn’t remind you that many religions are not good; think about what Christ told Joseph Smith. No, proselyting should not be coupled with relief efforts by the government. Also consider the Charles Mansons, David Koreshes and Jim Joneses of the world.

    So the government is inefficient. Well that’s cause to throw out the baby with the bath water. We should’ve stopped in 1776 and reconsidered. I say better a percentage of something than a whole lot of nothing (yeah, let’s wait until Zion comes, yeah that’s the ticket). Try working to fix the inefficiency in government.

    I’ve already described what I meant by exploitation above. Obviously you missed the point again. Sure increased religiosity will help with poverty (e.g., fewer single parent households). Let’s leave that to the missionaries (the Elders and us members), not the government. You’re also missing another point. Religiosity doesn’t completely solve the problem. The church has become wise to this (perpetual education fund ring a bell), why can’t you?

    Inherently evil social programs! My but those are strong words from one so ill informed. I’m surprised that you don’t realize that the Church is at odds with you on this one. When I was growing up we were taught to be self sufficient and not take anything from the government. In the mid to late 90’s I had a section of the blue book read to me in a ward correlation meeting (I’ll probably never attend another as I’m too liberal). Finally, vindication! The church encouraged members to seek financial help from families first, then the wicked government with its evil social programs, and finally from the church. Wow they totally reversed things! I figured you would be aware of this as you live in Happy Valley and all. I got that right didn’t I. You must have attended BYU with views like these. By the way, maybe you should contact President Hinckley and tell him he needs to do something about this since he is obviously unaware of those evil social programs.

    As for Zarqawi, I’m surprised that you cannot recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment like that. Of course George Bush did not turn him into a terrorist. He already had those aspirations. Whether or not he would have attained them had Bush not lied to the world is another story. You have to agree with me though that if Bush had not gone into Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq would not exist. The front in the war on terror would still be in Afghanistan/Pakiston where it should have been. As I’ve said, you cannot link Iraq with the original war on terror. Even the most imbecilic members of your party have given that one up. Are you seriously saying we should attack the Palestinians and every other country that had an Imam rejoice over the 9/11 attacks? Boy that’s really smart!

    Yeah, the government will provide the wonderful oversight it has in the past. Can anyone say (Enron and Worldcom). And with Bushman appointing well-qualified individuals to high-ranking posts, we should rest assured. /SARCASM

    You’ve still missed the point above. Many would do worse under the Bushman’s plan and SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. Instead, look at this as your chance to learn charity by providing for the elderly. You should give more of your money to the SSA.

    Actually I will quit posting comments here when stupid Republican vituperative railings stop.

  19. anon

    “is that he has no qualms with the government helping the poor.”

    Huh? Christ drove home over and over its is a choice on a personal level. And render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? At no point did he march around the government halls demanding that the social benefit program be increased, rather he kept tell people to give to the poor.

    “Don’t make them feel or indeed do not make the relief dependent upon their conversion. Irregardless of what you think, the majority of normal thinking people would say that exploiting the misfortune of others in this manner is unethical.”

    Regardless of what you think, offering them a chance to change, of salvation both spiritual and temporal is not ‘misfortune of others’.

    “Religiosity doesn’t completely solve the problem. ”

    Huh? Who said it did? It affects the problem greatly, but never was a panacea.

    “Inherently evil social programs! ”

    Anything that takes money from person A and moves it to person B’s pocket with out persons A say so does have problems. Calling it ‘charity’ is laughable to the extreme.

    “he church encouraged members to seek financial help from families first, then the wicked government with its evil social programs, and finally from the church.”

    And now it’s changed again, family first, then church, then church’s help located an appropriate government program at a local level. *Shrugs* Times, they change. Doesn’t mean I agree with having the government programs there in the first place.

    “As for Zarqawi, I’m surprised that you cannot recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment like that.”

    One has to have established that one can have a sense of humor. You started attacking, how can anyone figure out in a few short posts that decided to kid, right there?

    “You have to agree with me though that if Bush had not gone into Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq would not exist.”

    They already did. Besides, this was one of the points of the operation, to draw the terrorist scum to a central location. The media has done a fine job telling us how many of our troops have died, but a lousy job letting the world know how many of the terrorists we’ve sent to Allah. The plan is working as we drain the swamp.

    “As I’ve said, you cannot link Iraq with the original war on terror. Even the most imbecilic members of your party have given that one up.”

    Sigh. This takes far longer than this comment could cover, but yes, the Iraqi war was an extension of the WoT. I’d try to explain it in detail, only from an armchair general’s POV, but why bother? You’ve decided its a Bad Thing, any data contrary will be rejected out of hand.

    “Are you seriously saying we should attack the Palestinians and every other country that had an Imam rejoice over the 9/11 attacks? Boy that’s really smart!”

    How about just the ones that are active threats, like Syria, Iran, North Korea, but only after other avenues are exhausted? ‘Cause that’s the Bush Administration policy right now.

    “And with Bushman appointing well-qualified individuals to high-ranking posts, we should rest assured.”

    I agree, President Bush is totally messing that up.

    “SS was never intended to be a retirement plan”

    Yes it was.
    From http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/

    “A secure, comfortable retirement is every worker’s dream. And now because we’re living longer, healthier lives, we can expect to spend more time in retirement than our ancestors did. Achieving the dream of a secure, comfortable retirement is much easier when you plan your finances.

    Your Social Security benefits are the foundation on which you can build a secure retirement. Most financial advisors say you’ll need about 70 percent of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. Under current law, if you have average earnings, your Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent. The percentage is lower for people in the upper income brackets and higher for people with low incomes. You’ll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or investments. ”

    It never was meant to be the only way to retire, but it has turned out that way. Due to increasing taxes on the middle classes, less people have had the willingness to save and invest. Not a Evil Government Plot, but one of those ‘unintended consequence’ things.

    President Bush’s plan is a stroke of common sense genius, something his critics will never admit. Or maybe take the time to understand it. The numbers add up, the risks are lower than the current SS, in the average, what with Congress dipping their hands into the pot over and over again. It really could change retirement for the better as we know it.

    “Actually I will quit posting comments here when stupid Republican vituperative railings stop.”

    Ah, now you are telling the hosts what they can post and the manner in which they should post. Thanks. I’m sure they appreciate that.

    And you’ve misused ‘vituperative’ in your sentence. Well, it’s an issue of comparison and quality, sure, but I hardly would count what Travis said as ‘vituperative’. Ann Coulter, yes, Travis, no.

    But why do you post? You’re dismissive of the hosts, and can be down right rude and condescending. Do you really think that being a jerk is going to change anyone’s mind here? The lines have been drawn, sides chosen, a pissy attitude on someone’s home turf isn’t what I’d call ‘constructive’, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

  20. Stephen Valentine

    Ah, joined by a fellow troll. Nice of you to drop in.

    “Huh Christ…”

    Your point is? There is no scriptural evidence that Christ did not want governments to help the poor. However, we do see evidence that he really cared about them. So if governments, in all their inefficiency, help the poor, logically he would have no problem with that. Get the point. You’re making it too difficult. You’ve missed it on another level as well. We’ve established the fact that religious charities are insufficient to help the poor and thus governments must help. Again, Christ is actually concerned about the poor and if money is used to help them out (instead of making more nukes), I’m confident he is pleased. If you haven’t read the comments above, don’t bother us with silliness.

    “Regardless of what you think, offering…”

    Tell that to those who drank the magic kool aid in Jonestown. Obviously you did not read my comments about the danger of proselytizing by the wrong religions (if you’re Mormon, that’s all of them). No, again I’m afraid you are wrong. Government programs are the proper venue for helping the poor. Even Travis conceded this to some degree (something about the more equitable distribution mode, etc.). This takes nothing away from churches using their own money and proselytizing to their hearts desire. I still find it unethical and I would venture to say that many of these so-called converts become disillusioned over time and leave their respective religions.

    “Huh? Who said it did?…”

    No, nobody said that religiosity would solve all problems but that is all moron republicans offer. Don’t redistribute any wealth. Wait to proselytize the world and hope that everyone would –out of the goodness of their hearts- provide for the poor. What an inane idea. We have governments and other secular institutions now that, for all their failings, do a great deal of good in this world. We just need you money grubbing repubs to stay out of the way.

    “…Calling it ‘charity’ is laughable to the extreme.”

    Your ideas presented here (devoid of substance) are laughable to the extreme. I guess it depends on the person. For those willing to give their money for the relief of the poor, it is a blessing (charity) while for the unwilling (republicans) it is a curse. Not the first time we’ve seen this dichotomy in the Gospel. Also, taking person A’s money to build up Ronny Reagan’s nukes or support king george’s war without consent has problems. I didn’t sanction their use of my tax dollars. Additionally, since we have enough nukes to blow the world over several times, Christ would rather have us use the money to help his children out down here. Man, what caves did you guys crawl out of (incidentally, I know this is improper English).

    “*Shrugs* Times,”

    I think you are wrong. Even recently I’ve heard the church say that qualified individuals should use their entitlements (a.k.a. evil social programs. Even if you are right, under your description, even the local welfare programs would be evil. I don’t know how many members I knew that used WIC and supported you silly ideas. Kind of like biting the hand that fed them.

    “One has to have established…”

    Again you are caught not reading the comments. I did establish my since of humor from the start. I said, “you must be mormon…” That’s okay. Travis missed it too and it landed me on the insult list. What can I say, I’m a geek scientist; my humor is lost on others. I do try.

    “They already did. Besides, this was one of the points of the operation,”

    Oh boy. Now you are giving way too much credit too Bush. Even in his most imaginative days, he could never come up with something as laughable as that. Imagine:

    GW: C’mon Cheney. Let’s go to Iraq and smoke ‘em out. Just like at the O.K. Barn er um Corral.
    I won’t even dignify your comment with a response.

    “How about just the ones that are active threats, like Syria, Iran, North Korea, but only after other avenues are exhausted? ‘Cause that’s the Bush Administration policy right now.”

    And this one is even worse! If you want to usher in the Millenium, proceed with that asinine foreign policy. Thank goodness the only half-smart one of the crew is Sec. of State.

    “Yes it was.”

    C’mon that is nothing but rhetoric to keep gullible, weak-minded republicans at bay. Read your history textbook. It was instituted as means to take care of the elderly whereby the working generation provided for the retiring generation. It was never meant as a retirement plan as you guys have envisioned.

    Don’t use Bush and genius in the same sentence. It is an insult to geniuses everywhere.

    “And you’ve misused ‘vituperative’ in your sentence.”

    And you need an English lesson. Vituperative (adj.): containing or characterized by verbal abuse. If “Dingy Harry Reid” and “Yes, you are a troll” and “your incompetent reading” and “being a jerk” are not vituperative rants, sue me.

    I came upon this sight quite by accident. I don’t know, blame me. I don’t like it when people criticize others and do not allow a chance for defense (especially when such polemics are employed –see above). Why don’t you practice what you preach? I’ll gladly admit that I am hot under the collar and a jerk at times. If Travis doesn’t like it, he can remove my comments. I’m just tired of neo-cons hijacking a beautiful religion and turning it into a selfish sort of thing. And yes that is a republican philosophy; compassionate conservative is nothing more than an oxymoron.

  21. Stephen Valentine

    Okay all. Anonymous has pricked my conscience. I noticed that most of the rants are mine. Travis has been quite gracious in allowing me to comment here. I apologize to you anonymous too. You are right. It is unlikely that we will affect one another’s opinions. Respond all you like to my comments. I will not make anymore political comments here. This time, I promise.

  22. anon

    “Your point is? There is no scriptural evidence that Christ did not want governments to help the poor. However, we do see evidence that he really cared about them. So if governments, in all their inefficiency, help the poor, logically he would have no problem with that. Get the point. You’re making it too difficult. You’ve missed it on another level as well. We’ve established the fact that religious charities are insufficient to help the poor and thus governments must help. Again, Christ is actually concerned about the poor and if money is used to help them out (instead of making more nukes), I’m confident he is pleased. If you haven’t read the comments above, don’t bother us with silliness.”

    Forgive me if I disagree with what you just said. Private charities have always done a better job than government welfare. If the government doesn’t help as much as it hurts (been to any project housing? I have. Been to a Christian run shelter? I have. The shelter far surpasses the projects) why would anyone condone the government program?

    Nor is there evidence that Christ wanted “governments to help the poor.” You can’t argue lack of evidence is indicative of implied acceptance with out being able to argue the exact opposite point, which gets you no where.

    The bit about nukes is just a stupid comment. Really. We’ve stopped making nukes awhile ago on any seriously level of output, and if you don’t understand the MAD concept during the 80s by now, well, no one is ever going to be able to explain it to you.

    Aside from that, it is also a question of legitimate use of government power. Read, if you are so inclined, Locke, Hobbes, Hume (not directly related to politics, but on the way humans work), Mill, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-federalist Papers, anything you can get your hands on by the founding fathers like Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, this story about David Crockett: http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm. This is just a starting point, too. If you have covered that material already, I’m interested in hearing how you justify the use of government power in an area that is clearly not with in the concept of legitimate use as posited by the indicated materials.

    Doing good and helping the poor are vital aspects of a good society, but the government’s heavy hand needs to stay out. It should create the conditions in which personal and private charities can flourish and help them when possible, but direct welfare isn’t working.

    How long has the New Deal’s programs been in place? How many billions of dollars have we spent on the War on Poverty with negligible, if not down right harmful, effects?

    It isn’t working. The solution isn’t to keep doing the same thing, only harder, but to rethink the whole mess and try approaches that work within the legitimate powers of government.

    But none of that will change with the shortsighted vision presented by the Democrats and the Republicans inability to try anything new.

    “No, nobody said that religiosity would solve all problems but that is all moron republicans offer. Don’t redistribute any wealth. Wait to proselytize the world and hope that everyone would –out of the goodness of their hearts- provide for the poor. What an inane idea. We have governments and other secular institutions now that, for all their failings, do a great deal of good in this world. We just need you money grubbing repubs to stay out of the way.”

    You have such a simplistic understanding of the conservative side it’s going to be hard to talk with you on this. Let me just say your characterization is wrong and you don’t evince any understanding on the concept of limited government.

    “Your ideas presented here (devoid of substance) are laughable to the extreme. I guess it depends on the person. For those willing to give their money for the relief of the poor, it is a blessing (charity) while for the unwilling (republicans) it is a curse. Not the first time we’ve seen this dichotomy in the Gospel. Also, taking person A’s money to build up Ronny Reagan’s nukes or support king george’s war without consent has problems. I didn’t sanction their use of my tax dollars. Additionally, since we have enough nukes to blow the world over several times, Christ would rather have us use the money to help his children out down here. Man, what caves did you guys crawl out of (incidentally, I know this is improper English).”

    Simmer down, chum. I know, I know, new ideas hurt and maybe I didn’t explain it well enough, but let’s try it again.

    If a government agency takes money from Smith and gives it to Jones, this is not charity on the part of Smith. Nor is Jones on the receiving end of an act of charity. It is income redistribution regardless of Jones real needs or Smith’s potential ability to help Jones according to the real need.

    An act of charity must come from the person out of their free will. The government has the power to take by force from Smith so Smith can not disobey. Since he can’t disobey, neither can it be considered an act of free will by Smith, and so it cannot be an act of charity.

    Since you have no problem slandering a whole group of people with a broad brush, let me say the majority of my conservative friends and acquaintances give so much of their time and treasure to helping people, your characterization of the republicans is flat out wrong.

    And taking money from Smith to use for the defense of the country is a legitimate use of government power. See the references in my first comment as to why this is so.

    “I think you are wrong. Even recently I’ve heard the church say that qualified individuals should use their entitlements (a.k.a. evil social programs. Even if you are right, under your description, even the local welfare programs would be evil. I don’t know how many members I knew that used WIC and supported you silly ideas. Kind of like biting the hand that fed them.”

    The “evil” isn’t due to the benefits derived, but by the mechanics they happen.

    Besides, you libs are always complaining about the money spent on defense (a legitimate use of government power) but you enjoy the stability it provides.

    “Again you are caught not reading the comments. I did establish my since of humor from the start. I said, “you must be mormon…” That’s okay. Travis missed it too and it landed me on the insult list. What can I say, I’m a geek scientist; my humor is lost on others. I do try.”

    “Lost”? I think it has to be there first before it can be lost.

    “Oh boy. Now you are giving way too much credit too Bush. Even in his most imaginative days, he could never come up with something as laughable as that. Imagine:

    GW: C’mon Cheney. Let’s go to Iraq and smoke ’em out. Just like at the O.K. Barn er um Corral.
    I won’t even dignify your comment with a response.”

    You already did.

    President Bush didn’t come up with the idea, that’s a complete straw-man argument, but if you have any understanding of the military stratagems being used, you’d see this isn’t a new idea. It’s a tactic that’s been around a long time, and it has been part of this war’s overall strategy. Read Steven den Beste’s web site (http://denbeste.nu/) Alas, he’s stopped posting, but go through his archives on the reasons we went to war and the strategies being used. Also, read The Belmont Club’s older postings (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/) .

    “And this one is even worse! If you want to usher in the Millenium, proceed with that asinine foreign policy. Thank goodness the only half-smart one of the crew is Sec. of State.”

    How is it asinine? Really, just calling something stupid and then not explaining why doesn’t help anyone.

    “C’mon that is nothing but rhetoric to keep gullible, weak-minded republicans at bay. Read your history textbook. It was instituted as means to take care of the elderly whereby the working generation provided for the retiring generation. It was never meant as a retirement plan as you guys have envisioned.”

    I don’t know what to say to this.

    The government claims it to be so, FDR’s administration pushed it as such, it still considered to be such today. Hugh Long thought so. The Townsend Plan was passed towards that end. FDR took the ideas and ran with the, passing the Social Security Act.

    Every history I’ve read has this fact in them, SS was a pension plan, end of sentence, fullstop. And pension means “A sum of money paid regularly as a retirement benefit or by way of patronage.”

    To claim otherwise is a falsehood.

    It was a noble effort in response to trying times, but it isn’t working and pretending it is only makes matters worse.

    “And you need an English lesson. Vituperative (adj.): containing or characterized by verbal abuse. If “Dingy Harry Reid” and “Yes, you are a troll” and “your incompetent reading” and “being a jerk” are not vituperative rants, sue me.”

    They aren’t. Mean spirited at the worst. Travis’s words are like a bad cold, vituperative is like a typhoid fever. Calling you a spineless fool, a boil on the butt of humanity, a sorry excuse for a weak minded, empty headed human being whose one lone neuron is about to expire from its effort to locate a mate, who couldn’t tell a logical and sound thought if it came up and bit him in the rump, now that would be vituperative.

    “I came upon this sight quite by accident. I don’t know, blame me. I don’t like it when people criticize others and do not allow a chance for defense (especially when such polemics are employed –see above). Why don’t you practice what you preach? I’ll gladly admit that I am hot under the collar and a jerk at times. If Travis doesn’t like it, he can remove my comments. I’m just tired of neo-cons hijacking a beautiful religion and turning it into a selfish sort of thing. And yes that is a republican philosophy; compassionate conservative is nothing more than an oxymoron.”

    I haven’t been rude to the hosts. I’m not trolling, despite my anonymous status. I try to stay fairly calm and reasonable (thought I don’t always succeed), I don’t comment on sites of the opposite political divide just to stir things up, so yes, I do believe I do practice what I preach on the whole, thank you very much.

    As to “hijacking” the Democrat party left the field and told God to take hike. There are groups inside that party that still are seeking God, but the major influences on the party have aligned themselves squarely with the anti-God people. The Republicans didn’t hijack as much as found out they were they only game in town professing an allegiance to God.

    I’m tired of the constant bullcrap the Democrats have been spewing about religion, defining its terms so it excludes any actions undertaken by the Republicans, constantly claiming the high moral ground when no one can claim that, and on and on and on. I’m tired of the Democrat leadership and rank and file calling Republicans “evil” “nazis” “thugs” anytime they open their mouths. Calling someone “stupid” is one thing, but “evil” goes beyond the pale.

    “Compassion” to the lefties is the boot of the state grinding out anything I make by my own sweat and blood to “help” whatever PC minority group is currently in favor. The poor are kept poor by redefining what “poor” means every generation, and those that are truly in need of help get scraps, if they are lucky.

    I know I’ve wrote a lot, and asked you to read a lot more, but if you really want to explain how socialism is better solution that small government republicanism, you need to understand the logical framework behind it.

    Socialism is a failed ideology. It leads to increase powers of the state over its citizens, crippling their ability to make choices on their own, forcing them to behave in a state sanctioned manner.

    Small ‘r’ republicanism doesn’t solve the poverty problem, but allows people freedom to seek solutions of their own free will and provides a stable society in which to act.

    You see the government as a benevolent force for social justice and enforced charity. I side with Washington “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ”

  23. Steve

    Because you have invited me to respond, I feel that releases me from the promise I have made.

    “Forgive me if I disagree with what you just said…”

    You disagree with what? That Christ cares about what happens to the poor? I’m sorry if the logic of Christ being happy with UNICEF’s and various governments’ efforts to help impoverished people escapes you. The connection is simple; he cares about them (scripturally based –seriously).

    Could you please give me the metric you are using for the superiority of private charities versus the federal government? Is the housing project your only example? We’ve already established that private charities are not sufficient to meet the need. Thus, in a very real sense, the government is superior in providing for the poor irregardless of inefficient usage of funds. Yes I have visited a housing project. And yes I have lived in a developing nation where there was almost a complete lack of a safety net. From that experience alone, I can definitely vouch for the need of government-run public assistance programs. The goodness of men’s hearts has never been sufficient to take care of the poor. That’s why millions in the US, and indeed millions the world over do condone public assistance programs.

    “Nor is there evidence that Christ wanted ‘governments to help the poor.’”

    The evidence of implied acceptance is that he cares about the poor. They are God’s children and he wants them to be cared for. That’s a hell of a lot more evidence than you are presenting to the contrary. Remember, it’s not all about you!

    “The bit about nukes is just a stupid comment.”

    I guess it takes one to know one. I’m sorry it went over your head. Yeah Ronald Reagan really had a plan didn’t he? His saying that he thought we could win a nuclear war was just a ruse wasn’t it? He didn’t really think that SDI was feasible. That was all a ruse too. You’re giving Reagan and his cronies way too much credit as you have done for Bush. Why don’t you really learn about the legacy of the 80’s (a debt my children will be paying for, the chasm between the rich and poor, the quadrupling of homelessness in the US, and the current inability to contain nuclear weapons). Don’t lecture me on the 80’s; I was alive then. But I digress. The point was that taking person A’s money to give to weapons developers (indeed many private corporations –a form of corporate welfare) is worse than taking person A’s money and giving it to an impoverished person B as both require the relinquishment of free agency. It’s a lesser of two “evils” argument (since you couch welfare with that term). Incidentally, I like how you’ve dehumanized the poor by using your nomenclature.

    “Aside from that, it is also a question of legitimate use of government power.”
    I don’t need to debate you about what the founding fathers may or may not have felt regarding government welfare. I recognize that governments and civilizations are dynamic and I am open to the idea of the evolution of social conscience. We have progressed. I know, two words that are hard for a Republican to swallow. Again millions agree with me that such programs are a partial fulfillment of the inspired words “…to promote the general welfare…”.

    “Doing good and helping the poor are vital aspects of a good society, but the government’s heavy hand needs to stay out.”

    Many governments already do that. Many are clamoring for relief organizations to come in and help out. They will let such organizations have free reign on how to address the problems. Again the need is too great. Perhaps are you advocating that government monies for public assistance be turned over to charitable organizations for redistribution? Careful, this still goes against your free agency argument. You’ve not adequately described what governments should do to allow the flourishing of charitable organizations. Incidentally, why aren’t they flourishing anyway. Answer: They are insufficiently supported by the good heartedness of mankind. They are insufficient!

    “How long has the New Deal’s programs been in place?”

    If you don’t know about the success of Social Security, you were deprived of a good public education (ask for your money back because of yet another evil social program). Actually, the war on poverty was a good idea. If not for the Vietnam War and the subsequent conservative takeover, many more positive results would have been obtained. Turn the question on it’s head, how many more trillions of dollars will have been spent just so we can go “smoke out” the terrorists in Iraq. Too many. Again your statement that public assistance programs have rendered negligible and indeed harmful effects shows your total disconnect from reality. Go tell that to all the women along the Wasatch Front who are on WIC. Every newly-wed couple that I knew in the church took advantage of this wonderful program. But no, we shouldn’t really concern ourselves with whether or not a child has a decent diet. We shouldn’t think about all the dollars such a program will save us in the way of decreased need for health care. Indeed, your position is the one turning out to be extremely myopic. Why don’t you present something substantive to Bush as he can really use the wonderful ideas you guys suggest (i.e., let’s wait until everyone changes into a good guy)?

    “You have such a simplistic understanding of the conservative side it’s going to be hard to talk with you on this. Let me just say your characterization is wrong and you don’t evince any understanding on the concept of limited government.”

    Like Ronny Reagan’s and GW’s runaway spending, limited government models? Which limited-government model would you like me to pick? You are right, your party has me pretty confused on this one.

    “Simmer down, chum.”

    Nice of you to call me a friend. Taking money from person A without his consent for corporate welfare (whether for the defense of the nation or not) is just as wrong then. Can anyone spell Halliburton? Again, I say that millions like me want our tax money to be used to help the poor. That’s charity irregardless of what you think. As stated above, for money grubbers it is a curse. Ah sacrifice (a blessing or a curse).

    “The ‘evil’ isn’t due to the benefits derived, but by the mechanics they happen.”

    Again, tell that to President Hinckley. He seems to be unaware. Also tell that to those struggling new families in the church; they really are propagating evil.

    “Besides, you libs are always complaining about the money spent on defense (a legitimate use of government power) but you enjoy the stability it provides.”

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed that we are in more danger now of a nuclear holocaust than we have been at any time in the past. Maybe you should ask the expert ElBaradei. Oh you guys have your own expert (Rummy). Yeah that money has gone to good use hasn’t it? The numbers of terrorist wannabes really shrank after king george’s shock and awe (fart and burp) campaign. Why not look at what really works. The first Human Security Report notes that the world has less conflict today as a result of diplomacy, largely through efforts within the UN. Maybe George Bush should try reading sometimes. Oh I forgot, first grade was the toughest four years of his life. Traumatized him forever. I agree that there are times for force (Afghanistan); there are also times for diplomacy.

    “You already did.”

    Zing. Over your head! My humor again. Wasn’t a serious response since the assertions you made were beyond silly. If that is the strategy, we should fire everyone at the Pentagon for such ineptness. We already should for all the things they didn’t consider in the Iraq war. They should know their history a little better. Yeah, opening up new fronts in a major conflict is a good idea. Napolean, Hitler, and Hirohito had the same bright idea.

    “How is it asinine? Really, just calling something stupid and then not explaining why doesn’t help anyone.”
    I thought it was obvious. I will help you out. Do you have any idea how much arsenal is directed at Seoul, South Korea right now? Saying that we are going to attack North Korea is stupid. Doing it would be even more stupid.
    “The government claims it to be so, FDR’s administration pushed it as such”

    Don’t make it too complicated. Look how it was implemented by FDR. The working generation takes care of the retiring generation. Get it. It’s not difficult. It was never intended to be as the Bushman is describing.

    “They aren’t. Mean spirited at the worst.”

    Well if you want to say that calling Harry Reid a stupid racist is not a vituperative rant, we will disagree. I think the definition of the word speaks for itself and I think most people would call this offensive. But then most people would find calling you a thoughtless arrogant tumor in the head of mite on a gnat’s butt who really should just continue the carbon cycle for the good of society offensive.

    Using the following definition of troll from webopedia (1 To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding), I’d say you qualify with me.

    “I’m tired of the constant bullcrap the Democrats”

    It’s more substantive than anything Republicans offer. “Professing allegiance” to God alone is all they can do as their philosophy is the antithesis of the Christian message (selfishness vs. selflessness). Does calling someone racist commute to calling them evil? It does in my book.

    “I know I’ve wrote a lot,”

    ..I’ve written a lot.. As long as we’re on the English kick.

    “Socialism is a failed ideology.”

    Maybe you should tell Europe or even Canada. Better yet, get on your high horse and go tell Latin America as they tend to be electing leaders that are (more and more) siding with leftist ideology. Why not tell that to the American people since our free market has produced a health care system that enjoys the lowest approval rating in developed countries (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm). I tend to think that we should look to history (instead of making unfounded comments like the one you’ve made). As the gap between (and numbers of) rich and poor gets wider, democracies swing left. We won’t even mention what happens in totalitarian societies. Despite Ronny’s tough talk (something like “consigned to the trash bin of history”), these ideas keep cropping up when people become dissatisfied with the selfish oligarchy.

    And all socialistic governments really prevent people from using their free will to help the poor. Boy we should stop proselytizing in the UK since they obviously can’t use their free will anymore. Give that up. It doesn’t make any sense. Reverting to the evolution of social conscience, I think that you are putting words into Washington’s mouth via your interpretation. That is, you don’t know which side of the debate he would be on today and, in the end, it really doesn’t matter which side he would be on as he was not a perfect individual.

  24. anon

    “Respond all you like to my comments. I will not make anymore political comments here. This time, I promise.”

    And you broke your promise. And you tried to justify it.

    “Because you have invited me to respond, I feel that releases me from the promise I have made.”

    Balderdash. My response irked you into responding. I had the invite from you to comment with the promise you wouldn’t respond.

    By really, that’s neither here nor there.

    Sorry, man. I’d really like to discuss things, but there is no “there” there with you. You haven’t the educational nor philosophical background to tangle with these ideas (not me, they aren’t my ideas and need no defense from one such as I. After all, I’m a just a “thoughtless arrogant tumor in the head of mite on a gnat’s butt”) and in truth, I don’t know were to start. Your thinking mushy and scattered, relying on emotional and feel good responses that you’ve mistaken as deep and serious reflection into the way things “really are”. You have a reading compression problem, you read things that you want to see in there, and ignore the more sticky points.

    You haven’t the foggiest notion of where governments derive their powers, nor how Marx, Hegels, Nietzsche, and most importantly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writing has shaped the philosophical framework of communism and socialism (communism lite!). Nor do you understand Lockean government and how it differs from socialism. “Progressive” government is a sham, but it takes more than you are willing to put in to see how it is such. It seems to answer a real need, and you don’t understand how the answer socialism gives is always communism, and communism is such betrayal of human nature on a basic level that the cognitive dissonance always has citizens ending up in mass graves.

    True progression is the expansion of liberty, not one of increased social programs. And I know you can’t see that nor could I ever convince you otherwise.

    No other further discussion is possible, given our differences in the understanding of what government is and should be. Everything I see is illuminated by the principles of Locke, reflected in the Declaration of Independence and shines forth with the Constitution.

    As flawed as government is, I’d take it over the mess Canada is turing into. Id’ link reports that cite the failings of every major social program there espoused by the liberal party (health medicine, gun registration, “no confidence” vote) or how Britain’s health care is in a crisis, or how many Canadians and Britons are fed up with everything you think is wonderful, but it wouldn’t change your mind one bit. And let’s face it, you wouldn’t read the links anyways. And even if you did, you’d manage to find something that would negate the value of the data for you.

    Socialism “works” for you, and it must always work, even when the failures pile up over the course of history, even when societies that embrace it start teetering and come crashing down. You see flaws in our society, which there are many, but wrongly ascribe them to the constitutional republic which we still are (marginally) and to capitalism.

    I’m going to quote a fellow you’ve never heard of but his words properly designate the font of our social and political ills: “I believe the federal government’s century-long rejection of Constitutional constraints explains 90% of what’s wrong in America today.

    I believe that semantic obfuscation at the behest of left-liberals’ moral relativism, political correctness, and worship of transnational progressivism explains most of the remaining 10%.”

    As I said, I’d take America now over anything else out there today, but I’d prefer a government more aligned to the Constitution as it is written and amended then the one today.

    Yours is a another light, a Rousseau “social contract” flavor, one I disagree with on a fundamental level.

    Your casual disregard of Washington speaks volumes about your ignorance and your education. You seem to be a smart person, really, but you haven’t the education needed to discuss Washington’s political views. And I don’t mean ‘education’ like in ‘years spent getting a degree’ but a classical education, one that is so rare most people have to find it themselves using whatever tools they can.

    So I’ll withdraw from this field. It serves no purpose to continue to try to discuss things with you.

    And now you’re sitting, nodding your head smugly and thinking “Gotcha! You bloated Republican parasite! You can’t engage in me in debate, I win!”

    Good for you. You’re a Democrat, everything is a zero-sum game. Eveything, truly, is about you. Enjoy your victory.

    p.s. I’m expecting a smarmy, self-satisfied response from you. Don’t let me down! But I promise, no matter what you say, no matter what you call me, no matter how much further you embarrass yourself, I won’t respond. And, unlike Democrats or politicians, this conservative keeps his promises.

    p.s.s That last comment was, indeed, a trolling comment. Just so you can have reference to compare against my other comments, which (in the whole) were not trolling. But I don’t expect a Democrat to be able to get that easily. (Again, trolling!)

  25. steve

    Anonymous. Contrary to what you believe, I am not gloating.

    “I’m interested in hearing how you justify the use of government power in an area that is clearly not with in the concept of legitimate use as posited by the indicated materials.”

    Now did you or did you not ask me to respond? I did to the best of my ability, even though it was a punt (more below) of sorts.

    “Your thinking mushy and scattered, relying on emotional and feel good responses that you’ve mistaken as deep and serious reflection into the way things ‘really are’.”

    And you were just crystal clear weren’t you? You haven’t given the evidence that Christ is against government-run social programs. You’re Free Agency argument is a sham (to quote you). You have yet to show that public assistance programs are evil in the eyes of the Church today. You haven’t engaged on what would be well thought out welfare reform. For example, do you really feel that the government should step out altogether and leave the work to charities? Heaven help us if that were to happen. You ducked the question about a livable wage. You guys spewed a lot of debunked stereotypes about the poor. You ignored the idea that the free market depreciates the value of a human soul. You didn’t even respond when I criticized GW’s and the Repub-majority congress’ limited-government model. I’m sorry that I haven’t seriously reflected upon any of these issues; I have to make a living and raise a family after all.

    “You haven’t the foggiest notion of where governments derive their powers,”

    Well as most Americans, I think I can say that my deepest desire is that they would be derived from the governed.

    “You haven’t the foggiest notion … how Marx, Hegels, Nietzsche, and most importantly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writing has shaped the philosophical framework of communism and socialism (communism lite!).”

    Confession time. I didn’t want to go here because I’ve always found philosophy to be mind-numbingly boring. Instead I was more interested in understanding the importance of intramolecular interactions in the establishment of protein ion conformations in the gas-phase. I’ve become interested in focusing ions with radio frequency electric fields at high pressures. I’ve also become interested in utilizing such devices to determine the first molecular signatures of disease in circulating plasma. Forgive me for my lackluster imagination as it has led to my atrocious education (i.e., the kind that is not yearned for as you describe above).

    Back to the philosophers. As for Marx, read the manifesto once; not terribly impressed. I do like some ideas that have crept into our society though like the progressive tax system, central bank concept, free public education, abolishment of child labor, etc. Again I’m not an expert on these guys and you would win a debate hands down (thus the punt above) but I am smart enough to recognize that for anything you state, a leftist intellectual out there would be able to provide refutation (kind of like anti-mormon literature and FARMS). For example, I’m even smart enough to let you know that I like to see social programs help the poor and indeed have fought so hard here to convince you that they are important because of my nihilistic tendencies. As for Rousseau, his ideas would be impossible for me to debate with you as I believe in organic evolution. Yes, some members do believe in evolution as a wonderful mechanism for the creation of the millions of species on planet earth.

    “Progressive government is a sham, but it takes more than you are willing to put in to see how it is such. It seems to answer a real need, and you don’t understand how the answer socialism gives is always communism,”

    Somebody should get on the line with Europe and let them know that they are teetering on the edge of communism. I’m sorry, I should be more respectful. It’s pathological.

    “True progression is the expansion of liberty, not one of increased social programs.”

    What you fail to recognize, is that for so many, social programs are truly liberating. I mentioned the young families in the Church that use WIC. I mentioned the liberation of the elderly with SS; you totally ignored it. How ‘bout that public education that teaches us all the three R’s? These “evils” are truly liberating. Thus, by substitution into your little formula, progression = social programs.

    “No other further discussion is possible, given our differences in the understanding of what government is and should be. Everything I see is illuminated by the principles of Locke, reflected in the Declaration of Independence and shines forth with the Constitution.”

    Funny, much of what I believe is aligned with John Locke, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. I just do not see public assistance as infringing upon the rights of citizens. It’s the same as you not seeing corporate welfare infringing upon the rights of citizens (which I do by the way).

    “Socialism ‘works’ for you, and it must always work, even when the failures pile up over the course of history…”

    Hey I didn’t say I was a socialist. I believe in a regulated free market economy that makes provisions for the less fortunate; yep, I love it here. I’m a true moderate. I only don’t want to swing too far to the right and become the Southern Baptist States of America where welfare is abolished, the gap between the haves and have nots widens, intelligent design is taught as legitimate science, all children pray to Jesus in public schools, we fight unjust wars, etc., etc., etc. As far as health care goes, you can trash the Canadians and the Brits all you want. From the site I showed you, you’ll notice that many over there are happier with theirs than we are with ours. Ours is unsustainable too. You can’t have cost outpace wages forever. It will crash and the government will have to pick up the pieces as they had to with the Medicare prescription drug plan. I also am aware that free market economies without regulation do come crashing down or, worse yet, can create deplorable living conditions (see previous posts) from which people cannot escape. This happens in our own wonderful USA (read The Jungle or Fast Food Nation –for a more up-to-date look).

    “I’m going to quote a fellow you’ve never heard of but his words properly designate the font of our social and political ills:”

    Must’ve been Rush Limbaugh. No I’m sorry, Rush could be that wrong but never that eloquent. I’m sorry, one man’s rejection of constitutional constraints is another man’s constructionism. Both parties are guilty of imposing their world view on the Constitution. I at least recognize this. Yes, we Democrats get it wrong sometimes.

    “Your casual disregard of Washington speaks volumes about your ignorance and your education.”

    Funny, I kinda liked my response. Really, I’m smart enough to know that people can word smith any person’s statements to suit their needs. We really have to understand the context of the statement. I’m not a history buff but might it be that after having fought a tyrannical power, Washington was a little paranoid of the power of government. He certainly was not acquainted with all the benefits of public assistance programs (as I’ve pointed out a few) so how you can take his statement as an endorsement for the abolishment of welfare is beyond me. I assure you, I have the utmost respect for him. He is the father of our nation. Doesn’t mean he didn’t make a mistake. I think the founding fathers made a terrible mistake for not coming down more harshly against slavery (I’m sure you have an answer for that). Doesn’t mean I don’t respect them.

    Again, I apologize for my lack luster education. My interests have always lain elsewhere. Really, you do not know me and to thus pass such harsh judgment is beyond the pale (to use your verbiage). One of the reasons public welfare is a hot topic with me is that it hits close to home. You see my son has Autism. Now there are behavioral programs and indeed treatment strategies that would allow him to progress and increase his IQ. By federal law, when a child is diagnosed with a disability they immediately qualify for Medicaid. Our wonderful red state has tried to circumvent this law. It has to such an extent that I have been asked by another member of the church (child with cerebral palsy) to join a class action lawsuit. I may not be using the correct litigation terms here so forgive me. At any rate I can stay here and pay through the nose waiting for this to litigate (by then I will not have saved enough for a college education for my children). Or I can move to a blue state. I will choose the latter as soon as my sister-in-law (living with us) graduates from high school. I did not open up to you in this manner to garner your sympathy. Rather to shame you. How dare you call me evil for seeking my entitlement or even -euphemistically speaking- suggest I am partaking in the evil mechanics of …whatever it was. That really does go beyond the pale.

    “I’m expecting a smarmy, self-satisfied response from you. Don’t let me down!”

    I hope I did not disappoint. As for victory. What victory? We didn’t debate. You didn’t want to talk about what I did and vice versa.

  26. You have to realize there is not even a glimpse of the Great Peacemaker’s teachings in this blog of yours.

    http://www.lydiacornell.com

  27. we are probably not the best place to go for religious blogging. however, i think you’re wrong that there’s “not a glimpse.” even if you had just taken a few moments to read the above comments, you would have gotten a glimpse. but i’m not sure at what, exactly, your comment is directed.

    most of what we do here is poke fun at people or ideas we disagree with. for full and complete access to the great peacemaker’s teachings, we recommend http://www.lds.org, http://www.mormon.org, http://www.providentliving.org, and the most recent conference archives.

    i can only speak for myself and the percentage of this blog’s commenters and contributors i know personally, but many of us are sincerely trying to follow christ’s example. as you surely know, this is a very hard standard to live up to.

    i have been to your blog and commented on it here and here, as you probably know. it is full of your own misinterpretations and confusions with christ’s teachings. two things that particularly bother me:

    (1) you say you’re “deeply anti-porn” (you dislike paris hilton and britney spears), but you fill your site with semi-nude pictures of yourself. why don’t you take the pictures down? i’m sure your fans will respect that, with the wisdom of years, you have changed your position with respect to all nudity, not just that of others.

    (2) you (and most democrats) decry the war in iraq as 1000% wrong. but many democrats (i don’t know about your personal stance) support military intervention by the US in the sudan and supported our intervention into bosnia. there were several rationales given for entering iraq, including the genocide committed by saddam hussein, and the potential threat to the US, direct or indirect, from his weapons of mass destruction, whereas bosnia and sudan get democrats’ support solely based on the ongoing genocide in those countries. was intervention in iraq wrong because we had something to gain, too? i don’t understand this doctrine of christ’s.

    i am a conservative because i believe that that political philosophy squares best with christ’s teachings. apparently, you are a liberal for the same reason–it seems more christian to you. but i can’t, admittedly, say that the GOP’s position on everything squares with christ’s teachings. and i think you are stretching logic far beyond recognition to say that the democratic party platform does so.

  28. I never realized “Steve” was an abbreviation for “Stephanie,” although that makes sense since Steve is short for Stephen as well.

  29. haha, that was a stupid comment. That’s what I get for simply scrolling through the comments. I’m not sure why I thought that the commenter was Stephanie. I see now that it is Stephen.

  30. Nick Justin

    Rather than fighting each other we should be fighting this ridiculous government we have. Bush and Cheney have not lived up to their billing. Feinstein, Clinton, Reid, and Pelosi are just as bad. Your government is screwing you royally from both sides of the fence and yet we continue to defend our respective sides. I’m a Republican and I despise both sides equally. Our taxes are being misspent. Our borders are unprotected. Our laws are ignored. I think this country has lost all credibility and it is directly related to Republicans and Democrats alike. It’s time for the law abiding average nonpolitical citizen to take his/her country back. Mark my words a civil war is not impossible.

  31. […] –Lydia Cornell, semi-nude model and Christian activist, May 2006 [link] the salient question seems to be Where has the common sense of All Encompassingly gone? [your writing] appears to have been directly channeled from Andrew Sullivan….your dislike of Bush seems be coloring your judgment. This blog is the perfect example of how partisan politics has allowed every idiot to have strong opinions on just about anything. […]

  32. Mark

    Satan wanted to Compel obedience, robbing us of our agency, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God. He was cast from heaven for such rebellion. Now, his followers here on earth are perpetuating the same lies under the cloak of “compassion” “caring” or “social justice.” It’s still just as evil and undermining of Heavenly Father’s plan. Harry Reid would COMPEL us all to HIS PLAN, and then demand that HE receive the glory for such “compassion.” Joseph Stalin murdered over 50 million of his own people, and justified his actions by essentially the same argument that Harry Reid makes. In the end, those who stand with lovers of Liberty and Agency will witness against Harry Reid and anyone else who would seek to thwart Heavenly Father’s plan. All the clever arguments and manipulations will be moot then. Truth will prevail!