Why are so many members Liberals?

[lundbaek]

Re. Original-Intent's comments about Ron Paul, I also have followed his campaigns and action in the House, and simply put, I have to agree with O-I's statements. His was primarily a campaign of education, and running as a Republican enabled him to participate in the 2008 debates and present his message to America. Had he run as a Libertarian or a Constitution Party candidate he would not have gotten the media exposure that he did. Because of his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, the CP's ranks grew and more people were made aware of the Constitution.

Many folks think of Ron Paul as a Libertarian. Following the Republican primary, even I expected him to endorse the Libertarian Party candidate for President. But he did not. He endorsed the Constitution Party candidate. In trying to build the CP here in Arizona, we (CP members) noticed that his endorsement of Baldwin attracted a lot of people to the CP.

[lundbaek]

I think any statement made to LDSs that mentions communism is rejected as no longer applicable because communism is supposedly dead now.

[TonyOlsen]

Tony thank you for taking the time to make comprehensive replies

My comments are that yes I have been baptised into the lords church, but i am not like you. i do not have it in me to talk in "if jesus were next to you what would you say?" language. if you can pull that off good on you. but he's not. and this is who I am. and compared to 99% of the conversations out there i'd like to think i'm doing okay

Taking a stance of justification based on what the rest of the World does is not a wise stance to take... considering where the World is today.

as for "what would non members think of your way of addressing me". well you know what. i ask why would they be here in the first place?

Perhaps because they have LDS friends who they admire and respect... and perhaps they've even felt something in their heart that gives them a longing to find out more... and they came across this site in their searching and were intrigued.

I'd imagine there are more non-members here then you might think.

...and that isn't even considering anti-Mormons who are on the continual march to find people they can quote that would put the Church in a bad light.

As a fellow member, you are a representative of Jesus Christ... always.

AND if they were (i'd expect they are in a part member family relationship if they were) let em tell you, they probably think we're throwbacks anyway we're so gosh darn polite. when i read your comment on this i thought of ned fladers (simpsons) telling his gosh diddley darn squiddly kids off for whatever.

*chuckle*

trust me tony. its VERY different out there, and i'm sure they've seen it. personally, i'd be disturbed if i stumbled upon this and DIDNT see any disagreement passionately expressed amongst members. sort of "de-cults" us don't you think?

There's a difference between passion and "the spirit of contention". Christ was passionate. Lucifer is contentious.

Your actions should not be based on what's normal, and instead based on what's right. The Lord has called his people a "peculiar people" and a "peculiar treasure". Doing things different than what the rest of the world does is what He wants us to be known for.

or do you think they will come to believe that a teenage boy saw god and jesus, an angel from a lost history gave him a golden book, we once lived polygamy, we do baptism for dead persons, temple stuff, garments tithing missions etc. they'll work with that (as we all have come to know it) but the language of a few passionate and active members will turn them off he church?

As I have personally witnessed... Yes.

When investigators are new, they live off of milk before they are given meat. That's why they can't get a Temple recommend until at least 1 year after their baptism.

Yes, a true convert to Christ's Church could withstand such passionate blows... but Investigators are not yet there.

I give them and the gospel a little more credit than that

the other thing is, if he were (a nonsensical hypothetical) i'd say much the same because i believe you say so much but say nothing.

perhaps he would say you are so limp, so lukewarm, so .........I don't know? wet?

all this "its a gray area" business

People shouldn't make up for a lack of understanding by being more extreme in their beliefs.

[Jason]

Jason,

I think you are wrong on Ron Paul on a couple of points.

First, I don;t think he really wants to be president all that much. I think he would be willing to do it, but I don;t think it is on his "bucket list" or anything. That is my take on following his career over more than a decade, and being extremely active in his campaign since spring of 07.

Second, I do not think that Ron Paul ran as a Republican as a compromise. His campaign in 08 was much more about education than about getting elected. He knew going in that it was not going to happen although I know that he was very surprised at the level of support that he did get and our ability to raise money at the grass roots. Ron ran as a Republican because he has already run as a third party candidate (back in '88 I believe) and he knew that they political system has been completely rigged by the two major parties to stack the deck against any new blood or the rise of a third party. I honestly believe that he ran as a Republican because he felt he would be better able to reach more people with his message than if he ran third party again. As far as I know, he never bent on principle, either in any of his votes, nor to be able to run as a GOP candidate for president. I don't think Ron is perfect; I disagree with him on principle on a couple of things. However, I am unaware of ANY case where Ron has ever deviated from the principles that HE holds. If you know of some examples, I would be interested to hear them (since you seem to think he bends on his principles 10% of the time, an example should not be hard to find).

I may have overstepped a bit there or at least not clearly defined my thoughts....and may I say that I greatly respect and admire Ron for his standards, wit, tenacity, and resolve over the years.....hence putting my money and efforts behind him.

And by no means did I intend to suggest or state that Ron has compromised his principles.

The point though is Ron tried to play the game (run in the two party system)....but if, as you suggest, the whole point was just an education attempt...I might have put my money elsewhere (like an AJ video). It is my personal opinion that by joining in with the two party system (thus not providing a strong alternative) is capitulating to the fallen system.....and still doesn't get us anywhere!

I did not state that Ron bends on his principles 10% of the time....what I said was ...

Ron stands his ground 90% of the time which is more than I can say about the rest of them

There have been some key moments in policy making when Ron has kept his mouth shut (hasn't changed his stance or compromised his principles but he has been quiet). 90% of the time he tells it like it is....but there have been times when you don't even get a whisper out of him. I have no idea about the realities of his job (threats, life, etc.) so by no means am I trying to put him down.....I think he is by far the best man there right now!

[TonyOlsen]

If what the Prophet of God says in General Conference you see as "minimalistic", I would suggest some serious soul searching.

Yes tony, i believe you would suggest that people who don't interpret something as you do are playing "minimalistic" and therefore in need of serious soul searching

perhaps all i am trying to do is protect you from the faith-shock that comes when a person discovers that- shock-horror- these great men with the keys are also, shock- human.

Can I ask you Tony what i am meant to do with what Brigham Young taught in the April general conference in 1852? (wiki adam god if you want it)
he then taught it AGAIN at a special conference on August 28, 1852, in sermon in 1854 and then again October 1854 General Conference

can i minimalise that?

Is your attempt here to prove that we cannot trust the words of the Prophets and we should be selective on what we choose to believe or not?

Yes, I have read about that. There are some things involving the temple that I do not wish to address here.

Just know that I have read it and I believe in what the Prophets say when they are acting as a prophet... the voice-piece of God.

I'll give you what I give anti-Mormons who raise that same issue:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

You may also find other answers to your other anti-Mormon-related inquires at http://www.fairlds.org/.

I don't care to argue with you on that issue. It just isn't important to me to convince you one way or another... I think this is something you have to find yourself.

...I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

[TonyOlsen]

Tony,

I can see you and Aussie are having a great discussion. I'd say, just keep a thick skin and realize Aussie's ability to tell it like it is, is a rare gift. He's even had a go at me on occasion where we didn't see eye to eye. However, though I appreciate a softer tone, I appreciate his desire to say the truth.

I'm also glad you're here. I find that it's great to not always agree when sharing our thoughts. It helps me to see where I may have missed something, or not completely thought through an idea I may have. Anyway, preaching to the choir is easy and fun, but not always where we learn who we are and what is truth.

Thanks.

I feel that most of us here though are brothers (or sisters) from different mothers. Cowell, I'm glad you mentioned that video. I too had a very similar reaction. Of course, I'm a baby and can barely make it through a talk or testimony, or favorite hymn without shedding a tear.

Curious... I assume that you're from Texas. Side question: Do you think Texas would ever secede? (If it did, I'd move there in a heartbeat).

[TonyOlsen]

Most of us know where tony's sources of information originate,

Where would that be?

You might be wrong there.

My sources are from personal scripture study, great books such as "The 5,000 year leap", "Thomas Paines' Common Sense", The Constitution (I read it about once a month), The Declaration of Independence, online research of the Founding Fathers, talks from modern-day prophets (Ezra Taft Benson being one of my favorites... if it's kosher to have a favorite prophet), various online forum (hannity.com, this one, and a few rare others), Church manuals, prayer, and conversations with Conservative friends, etc.

None of that raises a red flag with me... does it to you?

but so far I see no evidence that he has bothered to research our sources of information.

You're wrong.

I've followed up on most of the links I've been given (as much as my limited free time allows me to... and you know about my limited free time, since I'm still trying to catch up on this single thread).

It doesn't seem like there can ever be a 'meeting of minds' when both heads are filled with totally different documents. And...that's probably key, FACTS. Those are things devoutly to be sought.

Agreed.

Read, watch, listen to Anthony Sutton.

Which one?

* Antony C. Sutton (1925-2002), British-born economist, historian and writer

or

* Tony Sutton (born 1967), Current chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota

I'm guessing your talking about Antony C. Sutton, since the other is still alive today, and you mentioned Mr. Sutton being a martyr.

He has the hard evidence. He lost his career - a martyr - to his commitment to TRUTH. He had the 'bad boys' in suits knocking at his door, harrassing him for revealing the TRUTH until the day he died as a betrayed and profoundly disappointed naturalized citizen who had done all in his power to preserve his beloved Constitutional Republic by revealing the actual power that creates lucifer's chosen history of human civilization. The WAR goes on. You need to know where the enemy resides.

The enemy is all around us... mostly where we least suspect them to be.

Either DO the research or leave off trying to convince us of nonsense.

I DO do research... and I'll be as bold to convince whom I will, just as you presume to do. Don't be a hypocrite.

It is an offense to all those who have sought and sacrificed their lives for TRUTH. We can be guilty of upholding evil through ignorance. "No man can be saved in ignorance."

Only a fool takes offense where none is intended.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... type=&aq=f

I'll watch it.

[Steve Clark]

Most of us know where tony's sources of information originate,

Where would that be?

You might be wrong there.

My sources are ... various online forum (hannity.com, this one, and a few rare others)

None of that raises a red flag with me... does it to you?

Huge red flag there... Talk about someone devoid Charity. Hannity is one of my least favorite people I have seen speak because of his hate filled drab.

[TonyOlsen]

Yes, Mitt has a slick-car-salesman approach, which I don't appreciate as much as Ron Paul's "No nonsense" approach. I agree.

Well said Tony. I actually was an early supporter of Mitt, which many people may be surprised by. But when I say early supporter, I'm talking about a year before the primaries, before he told any of us what his opinion of the war was. I figured it would be a good thing for the Country to have a Mormon as President, as long as I knew he had not sold out to the Gadiantons (there are LITERAL LITERAL gadiantons today by the way, not sure if you knew that). I knew it hinged on his stance on "the war," which stance he did not announce until he was finally pressured after a few televised debates. Before then, he had attempted to distance himself from the "Bush policies." But inevitably, the truth came out, and I realized he was no different from the rest of them. And by them, I mean the Gadiantons themselves and their supporters. I also was not aware then as much as I am now that there are literal Gadiantons today. And because of that, I was caught in this weird predicament at the time. I did not know who to support. My emotions and brainwashed psychological side that was still trying to figure out how bad things were said I still wanted Mitt to win. But deep down, my principles knew better. My principles won. I started researching Ron Paul at that point because of his position on the war and watched this video. It changed my life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

I still watch the video from time to time, because it literally changed my life. I had not cried in YEARS. And I do not cry easily, because I had a sister die in a car accident. After something like that, it takes a lot to make you cry. Well, when simon and garfunkel started singing about the words of the prophets being written on the subway walls, I started crying, because I knew it was true. And they were tears of joy, because I had had so many questions, and suddenly there was HOPE. Real hope. Because there was a man with my principles and other Americans - MANY Americans standing behind him, and I was suddenly one of them.

I watched the video. I like all things I see about Ron Paul... except for one thing.

I don't think he and Captain Moroni would have gotten along. Captain Moroni put all Kingmen to death who wouldn't defend their country... I just can't see Ron Paul doing that.

...Can you? (Please answer... this is a sincere question)

[patriotsaint]

Sorry Tony, Captain Moroni and Ron Paul would have been pals. Ron Paul would have been more like Pahoran than Moroni in my opinion, but they still would have been allies.

The Title of Liberty stands for everything Ron Paul and any other true patriot stands for. Those that cling to the story of the Kingmen as an exuse for supporting inerventionist wars take the scriptures out of context. Here's a quick breakdown of why the Kingment were put to death. (Alma 51)

1. This was during a time of Martial law. In verse 15 Moroni asks the people to vote giving him new powers and the people do so. In verse 19 we read that leaders of the Kingmen were held without trial indicating that the right to trial had been suspended. This points to martial law.

2. The kingmen acted against the will of the people (verses 7 and 15), not against the will of a few powerful politicians. By continuing on their path after the issue had been voted on by the people they were committing treason. Treason has traditionally been punished by death.

3. Verse 8 teaches us the Kingmen were not merely in disagreement with other nephites, but that they were actively seeking power over their brethren. They believed that their high birth gave them the right to rule others. Thus Moroni pulled down their pride.

Who has disregarded the will of the American people?
Who has committed treason by prosecuting illegal, undeclared wars?
Who has committed treason by sabotaging their own country? (9-11, banker bailouts, the fed etc)
Who seeks ruling authority over their countrymen?
Who believes that their high birth makes them superior?

Answer these questions honestly and you will find your modern Kingmen.

[TonyOlsen]

By the way... that's the 2nd time I've heard the mention that USA has used depleted uranium and white phosphorous as a weapon against civilians. I have never heard of that before. Do you have links to reputable sources?

Reputable? Hah. you mean like abcnnnbccbsfox? bbc?
the VERY same media who sold us the wars in the first place?
true bastions of investigative journalism

Just google the word "Fallujah"

As for D.U - see the picture on this article from todays article.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=1 ... =351020201

Iraq to sue US, Britain over depleted uranium bombs

Iraq's Ministry for Human Rights will file a lawsuit against Britain and the US over their use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, an Iraqi minister says.

Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, told Assabah newspaper that the lawsuit will be launched based on reports from the Iraqi ministries of science and the environment.

According to the reports, during the first year of the US and British invasion of Iraq, both countries had repeatedly used bombs containing depleted uranium.

According to Iraqi military experts, the US and Britain bombed the country with nearly 2,000 tons of depleted uranium bombs during the early years of the Iraq war.

Atomic radiation has increased the number of babies born with defects in the southern provinces of Iraq.

Iraqi doctors say they' have been struggling to cope with the rise in the number of cancer cases —especially in cities subjected to heavy U-S and British bombardment.

The high rate of birth defects and cancer cases will move in the coming years to the central and northern provinces of Iraq since the radiation may penetrate the soil and water by air.

The ministry will seek compensation for the victims of these bombs.


Deformed babies in Fallujah/Iraq LETTER TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Young women in Fallujah in Iraq are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukaemias. These deformities are now well documented, for example in television documentaries on SKY UK on September 1 2009, and on SKY UK June 2008. Our direct contact with doctors in Fallujah report that:

In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 15345.html
The fog of war: white phosphorus, Fallujah and some burning questions



another one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm

but its all semantics isn't it
i mean its not an illegal war because bush and blair and their cronies wrote themelves a piece of paper saying it was legal

it all comes down to what one defines as "civillians"
i mean, i guess there are no covillians right. as in, if they are dead, they were insurgents
ditto vietnam
no incendiares were ever dropped on civillians. only the viet cong

hmmm. all rather gray isn't it
i mean we only do this because we love them
we're trying to protect them
get rid of the WMD
get rid of saddam
then get rid of usay
then get rid
wake up
WE are the bad guys, THIS is the manifestation of bloodshed "and horror"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phos ... se_in_Iraq

I don't doubt that evil actions occur, and I don't doubt that many of those evil actions were carried out by modern-day Gadianton robbers... but I don't easily believe every story I hear, nor do I easily place blame on one organization or another. Gadianton robbers are people... not organizations. These robbers have most likely infiltrated every major organization in the world... but they move around to avoid the spotlight. If you blanket blame an entire organization, they'll just move to another one.

Often times I follow steps 1-3 in the logical progression, but get lost in step 4 and step 5 is way out in left field. Someone will point to an evil action (in steps 1-3) and then suddenly claim that this shows that Billy Bob down the street is an ax murderer... while I didn't see anything about Billy Bob in steps 1-3.

I remember how Liberals would say that the insults committed at Quantanimo were ordered directly by President Bush himself. I found such claims absurd.

There have been thousands of such stories over the last ten years. Many of them on the front page of the enquirer.

I know that some might be real, but it appears that most aren't. While I do believe that evil occurs daily everywhere, I don't think that most of them end up on the front page of the enquirer.

White Phosphorous I did not know about until it was mentioned here. It appears to be commonly used in various military campaigns as an alternative to tear gas. I don't have an opinion on it yet. (And yet, I know that even as I write that, my claim to not have an opinion will infuriate some here, who don't understand why I don't jump to conclusions as fast as they do).

As far as the depleted Uranium story, I see a few red flags.
* One: Upon various searches regarding that town, this accusation is rarely mentioned. If this were true, you would think more people would know about it.
* Two: A report of a lawsuit is not proof of guilt.
* Three: Sadam has experimented with Nuclear Capabilities before and has tested his "weapons" on entire towns before. If these deformations are happening, then aren't there many possible causes?
* Four: Even if this is true, who's the source/cause of it? If it was American soldiers, do we know that the order came down directly from the president?
* Five: Could this have been an accident?

I don't know these. I doubt many would.

Possible? Yes.

Proof? No.

I would hate to have a few of the people here on a jury trying my case. I don't think their "truth filtering" is very sound. They might declare me guilty before the defense has even started talking.

[Jason]

While I do believe that evil occurs daily everywhere, I don't think that most of them end up on the front page of the enquirer.

As far as the depleted Uranium story, I see a few red flags.
* One: Upon various searches regarding that town, this accusation is rarely mentioned. If this were true, you would think more people would know about it.

I would hate to have some of the people here on a jury trying my case. I don't think the "truth filtering" is very sound.

bold mine

[TonyOlsen]

Tony,

Bless you, you seem to be having a conversation with so many people. I don't know how you can do it. I wouldn't even dare to interrupt, but I fear you may have misunderstood my last post. I saw you made this comment:

Let's forgo the naive blanket statements, such as "all Republicans are Gadianton robbers". Ron Paul, who ran as a Republican, is not a Gadianton robber, thereby making that statement false.

Let's be a little wiser and temperate in our judgment.

I'm not sure if you took my last post to mean that all republicans are Gadiantons. If that's what you understood, let me clarify that is not what I meant at all. In fact, I think the only criteria we should use to judge, are the actions of our politicians. You said wisely that there are Gadiantons in each party. What I was referring to by referencing Helaman 6:38 was that there are people seduced into believing and taking part in the actions of the Gadianton robbers. The people that scripture refers to are the righteous Nephites.

I wouldn't call them righteous. I would equate them more to the corrupt politicians today who are too afraid to stand up against the system and instead join with it.

Wouldn't we be able to apply that verse to the members of the church today?

When I read of the Nephites supporting the Gadianton robbers, I think more of the Chicago style mobsters pushing people for "protection fees", and most people being too scared to stand up against them. ...they lacked the needed courage, I suspect, because they weren't built upon the rock of the Gospel.

I can't remember where I read the scripture that talks about the wicked trembling because of their lack of foundation... and that they fear that they will fall.

Courage comes from love. Those who aren't found with love have no courage, for "perfect love casteth out all fear."

I think so, especially as we've heard that the Book of Mormon is as current as the morning newspaper. That means, righteous church-going members have been seduced into believing the works of the Gadiantons.

I didn't follow the connection between the "Book of Mormon [being] as current as the morning newspaper" (which statement from president Hinckley I agree with)

and

"righteous church-going members have been seduced".

I missed that connection.

Do I believe that many have been seduced? Sure. Do I believe that all/most have? I don't know.

The only proper role of government is the one that is described by President Benson.

I should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all domestic proposals and projects of government. These are the principles which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation.

“(I) believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.”

“(I) believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life…”

In other words, the only proper role of government is to protect our unalienable rights of life, liberty and property.

I agree. And that actually has been my planned platform for many months now.

My planned platform would be

If a bill/legislation isn't limited to defending Life, Liberty, and/or Property, then I'll vote "No".

The candidates we support should demonstrate by words and action, that they support these same principles. Anything that is more or less is evil. It is simple, it is black and white. The Constitution is the standard they should support and defend.

I agree... mostly.

I agree that anything "more" would be bad... but I think that the truth may lie in something "less". Within the broad subject area of "Defending Life, Liberty, and/or Property", there is still much disagreement. For example, on this thread some believe that pre-emptive strikes "can" fall under defending "Life, Liberty, and/or Property", and some do not.

In the Book of Mormon, the people of Alma (the elder) were not told to resist the invading Lamanites. Instead, God delivered them at a later date. They did not "defend Liberty", but they allowed themselves to become slaves without resistance.

Also in the Book of Mormon, God had, at various times, told the people to flee to different lands. In those cases, the people did not defend their Property.

Not all scenarios involving defending Life, Liberty, and/or Property are correct in all scenarios... but we can agree that it is never more than that.

Now... a question regarding semantics. Here's what Life, Liberty, and Property mean to me.

* Life: Sentient Human Life
* Liberty: Freedom
* Property: Physical Property

I don't believe in protecting "Virtual Property". I don't think it's the Government's role to protect the perceived value of your house, nor do I believe in letting government control information... that's contrary to the principle behind "Freedom of Speech"... but that's exactly what we have with Copyrights and Patents.

I believe it may be valuable for people to protect information, etc, but I don't believe Virtual Property is a god-given right that Government should protect.

...if that were the case, why would God create the Urime and Thumin which can be used to see everything? If information/knowledge can be owned/controlled, then wouldn't God be violating that when he sees and knows all?

Nothing good has ever come from any group of people controlling the flow of information.

What are your thoughts on that?

So, I was referring to people who have been seduced into believing the lies of big government,

Agreed.

preemptive war,

As a general rule of thumb (with exceptions)? probably.

As an absolute? No.

Noone has addressed Moroni's pre-emtive warfare yet. I think there are exceptions... so I don't believe in that absolute.

My statement here does NOT mean that I agree with everything that the US is currently doing. (I tire having to say that over and over again... but it appears some here have short-term memories, or else they just don't believe me).

socialist policies,

Agreed.

etc... Those are the policies of the Gadiantons. They are evil.

I agree with most of those listed.

Members of our church who support them, have been seduced into believing in the work of the Gadiantons. These policies are promoted by all parties, so it is as you said, the Gadiantons are in all parties. I think there will come a day of reckoning. I know our Father in Heaven is merciful, but we have been so clearly warned by our prophets and by the words in the scriptures, I cannot think that those who are still blind and asleep when that day of reckoning will occur will be like those who proclaimed to Jesus,

Didn't we prophecy in thy name,.... and in thy name do many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So, if the Gadianton robbers have infiltrated all parties, and it is evil to support any Gadianton robbers (as you've said), then are you saying that supporting ANY party is evil?... or supporting any group where Gadianton robbers exist is evil?

Aren't there Gadianton robbers even in the membership of the Church? Does that make supporting the Church evil?

I don't look to blacklist organizations, but instead look to which individuals I do or don't trust. A local branch of an organization may be clean of robbers, while another branch in a different location may be infested... I don't think it evil to support the local clean branch, even though Gadianton robbers exist elsewhere in the organization.

That's what I was saying about it not being black and white.

I think it is an easy path to take to simply black-list an entire organization... then you don't have to think about the details anymore.

With that mindset, are there ANY organizations were it wouldn't be evil to work with?

I think what this is is the fallacy of thinking that since A = 0.9 and B = 0.7 and C = 0.8, then I can simplify A*B*C to be "1"... and yet, in truth the literal answer is "0.504". When A, B, and C are each dark gray, a person does himself a disservice to call all of them 100% black. When you deal with the connection between A and B, and B and C, you may think the whole thing is Black... when the control of the Gadianton Robbers actually gets weaker the number of "hops" away you are.

This is what I mean by life being gray... even though God's gospel is pretty Black and White.

[TonyOlsen]

If both Republican and Democrat parties are 100% pure evil...

...then why did Ron Paul run as a Republican?

Yes, evil has been committed in all parties. Tyranny has been provided through both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Ron Paul apparently believed the Republican party could be saved, as do many others. I seek to bring the Republican party back to the Conservative roots that Ron Paul stands for.

I have hope. I believe in repentance.

Ron Paul is first and foremost a politician. Politicians tend to compromise. Ron ran as a Republican because he wanted to be president more than he wanted to stand his ground thus he compromised. That said, Ron stands his ground 90% of the time which is more than I can say about the rest of them....hence I put my money behind Ron and supported his run

So... is it righteous to vote for imperfect politicians or not?

In the beginning of this thread I was chewed out for choosing among those most likely to succeed, even though they had imperfections... and yet that appears to be what you did as well. Why else would you vote for someone who only stands his ground 90% of the time instead of 99% of the time?

The only difference between your vote and mine is that you voted for lower odds to obtain higher perfection. What would you say of someone who voted for even lower odds, but voted for someone who stands their ground 95% of the time instead of just 90%?

Like I said before... why doesn't everyone just right in the prophets name each election?

The answer is obvious... because, since he isn't running, he isn't likely to win. Even though he would be 99%, his chances of winning are 0%

So it appears that all of us compromise when we vote... we just disagree on where to draw the line.

[TonyOlsen]

If you think that's 'cute' then maybe both you and tonyolsen should listen to Dr. Stanley Monteith's interview with William Grigg at Radio Liberty. It's the January 22, 2010 interview. He covers modern US foreign policy with hard references in about 52 minutes. That might help get tony up to speed on what some of us know about US foreign policy & the War on Terror.

http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/

What makes you think that I support what our current government does? I believe we are living in about 50% Socialism (Tyranny) today. I believe that most politicians today are corrupt.

Why is it always all-or-nothing here? Either you're a US Tyranny lover or else you should shoot all US officials on site?!? Such naive black-and-white mentality is dangerous.

A new poll of more than 2,000 self-identified Republican voters illustrates the incredible paranoia enveloping the party and the intense pressure drawing lawmakers further and further away from political moderation.

The numbers speak for themselves -- a large portion of GOP voters think that President Obama is racist, socialist or a non-US citizen -- though, when considering them, it is important to note that a disproportionate percentage of respondents are from GOP strongholds in the South (42 percent) as opposed to the Northeast (11 percent). Also note that this is a poll of self-identified Republicans, which means that independent Tea Party types are not included.

Nevertheless here are some of the standout figures as provided by Daily Kos/Research 2000:

•39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.

•36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.

•31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.

•63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not

•24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.

•21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.

•23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.

•53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.

During his appearance at the House Republican retreat last Friday, Obama explained that it was hard to forge bipartisan consensus when lawmakers were trashing his health care bill as a "Bolshevik plot". These poll numbers show that the gulf preventing bipartisan consensus extends well beyond health care. How does a Republican lawmaker explain to his or her die-hard base that it is important to work on legislation with a racist, socialist president who is illegally holding office only because of the help of ACORN?

"This is why it's becoming impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country," said Markos Moulitsas, founder and publisher of Daily Kos. "They are a party beholden to conspiracy theorists who don't even believe Obama was born in the United States, and already want to impeach him despite a glaring lack of scandal or wrongdoing. They think Obama is racist against white people and the second coming of Lenin. And if any of them stray and decide to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Given what their base demands -- and this poll illustrates them perfectly -- it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no."

http://mostlywater.org/large_portion_go ... tizen_poll

I don't know what the point of this post is.

I would agree with many of those things listed (although not all).

I think that either Obama is a member of the Gadianton Robbers... or else he's a puppet for them. There are just soo many "coincidences" that the probability that they are truly "coincidences" is incredibly low.

(Do you watch Glenn Beck? He's talked about this a lot)

But I honestly don't know what your point was. Let me know.

[TonyOlsen]

Possibly.

The devil shifts his attack strategy to be where you would least expect it.

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... IuE.W8RAuU

I find that believable. ...in fact I would rank it as "likely".

I don't know what your stance is, though... do you believe this or not?

Romney’s foreign policy views generally align with those of the Bush administration. He sees Islamic fundamentalists, or “jihadists,” as the most pressing threat to the United States. He has focused his foreign policy platform on upping defense spending, forging “global networks of intelligence and law enforcement,” and supporting “moderate Muslims” throughout the Middle East.

The Los Angeles Times reported on August 14, 2007, that Romney has investments in an oil company tied to the Sudanese government, which is accused of being partially responsible for the massacres in Darfur. Romney’s campaign spokesman told the Times that Romney’s attorney controls his investments and that he “had no influence over how his investments were handled.” His spokesman did not say whether Romney would divest these funds.

Romney has been a proponent of domestic intelligence gathering methods and has called for increased federal funding and participation in such measures. Romney’s opinion regarding the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps is unknown, but he clearly does not have qualms with domestic spying in general. In 2005, Romney made headlines by advocating the wiretapping of mosques (BosGlobe) within the United States. During his time as governor, Massachusetts opened a “fusion center” for enhanced intelligence analysis within the state. Romney has argued that individual states should play a larger role in domestic intelligence gathering.

Romney has said that the U.S. military must be bolstered, and in April 2007 he called for an increase in military size by one hundred thousand troops. He also said the United States must dedicate at least 4 percent of its gross domestic product to defense, thus “making up for critical gaps in our military modernization, equipment, personnel, and health care efforts.” Romney says the United States should spend an additional $40 billion to $50 billion per year on military modernization.

http://www.cfr.org/bios/13226/mitt_romney.html

I don't know how to take that. I don't know what point you were making, so I don't have a response. Do you take issue with Domestic Spying? ...or is it spending money on National Defense? I don't know what your point was... but nothing there stood out as a red flag for me.

I guess I can cut to the chase by asking the following question (if you bother to answer it... you haven't answered most of the questions I've asked):

"Do you believe in the ownership of Information? Do you believe controlling information or privacy is a God-given right?"

Mr. Allen, author of None Dare Call It Conspiracy discussed the Council’s role and effect on American policy:

The policies promoted by the C.F.R. in the fields of defense and international relations become, with a regularity which defies the laws of chance, the official policies of the United States Government. As Liberal columnist Joseph Kraft, himself a member of the C.F.R., noted of the Council in the Harper’s article:

“It has been the seat of some basic government decisions, has set the context for many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking officials.” (Gary Allen, via Quoty)

How has the Council been involved in key government decisions? As cited above, members of the CFR have filled key positions in every presidential administration for the past fifty years. The list of members is quite extensive and features many prominent individuals. Notable as well are the presidential candidates who are members as well:

* Hillary Clinton
* Rudy Giuliani
* Barack Obama
* Fred Thompson
* Chris Dodd
* Mitt Romney
* John Edwards
* Joe Biden
* John McCain
* Bill Richardson

The notable exception: Ron Paul.

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/counci ... -relations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

What is CFR? Are you talking about the "Council on Foreign Relations"? Do I correctly understand that you feel that this is an evil organization?

If that's the case, how would you correct it? What was Mitt Romney doing on that Council? Were his efforts Noble or Evil? Do you know? I don't.

[TonyOlsen]

Jason,

I think you are wrong on Ron Paul on a couple of points.

First, I don;t think he really wants to be president all that much. I think he would be willing to do it, but I don;t think it is on his "bucket list" or anything.

I don't think any righteous person "longs to be in politics". A righteous person would only ever seek a political office (and enter the lions den) if he felt he could do some good.

That is my take on following his career over more than a decade, and being extremely active in his campaign since spring of 07.

Second, I do not think that Ron Paul ran as a Republican as a compromise. His campaign in 08 was much more about education than about getting elected. He knew going in that it was not going to happen although I know that he was very surprised at the level of support that he did get and our ability to raise money at the grass roots. Ron ran as a Republican because he has already run as a third party candidate (back in '88 I believe) and he knew that they political system has been completely rigged by the two major parties to stack the deck against any new blood or the rise of a third party. I honestly believe that he ran as a Republican because he felt he would be better able to reach more people with his message than if he ran third party again. As far as I know, he never bent on principle, either in any of his votes, nor to be able to run as a GOP candidate for president.

I would agree.

I think that is also why black-listing all Republican candidates would be a mistakes... as would black-listing all Republican voters.

I don't think Ron is perfect; I disagree with him on principle on a couple of things.

Same here.

However, I am unaware of ANY case where Ron has ever deviated from the principles that HE holds.

I would agree (from what I know).

If you know of some examples, I would be interested to hear them (since you seem to think he bends on his principles 10% of the time, an example should not be hard to find).

Interesting point.

[TonyOlsen]

I think tony has a lot...a LOT of time on his hands.

Hardly.

No point in discussing anything until he listens to or reads the information willingly shared.

Why do you still hold to believe I haven't listened or read anything shared? Do I just happen to correctly "guess" at what was being discussed in my response? How about my responses to video links or other links? How could I have responded on their content if I hadn't read, watched, or listened?

He appears to be a person on his very own tangent. Let him rip; I'm not willing to be an audience.

"Pearls before swine"?

My thoughts precisely.

I've read what you've written (every single line)... and I tried to address each point.

Have you?

Side note: I do think it ironically funny how you felt the need to post that you're not here anymore... like a girlfriend who lets you know that she isn't talking to you... even... though... that's... exactly... what... she's ... doing.

[TonyOlsen]

"We have urged you, above all, to try to support good and conscientious candidates of either party who are aware of the great dangers inherent in communism and who are truly dedicated to the constitution in the tradition of our fathers. We have suggested also that you should support candidates who pledge their sincere fidelity to our liberty-a liberty which aims at the preservation of both personal and property rights." (David O. McKay, "Vote Your Convictions," Deseret News, 11/2/64)

That's one that comes to mind, Tony. It is a First Presidency statement.

As for Bastiat, his thoughts and words can be found in President Benson's writings - especially in "The Proper Role of Government" iirc. Bastiat's "The Law" is avaliable online at bastiat.org and I think Fee.org do a free pdf download.

Thanks.

[TonyOlsen]

Re. Original-Intent's comments about Ron Paul, I also have followed his campaigns and action in the House, and simply put, I have to agree with O-I's statements. His was primarily a campaign of education, and running as a Republican enabled him to participate in the 2008 debates and present his message to America. Had he run as a Libertarian or a Constitution Party candidate he would not have gotten the media exposure that he did. Because of his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, the CP's ranks grew and more people were made aware of the Constitution.

Many folks think of Ron Paul as a Libertarian. Following the Republican primary, even I expected him to endorse the Libertarian Party candidate for President. But he did not. He endorsed the Constitution Party candidate. In trying to build the CP here in Arizona, we (CP members) noticed that his endorsement of Baldwin attracted a lot of people to the CP.

I do not see the Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Core-Conservatives, and Classical-Liberals as separate unrelated parties... I see them as being mostly the same thing.

I participated in the Republican Iowa caucus and helped put together the State's official "Republican Planks" (What the Republican Party of Iowa stands for). I can tell you that about 95% of the items listed there most Libertarians would agree with. It was at that same Caucus in Iowa's capital (Des Moines) that I met my first Constitutionalists... who were also among the same ranks.

Some may insist that they are all completely different, but I don't believe that. They are, in my view, identical twins.

Throughout history there has ALWAYS been 2 groups: Those who seek more power/control and those who seek more freedom. This was the battle between Christ and His followers, and Satan and his followers in the war in heaven... and that war has continued on earth throughout the ages.

The freeman of different ages and locations may call themselves different things, but they are marching to the same drum of "freedom".

[TonyOlsen]

I think any statement made to LDSs that mentions communism is rejected as no longer applicable because communism is supposedly dead now.

That's sad and scary. And I've seen where that mindset exists.

Communism is most definitely alive today. I think it's just gone underground and it's using Socialism as a means to bring about its return.

"Socialism - The Royal Red Carpet To Communism"
- Book written by Ezra Taft Benson

[TonyOlsen]

Most of us know where tony's sources of information originate,

Where would that be?

You might be wrong there.

My sources are ... various online forum (hannity.com, this one, and a few rare others)

None of that raises a red flag with me... does it to you?

Huge red flag there... Talk about someone devoid Charity. Hannity is one of my least favorite people I have seen speak because of his hate filled drab.

Hannity isn't my favorite Talk-Radio person... but I'd give him an A-. He puts up with a ton of mean-spirited Liberal callers and 95% of the time he's very gracious and turns the other cheek while trying to given logical responses. About 5% of the time he gets frustrated with their rudeness and barks back and them. Most of the time he's very charitable (at least verbally).

It sounds like you may have seen him in his lesser moments.

My personal preference for a forum would be Glenn Beck... but he doesn't have a forum, so I've been at hannity's forum instead. (Although I haven't been there in a while... at least not since I found this place).

While he is imperfect, I would not characterize him as a person full of "hate-filled drab". Specifically, what was your experience?

Mark Levin is another Talk-Radio personality I've enjoyed... although I've rarely heard him. I enjoyed his book "Liberty and Tyranny". I think many here would like it too... I would agree with about 95% of that book (which is pretty good, from what I've seen).

[TonyOlsen]

Tony,

I think this 73 minute video would be very helpful for you (and anyone else). In fact I am going to post it in its own thread, but thought I would put a link here as well. It's called The Quigley Formula. http://www.projectredpill.org/TheQuigleyFormula.wmv

I would watch it... but I don't have enough bandwidth to download a 600 MB video file. Is there a YouTube video instead?

Great news! I was able to get a download of it... and I'm watching it now.

[AussieOi]

Tony
Great avatar
Please stay- maybe just chill out a bit

Can I also ask if this thread has in any way offered an insight into the question you initially asked?

[TonyOlsen]

Tony
Great avatar
Please stay- maybe just chill out a bit

Can I also ask if this thread has in any way offered an insight into the question you initially asked?

I think there were a half a dozen posts on the initial subject (before the bigotry kicked in). All in all it didn't offer as much as I had hoped.

I have another question here:

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=10544