there are so many ridiculously misplaced assumptions and notions in this question that there is really nowhere to begin. just keep reading Ayn Rand.

rsam, I take that as a ‘yes, I would be offended’ answer..yes?

Yeah, I’d be offended. Rich people shouldn’t be subsidized.

daloon,

Plenty of rich liberals. Most conservatives are Not rich, lets narrow the argument to lower and middle-class conservatives for the sake of common sense.

Lets also assume the only difference between the
two parties was social issues. With a Flat tax issued
from both parties..

I think in such a world as you describe, many of the people who describe themselves as “conservative” would indeed be in the minority.

I mean, honest, accountable, and charitable? With no exploitation of women and no pornography? Hell, there go 98% of registered Republicans.

Conservatives are a minority. And they already receive massive government aid by way of tax exemptions for churches, which increasingly function primarily as political organizations. The Crystal Cathedral cost $17 Million tax-free dollars to build in 1977. That’s around $60 Mil today. Greatest racket going. What more do you want?

Daloon,
Washington State, one of the most secular ‘progressive’
in the country, has the third lowest income tax
for the wealthiest citizens…how can this be explained?

Ichtheo.

This aide is distributed to All ‘faith-based’ organizationsregardless of poitical or social affiliation.Furthermore, the ‘political organization’ is privately not publically funded from Tithing, ACORN is a great exampleof ther Majority receiving federal tax moneyto support the Majority agenda under the pretenceof it being an non-partisan organization. (Obama just gave them 2 billion..)

That’s two Billion for ACORN

If we assume the conservatives are lower or middle class, we really aren’t talking about many people. I’d be happy to offer them subsidies, because if they were really conservative, they wouldn’t take them. At least not directly. They’d want me to raise the exemption for mortgage interest or something like that.

As @IchtheosaurusRex pointed out, conservatives already get more subsidies than the rest of us. The oil industry, the defense industry, the banking industry, the energy industry, are all the beneficiaries of handouts that dwarf those of poor people or people who have been discriminated against. These industries are typically run by conservative folk (I mean, they want to be on the gravy train, don’t they?)

As to Washington State, I can’t say anything because I know nothing about it. Although, if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say the state constitution doesn’t allow a progressive income tax, just like Pennsylvania.

[Edit]
All right. You made me look. Washington has no income tax. They do, however, have a total per capita tax burden that is above the average. and, in fact, rank 13th in per capita tax burden, with an average, nearly flat (and therefore extremely unfair, since poor people pay a much higher amount than rich people) tax rate of 7.3% per person. There are actually seven states with no income tax, so Washington is amongst the 7 lowest. I don’t know if you believe it, @crusader, but the data you provide is so misleading that either you are just being insincerely provocative at best, or purely lying, at worst.

I’m curious about this part of your description of your conservative utopia: “Where…families and their children were happy and tolerant of each other.” I wonder what “tolerance” means in a context where everyone shares the same values.

The same question occurred to me when you were asking about establishing religion-based conservative states. The implication is that the offspring of all these conservatives must naturally also embrace conservatism. What if they don’t? How far would that tolerance extend?

dallon,

If the conservative myth of they mostly being wealthy is
accurate, how do explain so many Southern and mid-westmiddle and lower-class conservative voters?Also, the beneficiaries of subsidies in energy industriesare often conservatives for two primary reasons,1.) tax breaks and 2.) most people with an MBA areconservativesthere is a balance achieved between social subsidies and national business and trade interests, though I believethat accountability is a foremost consideration…Again, with a flat tax neither party could use
personal wealth as politcal capitol such as they do today.

@Crusader
I think that for Southerners and Mid-westerners, religion drives them to the Republican party, against their financial interests. It’s known as the Reagan effect, and I think it has been diminishing slowly, over the years, as they come to understand that Conservatives like Bush really don’t help them.

Harp,

Yes, ‘tolerance in a context where everyone shares the same values’ is best illustrated in terms of ethnicity. Liberalisis an effective integrator as long as there is a group thatis conservative and relagated to second class citizenshipin terms of scholastic, financial opportunities, a scapegoat.Conservativism does not generalize in this regard and provides all ethnic groups equal opportunity as long asthey adopt personal accountability. Liberal churches invariably lend themselves to racial exclusivity and/or anti-family sentiment.

daloon,

Reaganism was not perfect, no government of Man is,yet property values skyrocketed, and Reagans governmentchallenged and defeated Communist Russia, as well aslowering the Carter administrations outrageous interest ratesof 23% to a manageable 7%

@Crusader So in this utopia, you’re allowed to look different as long as you think along the same lines? That’s tolerance?

Wouldn’t providing financial assistance go against conservative values anyways?

Let’s use the two definitions as seen on this site

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.

Harp

No less tolerant than those who believe they can think different as long as they look along the same lines. At least conservatives place a higher premium on family in general.

Fireside,

So the poor conservative family(unlesshe/shefulfulls ‘minority’ criterion,) loses in each scenario, yes? Is this justice?Justice before artificial ideological catagorization, this should be a liberal policyas a function of egalitarianism, and a conservative policy as a function of Christ Love and Charity, America is neither until the people become the establishment and not the reverse.

No, the poor conservative does not lose out because there are plenty of achievement and merit based scholarships. All the student who has no money needs to do is prove that they would be a good student, or good athlete, and there will be schools or organizations who would be willing to help them. Also, I bet you could find plenty of church based scholarships for community members.

How would you suggest rewarding someone based on values? What if they lied and said they were conservative?

————-
By the way, you are doing much better with appropriate line breaks. Maybe next you can work on using the space bar in the correct places.

@Crusader Wow! You sure do make a habit of saying wrong things. Do you believe this nonsense, or are you just being provocative?

Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union. It would have fallen anyway, and perhaps even sooner if he hadn’t put pressure on them that united their will to fight.

Oh, I forgot to link to the sources for Income tax comparisons and state total tax burden data.

I have no idea what you are referring to in terms of 23% interest rates. The debenture rate for mortgages never went above 13%. Of course, that was in 1984, right at the end of Reagan’s first term. You can’t blame the 1982 recession on Carter either. It was actually the fault of Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, at the time.

I’m getting tired of this. You make assertion after assertion without backing them up with any data or sources. I don’t even know why I’m bothering to respond. You are not, apparently, a serious person.

fireside,
Thanks I have been working on the paragraph formatting…Achievement and merit based scholarships apply, but only for Exceptional performers, wheras liberal groups can be average or mediocre, not apply themselves as much as possible or have the capacity to achieve as well, and be rewarded as well or better than the conservative. Also, how about rewarding ‘minority’ groups from wealthy families with advantages over conservatives/ Is this justice?

Unfortunately, the more visable differences, gender, ethnicity and lifestyle choice are rewarded, the ‘silent majority’ (now the silent minority) is expected to be Always perfect in personal life otherwise they are ‘hypocrites’ liberal can say and do anything and be righteous in there own minds, And rewarded financially, culturally, and scholastically. Justice?

Daloon, sorry, typo on the 23%, it was supposed to be 13%.
Weather or not Communism and the Iron Curtain would have not
fallen without Reagan is speculation. The reality is it Did fall during his administration.

Fireside,

About deception and the conservative, this is always a stumbling point. If one ascribes conservative values but is actually not then they will lose their benifits, just as some Repulicans have lost their political positions from same-sex relationship disclosures/revelations.

You seem to be conflating ideology with gender and ethnicity.
What liberal groups are rewarded more than conservative ones?

To liberals gender and ethnicity, and alternative sexual orientation Is the ideology. Just look to affirmative action to determine who is rewarded more, this federal law is Not income dependent, in America, is just as relevant what you are Not as what you are that equals success. (not conservative.)

Sorry, I can’t accept that response. We’re going with the definitions listed above unless you have a better differentiation of liberal versus conservative. Your opinion about what constitutes a liberal is not relevant to the discussion about public policy.

If that was the case, then someone could just as easily say only people who own three or more guns are truly conservative. Everybody has an opinion but until there are mutually agreed upon definitions, you can’t say provide funding for that group.

@Crusader ,

> Furthermore, the ‘political organization’ is privately not publically funded from Tithing

Those tithes are tax-exempt, too, last time I looked.

> That’s two Billion for ACORN

[Citation needed]

Ictheo…

For citation read the 100’s of page long stimus package, which was promised to be available for one week on th net prior to passing, but, was not even available to (republican) lawmakers until one hour before its inevitable passing.

I suppose that everyone flirts with the thought “everything would be so much better if everyone saw things my way”. And yeah, there would be less conflict, for awhile at least. Personally, I think that conflict has been one of the major forces of human growth.

Ideologies that go unchallenged remain frozen in time. The holders of ideologies like it that way, of course. Changing one’s ideologies is almost always a painful process. But that’s how we grow. Cloistering one’s self off into like-minded communities (and then struggling to keep them like-minded), may increase one’s comfort, but in the end, it’s a recipe for intellectual stultification

Harp,

Precisely, thats why I beleive in on-going revelation
and prothelethizing, as well as personal/collective accountability, honesty, and charity. The latter three are not negotiable for me, though I have my occassional lapses.. and I would certainly prefer it if it was employed by others, but we are only human..

Having seen what happens to gay kids in strongly Mormon families, I can only guffaw when Crusader claims that conservative religious people value tolerance and the bonds of family. Because, really, the only alternative is to weep.

@Harp I agree that challenge is good. But would you consider it challenge when a kindergartner goes up against a college athlete?

cwibur

Well, the official Mormon position on gays in their family is to tolerate, but not to encourage. The guiding principle of LDS is to ‘be fruitful and multiply,’ as well as marriage-resulting in children of both participants in the union.

@Crusader: and if more Mormons followed the official position, it would be a significant improvement.

cwilbur,

I agree. It is difficult sometimes to reconcile with the gay child as they are continuously reinforced the notion of celestial marriage and chilren resutant thereon, an eternal family. Without these biological children the link is broken and the parents of the child will not be with their offspring in eternity, so, in a way, they so intently want them to be straight so that they can be together after this life forever.

@Crusader You’ve bought into a system that’s based on the principle that all of one’s values and beliefs are dictated from on high. It’s a package deal; no accepting some parts and rejecting others. There’s really no call, in such a system, for critical thinking. In fact, you’re better off just flipping that critical thinking off, because it will only create problems in the social structure that has those beliefs at its core.

The whole system depends on unquestioning conformity for its cohesion. Even the “special revelations” you talk about are handed down from your officials. Your only option is to accept these dictates or reject your entire social world. To arm yourself against any doubt, you study the cookie-cutter refutations of any outside belief supplied by your organization. Then you sally forth like a crusader to to do battle with any ideas other than your received beliefs. To put down your armor and your beliefs and open up to other ideas would be, in your eyes, like committing spiritual suicide.

If you’re wondering why your proselytizing doesn’t meet with much success, it’s because that’s not a very appealing package you’re presenting. Lest I seem to be making a lot of assumptions here, I know this because I was raised under very similar conditions.

I don’t want to live in your “utopia”. Yikes!
Call me super glad for not going to heaven.

@Crusader ,

> For citation read the 100’s of page long stimus package

Since you’ve read it, perhaps you can point me to the page the ACORN money is on. It would save me some time.

Harp,

I am not, as you characterize, an unquestioning non-critical thinking cookie-cutter crusader sallying forth to do battlewith others who have a different belief. I express my honest feelings and belief as I perceive them to be, guided in part by what I believe to be ethical positions, (see non-conseqencialism,)

My family is Very liberal, such that I am more than a curiosity for many od them, and for some,I am a threat to their Very liberalness. Yet, perhaps due to the fact in part that I am always a potential designated driver and can be counted on to be punctual, help when help is needed, and proclaim my honest belief, and objective truth, (example, driving now could Kill you and others..) I am at least respected.

So, Harp, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You rasied conservative and me liberal. Oh, and my Very liberal family did not honor life and I bought into the whole ‘choice’ thing, even actively discouraging children, which is often a govenment sponsored smokescreen for encouraging white men (and women) to not want children at a young age, (or ever,)thank God I encountered a nice young sweet girl who decided otherwise, now I have the best blessing ever, a child.

Liberalism Discourages Life. Conservativism Encourages Life.
Liberalism Discourages Accountability, Liberalism Discourages Honesty, Liberalism Discourages Charity, Social conservatives often do the same, but often, with much sacrifice and contempt from others, do employ these necessary principles.

Who is really there for you besides family, anyway? Unless your primary association emphasis is frivolous sex and drugs-the prevailing culture. Sorry you have had a bad experience, but, many would have changed places with you, I am certain, many who endured the chaotic drunken/drugged violent escapades of live-for-now liberals. Many who have witnessed sexual perversions and had to live with the knowledge. Many who have exchanged Life for Death. Best of luck with you life.
Conformity for cohesion? You have the wrong man, the wrong faith. If that was the case you, as a woman, and all homosexuals, for a start, would live as they live in 95% of the rest of the world, as 2nd or 3rd class citizens. Or worse.

You want complete, unfettered authority and freedom? Be careful what you ask for, that gives others the same freedom, they may not care one bit about your welfare, its called anarchy, and nihilism. Already the starting salary for police is 60,000 in many states, much higher when the citizens have no respect for authority and just want bling? And corruption continues, as well as a drain on other resources..

You want safe streets to walk at night? A comfortable, safe life as a senior citizen? There are certain trades that are made to secure this safety. Or are you in a remote upscale neighborhood isolated from the rabble…? This was once called fuedalism, it failed too, as will the cult of liberalism.

Why, why, why are you sensible people interacting with this nonsense?!?

Well, with regard to unquestioning adhesion, I wonder how, for instance, you personally deal with this issue:

As I understand it, LDS scripture claims that Native Americans are the descendants of one of the tribes of Israel. With today’s resources for genetic testing, it should be a simple matter to determine the veracity of that claim. Such a study was, in fact, done. Here are the findings:

“In excess of a hundred and fifty tribes have been tested now, these are scattered all over north and central and South America, even to Greenland. And from that survey, in excess of five and a half thousand individuals have been involved and have been tested, from those five and a half thousand, 99.4% of Native Americans have a mitochondrial DNA lineage that originated in Asia. There can be no question: 99.4%. The other 0.6% have either a European or an African mitochondrial lineage. The very tiny minority of European and African lineages that they do find came after Columbus. Currently on the available evidence there’s nothing to suggest a [Native American Indian] relationship whatsoever with Israelites.”
(Dr. Simon Southerton, Molecular Biologist)
http://www.ffp.csiro.au/tigr/molecular/southerton.html

Now I would think that a critical thinker who’s willing to question his beliefs would look at this and conclude that this particular LDS claim is wrong.

What do you think?

@augustlan It’s kind of like mud wrestling- it makes a mess, won’t serve any purpose, and you wouldn’t want to do it every day, but it’s fun every now and then ;)

Harp
The Vast majority of them were annihilated by subsequent migrations, leaving only a tiny fraction of a percentage of the originals remaining. There is also the genetic mutation factor with the advent of previously unexposed to diseases. Also, I question the source of the science.

Regardless, that fraction of a percent, that is genetically transformed and/or nearly completely eliminated and minute as to avoid detection was enough for the LDS to practice Tolerance and Charity with the Natives, not overt conquering and forced prothelizations and annhilations.

Also, have you any response to Any of the rest of my rebuttal
to your, (rather incendiary,) post, or is this your, (supposed,) empirical ‘trump’ card?

@Crusader Your response is, of course, right in line with those of other church representatives. Interestingly, the genetics researchers who published this data were LDS members at the time, and were threatened with excommunication for challenging the veracity of the Book of Mormon in public.

I’m not interested in disproving any particular belief system. I have no doubt that you’ll have a similar riposte for any other challenge to your beliefs. That alone is enough to make my point. Why have you suddenly developed a very low threshold for what you consider “incendiary”?

As far as being right ‘in line’ with others, I did not personally know the ‘official’ response. Perhaps my reasoning is based on good ol’critical thinking…?

Also, plenty of members willing to debunk the faith for profit, not unlike every other faith…Though I find this is less often among LDS, those who abandon their belief tend to become Very strongly opposed, however, usually for some kind of publicity.

Your point is made that you are as adamant as refusal of belief as I am in believing, if any point has been made, yes.Low threshold? You systematically undermine everything I believe in and attempt to justify you suppositions with a ‘personal knowledge’ and expect me to not perceive it as incendiary? Well, perhaps incendiary is too strong a word, but I do enjoy the way it rolls off the tongue, in-cen-di-ary.Like some kind of furious cheese, or milk, or another dairy product…but I digress, no offence taken in any case. I appreciate your positions, even if I do not agree with them.

@augustlan ,Who’s interacting? I’m ridiculing. And who said I was sensible?

@Crusader Are you a member of LDS? If so, how did you find your way there? I mean the events story, not the spiritual story.

So if Native Americans didn’t have that minute undetectable fraction of a percent then it would have been okay for Mormons to promote “overt conquering and forced prothelizations and annhilations”?

Or are you just assuming that this is what all non-LDS felt was the right course of action?

Do you have any data to back up your claim that “the starting salary for police is 60,000 in many states, much higher when the citizens have no respect for authority and just want bling”

As far as I can tell, the median salary is $49,000 and 75% make less than $57,000

NYPD base pay starts at $40,361.

It is quite clear that most, if not all, of your assertions are coming from your clearly flawed “good ol’critical thinking”

Also, Harp’s a dude, not a woman. But I wouldn’t expect you to research any of your assertions because that might get in the way of your “good ol’critical thinking”.

@Crusader Do you know many liberals? It seems as though you probably don’t…

@Crusader Maybe your response was based on critical reasoning. What would your critical reasoning say about these words spoken by LDS President Gordon Hinckley to a largely Native America audience in Peru in 1997: “As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi [patriarch of the Lamanites], whose sons and daughters you are”.

Since you think that current Native Americans have virtually no genetic link to the Lamanites, that must seem like a pretty outlandish statement to you. How could Hinckley expect to see in the faces of peruvian indians the heritage of a race who’s genes they didn’t even possess. Hinckley must not have known this stuff you figured out about how those genes would have been wiped out by further migrations.

But your critical thinking won’t let you go there, will it? This one peculiar little belief doesn’t really seem to have much spiritual import, but it’s impossible for you to go with the weight of the evidence on even this one little point, because you have to accept the whole package or none at all. Those are hardly conducive terms for critical thinking.

It’s as President Tanner said in 1979: “It is difficult to understand why there are many people who fight against the counsel of the prophet and FOR the preservation of the very things that will bring them misery and death…. Latter-day Saints should be able to accept the words of the prophets without having to wait for science to prove the validity of their words. We are most fortunate to have a living prophet at the head of the Church to guide us, and all who heed his counsel will be partakers of the promised blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who fail to accept his messages….We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.”

I have extrapolated my postions, Harp. You have yours,I do not accept you reasoning, you do not accept mine.We agree to disagree.

Again, I question the bias of those producing the scientific ‘results.’ And, having knowledge of RNA ability to mutate under extreme circumstances, (such as 95% death rate from exposure to disease,) there is certainly plenty of room for doubt. You bias against LDS is clear, I have my suspicious of your agenda, it is obvious to me, really, but leave it at this, LDS is The church of spotless nature that Jesus has blessed above all others. This requires faith, (and primarily good, honest, charitable, life and family supporting examples of members and their leaders throughout,) not critical thinking, political opportunism.

Free will, nevertheless applies to LDS members, regardless, unlike the Liberal Church that often retaliates with ostracism, acrimony, and deception to undermine their more tolerant adversaries.

Free will? Well I only know of one friend who was raised by LDS parents, but his father was so extreme that his mother ended up hanging herself.

The father then, in order to control the kids and help them avoid any potential missteps, decided to lock the two boys up in their room for days on end with a bucket to use as a toilet. This went on for years until my buddy finally got away and eventually his brother was taken out of the house too.

I know this is only one example and that there are crazy people in every culture, so don’t take this as a blanket assumption of all.

One word—polygamy. Is LDS still blessed by gawd now that they caved to politics and rejected a fundamental tenet?Hipocrites.

@Crusader I’m perfectly willing to agree to disagree. You can dream of your conservative utopia, bemoan the beleaguered white male and spin fantasies about depraved liberals all you like. But when you promote those ideas in a public forum and try to pass them off as tolerance and righteousness, expect to encounter some push-back.

I bring up the LDS here not because I bear them any particular grudge. I lived and worked in SLC for awhile and never had any cause for complaint about the many Saints that I knew there. It just happens that you’re the first I’ve encountered that has tried to sell me on the idea that it would be a great idea for every ideological group to segregate itself off so righteous conservatives don’t have to deal with the messy world of diversity. And this is certainly the first time I’ve seen that idea cloaked in the banner of tolerance.

If I’ve hammered a bit hard on your belief system, it’s only because I don’t think you’re aware of the degree to which it has co-opted your entire worldview. Hearing your take on what liberals are like just leaves me shaking my head. I’m pretty darned liberal and I’ve never smoked, taken drugs, or been drunk in my life. I’ve been faithfully married for 27 years and have two kids who are at least as straight-laced as I am. But as a liberal, I don’t think any less of people who make other lifestyle choices than I have made. Your ideas about liberals come from the ideology you’ve been sold, my friend, not from reality. But you can’t see that.

Fireside,

Please, leave the outrageous anti-religious fiction
to Steven King, of Koontz, though if what you say is true, I sympathize, however, Every occasion I have had to attend Many LDS functions, there was an openess and honesty like NO Where Else, including from women. Thus, LDS is certainly not promoting aggressive and/or secretive abusiveness, this is clear. however, All groups or non-affiliated have issues individually,regardless of the purity of the messege of the righteousness of its members. This is also True. LDS, however, have it occur Far Less Often.

Tiny FAiry,

Yeah, easy to cast stones in a glass house, until
it crashes on your head…Remember the (un) civil war?
Thanks to prothelethizing against slavery, (it explicity says no one should be held by another in the BOM) in Slave Statesno less, and being righteous, courageous vessals, and often, martyrs, for God, The Latter Day Saints were No Where Near
the conflict, nor conscripted, they has Paid Their Dues,
While southern Baptists, and athiest Yankees reviled and scorned them for polygamy in their comfortable homes and elegant restaurants, right, polygamy is So much more terrible
than enslaving a Human Being, and/or not taking Direct Action
and just joining ‘abolishonist’ clubs to be popular. Think again.

@Crusader – Truth is very important to me. I wouldn’t make up a story like that for any attempt to discredit. You discredit yourself enough with your posts.

Um. I am totally NON religious and cannot fathom slavery, it is an abomination of humanity. Polygamy, however is fine by me. Be it called religious or be it called hedonism, I have no problem with consenting adults decide to do. Making it illegal has created the cultish pedophilia that much LDS polygamy is today.

Don’t try to play comparisons with me. All religious arguments are, by definition, lacking cogency.

Harp,
I appreciate your continued response. Also, I believe you have toned your language/rhetoric down cosiderably now that you have realized I am not a ‘brainwashed, unquestioning, cookie-cutter, crusader out to destroy all opposition in a completely intolerant fashion..’ My, is this because you respect me more or for another reason?

‘Bemoan the Beleagered white male’ you say. No just extolling
truth that you and yours, (99% of media) refuses to do. ‘Spin fanstasies of depraved liberals? No need for that, just listen to the top 10 rap(e) music or (death) metal, or agenda-driven rock (U2, REM, LIncoln Park, etc…)

Also, check out the murder/rape rates in traditionally liberal cities vrs. conservative, not to mention the number of unsupported fatherless children vrs. supported fathered children,

Since when has ‘being raised by a single mother’ become such a grand accomplishment worthy of excessive praise? Only for unaccountable liberals, (those children that avoid the ‘termination’ that is.) So its single mother or abortion, great options. Naturally, there are exceptions, usually one at least One of the parents is a conservative. Oh , and who supports that fatherless mother with several children on welfare? Conservative families. Who supports them when they are are adults feeling they ‘deserve’ everything (especially ‘minorities’.) Again, Conservative Families-Not the Big Corporations Try Again. Less accountable, more expectant, am I getting through here?

Who supports (white, straight, upper lower-middle class) conservative families, No One, unless they have a brotherhood/sisterhood of some kind that can be Trusted and Relied upon, A-Political, yet social conservative in their group. Even then they Tithe, their is a Price for full membership, And they are taxed to support the unaccountable, expectants who can have Larger families and More authority with such population increase in the future, yeah, real justice there..

Evidently the first Amendment is fine and dandy for liberals, but the butt end of everyones joke is the country conservative, or gospel, they must be ‘rednecks’ or Jesus Freaks, right. Please.

You know the definition of insanity? Repeating the same activity/behavior and expecting different results. Well, you have effectively repeated yourself throughout this thread, you and others using the same questionable authenticity anecdotes of abusive horror and intolerance.

Are you really that threatened by LDS? Remarkable. ‘righteous conservative segregating…so they so not have to tolerate/deal with the messy world of diversity..’ Having to ‘deal’ with the ‘messy world of diversity’ is what LDS does best, most often for 2 Years on a Mission for each male, and sometimes women, too. Thus, even if they Were in an independent state, they would Still ‘deal’ with the ‘messy diversity.’

Also, I am just as interested in ceasing the Subsidizing of Liberals as I am exercizing the Sovereignty of conservatives. Why should liberals, with little to no respect for conservatives, or the conservative hard-earned money that enables the liberal to live the ‘liberal’ lifestyle, expect such support? Cessation of Subsidies for liberals would be a wonderful start, perhaps even enough on its own merits, but not for certain. Lastly, your assumption about my world-view having been ‘co-opted’ is as inaccurate and irrelevant as a describer of me as it is an excuse for your inceniary position towards LDS and abusive inuendos to me personally. (I studied All world religions, belief systems, and world history, I even supported Democrats in the 2004 election as a True independent, how many of you could say you put would you believe is best for you country over an ideology that benefits you personally?)

Your description of yourself and your family
sounds ‘pretty darn conservative’ to me. Or at least independent. Generally people are militant liberals to support a personal benefit, and/or lifestyle that conservatives are opposed to personally. In any event, choose as you may and I will choose as I may. Again, my perception is my reality, as is historical and contemporary events. I reccomend that you do not attempt to ‘catagorize’ me further, it is an exercize in futility, unless you enjoy such exercizes, then, by all means, continue in the attempt…

Fireside,

What is Truth?

‘You discredit yourself with such posts.’ you say,

Such an event as you describe would certainly have been
news. Can you provide the example/cite an article?

Grow up man.
You want me to dig through 20 years of newspaper articles to prove myself right?

You’ve done better with your paragraph format and space bar issues, but your “good ol’critical thinking” keeps getting in the way of your ability to relate to others. Best of luck to you. I’m going back to ignoring you like I did earlier this week.

Tiny,

I am not ‘playing’ and your definition of cogency is not mine.Furthermore see Saudi Arabia and the Catholic Church and All secularism, (pimping usually begins as 12 y/0)for your pedephilia. And, please, cease with drawing comparisons if you are intend on me to cease from doing the same.

Fireside,

Not 20 years, One Year. One Citation, your vehemence is not becoming.

You believing me is not important to me.

You drop the social equivilant of an H-Bomb,with nosubstantive support other than your Word which you stand by ardently, then, when pressed, answer, ‘You believing me is not important to me’

Ok, then, who, may I ask is it important to believe you if not me? I am open to any ideas, this openess can promote positive change if approached honestly.

@Crusader I don’t think I’ve changed the tone of my rhetoric at all; it just seems that you remember it as being more inflammatory than it actually was. For instance, here are the exact words from my earlier post: “To arm yourself against any doubt, you study the cookie-cutter refutations of any outside belief supplied by your organization. Then you sally forth like a crusader to to do battle with any ideas other than your received beliefs.” Here is how you remember it: “brainwashed, unquestioning, cookie-cutter, crusader out to destroy all opposition in a completely intolerant fashion..”

This is to be expected, because you have this self-image as a warrior of righteousness with Satan’s liberal forces arrayed against you. The fact that I’m liberal is enough to make everything I say to you seem like an attack. But I’m not a warrior at all; I’m not interested in tearing you down, or tearing your church down, or even tearing conservatism down.

Lots of people on this site see you as a “troll”, someone who’s just here to stir up trouble, and would love to see you leave. I’m willing to give you more credit than that, which is the only reason I’m still posting to your questions. I see you as a sincere person who’s taking a stand for what he believes.

But here’s what I also see. I see that your belief system causes you to see the world in stark, well-defined terms of Good and Evil. It presents you with a fully-formed version of what you are to believe, and those beliefs are not negotiable. You may be free to reject them (which I guess is what you mean by having “free will”), but that would be apostasy, and you would be cut off. So you absorb the reasoning that’s given to you, and let yourself be satisfied with that, because the consequences of coming to your own possibly contrary conclusions are too painful to face. Other ways of seeing things that don’t fit into the bigger picture of this structured ideology are automatically dismissed, because they’re a threat. So there you are with your spiritual armor, batting away any idea that might knock a keystone out of your fortress.

Only you can decide whether to stay in that fortress wearing all that armor, or to walk out, open up, be vulnerable, merge with the whole world. I know that sounds to you like some ruse by the enemy, and I won’t even try to convince you otherwise. Either you’ll see it for yourself some day, or you won’t. I was never in your particular fortress, but I did leave one of my own.

@Crusader – It makes no difference if anyone believes my story about my friend. I know it to be true and have no problem leaving it at that. You feel as though I dropped a social bomb when I clearly stated that it was only a single incident, not a blanket assumption.

The difference between coddling one’s own ego and honoring the truth is that one has a need to be right and relates their personal experiences and beliefs as a reflection of irrefutable fact.
The other simply relates their personal experiences and beliefs.

Harp

Thank you for your heart-felt words.

Since when did liberal and conservative become political parties. Last I checked their were Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Some of each of these parties can be conservative or liberal and then again, being conservative or liberal depends on the question. I can be both conservative and liberal and neither has anything to do with my political party. It is the media who suggests that to be conservative or liberal is based on the party you are affiliated with.