WSB Forum » Politics

(23 posts)

Any disappointed Mormons out there?

  • Started 2 years ago by gaqlu82mau
  • Latest reply from redblack

  1. a good read...

    http://theirondaisywrites.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/oh-please/

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  2. skeeter
    Member Profile

    I don't think Mormons who supported Romney are any more disappointed than other Romney supporters. Just my guess.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  3. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    this'll really bow your mind, jan:

    there are a lot of disappointed christians out there...

    disappointed that the christian was re-elected.

    .
    .

    nah. religion isn't the issue.

    unless you worship mammon.

    :)

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  4. rb...after watching the number of states who have symbolically (or not so symbolically)filed to secede from the union, nothing surprises me. I have some Mormon acquaintances who are devastated that Mittens didn't win, and don't understand why. He downplayed his religion, yet they only voted for him because of his religion.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  5. Ummm, JanS, It was reported that a large proportion of blacks voted for Mr. Obama. And yet they only voted for him because of possibly pigment color? So should I question them?

    I know why they don't understand. They were not in the contested battleground states. They did not see the ads playing that tried to say he was heartless, would let people die when the opposite was true. They had faith that he would win. When you compare the two men, Mr. Romney had a much better and cleaner background. He did not buy his house from a convicted felon with mob ties. He did not launch his political career from a known terrorists house. He did not cheat the way the Chicago way did when sealed documents were opened. If he did then his transcripts from his University days would have been opened. He saved the Olympics, was Governor of Massachusetts, and was a person who believed in God and Country. From their point of view, who would you have expected to win?

    I fit more into Risa's camp living here in the almost Socialist Republic of Seattle/Washington State. I say almost because they did vote in the 2/3rds requirement for raising taxes and Charter schools. I will never, ever truly understand the people of this state.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  6. Mr. Romney lost...obviously a lot of people didn't believe in him...'nuff said...

    I used to think you were reasonable, Rich, but you have succumbed to Faux News, and kool-aid. You throw out the thing about launching career in terrorist's house, implying that Obama is working with them in some way.You throw out that "socialism" thing like good teabagger, and you know damned well it's a catchphrase thrown out by the most right wing amongst us, and it means nothing - it's used as a scareword.... You allude to things like the most conservative right wingers. He won the election, not Romney. No matter how evil people try to paint Obama, it is simply not true. Get over it...we are all in this together, so maybe we all need to start working with each other better.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  7. Jan. I know Obama won. I was speaking on the mindset of the people who supported Romney. But I guess that wasn't clear enough. Oh well.

    JanS, I am very comfortable in my conservative chair. I find it appalling that many do not know how the government works. I find it simply obnoxious that almost 50% of people do not pay federal taxes while complaining that the top 1% pay too little but meanwhile will not accept changes to a tax system that is broken.

    Your side pushes mediocrity and demonizes capitalism. You push social engineering. You don't like to hear the word socialist but that is what you and many of my fellow Seattlites have become. Admit it. Your side likes to label people. Well, start living up to your label.
    Read this article, tell me where you differ.

    http://peoplesworld.org/democracy-comes-out-on-top-on-nov/

    I have asked before and have not received a satisfactory answer.

    Why is there a Nickelsville when in this area the only people who get elected are Democrats? The Republicans do not have any power here or in the state legislature. If your politics are so good, why aren't things better? Yes, I blame your side for this. I think the support from the public and people who are on this blog has been fantastic, but if your political ideology is so successful, then this should not be happening.

    My ideological view is different. I will tell you why, because we Republicans have seen the light but the message is one people do not want to hear. It says you need to be productive and contribute to society as a whole while trying to be productive for yourself, your family, and the community. Time to deal with deficit and debt reduction plans. The government is not efficient. The government inhibits growth in various areas. It invests in many types of ventures, but not smartly. I believe 500 "New" Energy companies have failed with Obama handouts. The market could have determined that without the waste.

    There is a role for government. But limited is not a word used enough. FEMA failed again after Sandy. Why, because first, the governors need to invite the Federal Government. Something Ms. Blanco did not do in New Orleans. Second, being the ugly stepchild of the Department of Homeland Security has hampered their effectiveness. I know, this happened under Bush, but Obama and crew have not fixed it. Even after the oil spill.

    Yesterday is gone and if you do not live within your means, there will be nothing left for tomorrow.

    The states can fight over the social issues. The way it is meant to be. The Federal Government shouldn't even be interested in those other than equal opportunity, equal pay, and protecting its citizens from aggressors (local and international).

    By the way. I don't watch Fox News, and it has been pointed out that they are partisan to the right but MSNBC is much worse, by almost 3 times as worse. Even CNN was pointing that out.

    But typical of the left you too trash the opposing opinion but don't take it too well when we answer back.

    Did you see all of the election signs in West Seattle? Which ones were defaced? Only the Republican ones. Your side promotes itself at any cost. That is why your side is morally obnoxious. You preach louder than the Catholics and Protestants put together, but when you assemble you trash and destroy. You are political litterbugs but blame it on the right. You have lost your souls but yell very loudly to be heard.

    Personally we would rather stay out of it but the incessant meddling of the left has made the Tea Party. It's your fault, not mine. And when nothing has improved in four years you will still blame it all on Bush, Reagan, and even Nixon and Ford.

    Sounds like a great strategy to me. It won't work forever, but the question is, how long will the US work? Less with this guy in office.

    Get over it. Not a chance.

    But maybe, maybe, Mr. Obama might actually decide to learn something and work with the right just a bit. We will see.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  8. "Your side likes to label people."

    Guess what's next...

    "your side is morally obnoxious"
    "You are political litterbugs "
    "You have lost your souls"
    "... typical of the left"
    "Your side pushes mediocrity and demonizes capitalism."
    "You push social engineering"

    Is it any wonder that people exhibiting such cognitive dissonance have no credibility?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  9. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    rich: i find it hard to take you seriously when you insinuate that there would be no homeless people under republicans. if your face were before me, i would laugh in it.

    socialist? okay. i'll admit that i'm a socialist.

    but this ain't the soviet union or anything like bolshevism, and we're not heading in that direction, despite your fear mongering. we just want to look a little more like... oh, say... canada. like a country that has its head screwed on straight.

    My ideological view is different. I will tell you why, because we Republicans have seen the light but the message is one people do not want to hear. It says you need to be productive and contribute to society as a whole while trying to be productive for yourself, your family, and the community.

    wow. do you realize how that sounds?

    and you think us pro-union labor folks aren't productive? that we don't want to be making money and paying taxes? why? because we don't think that owning a business is the only way to happiness and success? because we believe that poor people's ranks are swelling, and we don't want to see them starving or getting sick in the streets - that we want our government to do something that the states and the holier-than-thou business class can't or won't do on their own? because we think businesses should be regulated?

    man, i take great offense at your insinuations, and if you're doing it just to needle liberals, you need to check yourself.

    but if you're not smart enough to realize how wrong you are, i probably can't help you.

    Yesterday is gone and if you do not live within your means, there will be nothing left for tomorrow.

    there you go again, denying where all that red ink came from.

    *cough*reagan*cough*

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  10. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    by the way, rich. i remember you complaining about the cost of health insurance plans.

    you do make enough money to pay income taxes, right? i mean, you wouldn't actually be a part of that 47%, would you?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  11. HMCRich..

    "I find it appalling that many do not know how the government works. I find it simply obnoxious that almost 50% of people do not pay federal taxes while complaining that the top 1% pay too little but meanwhile will not accept changes to a tax system that is broken."

    a tax system that rewards American businesses for doing business overseas is indeed broken Rich...

    but not one where those who make significantly more.. 100s of times more.. than those they employ pay effective tax rates less than their workers.

    Employers who pay their employees less than a living wage forcing them to rely on government programs to like food stamps to survive should be rewarded by the government that picks up the bill for their penury by reducing their tax rates?

    No. I don't think so Rich.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  12. skeeter
    Member Profile

    Quick comment on post #9 about where the red ink came from. In retrospect, Reagan wasn’t so bad. Our total national debt, about 14 trillion now I think, breaks down like this.
    W. Bush first and second terms: 50%
    Obama first term: 25%
    All other presidents combined for the previous 100 years: 25%

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  13. skeeter
    Member Profile

    Quick comment on post #9 about where the red ink came from. In retrospect, Reagan wasn’t so bad. Our total national debt, about 14 trillion now I think, breaks down like this.
    W. Bush first and second terms: 50%
    Obama first term: 25%
    All other presidents combined for the previous 100 years: 25%

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  14. skeeter
    Member Profile

    Quick comment on post #9 about where the red ink came from. In retrospect, Reagan wasn’t so bad. Our total national debt, about 14 trillion now I think, breaks down like this.
    W. Bush first and second terms: 50%
    Obama first term: 25%
    All other presidents combined for the previous 100 years: 25%

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  15. When it comes to Mormons' relationship to the larger society there are two countervailing tendencies at work.

    On the one hand is the separtist tendency. This is what made Mormons load up the wagons and head out west in the first place. They were trying to escape religious persecution, and to do that they had to go off by themselves.

    On the other hand is the assimilationist tendency. This is why Mormons can drop major tenets of their theology on a dime; they want to be a part of the "in crowd." First they dropped polygamy to become the state of Utah. Later, they dropped the Whites-only priesthood rule so they could broaden their base and be taken seriously by the rest of the country.

    The separatist tendency has been on the wane for some time now, so don't go looking for Mormons to secede anytime soon. Sure, they're disappointed that Romney lost. At the same time, they're gratified that the election was so close and that, in the end, it didn't turn into yet another excuse for the rest of America to bash Mormons.

    All in all, a good outcome for both sides.

    Huzzah!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  16. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    skeeter: yeah but you thrice sidestepped the fact that when reagan entered office, the u.s. was the world's biggest creditor, and when he left, we were the world's biggest debtor.

    compare reagan's debt to the previous 200 years and you'll find that he tripled it.

    to steer us back toward the topic, i still defy any conservatives out there to tell me how you balance the budget by cutting without raising revenue.

    you have to cut enough to be able to not only freeze spending, but service the interest on the debt and start paying on the principal.

    you're talking about cutting the federal budget in half.

    so what would romney and ryan's fiscal plan for america look like? do we really want a government that's small enough that it can be bought wholesale by the likes of koch industries? do we really want to remove we, the people's, only protection from the influence of predatory capitalism?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  17. redblack
    " do we really want a government that's small enough that it can be bought wholesale by the likes of koch industries? do we really want to remove we, the people's, only protection from the influence of predatory capitalism?"

    i vote no.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  18. >>i still defy any conservatives out there to tell me how you balance the budget by cutting without raising revenue. –r/b

    –No conservative has claimed that, so defy away.

    What conservatives do say – which you may also defy, if you wish – is that such govt. revenue as NEEDS to be raised is best raised by improving the business climate and creating more taxable business revenue. Which can done by lowering taxes.

    In other words, by lowering the tax RATE you will increase the tax BASE.

    It's only counterintuitive until you understand the theory behind it. And as I said, you can still refute the theory. As long as you know what it is you're refuting.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  19. I am not a mormon
    but i am a citizen
    and i am disappointed

    the people spoke and nobody listened

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  20. Disappointed?
    Nobody listened?

    Wha . . . ?

    What is with all the sad-sack Dems right now?

    You won, remember?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  21. DBP...have you listened to the likes of JV and Kootch lately? There are lots more out there than we realize that feel the same way as them, and they are steadfastly coming at Obama, trying to pin anything on him that will kick his butt out early. And in the meantime the work that needs to be done to get this economy turned around more will again become second fiddle to them..

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  22. DBP.

    The election is barely over and everyone is already talking about the next election as though this one didn't happen...

    it did happen.

    when they acknowledge that it happened..
    this vote has been dismissed as just blacks, Latinos, Asians and women.

    the deciding factor in this election was neither gender not race... it was policy...
    policy that is being pretty much ignored by both sides..

    Did you hear President Obama?

    he is not going to ask the working poor and students and the elderly and the sick to pay down this deficit unless the rich are also asked to pay...

    Nowhere in that statement is there any assurance that he is not going to cut the programs that benefit the working poor, students, the elderly and the sick.

    The people voted..
    but the talking heads are still making the policy.

    and talking heads say that the people who get what they call entitlements should pay because they are bankrupting our nation
    not those who don't pay taxes on what they earn
    or those who wage wars they don't budget
    or those who thought transferring the assets from social service programs to pay for corporate welfare was just...

    the people contributed to this campaign
    and they voted..

    but they did not win

    and won't unless we insist that our elected representatives listen to them

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  23. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    –No conservative has claimed that, so defy away.

    really, now?

    here's an entire conservative blog dedicated to not raising tax revenue, and they cite boehner and mcconnell as voices of inspiration:

    http://bearingdrift.com/2012/11/09/boehner-and-mcconnell-no-tax-hikes/

    then there are these tasty quotes, easily googlable:

    11/14/12: "House Speaker John Boehner says Republicans want to cooperate with President Barack Obama on reducing federal deficits, but not by raising income tax rates."

    7/8/12: ""What we ought to be doing is extend the current tax rates for another year with a hard requirement to get through comprehensive tax reform one more time," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., speaking on CNN's State of the Union."

    look, DP, i'm sure you're just needling me. the hard line conservative philosophy on the budget is to starve the beast. what do you think all that grover norquist shit is about? what do you think that reagan's "nine most dangerous words in the english language" were all about? conservatives not only want to slash rates further, and slash sources of government revenue, the nuttiest of them want to eliminate entire departments in the federal government. even reagan advocated for eliminating the departments of energy and education.

    they hate government.

    and i'm sorry to have to keep pointing this out, but reagan and reaganomics were economic failures, so to keep citing them as paeans of fiscal responsibility is intellectually bankrupt. it's time to bury that old ghost once and for all, and, in large part, i hope that is the net result of this latest election:

    to set those conservative philosophies back on their heels - pretty much forever.

    and what do you know? conservatives from 1988 agree:

    http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

    maybe we should move this discussion to another room.

    heh. i just looked at that graph above again. oopsie! not only did reagan explode the national debt, he also grew government as a percentage of GDP more than any president since world war 2.

    there's also a movement among conservatives that claim that reagan was held hostage by democratic congresses, and that's why the debt exploded. sorry. the chicken came first. democrats actually proposed smaller budgets than those that reagan requested.

    another myth debunked.

    Posted 2 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^