DiscussMormonism.com

Will Schryver wrote:Kishkumen:

Ever onward, Will Schryver. You magnificent bastard.

Of course, bastards can hardly be held personally responsible for their parentage.

It is true it is not known if Will's parents were married or not and he is not responsible. Perhaps they were married but not to each other, in the style of ole horny Joe Smith. Nothing magnificent here.

Droopy baited the trap:

Droopy wrote:Hmmm, sounds like the typical blue collar union Democrat voter snarling under his breath as he gets into his Toyota Corolla after a hard day's work at the plant as he watches his boss get into his Lincoln Towncar.

These things all kind of "hang together" don't they?

Red Kevin took it:

I work for a company in Atlanta that hires hundreds of non-union "blue collar" workers and I can assure you that they are overwhelmingly Republican. But it is nice to see your true colors come forth as you attack the working class and continue to worship the wealthy.

No comment necessary.

Why do you hate unions so much, aside from the fact that Rush Limbaugh says you should? I've yet to find a Right Winger make a rational argument against Unions.

"Hate" is a bit of a stretch. I have very strong disagreements with both the fundamental concept of guild socialism, as well as the particular form it has taken since the 30s.
Start a new thread in the off topic forum, and I'll attempt to educate you a bit.

Attempt, that is...

Bokovoy produces a scholarly apologetic on a monthly basis, for years. He's arguably the first legitimate LDS Bible scholar. That's saying something. Who the hell is Schryver? Schryver has done nothing but misrepresent the hell out of an obscure set of documents called the KEP.

Graham defends and lauds David Bokovoy for one reason and one reason only: David's leftist political views and his avant garde interpretations of certain scriptural passages that have specific relation to his political philosophy.

Were it not for that, Graham would be treating him in no manner differently than he treats Will.

Hey, Droopy can chat them up about Krauthammer as he shines their shoes.

It all depends whether they are the union members who were forced into the union shop as a condition of feeding their families and paying their mortgages, or those who really enjoy the gravy train and are eager to lay more track for themselves.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

I assume this has some relevance to something in some manner.

I'll leave it to someone else to untangle that particular knot.

Droopy wrote:I assume this has some relevance to something in some manner.

I'll leave it to someone else to untangle that particular knot.

I think it has reference to our precious bodily fluids.

No comment necessary.

Because you know I'm right. You know, the funniest thing about you folks who hate the working class isn't that you have an actual case about them being "envious" or what not. What makes me laugh the hardest is when I come across people like this who are manifestly not wealthy, not educated, and in dire need of some sense of identity. It is they who want to associate themselves with the wealthy when in fact that aren't wealthy. It is they who covet what they do not have, but long to have. They want to feel part of that group so they take to regurgitating their faulty arguments in the political arena, hopping that maybe one day they'll be considered wealthy too. The "you are what you defend" fallacy. You're simply projecting onto others in the same way a closet homosexual acts out aggressively towards homosexuals as a way to suppress his own desire. We both know you are what you attack.

"Hate" is a bit of a stretch.

But not much of a stretch, right? That in and of itself speaks volumes. You absolutely hate it when human beings have the liberty to gather together and negotiate for a better wage. The horror!! Corporations should have all the power, right? The minimum wage should be thrown out the window, too, right? To see folks earn a better wage due to unionization efforts really burns you up because it means the wealthy, particularly those who do no work whatsoever, make less money off their backs. I guess now is the time you regurgitate the erroneous argument that unions were to blame for the collapse of the auto industry, right? Go ahead, I dare you.

I have very strong disagreements with both the fundamental concept of guild socialism, as well as the particular form it has taken since the 30s.

American unions is a product of our capitalistic society, not socialism. In socialism there would be no need for unions, which is something you'd know if you had a real education on the subject and weren't left to swallowing outdated economic theory by Mises and Hayek. The rest of your ilk from Heritage/Hoover is just doing the bidding of their corporate masters who fund them. They have to attack unions on their behalf because that is what they are paid to do. You're just too stupid to realize it and have made their efforts look more ingenius than they really are, since they have not only gathered the wealthy to their side, but also the ignorant among the lower classes.

Start a new thread in the off topic forum, and I'll attempt to educate you a bit.

The uneducated will educate the educated? Sure, Forrest, after all, "Momma says I can teech" right? After mopping the floors with you so many times on economic matters, what makes you think you could stand toe to toe with me in a debate? You've never succeeded to impress anyone but yourself as you derail and avoid the questions that undermine your presuppositions.

Graham defends and lauds David Bokovoy for one reason and one reason only: David's leftist political views and his avant garde interpretations of certain scriptural passages that have specific relation to his political philosophy.
Were it not for that, Graham would be treating him in no manner differently than he treats Will

Yeah. Except for the stubborn fact that Bokovoy and I made nice with each other after having some seriously intense religious debates, long before we ever knew the other's political views. You hate Bokovoy's position because he is an educated person who can do something you long to do: win minds. You convince no one of anything and it really ticks you off. You've always been your biggest fan droopy.

Because you know I'm right. You know, the funniest thing about you folks who hate the working class...

Coming to the odd, unnerving conclusion that this guy is really, honestly freakin' serious has probably been the most difficult aspect of debating Graham over time.

A mature, rational mind simply recoils from the implications.

isn't that you have an actual case about them being "envious" or what not.

Who is "they?"

What makes me laugh the hardest is when I come across people like this who are manifestly not wealthy, not educated, and in dire need of some sense of identity. It is they who want to associate themselves with the wealthy when in fact that aren't wealthy.

Who wants to "associate themselves with the wealthy?"

You absolutely hate it when human beings have the liberty to gather together and negotiate for a better wage.

No. I hate it when they force others who want no part of the union's psychology, politics, and attitudes to participate as a condition of feeding their families and keeping a roof over their heads.

The horror!! Corporations should have all the power, right?

Corporations, at least in an economically open, free market society, do not set wages, and have no ultimate power to do so.

The minimum wage should be thrown out the window, too, right?

ASAP, or even sooner, would be preferable.

To see folks earn a better wage due to unionization efforts really burns you up...

Only because those better wages accrue only to union members at the expense of the rest of the economy and of consumers, unlike the private sector, within which wages are set by consumer preferences at the outset.

because it means the wealthy, particularly those who do no work whatsoever, make less money off their backs.

"The wealthy," and their imagined relations to "the workers" in your ideological vision have nothing to do with anything.

I guess now is the time you regurgitate the erroneous argument that unions were to blame for the collapse of the auto industry, right? Go ahead, I dare you.

It was the auto makers and their unions who were to blame, not the unions in isolation. The economics of those wages, benefits, and, in particular, their pensions program, was completely unsustainable.

American unions is a product of our capitalistic society, not socialism. In socialism there would be no need for unions,

Yes, as the Poles well understood during the days of the Solidarity movement.

which is something you'd know if you had a real education on the subject and weren't left to swallowing outdated economic theory by Mises and Hayek.

Kevin, my level of education and yours are so vastly, illimitably, and abyssally divergent as to be in different universes altogether. You're pure, unrefined, brazen bluster, void of both substance and intellectual integrity. I know it, and you know it. Its all a shrill, self righteous personal show; the Great Apostate Self Justification Lonely Hearts Club Band.

I know it, and you know it.

The rest of your ilk from Heritage/Hoover is just doing the bidding of their corporate masters who fund them. They have to attack unions on their behalf because that is what they are paid to do. You're just too stupid to realize it and have made their efforts look more ingenius than they really are, since they have not only gathered the wealthy to their side, but also the ignorant among the lower classes.

Little Vladmir Graham prates on, unaware that history has already damned the names of his ideological heroes as well as their anti-human utopian fantasies.

After mopping the floors with you so many times on economic matters, what makes you think you could stand toe to toe with me in a debate?

I can count all the times you've actually ever debated anyone, in any serious, intellectually serious or mature sense of the term, on less then one hand.

Who do you really think you're kidding here?

You hate Bokovoy's position because he is an educated person who can do something you long to do: win minds.

As quite literally no General Authorities of the Church have ever, or do at the present time, interpret the references in the scriptures to the UO and LoC he has concentrated his personal philosophical preoccupations upon in anything approaching the manner he has chosen to do, its safe to assume that the Ark needs no steadying, from the perspective of the Lord's anointed.

Further, the church is not a democracy, and hence, no matter how many minds he "wins" to his idiosyncratic views, the only thing that actually matters, at the end of the day, are the counsel and words of the living oracles, not brother Bokovoy.

I can't believe that droopy managed to turn even this thread into an excuse for a political diatribe. It's a real "gift."