L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Droopy »

Falcon A wrote:L. Tom was calling out the likes of Romney as I believe he is evidence of the problem.


And what then, is your evidence of this? Why should I believe that claim? The use of the key terms debt and entitlement, at this time, and under these particular social and economic conditions (for which Romney and the vast majority of entrepreneurs and businesspeople (excepting those who seek rent from the state rather than create wealth in a free, competative market) bear no responsibility), really can have no other interpretation.

The trickle down doesn't work...


There is no such thing as "trickle down" economic theory. This is a fiction invented by the Left, not anything that ever came out of either conservatism or libertarianism.

and Romney's a prime example. He spoke of starting out with 'nothing', eating dinner off an ironing board, etc.... Ok, he had humble beginnings and made it on his own. Given. If he says so.


Just knots your stomach, doesn't it?

At what point was/is it time to reinvest, start a company or otherwise spend some of that $250,000,000.00?
My understanding of "trickle-down theory" as invented by Reagan,


Neither Reagan, Kemp, Wanninski, Gilder, the Heritage Foundation, or any other conservative ever invented anything called "trickle down theory." This is an invention of the Left (primarily from within the liberal media of the time) and has no basis in reality.

and explained to my elementary school-aged brain by my straight ticket Republican father, was that the wealthy have more cash to spend on boats, cars, buildings, clothes, etc. etc. These rich customers are what creates jobs. The middle class build the toys for the rich, in a manner of speaking. The problem arises when the wealthy aren't spending enough and the cash never trickles down.


This is a holy high crock and has nothing to do with supply-side theory and the microeconomic dynamics surrounding it. The rich spending enough has nothing whatsoever to do with why the investing and job creating classes are important, nor how their entrepreneurial and investment activity creates wealth and jobs in the socioeconomic strata below them. This sounds like nothing more than a mutant and rather vulgar form of Keynesianism. I'm just about done with this...

Where is it, gaining interest in off-shore accounts? Fine, but that's not a good example for one running for President of the United States.


Lots of people, liberal and conservative, do it to escape our crushing tax burdens on risk, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship, and that's why they do it, for the most part.

Especially when he hasn't explained how he's going to cover his tax cuts.


Right...

Tax cuts are not "paid for," falcon. That's Washingtonspeak, and could only be believed there or by people who worship at its shrine. When taxes are cut, government has a very simple remedy to offset any lost revenue. Its called spending cuts.

Rocket science, that.

He'll still make hundreds of millions more in his career, and maybe a few more regular Joe's will climb a rung or two on the ladder of this wonderful capitalist society; or at least be able to buy a new pair of shoes.


Yup. We're a society overwhelmingly populated by desperately poor, oppressed proletarian masses, struggling and yearning to be free (cue The International).

Mitt and his wealthy friends feel entitled to a tax benefit, at the expense of others, and that's not right.


1. There is no such thing as a "tax benefit at the expense of others!" Falcon, whoever you are: Mitt Romney's personal earned income, earned through his own productive economc activity (known as "work" in normal parlance) DOES NOT BELONG TO ANYONE ELSE BUT HIM. Falcon, Mitt Romney's own money, earned by doing productive work that is desired by his clients in a free, open, competitive market for those services, DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO ME. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO HARRY REID. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. No one has a preemptive claim upon the fruits of the labor of others. When people do claim to have a preemptive claim upon the fruits of the labor (the property) of others, and confiscate it for themselves, either personally, or through third parties, there's a name for that, and its called "serfdom." At greater levels of confiscation, it becomes little more than a form of slavery. That's what confiscating the unpaid labor of others is, Falcon.

If Romney's taxes were zero, there would and should be criticism of such a condition, but what could not be said is that anyone else had born some expense because of it.

We had better grow up, intellectual and morally, and very quickly, as a people, because if we don't, we are headed over a cliff and into a pit that we will never be able to crawl out of in any foreseeable future.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Droopy »

No, it means my politics, ultimately, are grounded in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No, it actually doesn't.


Well, yeah, it actually does, but because your knowledge of LDS doctrine, as you've demonstrated time and again, is at about the same level as Wally Gator, you probably aren't able to understand what I'm talking about in any case.

Any thinking person who is not a drone ought to think for himself, and not say, "hey, Elder Perry sounded like he was using some of my favorite conservative buzzwords, that must mean that he agrees with my personal lunatic political views!"


And away you run again. How many times can I win an argument with you in a single thread?

At some point, you might want to consider an actual argument in the actual philosophical sense of the term, and not the polemical/emotional sense in which your mind is apparently thoroughly embedded most of the time.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Tobin »

Bond James Bond wrote:One period. Twelve commas. Six sets of quotation marks. One failure.
One ding-aling to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Utah where the LDS Church lie.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Darth J »

What exactly is it you think you have won, Brother Blood? You have abdicated adulthood so a corporation with a religion on the side can tell you how Joseph Smith's frontier tall tales should inform the role and scope of government and positive law?

Congratulations. You've totally pwned everyone.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Kishkumen »

Droopy wrote:Well, yeah, it actually does, but because your knowledge of LDS doctrine, as you've demonstrated time and again, is at about the same level as Wally Gator, you probably aren't able to understand what I'm talking about in any case.


Droopy, I hate to break it to you, buddy, but declaring victory when you haven't even offered an argument makes you look like an idiot. So, you really ought to stop.

And away you run again. How many times can I win an argument with you in a single thread?


Again, Droops, not a good idea to say little more than "see, I won!"

Won what?

Won how?

What is sad here is that if the LDS Church does have a dominating political philosophy other than one of resentment against the federal government, it does almost nothing to articulate it intelligently. Instead that is left to raving lunatics and nutbars like you who gesticulate wildly everytime they hear the bird-call, saying, "See, I told you so! Republicanism is soooo compatible with the Gospel!"

I would love to see how many non-LDS Republicans would have been eager to live the United Order. How many of them would line up to live the Law of Consecration? All of that love of private property and liberty makes me think that, uh, not many Republicans would be eager to jump on that bandwagon.

You know as well as I do that Mormon love of Republicanism is mostly a weak protest against the intrusion of federal power until God brings forth his Kingdom. The Kingdom of God has almost nothing in common with Republican conservatism. The joke, as always, is on you. It will be interesting to see where your real loyalties are placed. My guess is that, when push comes to shove, you will choose your crazy politics over your religion.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Falcon A
_Emeritus
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:59 am

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Falcon A »

Droopy, thanks for the reply.

I'm just a regular reader, rare poster here. Been reading here since the first month...really. Been reading your posts from afar for years, literally. As far as I know I don't know anyone here in real life. Not a sock puppet of anyone. Not an expert at politics.

I told you where I learned the theory. You ignored much of my post, and you speak of reading comprehension all the time. I said Go Mitt!! Just pay a rate equal to mine. Why is that so bad? You insulted me and I said nothing to you. I don't care how falcon rich he becomes, do you understand? I don't want or need Mr. Romney's money. Do you?

Let's call no mortgage interest deduction a spending cut. Rocket science.
It only matters if you have a mortgage, do you?

Keep up the fight, you are so good at what you do.

Please don't change a thing about the way you defend Mormonism. It's Mormons like you and some of your friends that helped me get to where I am today, and I love the total obtuse persona. Love it. It's effective.

...and don't ever put words in my mouth. Ever.

L. Tom would be appalled at your behavior. How 'bout that? You understand that? Love how you described my dad.

It was a joke that Mitt feels entitled to a tax cut. Just a tie-in to the OP (even though technically he does). Understand? You are clueless, but I hope you are happy.
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Tarski »

Kishkumen wrote:So, Droops, how does it feel to have so much in common with Ted Kaczynski?

Correct me if I'm wrong folks, but, aside from being more intelligent and a better writer than Droopy, what really distinguishes Kaczynksi's nutty BS from Droopy's crazy political rants?

Kaczynski Manifesto wrote:20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.



Given that Kaczynski proved several extremely difficult theorems, he must have, at one time known that a "substantive argument" is more than just a series of ideological assertions.
Loran (Dropsy) continually complains that no one here makes substantive arguments. The irony is that he has never come close. What we get is hyper-ideological purple prose which when distilled amounts to nothing more than a serious of assertions which he takes to be obvious. He just takes the truth of Mormonism (his version) as a given. Nothing is ever really argued for. One cannot identify any standard logical maneuvers;
no appeal to evidence, no inductive reasoning, no deductive maneuvers--not so much as a simple modus ponens.

By the way, appeal to authority is a fallacy of deductive logic but not a completely useless or invalid principle of practical reasoning (we all trust doctors and car mechanics more often than not and for good reason).

But even Droopy's appeals to authority are extremely inappropriate given that he appeals to fringe authorities and other cherry picked pseudo-authorities. He ignores consensus science without a blink if there is an imagined ideological issue.

Here is a challenge for Droopy:

Pick one of your favorite assertions and defend it with a structured logical argument. Then outline the formal structure of the argument identifying by name the particular principles of logic and reason that you use. Show how B follows from A and so on.
If you could do this, you would get some equally structured replies.

In other words, the reason he seldom gets a structured counter-argument around here is that he doesn't present actual arguments in the first place. The closest he comes is paraphrasing of defective talking points bouncing around in the blogosphere and on talk radio.

At least some of the creationist nuts sometimes give arguments (with easily recognizable logical flaws and misunderstanding of the facts of course).

But Droopy mainly just asserts as if all his tendentious and often superstitious beliefs should be taken as axioms.

For this reason I am quite sick of his demands for substantive argumentation.

Take the challenge Droopy.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Kishkumen »

Tarski wrote:But Droopy mainly just asserts as if all his tendentious and often superstitious beliefs should be taken as axioms.

For this reason I am quite sick of his demands for substantive argumentation.

Take the challenge Droopy.


The challenge has been laid out, and it will certainly be ignored.

Droopy is simply incapable of fulfilling such a request.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Chap »

Kishkumen wrote:
Tarski wrote:But Droopy mainly just asserts as if all his tendentious and often superstitious beliefs should be taken as axioms.

For this reason I am quite sick of his demands for substantive argumentation.

Take the challenge Droopy.


The challenge has been laid out, and it will certainly be ignored.

Droopy is simply incapable of fulfilling such a request.


The habit is growing on me ...

He’ll never get one:
A logical argument?
- Not from old Droopy!
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Droopy wrote:
He didn't need to. The entire 20th century history of the Church is steeped in these kinds of comments about the welfare state, from the 30s to the present. Only someone unfamiliar with Church doctrine and philosophy could possible miss them, or misinterpret them

The Brethren won't get clearly and overtly political. They never name parties, programs, or initiatives directly.


Well a few used to. Give me an Ezra Taft Benson. Least we knew where he stood.

They don't need to, for the faithful Saints. They know precisely what he's talking about. No sophistry needed or desired, thank you.


So here is the problem I have with this. The leaders don't need to be specific. They can be intentionally vague thus they offend nobody out right. There is the position, that they Church is politically neutral and does not pick parties or recommend candidates. So now we have some, like you and like BC, that say the faithful understand and since we, meaning you and BC, are faithful, we know they mean conservative politics and leftists are simply evil scum.

Really? What an elitist arrogant position to take. Your conclusions about the vague comments L Tom Perry makes are the correct ones because you are more special, more righteous, etc. Is that really what you get out the the gospel of Jesus Christ? See this is what religions does when someone really thinks they have the perfect truth and all others are in error. It can be very dangerous.
Post Reply