Lets rethink "Joseph Smith for President"
An introduction:
My name is Brent and I have been invited by T. Wray to contribute to the Blog. My comments will be largely political and will often be in response to ridiculous comments made by the Left. For those of you who prescribe to the doctrine of the Democrats, I am sorry. Please do not take offense to the things I say but rather accept their truth. (Or disagree with me if you feel so inclined.) Anyway, here goes!
T. Wray,
Good try! At least I got a good laugh. First of all, we can't give Joseph Smith credit for these words when he simply quoted them. True, he seems to agree with them but I felt it was a point that needed to be made. Being a quotation from a secular authority these words would be a personal opinion and in no way indicative of the "Church's" opinion or "prophetic."
I will comment nonetheless (my comments follow T. Wray's):
-To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations, having correspondent dispositions- Oh, so like maintaining good relations with Europe (France !?!) and other diplomatic nations? Lets finish reading the sentence before we jump to conclusions. After the comma are the words "having correspondent dispositions." Oh, so unlike many European countries (France !?!).
-to maintain sincere neutrality towards belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to (over) a decision of them by an appeal to arms – like Iraq? Yes, like Iraq during the last 12 years of "amicable discussion!" We tried that route and when it didn't work we tried something that did. Sounds smart to me!
- to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities – Oh, like favoring Israel and rich Oil Kings while turning a blind eye to other nations being oppressed by tyrants and suffering AIDS emergencies ? I hope you noticed the glaring contradiction in your comment. It goes something like this: "We shouldn't be partial to any country unless it is for feel-good causes like aids and decreasing oppression." By the way, wasn't Iraq "being oppressed by tyrants?"
-to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others – like those of the Iraqi people? I don't know if you noticed, the Iraqi people didn't have any rights before we came onto the scene. This is a statement of fact and as such cannot be refuted. By freeing oppressed peoples aren't we fostering a spirit of independence. I think you really need to rethink this one.
-too proud to surrender our own – like our due process under the Patriot Acts? Like our right to do with our own property as we will! The Democrats certainly don't have a problem taking our property (one of our most fundamental rights) in the form of taxes. (Or should I say, God's property that he has entrusted to us?)
-too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves – (Wait, did he just say “liberal”?); like listening selectively to those who say that there are, in fact, WMDs ? –affirming what you planned on doing anyway. ??? I know you are joking with the whole liberal thing, at least I hope you are. You lefties need to get off of this selective intelligence thing. First of all, you don't have any idea what intelligence Bush was getting. Second, it was an established fact, one with which no one disagreed, not even the frogs, that Sadam had WMD's. Bush was just the only one who had the spine to do anything about it. You have to admit, Iraq with WMD's is scary and poses a threat. On a side note, it has not been proved that he did not have them. On the contrary, we know he had them because he used them to satisfy his genocidal murderous whims.
-and too elevated not to look down upon them in others – like treating Saudi Arabia as a most-favored-nation with all their oil and money, even though they rule despotically and are severely demeaning in their treatment and abuse of women? So, what should we do to the Saudi's? You are starting to sound like Michael Moore.
So, what say ye? Joseph Smith for President? Sure, but lets base our vote on some of his own words. What say ye?
Brent
My name is Brent and I have been invited by T. Wray to contribute to the Blog. My comments will be largely political and will often be in response to ridiculous comments made by the Left. For those of you who prescribe to the doctrine of the Democrats, I am sorry. Please do not take offense to the things I say but rather accept their truth. (Or disagree with me if you feel so inclined.) Anyway, here goes!
T. Wray,
Good try! At least I got a good laugh. First of all, we can't give Joseph Smith credit for these words when he simply quoted them. True, he seems to agree with them but I felt it was a point that needed to be made. Being a quotation from a secular authority these words would be a personal opinion and in no way indicative of the "Church's" opinion or "prophetic."
I will comment nonetheless (my comments follow T. Wray's):
-To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations, having correspondent dispositions- Oh, so like maintaining good relations with Europe (France !?!) and other diplomatic nations? Lets finish reading the sentence before we jump to conclusions. After the comma are the words "having correspondent dispositions." Oh, so unlike many European countries (France !?!).
-to maintain sincere neutrality towards belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to (over) a decision of them by an appeal to arms – like Iraq? Yes, like Iraq during the last 12 years of "amicable discussion!" We tried that route and when it didn't work we tried something that did. Sounds smart to me!
- to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities – Oh, like favoring Israel and rich Oil Kings while turning a blind eye to other nations being oppressed by tyrants and suffering AIDS emergencies ? I hope you noticed the glaring contradiction in your comment. It goes something like this: "We shouldn't be partial to any country unless it is for feel-good causes like aids and decreasing oppression." By the way, wasn't Iraq "being oppressed by tyrants?"
-to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others – like those of the Iraqi people? I don't know if you noticed, the Iraqi people didn't have any rights before we came onto the scene. This is a statement of fact and as such cannot be refuted. By freeing oppressed peoples aren't we fostering a spirit of independence. I think you really need to rethink this one.
-too proud to surrender our own – like our due process under the Patriot Acts? Like our right to do with our own property as we will! The Democrats certainly don't have a problem taking our property (one of our most fundamental rights) in the form of taxes. (Or should I say, God's property that he has entrusted to us?)
-too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves – (Wait, did he just say “liberal”?); like listening selectively to those who say that there are, in fact, WMDs ? –affirming what you planned on doing anyway. ??? I know you are joking with the whole liberal thing, at least I hope you are. You lefties need to get off of this selective intelligence thing. First of all, you don't have any idea what intelligence Bush was getting. Second, it was an established fact, one with which no one disagreed, not even the frogs, that Sadam had WMD's. Bush was just the only one who had the spine to do anything about it. You have to admit, Iraq with WMD's is scary and poses a threat. On a side note, it has not been proved that he did not have them. On the contrary, we know he had them because he used them to satisfy his genocidal murderous whims.
-and too elevated not to look down upon them in others – like treating Saudi Arabia as a most-favored-nation with all their oil and money, even though they rule despotically and are severely demeaning in their treatment and abuse of women? So, what should we do to the Saudi's? You are starting to sound like Michael Moore.
So, what say ye? Joseph Smith for President? Sure, but lets base our vote on some of his own words. What say ye?
Brent
/ /
posted by Anonymous at 4:10 PM
3 Comments:
Brent, may I ask what evidence you have that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction? You say that "we know he had them because he used them to satisfy his genocidal murderous whims." Would you mind specifying? Were these nuclear weapons? Chemical? Or what?
Secondly, do you think we should continue treating the Saudis like they are any different than Saddam's regime? Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?
Finally, hey, if you're going to refer to the French as "frogs," please make sure that, for consistency's sake, you refer to all Hispanics and Blacks as "spics" and "niggers." Or, better yet, let's keep the ethnic slurs out of the discussion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
While I think its more or less accepted that Saddam had WMDs at one time and used them on ethnic minorities in Iraq, I don't see how that proves anything about the war.
The last time we had physical evidence of his possession and use of WMDs was the early 90's. The entire pretext put forth for the 2003 invasion was that HE HAD THEM NOW and was thus, an imminent threat. (Well that, and the fact that the Bushies carefully got ~70% of Americans believing that Iraq was connected to 9/11, without ever expressly stating as much).
Oh, Brent...you forgot to mention perhaps the strongest evidence we have that Saddam once possessed them: That sales receipt signed by Ronald Reagan.
Post a Comment
<< Home