Problems with Ron Paul

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Problems with Ron Paul

arbilad · Head Chef

This article, like many attack pieces, is full of hyperbole.
Let's take the first point. She accuses him of inconsistency. This is a spurious charge. Ron Paul's voting record is public, and shows that he consistently votes in accordance with the principles that he claims. Her charge that he was against pardoning Libby on a matter of principle is just weird. She says that, as a libertarian, he should be for or against pardoning Libby based on his guilt or innocence. But what if Ron Paul views Libby as guilty of the crime he was sentenced for? You can be for or against pardoning for other reasons. If Libby was guilty, but had done something that really redeemed him, then it would be worth it to pardon him. But as it is, Libby has done some pretty naughty things, and so there is no special reason to overlook his crime and pardon him. I think that Mona Charon was really reaching on this point.
Now for the second point, I don't know what to say about this. She doesn't use full quotes, so it's impossible to know whether Ron Paul really put his foot in his mouth or whether Ms. Charon is really taking words out of context. I'd lean towards the latter, because it wouldn't have been that difficult to use the full quotes.
The third point is simply uninformed. She accuses Ron Paul of being unserious. But he is serious as a heart attack that he wants to do away with those agencies. She could argue that it is a bad idea, but she doesn't really do that. She just accuses him of being unserious, which is entirely inaccurate.
The fourth point really goes off the deep end. People like to dismiss as "kooky" things that they feel uncomfortable with. Conspiracy theories make people uncomfortable, because the possibility that your government is out to get you is really not a pleasant one. But there is really a lot of evidence to back up Paul's positions. That's why the fourth point uses a lot of ad hominem and hyperbole. She is making an emotional point, not a rational one.
I find it funny that she gets on his case for not accepting every extant conspiracy theory. Of course he doesn't. He uses his head. There are some really weird, wacked out theories out there. For instance, I heard someone once seriously say that our leaders have secret hideouts on Mars to escape the coming climate disaster. Since Ron Paul takes a rational approach to what he believes, he's obviously not going to accept the theories that are without basis.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:
People like to dismiss as "kooky" things that they feel uncomfortable with. Conspiracy theories make people uncomfortable, because the possibility that your government is out to get you is really not a pleasant one.

The Book of Mormon is full of "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists", or as President Benson used to say, "conspiracy fact." While I can understand why some LDS would disagree with specific points of consipracies, 9-11 being the prime example, the outright dismissal of the possibility of a conspiracy is anathema to our belief system.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians?

I don't think so.

Too kooky.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

RE: Problems with whom?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

RE: Problems with Ron Paul

Pt314 · Senior Member

If a Republican gets elected in Massachusetts does that imply they have compromised with evil?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Mitt Romney's deviations from at least what I consider moral principles while in Massachusetts are outlined and documented in some of my earlier posts.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Pt314 wrote:

If a Republican gets elected in Massachusetts does that imply they have compromised with evil?

What lundbaek said...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

The fact that Ron Paul is an isolationist and a believer in so many kook conspiracy theories is enough for me. His campaign funds sources is also of note...one has to be concerned about some of his backers.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree with Titus. The man's unstable and has done little to disassociate himself with the kook fringe of the party.

Further the whole notion that one cannot compromise with those we disagree with politically, demonstrates an implacable lack of vision for a democracy. It may work for a theocracy, but democracy is all about compromise.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 16:39, 2007-11-18

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
Further the whole notion that one cannot compromise with those we disagree with politically, demonstrates an implacable lack of vision for a democracy. It may work for a theocracy, but democracy is all about compromise.

Amen to that.

It is unfortunate, but IMHO, Paul would have us overrun with muslims and commies before he could find out where the button or the red phone is.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I had a response to some of what was said and insinuated earlier about another candidate and about a certain school he went to, but my browser crashed.

I considered that a sign to just keep my mouth shut about the candidate in this thread and the methods of those who campaign for him.

Just because the man has been elected 10 times (sure about that?) from his district does not mean he has popular appeal outside of that district. I don't think many people had ever heard of him outside of his sphere of influence until this primary season (except that small minority fraction of people who subscribe to the libertarian / constitutionalist / reactionary right / isolationist platform that he promotes / has promoted). What that tells me is that the district that kept re-electing him is fairly homogeneous, and likely fairly lightly populated relative to the rest of the nation. I would be interested in seeing the demographics of the Texas 14th Congressional District...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45231,00.html

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 05:48, 2007-11-19

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

I agree with Titus. The man's unstable and has done little to disassociate himself with the kook fringe of the party.

Further the whole notion that one cannot compromise with those we disagree with politically, demonstrates an implacable lack of vision for a democracy. It may work for a theocracy, but democracy is all about compromise.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 16:39, 2007-11-18

Ray, were you aware that we live in a Republic, and not a democracy? The founding fathers were very afraid of the US every becoming a democracy.

Compromise is fine, to a point. But you should never compromise your basic principles. Ron Paul, in my opinion, is the only candidate who would not do that. If you're saying that the only electable candidate is one who would willingly compromise our basic rights and freedoms, then we're in real trouble. I'm glad, for instance, that Pres. Hinckley will never compromise on requiring certain standards for temple worthiness. For instance, I would stop going to the temple if there were an adulterer open and unrepentant about his actions there in the session with me.

The problem with the compromises that the other candidates offer is that we give stuff up and get nothing in return.

And Mahonri, how would the Muslims and the Commies get inside the country, seeing as how Ron Paul is only matched by Tom Tancredo in his fervor to close the borders? And Ron Paul is fervently for defending our country - within the borders of our country itself. He doesn't feel that fighting wars of aggression is the best way to defend our country.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

"The fact that Ron Paul is an isolationist and a believer in so many kook conspiracy theories is enough for me."

The only 2 statements I know of made by Ron Paul about a conspiracy is right in line with President Bensons April 1988 General Conference statement about secret combinations.

"His campaign funds sources is also of note...one has to be concerned about some of his backers."

Paul's supporters are individuals. They are not the weapons industry, corporations, special-interest groups, or anyone else seeking favor or privilege.

"The man's unstable and has done little to disassociate himself with the kook fringe of the party."

Ron Paul is a champion of the US Constitution, "firm, and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments" given in D&C 98: 6 and 109: 54, which I realize does make him a kook in the eyes of people who have never taken seriously these and other scriptures and statements by Prophets and Apostles that discuss the Constitution."

"Further the whole notion that one cannot compromise with those we disagree with politically, demonstrates an implacable lack of vision for a democracy."

Democracy? What democracy? Ron Paul is trying to restore the constitutional republic that Americas Founding Fathers, under the Lords guidance, gave us, and at the same time warned of the dangers of democracy.

"It may work for a theocracy, but democracy is all about compromise."

I dont think the Lord approves of our compromising away the constitutional republic He guided the Founding Fathers to give us.

-- Edited by lundbaek at 10:27, 2007-11-19

TitusTodd · Senior Member

The only 2 statements I know of made by Ron Paul about a conspiracy is right in line with President Bensons April 1988 General Conference statement about secret combinations.

I disagree but those who do agree are beyond convincing otherwise. There is not a secret plot to create a North American Union and Islamic terrorists brought down the WTC buildings.

Beyond Ron Paul's stance on the Iraq war, foreign policy in general, the North American union and 9/11 there is much to like about Ron Paul but those stances are enough for me to say No to Dr. No.

As a President, I would fear he would be distracted by his policy "pets" with little getting done due to congressional opposition. The President has to much responsibility with foreign policy to allow an isolationist such Ron Paul to be elected.

Paul's supporters are individuals. They are not the weapons industry, corporations, special-interest groups, or anyone else seeking favor or privilege.

Sure, his supporters are individuals but who they are still matters.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

For instance, I would stop going to the temple if there were an adulterer open and unrepentant about his actions there in the session with me.

On my mission in Germany, we came across many members of the Church who refused to attend church or be active as long as so-in-so was attending. We used to try and explain the silliness of that attitude, partially be explaining to them that if they were letting so-in-so get in the way of their relationship with The Lord and their personal observance of the commandments, that meant so-in-so was closer to The Lord than they were...

Guess it is strange to see that attitude is still healthy and thriving... and being used as an "for example" in a discussion of politics.

The problem with the compromises that the other candidates offer is that we give stuff up and get nothing in return.

So, does that mean Ron Paul has something to offer with anything he compromises on?

'Paul's supporters are individuals. They are not the weapons industry, corporations, special-interest groups, or anyone else seeking favor or privilege.'

Sure, his supporters are individuals but who they are still matters.
Yeah, like we can probably assume the folks who created and pushed the Liberty Dollar and the Ron Paul Dollar as alternative currency are supporters of his...

Ron Paul is a champion of the US Constitution, "firm, and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments"So, you have information about his personal righteousness? Do share... given in D&C 98: 6 and 109: 54

I find it interesting that in the context of section 109, what seems to be said is the following: 1. a prayer asking for mercy and grace to the nation's leaders, as well as to other nations' leaders so that their hearts will be softened to allow the Lord's ambassadors to teach the gospel freely; and 2. that "may those principles... be established forever", wherein the Constitution is one of several descriptors. Seems to me that this is a prayer for the hastening of the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth.

arbilad · Head Chef

On my mission in Germany, we came across many members of the Church who refused to attend church or be active as long as so-in-so was attending. We used to try and explain the silliness of that attitude, partially be explaining to them that if they were letting so-in-so get in the way of their relationship with The Lord and their personal observance of the commandments, that meant so-in-so was closer to The Lord than they were... Guess it is strange to see that attitude is still healthy and thriving... and being used as an "for example" in a discussion of politics.
You're missing a crucial distinction here. For church services, we welcome everyone to come. It is vital that anyone, saint or sinner, can attend our services. But the temple is different. The temple, by the very nature of the place, has to require certain standards for attendance. If those standards were no longer upheld, then the place would lose its value.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

You're missing a crucial distinction here.
Am I really?

Are we the judges over others who attend the temple? Unless we are the individual's Bishop and Stake President, then probably 99.9% of the time, no. Are we the judges over the universal standards set in temple recommend interviews? No. Could the standards be modified? Yes. By The Lord, through His Annointed Prophet.

Now, likening that to the Ron Paul movement, it seems that he and much of his support organization and campaign feel that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and if you don't agree with him, you are part of the problem they see in the nation. Ron Paul and his campaign are not everyone's political "bishop". The viewpoint and platform of the Libertarian or Constitutionalist parties are no more the "annointed" political "prophet" than are the platforms, candidates, and parties that they decry.

arbilad · Head Chef

And a second time you miss the point entirely. But I won't belabor it.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

TT: I'm shocked that you are dismissive of the idea of Secret Combinations. Please explain this stance (or my misunderstanding of your stance).

Cat: so based on that theory, we vote for Romney because he is a recommend holding Mormon and his voting/track record be damned. weirdface

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Read it this way: Ron Paul has been "firm, and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments" which are given in D&C 98: 6 and 109: 54.

D&C 98:6: Included in a First Presidency statement of 15 January 1987 is, I think, clarification of what it means to befriend the US Constitution: We encourage Latter-day Saints throughout the nation to familiarize themselves with the Constitution. They should focus attention on it by reading and studying it. They should ponder the blessings that come through it. They should recommit themselves to its principles and be prepared to defend it and the freedom it provides. I've note Paul's voting record in Congress for many of his 19+ years in Congress and read many of his speeches in Congress. Ron Paul complies 100% IMO.

D&C 109: 54: Included in the prayer is the request that the Constitution be established forever. Ron Paul has fought all his years in Congress to get the USA back onto the constitution track, and to stop the continual "shredding" of the Constitution, as has been going on since Day 1, so that it may last forever.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Not to stir the Ron Paul Pot (that's creating a thick (ahem) haze in this thread), but I personally think that Ron Paul ought to distance himself from the fringe American whackos which have given him a lot of advocacy, or else he'll remain marginalized. No offense to anyone here, seeing as how I'm only one person with my little opinion, but Mr Paul's done nothing to denounce the kook fringe groups who've given him money. Currently I see Mr. Paul as an isolationist demogogue. He plays on the fears of people who believe that technology is scary and that freedom's for a few elites who 'get it', and that if we just stop sharing our ideas, and way of life with our neighbors somehow we'll all be safer.

I am opposed to that notion. The Democrats would love nothing more than to have someone like Mr. Paul as their epitomy of what it means to be a conservative. It would kill any progress conservatives have made politically for decades into the future.

It would be a disasterous debacle... that I think would make Watergate look like a success story...

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Mirk, no of course not. But if we want to talk about a person's integrity / personal righteousness, I think it is probably a more safe assumption to assume that one who holds a temple recommend probably is a bit higher on the ladder than one who is not...

While I didn't talk about this, I wonder if any of those who follow the Libertarian viewpoint have ever considered that maybe some of that platform takes on a certain appearance of secret combination, or is that only something that gets reserved for badmouthing the Democrat and Republican parties?

Lund, I read it to say that the principles included in The Consitution are what are being prayed for to be established forever, not the document itself. Interesting that you feel the Constitution and it's principles have been going astray since Day 1 after it was adopted...

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

Mirk, no of course not. But if we want to talk about a person's integrity / personal righteousness, I think it is probably a more safe assumption to assume that one who holds a temple recommend probably is a bit higher on the ladder than one who is not...
Wow...now there is either some serious arrogance or ignorance.

Temple recommend does not = righteousness. I know plenty of people I would trust equally or more then some of the recommend holders out there. To say someone who holds a recommend is superior is a rather offensive comment.
While I didn't talk about this, I wonder if any of those who follow the Libertarian viewpoint have ever considered that maybe some of that platform takes on a certain appearance of secret combination, or is that only something that gets reserved for badmouthing the Democrat and Republican parties?

I'm not a Libertarian but I am suspicious of all political organizations being infiltrated by LDG's.

-- Edited by mirkwood at 22:24, 2007-11-19

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I certainly do feel the Constitution and it's principles have been going astray since Day 1 after it was adopted, and more so especially in recent years. Several prophets have warned that we have apostatized in various ways from the Constitution, and have spoken of that day of destiny when the Constitution will be on the very verge of destruction, or when it will hang, as it were, by a thread. I'll come up with some quotes when I have more time.

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

Not to stir the Ron Paul Pot (that's creating a thick (ahem) haze in this thread), but I personally think that Ron Paul ought to distance himself from the fringe American whackos which have given him a lot of advocacy, or else he'll remain marginalized. No offense to anyone here, seeing as how I'm only one person with my little opinion, but Mr Paul's done nothing to denounce the kook fringe groups who've given him money. Currently I see Mr. Paul as an isolationist demogogue. He plays on the fears of people who believe that technology is scary and that freedom's for a few elites who 'get it', and that if we just stop sharing our ideas, and way of life with our neighbors somehow we'll all be safer.

I am opposed to that notion. The Democrats would love nothing more than to have someone like Mr. Paul as their epitomy of what it means to be a conservative. It would kill any progress conservatives have made politically for decades into the future.

It would be a disasterous debacle... that I think would make Watergate look like a success story...

--Ray

Ray, not wanting to fight foreign wars is not the same as not loving technology. Charles Lindbergh, for instance, must have liked technology; he used cutting edge technology to make the first trans-atlantic flight. But he was vociferously against the US entering in WWII.

And Ron Paul has not mentioned anything about not helping other countries adapt to our form of government, except that he is against forcing them to do so at the point of a sword, so to speak.

If Ron Paul tones down his opinions, then he has nothing to offer the people. We need something radically different from the "business as usual" that the other candidates offer. His approach makes some people uncomfortable. But his support is growing. I've heard from people who haven't voted in 30 years who will be voting for Ron Paul. He has no chance if he abandons his current approach. And, interestingly enough, I've heard from many liberals who support Ron Paul as well. He's getting many people excited about voting again.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

mirkwood wrote:

Cat Herder wrote:

Mirk, no of course not. But if we want to talk about a person's integrity / personal righteousness, I think it is probably a more safe assumption to assume that one who holds a temple recommend probably is a bit higher on the ladder than one who is not...
Wow...now there is either some serious arrogance or ignorance.

Temple recommend does not = righteousness. I know plenty of people I would trust equally or more then some of the recommend holders out there. To say someone who holds a recommend is superior is a rather offensive comment.

-- Edited by mirkwood at 22:24, 2007-11-19

Okay, I admit that did not come across as what I meant to say. I did not say that those who are temple recommend holders are superior to those who do not hold temple recommends. I said, and admittedly not very eloquently because I was tired, that at face value (inferring from our LDS value system) it is probably safer to assume generally that those who are temple recommend worthy have a higher degree of integrity than those who are not temple recommend worthy. And that was simply in response to the continued subtle slurs against Romney's character while touting Dr. Paul as somehow of higher integrity, better character, and righteousness.

And I base that on my experience of having lived in the "mission field" the bulk of my life, and so there is generally a little less "check the box" attitude towards obtaining and maintaining temple recommend worthiness than what may exist in many areas of high concentrations of LDS folk.

So, to wrap it all together, I just don't feel Dr. Paul has the same level of integrity as some of his opponents. He may have more than some, but he probably has less than others.

Arbi, that is interesting that you say we need something radically different. Radically different is how demogogues get into power. I'm not saying that Ron Paul is one, but there are certainly elements within the U.S. political spectrum that put the appearance out that they are the answer to all our woes. But once in power, they could end up spelling disaster to the nation and the citizenry, in much the same way such populist pushes in decades and generations past did in other parts of the world. And it isn't limited to liberal ideology. These threats come from the fringe of all parties and all ideologies, and the promise given is that only by radical change will consitute progress or return to fundamentals.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Arbi: With Technology, There's no such thing as a foreign war. We're all interdependent. We cannot allow one nation to nuke another, even if we're neither nation. I personally believe we need to be actively involved in civilizing the whole world, for our own sakes. . .

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

Arbi: With Technology, There's no such thing as a foreign war. We're all interdependent. We cannot allow one nation to nuke another, even if we're neither nation. I personally believe we need to be actively involved in civilizing the whole world, for our own sakes. . .

--Ray

What did the Lord tell the Nephites when the Gadiantons threatened them with utter destruction? He didn't say to go into the mountains and root them out. He told them to gather everything together and to prepare to meet them. It was only when the Nephites began wars of aggression that they lost.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Alma used the Word to civilize man... Moroni used the sword...

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Moroni used the sword to defend. Did he, after kicking the Lamanites out of the land, decide to take his armies and crush their capitol?

-- Edited by arbilad at 12:32, 2007-11-20

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, "By their fruits ye shall know them". Ron Paul does a lot of good things. For instance, did you know that, even though he is a serving congressman, he still delivers babies? When he's at home in his district, he'll still frequently deliver younguns.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

At one point the Nephites pursued them to the wilderness of Hermounts where the lamanites were devoured by wild beasts.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

BTW, "By their fruits ye shall know them". Ron Paul does a lot of good things. For instance, did you know that, even though he is a serving congressman, he still delivers babies? When he's at home in his district, he'll still frequently deliver younguns.

He is serving in Congress... shouldn't his attentions be on his job there and not on his private practice?

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

arbilad wrote:

BTW, "By their fruits ye shall know them". Ron Paul does a lot of good things. For instance, did you know that, even though he is a serving congressman, he still delivers babies? When he's at home in his district, he'll still frequently deliver younguns.

He is serving in Congress... shouldn't his attentions be on his job there and not on his private practice?

When congress is out of session and he's at home in his district? Maybe he's using the time that he's not wasting on taxpayer funded junkets on it.

Besides, the idea of a professional politician was anathema to the founding fathers. Their concept was that you'd get elected, serve a while, then go back to whatever profession you practiced before. Given that, is it so bad that he's keeping his hand in? Congressmen are, after all, allowed outside pursuits.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Of course without Politics, Bill Clinton would have to go back to his job in Adult Entertainment.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Seems to me I read on his wikipedia entry that he (Dr. Paul) was practicing OB in his time away from Washington... during session... like a couple days a week. In fact, it is reported he was actively practicing medicine part-time during the whole of his time he was representing the 22nd District (1976 - 1977, 1979 - 1985).

Was that noble of him, or was it moonlighting? I don't know. But it does make one wonder if his attentions were split when they shouldn't have been. Outside pursuits, yes, but outside jobs concurrent to serving in office? Don't know if that would cut the mustard with a lot of people who think one is on the payroll of the taxpayers...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I'm shocked that you are dismissive of the idea of Secret Combinations.

I'm shocked you think that I am dismissive of the idea of Secret Combinations from what I have posted here. To state that I don't believe in two conspiracy theories that Ron Paul has shown support for is not to state that I do not believe in secret combinations. As Cat Herder alluded to, I wonder if the actual secret combinations we should be concerned about include organizations and groups that tout such conspiracy theories as truth. I do see such conspiracy theories distracting us from real dangers whether or not those distractions are on purpose.

arbilad · Head Chef

Posted on behalf of Lundbaek, who is having problems posting:

Wish to call attention to a talk by Elder Packer earlier this year Quote: ..Boyd K. Packer, speaking as recently as 16 January 2007 in a BYU Devotional, stated: We live in a time of war, that spiritual war that will never end. Moroni warned us that the secret combinations begun by Gadianton are had among all people. . . . Wherefore, O ye Gentiles [and the term gentile in that place in the Book of Mormon refers to us in our generation], it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you. . . . Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you." [Ether 8:20, 2324] I seems clear to me that Elder Packer was telling BYU students not even a year ago that the warning is of "this secret combination", it is for "us in our generation", and it "SHALL BE" AMONG US, not just might be among us, or among some earlier or later generation. In the same talk, Elder Packer noted that 'not all the mocking comes from outside the Church" -- and warned us to not participate in such "mocking." I think this forum does quite well at avoiding mocking. (But not all...)

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I do not believe anyone here has stated that Secret Combinations do not exist. To continue to provide such quotes appears to be an attempt to justify Ron Paul's following of some conspiracy theories. Ron Paul is not some prophet who has "special" knowledge that qualifies him as being more truthful than others. The conspiracy theories he believes in do not constitute secret combinations, especially when there is no proof they exist nor do they make much sense (no need to debate that - has been done here and we do not need to sideline this thread - I am stating my opinion).

We should be wary of secret combinations that come from all spectrums. The religious zeal in which some are following and proclaiming these conspiracy theories concerns me to a point I wonder if they need to look a little closer to find secret combinations. Not to state they are part of any but perhaps they are a victim. I really do think too many are being distracted from the real dangers of the world, including the real secret combinations that most likely exist.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I've a relation who embraced many of these darker, more cynical views of currrent politicians. He gets so angry anytime you mention Pres. Bush in anything other than negative way. He's left the church because he claims he has no friends there among people who should be his friends and about how the prophets "should have" known better how to deal with certain contemporary challenges... He left his family because he believes that he should be a certain type of father. Much of his festering anger is stirred up around what "should be", rather than what has been and what is the current truth of things.

I don't know if there's anything wrong with believing a conspiracy now and again, but it does color the way we view our neighbors. We see them as stupid or dupes for some dark power, and it colors our ability to trust others. Every flaw of one's neighbor becomes evidence for the conspiracy, often innocent mistakes are made out to be purposeful or motivated by inner malice and hidden desires that are innappropriate. It breaks down our ability to communicate freely, and puts our focus on what's wrong, rather than what's possible.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in loosening of morals, or laxed trends in society or attitudes that lead to disastrous problems for the society as a whole, but I think those stem from the fallen nature of man, and not necessarily from someone pulling all the strings... unless you count Satan as part of your conspiracy...

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Ray, I haven't found your evaluation to be true in 99% of the people I know who acknowledge the conspiracy in government. Just like you wouldn't want your religion judged by those in the church who won't let their kids play with "gentile" kids, please don't judge those who believe in conspiracy by those few who have horrible characters.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I apologize if you felt I was judging you personally. I was speaking of a specific instance, who felt that Bush was the root of all evil, and how it colored his ability to like mormons in general because of what he saw as their naive conservativism.

I hold you in high esteem--even if I disagree with many of your political theories... I'm sorry if that hasn't been clear in the past few weeks.

--Ray

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I saw some actual, real people holding Ron Paul signs on street corners the other day. It was pretty amazing; I'd never seen any before. So, to those who say RP supporters only exist online, I say, not so!

At least, they looked like real people as I drove by trying not to make eye contact... It's possible they were robots or pod people.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

On our drive to St. George for Thanksgiving I saw two homemade signs for Ron Paul. They reminded me of the John Birch Society sign I saw while on my mission in Utah.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

You served a mission in Utah? Oh Titus... you poor, poor man.

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Euphrasie wrote:

I saw some actual, real people holding Ron Paul signs on street corners the other day. It was pretty amazing; I'd never seen any before. So, to those who say RP supporters only exist online, I say, not so!

A 30-something couple in our ward are the official Ron Paul campaign leaders/orgainzers for this area of Texas. They have Ron Paul signs on their car, in their yard, etc. Amazingly, they're not conspiracy theorists or pod people or nutjobs. The husband used to serve in the EQ presidency and is one of the most insightful scriptorians I know. His wife is the epitome of compassionate service. I've heard their testimonies. I know they seek and receive guidance.

How is it that they have been so completely beguiled by Satan? /sarcasm

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

My VT comp's husband is Ron Paul all the way. My VT comp pretty much hates politics. And VT comp's husband is a linguist for the FBI, so he's dang smart. And he gives some of the best talks in Church I've ever heard.