Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Obama says we belong to government

Comments

Return To Article
  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 19, 2012 2:30 a.m.

    Good grief is there any end to how conservatives can try to twist things, this whole country is like a very bad marriage.

    If you belong to the NRA does that mean the NRA owns you? No. Well...

    If you belong to the Mormon church does that mean the mormon church literally owns you?

    If you belong to a scout troop...? No!

    It's a common phrase. You should understand it allready.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 3:57 a.m.

    Owned and controlled by a collectivist government is the same as going back to the monarchies of the middle ages.

    Is this the way 'forward'?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:36 a.m.

    Next time you complain about Romney's comments being distorted, think about this letter. What a misrepresentation.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:55 a.m.

    :"The government is the only thing we all belong to,":

    Give me a break. I belong to the LDS faith - as do many people in Utah... and yet it is not a statement of "ownership" by the church of me, or that my rights have been subjugated by the church. What an amazing stretch of logic to try to twist that into a negative.

    We are all members of a group called "citizens of the United Sates of America" . We belong to this group. This is not a statement of ownership, but of association. I belong to many groups, and in doing so none of it implies "ownership" of me or my rights by these groups.

    What a sad and desperate attempt to create issue where any logical thinking person understands that we all "belong" to this group as citizens through association. This is elementary school grammar here.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 19, 2012 6:24 a.m.

    Here we go again. Taking a statement out of context and then railing against an unintended meaning. The right is so famous for that.

    Would you be as critical when someone says "I belong to the LDS Church"? Oh, you mean the LDS Church Owns you? My goodness, how sad is that? That guy is owned by the LDS Church. Isn't that what cults do?

    See how ludicrous that is?

    How about this. "We are all members of the government"? Is that better?

    Guess what? Same meaning.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 6:47 a.m.

    If the writer is referring to a video played at the DNC, they are wrong on every level.

    It wasn't even Obama's voice, or him saying that. It was something put together by the host city of Charlotte, and has been disavowed by the Obama campaign. The DNC neither endorses it.

    Amazing what two minutes on Google can do.

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    I see no evidence to supportt the last paragraph.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    Oh please . . .

    This is not what the DNC ad (not Obama) meant. Belongs to as in we belong to a club, a church, etc.

    I support Romney but I think the "conservative" talking heads do the cause more harm than good.

    We have real issues folks and we are instead debating stupidities. Surely independent voters of good will see this and recoil.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    "The government is the only thing we all belong to," says a recent Barrack Obama ad. There it is, as plain as day, another slogan describing how the left feels about government.

    Art J. VanTielen

    ===========

    Of the People, By the People and For the People.

    Sad Art doesn't believe in it.

    BTW -- As Americans, it IS the only things we ALL belong.
    We are all busted down from ther into differnt States, Religions, race, clubs, schools, neighborhoods, ect.
    But we ALL belong to that one thing in common --
    The United States of America.

    Sad the Government hating "right" doesn't feel or undertand that.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    Obama is exactly right; under his administration the government really does own you. The government, through wealth re-distribution and so called “economic justice” decides who succeeds and who doesn’t in America, which means his government owns you. In the Obama administration the “wealthy” are punished, ridiculed and hated so if you worked hard, played by the rules, took risks, used your brain and actually produced something, Obama says, “you didn’t build that” and confiscates your property. Under the Obama administration, the government decides what your kids will be taught in school, not you, so the government really does own you. Under the Obama administration’s exploding welfare nanny state, the government determines what you can eat (food stamps) and where you can live for an ever growing segment of Americans, therefore, the government owns them. If you are not one of the 47% of Americans that don’t pay federal income taxes, just don’t pay your taxes, you will find out who really owns you! Then there is the exploding national debt, who do you think really has to pay for that? Hint; its not Obama!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    The GOP constantly says that we need to stick with the issues, and the number one issue is the Economy.

    As Twin lights said "We have real issues folks and we are instead debating stupidities"

    Yet, it is the GOP and those on the right who CONSTANTLY brings up petty, little, nit picking points that are often not even true.

    I consider myself a fiscal conservative (social moderate). But the daily pettiness of those on the right make me want to distance myself from them. They are an embarrassment.

    Birth Certificates? college transcripts? Death panels? Sarah Palin? Socialism? Obama wants to take God off our money? Obama wants to take away our guns?

    Grow up. Discuss the real issues with facts and maturity.

    Want to bash Obama and the Dems? Fine, but choose real issues and stick to the facts.

    The right would rather make up lies, and then be outraged by them than satisfied with the truth.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    It's amazing that some people see exactly what they WANT to see, despite the obvious facts or quotes taken out of context.

    We could be talking about the smokey air here in Utah and this person would be going off on how Obama wants us all to belong to the government bla bla bla...

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    And if you think a Charlotte Democratic Party ad was not thoroughly vetted by the Obama campaign - an ad that aired on the first night of the Democratic National Convention IN CHARLOTTE - I've got a bridge to sell you in Arizona.

    I'm sure they thought it was an innocent enough thing to say, that we all belong to our government. What a great unifying idea...and it makes perfect sense throguh a leftist view of the nation. But they found out the hard way that conservatives understand what REALLY unifies us, and what we REALLY belong to: WE THE PEOPLE, not the government.

    Government serves the people...we do NOT belong to government. It's a critically important distinction that doesn't equate with private organizations like the NRA, which doesn't have the power to pass laws, arrest us, send us to prison and raise a military.

    The Obama camp furiously backtracked when this huge misstep cam to light, since they really didn't want another "you didn't build your business" moment that further exposed the left's true beliefs.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    "Government is the only thing that we all belong to." It's great to see everyone running away from this statement. (Well, almost everyone.)

    The whole idea of America is that we, the people, are masters of our government, not the other way around. We ought to be reminded of it every once in a while.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    And Romney says that 47 % of the country is worthless. You can watch the hidden camera on youtube.

    Amazing what happens when you take a sentence or two out of context.

    Time for many Utahns to grow up and stop acting like children.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    @ Mountanman 8:06 a.m. Sept. 19, 2012
    Hayden, ID
    "Obama is exactly right; under his administration the government really does own you."

    He may or may not own the 47% but can monitor the other 53% that to Dick, Georgie, & the patriot act circumnavigating the FISA process.

    "Then there is the exploding national debt, who do you think really has to pay for that? Hint; its not Obama!"

    Its not Dick's pals in Riyadh but Mitt's buddies in Beijing?

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    Mr. Obama's honesty is admirable. He believes that without government assistance "you didn't do that." It's not an insult or taken out of context, it's his philosophy. Although brought up in the Chicago style of politics, he is a good person. It's a different version of life than Mitt Romney's, personal initiative versus government dependence. It is the difference between believing that our government is omniscient, all-providing, efficient and benign versus individual responsibility comes first. There are still people in Russia who long for communism where little was received but less was given.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    Yes, this is another silly argument, this time by the opponents of Obama (his supporters do this kind of thing all the time as well) so like "water off a ducks back", I will largely ignore it even though I am conservative.

    My beef with Obama and others like him, is not that we "belong to, or are members of, or are part of" government; but rather what the role of that government should be in our lives.

    Republicans generally want a smaller government that just does the minimal requirements of the Constitution and for the most part "gets out of the way". This brings more freedom, but also larger responsibilities on the part of the governed. This freedom also allows some actions by individuals that some will not like.

    Democrats generally want a larger government that micromanages a large portion of everything from health care to the environment to wealth creation and distribution. They want to "prevent all that bad behavior" that many wealthy people do. If the right choices are made by government, then fewer people have to suffer the consequences of poor decisions. Unfortunately, all that power to manage people's lives leads to corruption.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    It is sad that so many people wish to decline and refuse their membership in the greatest human organization ever, America.

    God gave us life and nothing more. No rights, no freedoms, no promises and no guarantees.
    The life he gave us is not permanent, it may last only a microsecond or a number of years but always ends the same way in death. If anyone can show proof of any other analysis he should present it to us.

    The rights and freedoms we have exist at the whim of the society we live in. They come and go as the need arises. We have many rights and freedoms today that did not exist in the colonial times and we have lost many rights that early Americans may have had. But even though technology and expanded knowledge may give us new rights, the new rights only exist if we have a government to secure them. To believe otherwise is to deny the words of the Declaration of Independence.

    We have done great things because we are together and not because we were a collection of independent individuals.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    Mountainman:

    Wow. Do you really believe what you wrote? Call it redistribution if you want, but what the government does is provide many necessary services (along with some unnecessary ones, like the Iraq War and subsidies to oil companies). In order to do this, it levies taxes of various kinds. These taxes are not equal in nature because we have certain social ideals (that the Tea Party is trying to redefine), such as ensuring that all citizens receive a good education, decent health care, food, and transportation. In order to have any sort of civilized society, government must play a significant role. The market is not capable of achieving anything other than providing products to those who can afford them and doing it without considering such things as long-term environmental consequences, or even long-term economic consequences.

    I really doubt that you would find the utopia you imagine a very pleasant place to live. Maybe you would, but I'd bet against it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    It's clear that the Obama apologists don't listen to Obama, or, if they do listen to him, they agree with his ideas about redistributing wealth and destroying our economy.

    It's no secret what Obama wants to do. He clearly stated his designs and purposes as far back as 1998 in a speech to Loyola University when he clearly told us that he believes in redistribution of wealth.

    Redistribution of wealth is not Constitutional. The government has no authority to take from one person and give to another person. That concept is Marxist: To take from those who have and to give to those who have not.

    Obama believes that Marxist theory. He preaches it as often as possible. He tells students that they shouldn't have to pay for their education. He tells people that some "rich guy" should pay for their health care. He invites millions to join millions of others on the welfare roles. He chastises those who hire, those who create businesses, those who employ the masses. He wants everyone to beg at his doorstep for their food. Be aware of how he "feeds" his brother George before signing on to his programs.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    So, was this the comment that changed your mind to vote for romney, or are you just trying to blow up something out of nothing?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:18 a.m.

    re:JoeCapitalist
    Actually, the size of govt. is not the goal. Democrats, remembering history, just don't have some naïve idea that we will all be better off if only “govt. got out of the way.” The goal for Democrats is an effective govt. only as big as necessary, to carry out the purpose of the Constitution:

    “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

    Govt. has grown in response to past abuses by powerful indivduals and corporations. For example, during the late 1800's farmers asked for govt. regulation of railroad companies which were charging unfair rates and exercising monopoly power over transportation. In response, the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted. There are numerous examples where corporations formed monopolies and exploited/harmed workers, and consumers in a myriad of ways. Democrats also recognize the tremendous advances in society which came about as a result of govt.-private enterprise partnerships. Democrats also believe govt.-charity/religious organizations can both work to aid the disadvantaged and needy.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    @ Kent DeForrest. Nice in theory but the realities of our nation are devaluation of the dollar, massive debt and all its consequences; double digit inflation and insolvency. If Obama gets reelected, before his second term ends, a loaf of bread will cost $10.00 or more and a gallon of gasoline will be around $8.00. Whom do YOU think will be harmed the most? If you said the poor, you will be right. Don’t you find it a least a bit ironic that all these programs to help the poor, actually end up harming them by creating dependency? Poverty in America is increasing, not decreasing in spite of trillions in wealth transfers to the poor! Self reliance has solved more poverty than food stamps ever have or ever will! That’s the difference. Hope you have your food storage because you are going to need it and that is the reality of things as they really are and as they really will be unless we change our government and its no utopia!

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    Truthseeker,

    Based on your post, you sound a lot like a modern conservative. If you really want an "effective govt. only as big as necessary" then join the GOP, or at least get out of the Democrat Party!

    Obviously, I don't think the GOP really matches your political beliefs. But I was making a point: conservatives also very sincerely believe in only an "effective government, only as big as necessary". And frankly, I give liberals the same benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions. It's just that conservatives and liberals differ on HOW big is the right size. Clearly, conservatives believe government has generally gotten too big, while clearly liberals believe government isn't nearly big enough. It's not that conservatives actually want "ineffective government"; they just differ on what is effective.

    And yes, our laws today are far too often the product of large special interest groups such as corporations, labor unions, fanatical single-issue pressure groups, etc. But the key isn't to give power to regulate political speech to government; it's to allow a free and open marketplace of ideas so no one group has all the power.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    Why I'm Liberal Part II

    ==========

    A Proclamation on the Economy
    from the LDS 1st Presidency and Twelve

    "The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, [and] are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression…"
    . . . . .
    "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, …, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. … It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin."

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    >Joe Capitalist
    I do get that conservatives want smaller government. I've heard too many conservatives say that not to understand that that's a central tenet of conservatism. But you have never once heard a liberal say that we want a larger government. Conservatives say that about liberals, but liberals never say it. Because we don't.
    Liberals (I can say this, I am one), are completely indifferent to the size of government. It's a completely nonsensical issue for us. We want government to be big enough to do what it uniquely can and should do. National defense, rule of law, infrastructure, education, a safety net for the poor and a modest leg up for those struggling economically. If all that can be accomplished with fewer government employees, fine. If hiring a few more people will help, we're for that too. We don't want 'bigger government' and we don't want government to control people's lives. We want effective government, and that's all.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Sept. 19, 2012 11:14 a.m.

    A republic is the embodiment of its citizens. Lincoln put it more eloquently in calling it a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Constitution of the United States leaves no ambiguity on the matter with the first three words, "We the People."

    It's easy to loose sight of that in these times of partisan warfare when what was once the Party of Lincoln now advocates a philosophy of seeing government as the root of all our problems and Government welfare programs as dependency on something other than ourselves. How did we wander so far off that when a current President for our times can't state that simple message without having his words twisted and distorted into a heresy?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 11:16 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Actually, 10 dollars for a loaf of bread and 8 for a gallon of gas are NOT 'realities of our nation.' I know that, because I filled up the tank yesterday after doing my grocery shopping. The kind of hyperinflation you're afraid of isn't a 'reality of our nation.' It's a conservative fantasy. It's science fiction. The actual future of our nation will be gradually decreasing unemployment. And at some point, the accumulated investment capital that right now is waiting on the sidelines will kick in, and a boom will result, paying down the debt.
    Unless Romney is elected. Because his economic plans are, again, a fantasy.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    The "goal" of government is to make government supreme and the people mere subjects, instead of recognizing that the people rule and government obeys.

    The Constitution guarantees that NOTHING will be done by government that is not expressily allowed by the people. Government will have NO authority that was not enumerated by the people. Government will provide NO program that is not on that enumerated list.

    The reason for that thinking is simple. Obama has proven that he cannot be trusted with the public purse. He gave $49 BILLION to the autoworkers union at G.M. out of the public treasury. He gave them another $39 BILLION in tax credits against future earnings. Both of those items are prohibited by the Constitution. Some tell us that he saved jobs. How many jobs could $88 BILLION buy? What did that "job saving" stroke of the pen cost you and me?

    Government is out of control. Obama is leading the charge. He demands full access to the treasury and then he tells us that some "rich guy" will pay for everything.

    He has lied. He has ignored the Constitution. He is in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 19, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    Funny stuff! Dish it, but can't take it! All the little leftists are swarming these boards today, working in overdrive trying to spin BHO's words and statement. Funny how they are fine to redefine Romney's words and tell us what he really said or meant, but now when the same thing happens to their guy, the lamest president ever, they have a melt down.
    Romney didn't back away from what he said, why is Obama and his minions running away so fast? Romney doesn't have do redefine what he is or change it, we know he is conservative. Obama is a leftist, bleeding heart lib, who believes much more in the principles of big government socialism then freedom and free enterprise. Redistribution of wealth is one of his strongest core values. Why does he have to hide from this when he gets exposed? Stand up for your beliefs, don't hide! Be a man Mr President!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    JoeBlow,
    Your comment that the GOP brings up little nit picky things to distract from the real issues is so far from the truth I can only assume MSNBC is your main source of misinformation.

    Like I see BO constantly talking his tremendous economic success, how he has brought unemployment back down to 4.5% and we have consistent 3.4% economic growth with little to no inflation. No, all BO can do is "Romney this" and "GOP that". BO is running FROM his record.

    Truthseeker,
    So how big is "only as big as necessary"? And where should that growth be? I liken regulations to tack for horses; you need a saddle and bridle to ride, or a harness to pull, but the amount of regulation dems push goes beyond, it is fetters that bind the feet and blinders that obstruct vision and straps that constrict breathing.

    LDS lib
    Just did a search on the church's webpage and found no such proclamation. Trying to pull a fast one, or can you please direct me where I can verify your "proclamation"?

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    @ lost in DC 12:12 p.m. Sept. 19

    & which party keeps trotting out emotional wedge issues (prayer in schools, death panels, flag burning, etc...) to distract the simple minded ?

    Hint: I hear Hannity mention them of similar ones often. Maddow infrequently if ever.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    "The Proclamation on the Economy" of 1875 was important in its day, a time of robber barons, railroad magnates and generally rampant monopolies. And it was NOT an endorsement of political socialism but a statement against personal greed! At the time, income distribution had basically a third-world profile of mostly poor and tiny middle & rich classes. That all began to change dramatically in the early 20th century after the GOP's Teddy Roosevelt trust busting under the then-new Sherman Act. Today, income distribution is light years more equitable than it was then. You can't hang your hat on that 140-year-old proclamation as somehow an endorsement of modern-day socialism.

    Nearly all modern-day prophets condemn socialism, when they do speak on the subject. One example among many:

    "There is also another political party, who desire, through the influence of legislation and coercion, to level the world. To say the least, it is a species of robbery; to some it may appear an honorable one, but, nevertheless, it is robbery. What right has any private man to take by force the property of another?" John Taylor...a signer of the Proclamation on the Economy.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 19, 2012 1:00 p.m.

    "Your comment that the GOP brings up little nit picky things to distract from the real issues is so far from the truth"

    Actually I blamed the GOP and those on the Right.

    So, they are not petty? Funny, Here is a small list of types of things that those on the right love to discuss. If you believe the left does it also, feel free to provide your own list.

    word limit reached, but_could_fill_pages.

    obamas vacation costs
    Michell Obamas wardrobe
    Nancy Pelosis plane
    Food costs on Pelosis plane
    Obama golfing
    Obamas Transcripts
    Obama is a muslim
    Obamas poor brother in kenya
    Obama hates America
    Obama never worked a day in his life
    Obamas Terrorist Fist jab
    Obama wants to take your guns
    Obama didnt wear a flag pin
    Obama wants to take God off our money
    Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated Sec Clintons office
    Who paid for Obamas school
    Obamas Social Security number is from connecticut
    Obama didnt visit DDay monument
    Obama bows to Saudis
    Obama didnt put his hand over his heart during National Anthem
    Obama stopped wearing his ring and watch for Ramadan
    Obama paid to have his records sealed
    Obamas Chicago home was forclosed

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    Eric Samuelson: You said you were speaking for liberals by saying "We don't want 'bigger government' and we don't want government to control people's lives. We want effective government, and that's all."

    You might even believe that, but that doesn't make your statement any less nonsensical.

    The truth is liberals definition of "effective government" includes a laundry list of tasks it must perform that is at least 10 times as big as the list envisioned by conservatives.

    Nearly every program progessives push forward (Obamacare, EPA, Welfare, etc.) necessitates a bigger government - more taxes, more regulations, more bureaucrats, more intrusion.

    I recognize that not everything Democrats propose is "bad", just like reasonable liberals recognize not everything Republicans propose is "bad", but our overall philosophy and approach to what is "effective government" is far more different that you suggest by your comment.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 19, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    Can Republicans point to a Republican Congress and/or Republican President that decreased the size of govt?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    “What right has any private man to take by force the property of another?"

    If it is wrong to take another’s property by force, why is it OK to take another’s property by cunning, deception, lies, fear, or mental superiority as is the case of most businessmen.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    @Voice of Reason -- So is your argument that all taxes are the equivalent of robbery? Do you realize that the consequence of no one paying any taxes at all is anarchy? Sorry, but I believe taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If you are not arguing that no one should pay taxes and believe that some taxes are ok, then at what point do they become "robbery"? Isn't that an issue for discussion rather than the basis for an accusation that Democrats are "robbers" because they think taxes for some people should go up to where they were during the Clinton years?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 2:34 p.m.

    UltraBob: "If it is wrong to take another’s property by force, why is it OK to take another’s property by cunning, deception, lies, fear, or mental superiority as is the case of most businessmen."

    I could think of a more appropriate quote to illustrate why so many liberals hate rich people. They seem to think that everyone who has at least a million dollars has no more ethics than Bernie Madoff. I seriously wonder if people like UltraBob know any rich people at all.

    Sure there are bad eggs out there, but they are the exception not the rule.

    P.S. Since when is "mental superiority" (aka "smart") considered a flaw to be shunned?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Sept. 19, 2012 2:43 p.m.

    TAXES:

    To wish to live in a country and not pay taxes is about reasonable as wanting to drive a new luxury car off the car lot and not have to pay for it. I don’t like paying taxes but if my house catches on fire, I’ll call the fire department knowing that’s being funded by taxes.

    SOCIALISM:

    Socialism is any system where all members share the sacrifices and share the bread.

    THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT:

    Let's make government as small as it can be and as large as it needs to be.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 2:55 p.m.

    Eric,
    NICE TWIST!

    I see you continue the traditions of the left by mis-stating what someone else said.

    Mountanman did not say we currently had $10 bread or $8 gas, but that we would come to it under BO's misadministration, so your illustration of what you did today is irrelevant and misleading. please stop misquoting.

    Wally - you actually watch Shammity and Madcow? THAT's your problem.

    But perhaps I was not clear,
    Wally,
    JoeBlow,
    I am referrring to the campaigns run by the actual candidates and their respective parties, not what talking heads, bloviating voices, or even anonymous know-it-alls who post on boards (like all of us, myself included, say) when I say the left obfuscates while the right talks about issues.

    I hope that relieves your confusion

  • Wanda B. Rich Provo, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 3:20 p.m.

    Amazing how the conservatives come out in droves to defend nonsense like this letter. Amazing too how so many conservatives are trying to spin Mitt's 47 percent statement into something that makes him look like something other than a rich snob who will say anything to get his fellow millionaires to pony up a little cash.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 4:04 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" unfortunately you didn't read the rest of the proclamation. If you had, you would see that it promotes owning stock in a company, and establishes a private business that is owned by groups of people. He was promoting what is now the US Stock Exchange.

    Also, if you bothered to look at history, under the Progressive/Liberal system, you end up with wealth and power being concentrated into the hands of a few people. That Proclamation describes the problems of concentrating power into the hands of a few people. While business is sigled out there, the same can be said about government. By increasing the power and regulations of government as the liberals advocate, you get the very evils that Pres. Young described.

    If that document is what makes you a liberal, then that shows that you are only out to get power and control over your fellow man.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    @Screwdriver:

    "If you belong to the NRA does that mean the NRA owns you? No. Well..."

    If you belong to the NRA, or the Mormon Church, or a scout troop... you can easily un-belong, un-join if that be your desire.

    What Obama is trying to tell us is that we not only belong to the government... it owns us, and thus, owns all our assets, and we can't do anything about it. So stop moaning if the government wants to take some of 'your assets' and redistribute them to others who has an equal title to them. That's where Barack Hussein Obama is going with this. That's what he told Joe the Plumber. That's his background... socialism. And he wants to convert this country to socialism. His corollary statement about 'you didn't build that' is along that same line. We're starting to see the big picture of who we have leading us.

    When are we going to get this guy out of our White House?

    "It's a common phrase. You should understand it already."

    I think we're catching on... see above.

  • boxerdog915 Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 5:27 p.m.

    How many of you comment makers have read the Constitution of the United States recently? To educate many of you, it's a document which limits the power of government and state what government is responsible for. For those wondering, there are only 18 things! Conservative or liberal, the law is the law and you can't ignore that. Everyone in Washington, D or R, they break these laws continually and that can't be denied, no matter who you are for...

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:42 p.m.

    JoeCapitalist2
    Orem, UT

    Mental superiority like other things, weight, size, strength is only a flaw when misused to take advantage of those with less. Like when church men are con men to unsuspecting members. Or like when someone sells someone they don't need, like what happens to old folks sometimes. Like the phone call that you won some cash and you only have to pay the shipping.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:44 p.m.

    @Truthseeker

    The "blessings of liberty" are going to evade us, if we don't stop borrowing money to "promote the general welfare." In case you haven't noticed, we're $16,000,000,000,000 in debt.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 19, 2012 7:50 p.m.

    It's a fun game making things up and exagerating.

    Romney believes all dogs should be strapped to the top of cars.

    Romney believes half the country are all lazy moochers that don't do anything.

    Romney believes only rich kids should be educated.

    Romney thinks selling stock to pay for college is a huge sacrifice that nobody should have to go through.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 19, 2012 9:04 p.m.

    This letter advocates anarchy.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:02 a.m.

    1000 years ago the letter writer would have been stoned for bearing false witness.

    Don't try to be an amature Limbot

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    Wonder - Where in the world did you get the idea that I think taxes are "robbery"!? Obviously we need taxes in an appropriate degree to provide government services. This is so typical...just because we observe the obvious, i.e. there is too much government and so too much taxes, some lefties jump to the conclusion that we are against ALL government and want NO taxes. Howe ridiculous; please make a serious point and stop with the straw men.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    @Voice of Reason -- Um...maybe because you used the word "robbery"?? Take a look at your post. If paying taxes is not the "robbery" you were referring to, what do you mean? How are Democrats robbing anyone? I'm sorry, I just don't get what you're trying to say I guess.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    J Thompson said:
    The "goal" of government is to make government supreme and the people mere subjects, instead of recognizing that the people rule and government obeys.

    If "We the people" who are the government and are elected every so many years, wouldn't this little plan of the government fail? The Government is NOT A single person, when will conservatives and the tea party realize that?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    wrz said: If you belong to the NRA, or the Mormon Church, or a scout troop... you can easily un-belong, un-join if that be your desire.

    So you actually believe that the NRA or LDS Church OWNS YOU if you are a member? You really can't see a difference?

    Analytical reasoning and common sense not required by right wing radio fans.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    The government is the only thing we all belong to huh?? I have to wonder what our founders would think of that heresy? Government - the Federal Govt - was NEVER intended to be what Obama envisions. Government was to be kept SMALL with only a few things it is responsible for including national defense. The government was NEVER supposed to own car companies and health care and everything else on the planet.... at least not in a free republic.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic:

    "So you actually believe that the NRA or LDS Church OWNS YOU if you are a member? You really can't see a difference?"

    No, no. You got that backwards.

    It's common parlance to say you belong to something... like an organization. The doesn't mean the organization owns you. And to prove it... you can easily disassociate yourself from the NRA, LDS Church, and Boy Scouts. That's the difference. You can also disassociate your self from the government... just move out.

    "Analytical reasoning and common sense not required by right wing radio fans."

    You'll find herd mentality in the left wing radio fans.

    It's truly comical to watch left wingers spout almost identical talking points on talk shows. They don't answer questions... they merely respond to any question by a show host with a prepared talking point, striving to get the whole point out before the host has to cut them off. They're like a recording machine.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    One of my favorite movies - Open Range - has a quote that is very pertinent here. In Open Range the movie - a small town was being run by a corrupt cattle man that bought off the sheriff and controlled everything. The people all lived in fear until one day an outsider cowboy (Kevin Cosner) suggested the only way to make things right was to STAND UP to the corrupt cattleman - the entire town stand up together and fight and that is what they did. Today we live in a polarized society created by Barack Obama. Obama wants to control EVERYTHING in our lives which means our freedom disappears. There really is no common ground anymore between liberals and conservatives and no room for compromise. Compromise with Obama means saying goodbye to freedom and prosperity. The time has come to draw a line in the sand and fight for capitalism and freedom - against socialism and government control.

  • Voice ofReason LAYTON, UT
    Sept. 20, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    Wonder - I didn't say it...John Taylor, the third president of the LDS Church said it. His words, not mine. I was simply pointing out that, back in the 1870's when that supposedly "socialistic" proclamation by the Church was issued, signers of that same document were condemning actual socialism. In other words, that proclamation was against PERSONAL greed; it was NOT advocating socialistic government as some on here have tried to spin it.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 21, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    And goodbye honest undecideds to Romeney and FOX friends.

    This is why I left the republican party in the first place. One day it hit me that Rush and FOX could talk all day without facts about how everything was Clinton's fault. Thanks goodness I stopped willfully enjoying being lied to everyday. I'm much happiernow that I can fact check my liberal news and find it's true.

    You can't fact check conservative media because they don't bother presenting any facts.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 23, 2012 9:08 p.m.

    Patriot... are you actually trying to suppose that the founding fathers were singular in opinion on this. That in fact there were not Federalist and anti-Federalist of the time. What version of history has it that these founding fathers agreed that government should be small and limited to defense.

    I think you are out of post, but in the future, please point to the where you are deriving this interpretation of history.

    It really gets old this vision of history where founding fathers all agreed, that 100 years later we didn't fight a civil war over a dispute whether states held the right to define who is human, and who is not, and if some of these "truths" superseded a states rights.

    Never, for a single instant in the history of this country was there ever a time both sides agreed on the shape, scope or limits of the government. It has been a 230 year argument.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 3:43 p.m.

    Suppose that in this community there are ten beggars who beg from door to door for something to eat, and that nine of them are impostors who beg to escape work, and with an evil heart practice imposition upon the generous and sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who visit your doors is worthy of your bounty; which is best, to give food to the ten, to make sure of helping the truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because you do not know which is the worthy one? You will all say, Administer charitable gifts to the ten, rather than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy person among them. If you do this, it will make no difference in your blessings, whether you administer to worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms with a single eye to assist the truly needy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" if what you say is correct, then why does the LDS church put signs around the Salt Lake Temple telling its patrons to give only to the shelters, and not to the beggars outside the temple?

    According to what the church you claim membership in has written, it is better to give to a charity that will help the truely needy and turn away the 9 imposters.

    Which is, are you correct, or is the LDS church correct about how best to help people?