Archived Topic

Church supports watered-down immigration bill

by taekwondave · 3/20/2011

Advertisement
T
taekwondave
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-utah-immigration-20110320,0,5307414.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"If the church had been silent, the [guest-worker] bill wouldn't have passed," Sandstrom said.



I have been shocked how conservatism has been hijacked by wall-building Gorbechev big brothers who think we should document and i.d. and tax to death every person who lives here so we can keep our socialist programs afloat (s.s., medicare, etc) using 9/11 and national security as their battle cry. How is THAT conservatism? Because Sean Hannity says so?



Sadly too many of us have been duped by the neocons that own the news on this one. Where I'm glad the church hasn't, I'm saddened that this bill wouldn't have passed without the church's support. Have Utahns completely lost the ability to think for themselves? Do we just adopt whatever view Fox or CNN adopt until the brethren tell us otherwise?
S
SpiffCoug
The Church's involvement and influence on the bill passing is one guy's opinion. It is not a fact that the bill wouldn't have otherwise passed.



Although I do agree that this anti-immigration, war on terror connection is dubious at best. Our biggest national threats are not poor Mexicans and Guatemalans looking for a better life. The crimes they commit are not terroristic in nature.
T
taekwondave
SpiffCoug wrote:
The Church's involvement and influence on the bill passing is one guy's opinion. It is not a fact that the bill wouldn't have otherwise passed.


You're right, but I suspect their is a lot of truth in that opinion and I think it's too bad.
J
jvquarterback
I'm glad the Church stepped in. I can't believe the morons down here in Arizona (BTW the guy who wrote 1070 is a member from Mesa).



I don't think anyone is really against migrants. The problem is when people, whether they are migrants or not, take your property. In my mind there is no difference between migrants sending their kids to school on my dime and the grandma next door buying her meds on my dime. It is just easier for people to get upset with the migrant than with the grandma next door. They are both thieves.
T
taekwondave
jvquarterback wrote:
I'm glad the Church stepped in. I can't believe the morons down here in Arizona (BTW the guy who wrote 1070 is a member from Mesa).



I don't think anyone is really against migrants. The problem is when people, whether they are migrants or not, take your property. In my mind there is no difference between migrants sending their kids to school on my dime and the grandma next door buying her meds on my dime. It is just easier for people to get upset with the migrant than with the grandma next door. They are both thieves.


The real problem to me (and I assume your opinion is similar, JV) is not the migrants, nor the Grandma next door, but the government that enables, no, entices them, bribes them, with your money.



Some say that since our country is already socialist to a great degree, we have no other choice but to protect it from additional drains on the system. In other words, build a big wall around our borders and harass brown people all day long. I think that misses the point and the essential problem. The problem is socialism itself, and if millions of mexican running across the border is a threat to that, then I say tear down the wall. But the Socialist United States of America will not give up its power so easily and will continue to use its bought and paid for corporate propaganda (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) to twist the idea of freedom in so many crazy directions that nobody knows which way is up anymore.



IT IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE TO "PROTECT OUR BORDERS." Romney, McCain, Obama, and anybody else who says otherwise is either lying or severely confused. An essential characteristic of a FREE state is the ability to come and go as you please, without being sexually molested by TSA officials, or forced to climb over or under a 20 ft wall at gunpoint. We are the new Berlin.
Advertisement
S
Schmoe
taekwondave wrote:
We are the new Berlin.

:roll:
T
taekwondave
Schmoe wrote:
We are the new Berlin.

:roll:


Touche. Allow me to rephrase. Ahem. We are the new Berlin. Dangit. It slipped out again ;)



Okay but seriously, that was a little melodramatic on my part. But we're building a WALL for crying out loud. Shouldn't that be like a giant red flag?
A
ABYUFAN
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
T
taekwondave
ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Can somebody help me with this? :skeptic:
J
jvquarterback
ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...


But did they exclude D&C sections 121 and 134 from the latest edition where it tells me I am no longer bound to uphold a government when that government compels a violation of my property rights to allow whomever I wish onto my lands by building a wall?



Just wondering.
Advertisement
T
taekwondave
I'm still waiting on that help. I'm starting to feel like I ride the short bus to church. :whistle:
A
ABYUFAN
taekwondave wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Can somebody help me with this? :skeptic:

I guess that the joke's on me - I meant the 12th....



We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law
T
taekwondave
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Can somebody help me with this? :skeptic:

I guess that the joke's on me - I meant the 12th....



We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law


Which law?
A
ABYUFAN
jvquarterback wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...


But did they exclude D&C sections 121 and 134 from the latest edition where it tells me I am no longer bound to uphold a government when that government compels a violation of my property rights to allow whomever I wish onto my lands by building a wall?



Just wondering.

I used to believe that I could read and comprehend English - but I've got no idea what you are saying here.....
T
taekwondave
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...


But did they exclude D&C sections 121 and 134 from the latest edition where it tells me I am no longer bound to uphold a government when that government compels a violation of my property rights to allow whomever I wish onto my lands by building a wall?



Just wondering.

I used to believe that I could read and comprehend English - but I've got no idea what you are saying here.....


Says the guy who MEANT the 12th article of faith ;)
Advertisement
J
jvquarterback
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...


But did they exclude D&C sections 121 and 134 from the latest edition where it tells me I am no longer bound to uphold a government when that government compels a violation of my property rights to allow whomever I wish onto my lands by building a wall?



Just wondering.

I used to believe that I could read and comprehend English - but I've got no idea what you are saying here.....


Start with 134:2 and 5. Then go back and look at 121:36-43.



God and His government do not compel. Man and his government should not compel.
A
ABYUFAN
taekwondave wrote:
taekwondave wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Can somebody help me with this? :skeptic:

I guess that the joke's on me - I meant the 12th....



We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law


Which law?

Federal immigration law
A
ABYUFAN
jvquarterback wrote:
jvquarterback wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...


But did they exclude D&C sections 121 and 134 from the latest edition where it tells me I am no longer bound to uphold a government when that government compels a violation of my property rights to allow whomever I wish onto my lands by building a wall?



Just wondering.

I used to believe that I could read and comprehend English - but I've got no idea what you are saying here.....


Start with 134:2 and 5. Then go back and look at 121:36-43.



God and His government do not compel. Man and his government should not compel.

So we should get rid of police forces?
T
taekwondave
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
ABYUFAN wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Can somebody help me with this? :skeptic:

I guess that the joke's on me - I meant the 12th....



We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law


Which law?

Federal immigration law


Is that what it says? I need to read that article of faith more closely...
A
ABYUFAN
taekwondave wrote:
taekwondave wrote:
taekwondave wrote:
And in other news ... The Church acknowledges that it hasn't repealed the 10th article of faith...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Can somebody help me with this? :skeptic:

I guess that the joke's on me - I meant the 12th....



We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law


Which law?

Federal immigration law


Is that what it says? I need to read that article of faith more closely...

And a few other things as well..... ;)
Page 1 of 3
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.