<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;All Major Political Parties&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/</link>
	<description>A Mormon Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 19:47:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David S</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100415</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David S]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[otis - Great humor !!!

Yea, Members will get very excited over the possibilities and think that the millennium will happen just after the next inauguration lol.

Na, I think that Reed&#039;s and Romneyâ€™s roles are to open up the possibilities for more LDS to hold office. I really don&#039;t give either a chance, though I appreciate their contributions to the debate.

Rice is impressive as a Sec of State. Read between the lines, look at the agreements she has gotten from governments that like to be difficult, the respect other countries have for her, and the difficult problems her boss has caused her. She is very good with foreign countries, and a hard worker who isnâ€™t after the limelight. I believe she is also the cause of some of Bush&#039;s recent policy shifts, and a softening of his attitudes. I don&#039;t know if she practically has a chance, but she would be a good president in my book. She is tough, and I believe she could explain herself better than her boss does. I do hope the GOP becomes desperate enough to run her instead of the usual Bob Dole type. I admit she is under qualified, but I still like her style. And we have had worse.

We have the same barrier to break though that RFK did with his Catholicism. I hope this election helps us move closer to the trust of the American people.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>otis &#8211; Great humor !!!</p>
<p>Yea, Members will get very excited over the possibilities and think that the millennium will happen just after the next inauguration lol.</p>
<p>Na, I think that Reed&#8217;s and Romneyâ€™s roles are to open up the possibilities for more LDS to hold office. I really don&#8217;t give either a chance, though I appreciate their contributions to the debate.</p>
<p>Rice is impressive as a Sec of State. Read between the lines, look at the agreements she has gotten from governments that like to be difficult, the respect other countries have for her, and the difficult problems her boss has caused her. She is very good with foreign countries, and a hard worker who isnâ€™t after the limelight. I believe she is also the cause of some of Bush&#8217;s recent policy shifts, and a softening of his attitudes. I don&#8217;t know if she practically has a chance, but she would be a good president in my book. She is tough, and I believe she could explain herself better than her boss does. I do hope the GOP becomes desperate enough to run her instead of the usual Bob Dole type. I admit she is under qualified, but I still like her style. And we have had worse.</p>
<p>We have the same barrier to break though that RFK did with his Catholicism. I hope this election helps us move closer to the trust of the American people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Bohn</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100414</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marc Bohn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[GMG - That kind of sweeping rhetoric is, in my mind, the very reason the Church added this line to a statement that already stipulated political neutrality. I could caricature Republicans in the very same way you did the Democrats, but it would simply distort political discourse and do injustice to nuanced issues. I think there is a strong case to be made for a certain level of government social programs that help the least among us, simply labeling it &quot;compulsory charity&quot; does nothing to attack the merits of such programs. The amorphous idea that somehow Democrats are for more &quot;government intervention&quot; is not an argument. Republicans and Democrats both support &quot;government intervention&quot; in all sorts of areas. No Democrat I know argues that simply &quot;more&quot; government intervention is better. The debatable question is what is the most appropriate level of government intervention in each particular area at issue. As for abortion, Steve, there is very clearly NOT a &quot;mandatory abortion policy,&quot; as the leader of the Senate Democrats is pro-life and many within the party are arguing for a toned down party stance on the issue. As Marlin K. Jensen said in the SL Trib interview referenced here earlier, it is in the Church&#039;s interest to have good members actively participating in both parties (mind you this was an interview he was asked by the first presidency to give). I think that the point of the statement, as stated earlier, was to encourage particpation by Mormons in the political process period, whether it be with the Democrats or the Republicans.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GMG &#8211; That kind of sweeping rhetoric is, in my mind, the very reason the Church added this line to a statement that already stipulated political neutrality. I could caricature Republicans in the very same way you did the Democrats, but it would simply distort political discourse and do injustice to nuanced issues. I think there is a strong case to be made for a certain level of government social programs that help the least among us, simply labeling it &#8220;compulsory charity&#8221; does nothing to attack the merits of such programs. The amorphous idea that somehow Democrats are for more &#8220;government intervention&#8221; is not an argument. Republicans and Democrats both support &#8220;government intervention&#8221; in all sorts of areas. No Democrat I know argues that simply &#8220;more&#8221; government intervention is better. The debatable question is what is the most appropriate level of government intervention in each particular area at issue. As for abortion, Steve, there is very clearly NOT a &#8220;mandatory abortion policy,&#8221; as the leader of the Senate Democrats is pro-life and many within the party are arguing for a toned down party stance on the issue. As Marlin K. Jensen said in the SL Trib interview referenced here earlier, it is in the Church&#8217;s interest to have good members actively participating in both parties (mind you this was an interview he was asked by the first presidency to give). I think that the point of the statement, as stated earlier, was to encourage particpation by Mormons in the political process period, whether it be with the Democrats or the Republicans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: otis</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100413</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[otis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This late breaking statement from the Church shows how in touch they are with the Washington scene.  The latest rumbling in Washington about the future of our country indicate that the next presidential election may yield something that most politicos never thought could happenâ€¦that the next president will be not a woman but a Mormon.  Democrats had been carefully plotting Hillaryâ€™s ascension to office while Republicans prepare to one up the â€˜Crats with their own candidate who is not only female but a minority and unbeknownst to anyone else in the party (and even to herself so far) that she is coming out of the closet. The â€˜Publicans (and sinners) hoped to be swearing in President Rice in January of 09.

But this contest has really become a no-contest since the emergence of two very strong Mormon candidates who are now poised to wage Holy War on one another to gain the presidency of our great country. So long ladies, its time for the apocalypse.

From the left comes senior senator Harold Reid out of the state with a very high Mormon population in spite of having Sin City as its most populous city, legalized prostitution, loose liquor laws and a growing population of heathen liberals. Senator Reid has become a vocal critic of the Bush administration, of Bush himself and most importantly of Crawford and life on the Bush ranch. (not to be offensive but what if Harry Reidâ€™s son married one of Wâ€™s daughters and gave their first born son the first name of grandpa Reid and the last name of grandpa Bush) Harry is the new face of the democratic revolution that is sweeping across not only traditionally liberal states but even into many traditionally republican states especially those with high concentrations of Mormons. Mormons around the globe are being challenged by how such a â€œdevout Mormonâ€ can be such a democrat and can bash the conservative president with so much efficacy. Inner conflict has reached new levels and in fact, most wards in the church have now used a 5th Sunday combined priesthood / relief society lesson to address this specific topic.  If the excitement about Reid continues it is expected that the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage and driving without a temple recommend will be approved in Utah and Idaho within the next 5 years.

On the right political superstar and governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney sits poised to make his own move into the white house. While on the outside this classic Republican candidate and hero of the disgraced Mormon Olympics appears to just be another pretty face with close ties to people with lots of money, inside this former stake president is a brilliant political strategist with a killer instinct and a fondness for fine cheese. As Mittâ€™s son Matt put it â€œmy dad has more connections than the Internetâ€.  Granted that was stated in 1991 when the internet didnâ€™t have that many connections at all but if we can extrapolate that Mittâ€™s connections have grown since 1991 in the same way that internet connections have, we know that he has lots of connections and that is important in politics. Mitt has beaten the odds in Massachusetts as a conservative, Mormon governor in a state that already has legalized a bunch of stuff that most people in Utah and Idaho still donâ€™t know even exists, let alone is legal.

While W. is pissing off America and trying to use big words such as kerfuffle to confuse and impress, these two political gurus are in the background working their way towards the showdown of showdowns. Never before has the Mormon church or the US (or even the entire globe) experienced the type of showdown of power grabbing and religious mudslinging that this upcoming election will provide. Both of these men have defied the odds time and time again and one of them will ultimately come out the victor in the fight for the biggest political prize in the world (unless you count the coveted role as German ambassador to Fiji).  It will be an epic battle between the peopleâ€™s candidate Reid and the ultra-suave Romney.

Who will win this heated battle?  Who will wield the sword of Laban and slay his foe?  Both candidates have a lot in common with the last popular president of the US, Bill Clinton.  Reid comes from the same party as Bill, is from a small state (politically) and they are both members of the same secret political society that is so secret that I canâ€™t say anything else about it for fear of having my true identity revealed.  Mitt is a governor (like Bill was), has a wife that people remember when they meet her, and has the hair and good looks that people want in a president, none of this nerdy, frazzled professor look like Reid, heâ€™s polished, smooth and a â€œchurroâ€ like the Latin girls like to say. In addition, Romney has publicly stated that he knows the truth about Cainâ€™s color which Reid has, to date, not been willing to do.  In both cases their political experience and stand on the issues is irrelevant (as it was with Clinton) besides since they are both Mormon they will be perceived to be the same since all Mormons are the same and who cares about issues anyway.

Iâ€™ve taken a straw poll and can tell you that the consensus position is that Romney will win the election.  Several key factors will play into this success story.  Before the election, Ted Kennedy will convert to Mormonism and endorse Romney because heâ€™s from Massachusetts.  Illicit photos of Reid at the Mustang Ranch will surface on the internet and quickly disappear before anyone sees them. He will claim they are the works of an amateur kid with an old version of Kai Power Goo photo editor and provide some nice family photos which will quickly become the least popular downloads ever on the internet.  The Red Sox will win the pennant again in 2008 right before the election.  Reid will spill the beans about Area 51 and admit that he is actually an alien who landed there in the 70â€™s but who escaped before the government reached his downed ship.  He will ask to borrow his space ship so he can go and visit the family.

Even if none of these things happen, Romney will win because cyclically its time for us to have another president with a 2 syllable last name.  The pattern since 1980 has been â€“ 2 syllables (Reagan), 1 syllable (Bush), 2 syllables (Clinton), 1 syllable (Bush) â€“ next up is anther bisyllabic presidential nameâ€¦Romney 2008 â€“ window decals are now available
Romney 2008 â€œChoose the Rightâ€

There is still an outside chance that a dark horse candidate could win the election.  Rumor has it that Sheri Dew is considering running as a Green Party candidate with Nadar as veep.  Sister Dewâ€™s success, unmarried status, diplomacy and cooking skills are seen as key factors that could help her win this election.  Will she be able to defy the odds and win the election as she defied the odds to rise to CEO of Deseret Book as a woman? Whatever the outcome, 2008 will surely be a fantastic year for Mormons and politics.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This late breaking statement from the Church shows how in touch they are with the Washington scene.  The latest rumbling in Washington about the future of our country indicate that the next presidential election may yield something that most politicos never thought could happenâ€¦that the next president will be not a woman but a Mormon.  Democrats had been carefully plotting Hillaryâ€™s ascension to office while Republicans prepare to one up the â€˜Crats with their own candidate who is not only female but a minority and unbeknownst to anyone else in the party (and even to herself so far) that she is coming out of the closet. The â€˜Publicans (and sinners) hoped to be swearing in President Rice in January of 09.</p>
<p>But this contest has really become a no-contest since the emergence of two very strong Mormon candidates who are now poised to wage Holy War on one another to gain the presidency of our great country. So long ladies, its time for the apocalypse.</p>
<p>From the left comes senior senator Harold Reid out of the state with a very high Mormon population in spite of having Sin City as its most populous city, legalized prostitution, loose liquor laws and a growing population of heathen liberals. Senator Reid has become a vocal critic of the Bush administration, of Bush himself and most importantly of Crawford and life on the Bush ranch. (not to be offensive but what if Harry Reidâ€™s son married one of Wâ€™s daughters and gave their first born son the first name of grandpa Reid and the last name of grandpa Bush) Harry is the new face of the democratic revolution that is sweeping across not only traditionally liberal states but even into many traditionally republican states especially those with high concentrations of Mormons. Mormons around the globe are being challenged by how such a â€œdevout Mormonâ€ can be such a democrat and can bash the conservative president with so much efficacy. Inner conflict has reached new levels and in fact, most wards in the church have now used a 5th Sunday combined priesthood / relief society lesson to address this specific topic.  If the excitement about Reid continues it is expected that the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage and driving without a temple recommend will be approved in Utah and Idaho within the next 5 years.</p>
<p>On the right political superstar and governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney sits poised to make his own move into the white house. While on the outside this classic Republican candidate and hero of the disgraced Mormon Olympics appears to just be another pretty face with close ties to people with lots of money, inside this former stake president is a brilliant political strategist with a killer instinct and a fondness for fine cheese. As Mittâ€™s son Matt put it â€œmy dad has more connections than the Internetâ€.  Granted that was stated in 1991 when the internet didnâ€™t have that many connections at all but if we can extrapolate that Mittâ€™s connections have grown since 1991 in the same way that internet connections have, we know that he has lots of connections and that is important in politics. Mitt has beaten the odds in Massachusetts as a conservative, Mormon governor in a state that already has legalized a bunch of stuff that most people in Utah and Idaho still donâ€™t know even exists, let alone is legal.</p>
<p>While W. is pissing off America and trying to use big words such as kerfuffle to confuse and impress, these two political gurus are in the background working their way towards the showdown of showdowns. Never before has the Mormon church or the US (or even the entire globe) experienced the type of showdown of power grabbing and religious mudslinging that this upcoming election will provide. Both of these men have defied the odds time and time again and one of them will ultimately come out the victor in the fight for the biggest political prize in the world (unless you count the coveted role as German ambassador to Fiji).  It will be an epic battle between the peopleâ€™s candidate Reid and the ultra-suave Romney.</p>
<p>Who will win this heated battle?  Who will wield the sword of Laban and slay his foe?  Both candidates have a lot in common with the last popular president of the US, Bill Clinton.  Reid comes from the same party as Bill, is from a small state (politically) and they are both members of the same secret political society that is so secret that I canâ€™t say anything else about it for fear of having my true identity revealed.  Mitt is a governor (like Bill was), has a wife that people remember when they meet her, and has the hair and good looks that people want in a president, none of this nerdy, frazzled professor look like Reid, heâ€™s polished, smooth and a â€œchurroâ€ like the Latin girls like to say. In addition, Romney has publicly stated that he knows the truth about Cainâ€™s color which Reid has, to date, not been willing to do.  In both cases their political experience and stand on the issues is irrelevant (as it was with Clinton) besides since they are both Mormon they will be perceived to be the same since all Mormons are the same and who cares about issues anyway.</p>
<p>Iâ€™ve taken a straw poll and can tell you that the consensus position is that Romney will win the election.  Several key factors will play into this success story.  Before the election, Ted Kennedy will convert to Mormonism and endorse Romney because heâ€™s from Massachusetts.  Illicit photos of Reid at the Mustang Ranch will surface on the internet and quickly disappear before anyone sees them. He will claim they are the works of an amateur kid with an old version of Kai Power Goo photo editor and provide some nice family photos which will quickly become the least popular downloads ever on the internet.  The Red Sox will win the pennant again in 2008 right before the election.  Reid will spill the beans about Area 51 and admit that he is actually an alien who landed there in the 70â€™s but who escaped before the government reached his downed ship.  He will ask to borrow his space ship so he can go and visit the family.</p>
<p>Even if none of these things happen, Romney will win because cyclically its time for us to have another president with a 2 syllable last name.  The pattern since 1980 has been â€“ 2 syllables (Reagan), 1 syllable (Bush), 2 syllables (Clinton), 1 syllable (Bush) â€“ next up is anther bisyllabic presidential nameâ€¦Romney 2008 â€“ window decals are now available<br />
Romney 2008 â€œChoose the Rightâ€</p>
<p>There is still an outside chance that a dark horse candidate could win the election.  Rumor has it that Sheri Dew is considering running as a Green Party candidate with Nadar as veep.  Sister Dewâ€™s success, unmarried status, diplomacy and cooking skills are seen as key factors that could help her win this election.  Will she be able to defy the odds and win the election as she defied the odds to rise to CEO of Deseret Book as a woman? Whatever the outcome, 2008 will surely be a fantastic year for Mormons and politics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DKL</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100412</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DKL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think it&#039;s great that dissident Mormons finally have as statement from the first presidency that they can take seriously!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s great that dissident Mormons finally have as statement from the first presidency that they can take seriously!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David S</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100411</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David S]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:15:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not being a resident of Utah any longer than my mission prep required of me, I can&#039;t speak of those problems. But I would suggest that maybe people are not just voting &quot;for&quot; the GOP but voting against the Democrats in Utah.

Ever the optimist, I think that the Democrats are best on the church principle of caring for others, and the GOP is better on personal responsibility, the Libertarians are better on free agency, and the greens are better on, hmmm some one might need to help me here hehe.

As such, members can support ideas of each party. The problems arise when, running for public and especially national office, members are forced to accept the party line. Al Gore as an example ran for state office as anti abortion, but when he had a chance at national importance, switched sides. Joseph Liebermann also showed some signs of caving into the party line when he ran for VP, but I am glad to say he is once again his own man.

Currently the GOP is more politic in that they choose moderates for their presidential candidates based on who can win. The Democrats pick the more extreme candidates based on who can raise the most money. The GOP seems to have middle class America backing them. I.e. the money for the last election came mostly from middle and upper middle class. The Democrats had a lot of big time donors in the form of the very rich, lawyers, and unions. Their chosen class of the lower middle class and the poor don&#039;t have as much money to give so they have to improvise.

The Democrats have more party discipline: toe the party line or no special appointments for you. The GOP has several rogue members that still hold their committee chairs.

So my point was to have more LDS get involved in politics, really in both parties. The loosing party may be more open to giving more significant work to you. And just being a moderate in either party may be closer to the Gospel than what we have now. Sure on single issue things, one party may be better than another.

I am reminded that when the Nauvoo Saints voted in block for one party or another, we lost all influence with the other party, and the first party took our vote for granted. Our roll of being a light to the world won&#039;t work in that circumstance. We need to influence all the parties, (possibly even the greens,) and get them back on track.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not being a resident of Utah any longer than my mission prep required of me, I can&#8217;t speak of those problems. But I would suggest that maybe people are not just voting &#8220;for&#8221; the GOP but voting against the Democrats in Utah.</p>
<p>Ever the optimist, I think that the Democrats are best on the church principle of caring for others, and the GOP is better on personal responsibility, the Libertarians are better on free agency, and the greens are better on, hmmm some one might need to help me here hehe.</p>
<p>As such, members can support ideas of each party. The problems arise when, running for public and especially national office, members are forced to accept the party line. Al Gore as an example ran for state office as anti abortion, but when he had a chance at national importance, switched sides. Joseph Liebermann also showed some signs of caving into the party line when he ran for VP, but I am glad to say he is once again his own man.</p>
<p>Currently the GOP is more politic in that they choose moderates for their presidential candidates based on who can win. The Democrats pick the more extreme candidates based on who can raise the most money. The GOP seems to have middle class America backing them. I.e. the money for the last election came mostly from middle and upper middle class. The Democrats had a lot of big time donors in the form of the very rich, lawyers, and unions. Their chosen class of the lower middle class and the poor don&#8217;t have as much money to give so they have to improvise.</p>
<p>The Democrats have more party discipline: toe the party line or no special appointments for you. The GOP has several rogue members that still hold their committee chairs.</p>
<p>So my point was to have more LDS get involved in politics, really in both parties. The loosing party may be more open to giving more significant work to you. And just being a moderate in either party may be closer to the Gospel than what we have now. Sure on single issue things, one party may be better than another.</p>
<p>I am reminded that when the Nauvoo Saints voted in block for one party or another, we lost all influence with the other party, and the first party took our vote for granted. Our roll of being a light to the world won&#8217;t work in that circumstance. We need to influence all the parties, (possibly even the greens,) and get them back on track.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Voltaire</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100410</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Voltaire]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the Church fails to state is that any political endorsing opens the Church up to violating their tax exempt status. There was a huge story that hit where a Presbyterian church and its minister drew the ire of the IRS by attacking Bush&#039;s policies in Iraq over the pulpit. Obviously the minister was invoking thou shout not kill inferences and what would Jesus do to keep his sermon moral and religiously grounded but the IRS didnt care.

I know the Church loves America but no so much that its willing to be taxed, even where such church enterprises deserve to be levied. Billions have to made and preserved. So the membership will just have to pretend that the LDS Church have offically sanctioned the GOP so everyone can sleep at night.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What the Church fails to state is that any political endorsing opens the Church up to violating their tax exempt status. There was a huge story that hit where a Presbyterian church and its minister drew the ire of the IRS by attacking Bush&#8217;s policies in Iraq over the pulpit. Obviously the minister was invoking thou shout not kill inferences and what would Jesus do to keep his sermon moral and religiously grounded but the IRS didnt care.</p>
<p>I know the Church loves America but no so much that its willing to be taxed, even where such church enterprises deserve to be levied. Billions have to made and preserved. So the membership will just have to pretend that the LDS Church have offically sanctioned the GOP so everyone can sleep at night.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cj douglass</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100409</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cj douglass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:38:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Iâ€™d wager that many people in Utah vote on â€œissuesâ€ rather than with a particular political party.

Iâ€™m surprised the Utah Republican party would consider this official statement to be a threat to their almost complete domination of Utah politics.&quot;

I&#039;m sorry but I can&#039;t let this slide. Republican domination in Utah is a result of Utahns NOT voting on the issues. The same could be said for Utah if it was dominated by the Democrats or any party and it is exactly why the FP letter will have no effect on the way individuals vote.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Iâ€™d wager that many people in Utah vote on â€œissuesâ€ rather than with a particular political party.</p>
<p>Iâ€™m surprised the Utah Republican party would consider this official statement to be a threat to their almost complete domination of Utah politics.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry but I can&#8217;t let this slide. Republican domination in Utah is a result of Utahns NOT voting on the issues. The same could be said for Utah if it was dominated by the Democrats or any party and it is exactly why the FP letter will have no effect on the way individuals vote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve EM</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100408</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve EM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[GMG,
I&#039;m also against collective compulsory charity, which so many of use as an excuse to ignore the less fortunate.  But both major US parties support compulsory charity and have since the New Deal.  Yes, they argue about $s and emphasis, by the underlying premises isn&#039;t debated, and it would take the unweaving of a whole body of US Supreme court case law to open that debate up, which isn&#039;t going to happen without a revolution.  I might be an iconoclast, but I&#039;m no revolutionary anarchist.

Seth,
You&#039;re not hinting the GA&#039;s should tell us how to think?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GMG,<br />
I&#8217;m also against collective compulsory charity, which so many of use as an excuse to ignore the less fortunate.  But both major US parties support compulsory charity and have since the New Deal.  Yes, they argue about $s and emphasis, by the underlying premises isn&#8217;t debated, and it would take the unweaving of a whole body of US Supreme court case law to open that debate up, which isn&#8217;t going to happen without a revolution.  I might be an iconoclast, but I&#8217;m no revolutionary anarchist.</p>
<p>Seth,<br />
You&#8217;re not hinting the GA&#8217;s should tell us how to think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth R.</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100407</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Seth R.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You know, the Church can issue statements about how &quot;all the political parties have their good points&quot; until they&#039;re blue in the face. It won&#039;t make much difference.

Until they outright tell us what parts of the Republican platform are spawn-of-Satan, we&#039;re not going to see much of a shake-up in Utah.

Oh yeah, they can condemn the libertarians too while they&#039;re at it.

But it&#039;s not going to happen.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, the Church can issue statements about how &#8220;all the political parties have their good points&#8221; until they&#8217;re blue in the face. It won&#8217;t make much difference.</p>
<p>Until they outright tell us what parts of the Republican platform are spawn-of-Satan, we&#8217;re not going to see much of a shake-up in Utah.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, they can condemn the libertarians too while they&#8217;re at it.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s not going to happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cj douglass</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/17/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100406</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cj douglass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/all-major-political-parties/#comment-100406</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not joking when I say some &quot;Gods Only Party&quot; members are definitely leaving the church over this letter.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not joking when I say some &#8220;Gods Only Party&#8221; members are definitely leaving the church over this letter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

