Evan McMullin

[JimLes]

People can personally be against things all the time for a myriad of reasons. Even as simple as just not liking it. But can be for it in a legal standpoint. Happens all the time on tons of issued.

To call that morally dishonest is very foolish IMO.

It doesn't matter whether you're personally against it or not. It matters whether you think it should be legal or not. Again, I'm personally not going to smoke weed, legal or not. I'm all about legalization of weed and every other drug. I don't say I personally oppose weed, but support its legalization. I simply say that I support the legalization of weed. Whether I intend to smoke it or not is wholly irrelevant.

For a politician, especially someone running for president like McMullin, it matter only whether he supports gay marriage being legal or not. It makes no difference whether he wants to marry a guy or not or whether he would be okay with his son marrying a guy or not. He's just being wishy-washy and trying to balance between the two sides and you and I know it both. It's probably going to become a more common "position" for Republican candidates for office and it's dishonest. It sounds like he's saying he's against it, but there's nothing he can do about it so he accepts it. Great. What if a situation arises where you CAN do something about it? What if the public opinion shifts? Would he outlaw gay marriage if he could and if majority of people came to support that?

 

[Ron Mexico]

You either support the existence of laws allowing for gay marriage or you don't. No need to complicate it.

What was his stance before it was a law? Does he support Gay marriage because it is a law now and he realizes that is not going to change back or because he believes in people's individual liberty regardless of his own moral beliefs? That is a big distinction to me. I honestly do not know where he stands, not attacking him.

 

[Stoked]

It doesn't matter whether you're personally against it or not. It matters whether you think it should be legal or not. Again, I'm personally not going to smoke weed, legal or not. I'm all about legalization of weed and every other drug. I don't say I personally oppose weed, but support its legalization. I simply say that I support the legalization of weed. Whether I intend to smoke it or not is wholly irrelevant.

For a politician, especially someone running for president like McMullin, it matter only whether he supports gay marriage being legal or not. It makes no difference whether he wants to marry a guy or not or whether he would be okay with his son marrying a guy or not. He's just being wishy-washy and trying to balance between the two sides and you and I know it both. It's probably going to become a more common "position" for Republican candidates for office and it's dishonest. It sounds like he's saying he's against it, but there's nothing he can do about it so he accepts it. Great. What if a situation arises where you CAN do something about it? What if the public opinion shifts? Would he outlaw gay marriage if he could and if majority of people came to support that?

So basically your entire argument here is that he didn't state his stance the way you want.

It being dishonest is nothing more than your opinion. Just like it is my opinion that you saying it is dishonest is foolish.

That convo reached it's climax quickly.

Have a good day Jim. Always insightful

 

[Siro]

What was his stance before it was a law? Does he support Gay marriage because it is a law now or because he believes in people's individual liberty regardless of his own moral beliefs? That is a big distinction to me. I honestly do not know where he stands, not attacking him.

He was probably against it, like the vast majority of Americans before last decade.

 

[JimLes]

So basically your entire argument here is that he didn't state his stance the way you want.

No, my argument is that he's obviously against gay marriage, so why does he not just say that? Why is he trying to make a True or False question into a multiple choice one?

 

[Hotdog]

I think you mixed up this message board with pretend one you post on in your head. You do like to state your opinions. You do not like having open respectful discussions with others. You like to assume other peoples stances and use straw mans arguments against them. You do like to use terms to lump people together like liberals and use that as an insult. You do like to start arguments and when anyone gives a thought out responsible response of any kind or real data you move on to a new argument. Hacks gonna hack no matter the name change.

Thats not true.

I notice and appreciate that you take the time to state your point of view without the insults. I wanted to respond to some of your stuff in Never Trump , I just havent had the time. But will in a little bit.

Siro, Naos,Gameface, and a few others are not like that. They quickly go to the insults.

And I honestly didnt know that calling someone a liberal was offensive. Geez liberals really do get offended easily. Lol, I kid, I kid.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Thats not true.

I notice and appreciate that you take the time to state your point of view without the insults. I wanted to respond to some of your stuff in Never Trump , I just havent had the time. But will in a little bit.

Siro, Naos,Gameface, and a few others are not like that. They quickly go to the insults.

And I honestly didnt know that calling someone a liberal was offensive. Geez liberals really do get offended easily. Lol, I kid, I kid.

Ill pay better attention, I have not noticed this but maybe I ignore it.

 

[Stoked]

Thats not true.

I notice and appreciate that you take the time to state your point of view without the insults. I wanted to respond to some of your stuff in Never Trump , I just havent had the time. But will in a little bit.

Siro, Naos,Gameface, and a few others are not like that. They quickly go to the insults.

And I honestly didnt know that calling someone a liberal was offensive. Geez liberals really do get offended easily. Lol, I kid, I kid.

Almost any word can be an insult or negative. It is all in how you use it. The tone and context.

Not defending anyone or anything. But it has been my experience that your use of the word 'liberal" has been in a negative way.

 

[babe]

So I haven't read the last two pages here, I'm just responding to the OP.

I've listened to McMullin and I think he's a nut job. I think it was on KSL's Doug Wright program or some other local talk show that I listened to. His comments seemed to be an attempt to give "Mormons" a choice other than the degenerate Casino/Beauty Pageant Reality TV mogul who could in no sense appeal to nitwit moralist LDS types.

I've had my questions about Trump being Hillary's Perot, a replay of 1992 that gave us Bill the Perv.

I think most of you JazzFanzers are nitwit lefty dreamers who don't know reality any better, especially Coltin who loves his ivory tower Utopian vision of a progressive LDS world. I used to be in that Utah Campus world, and I'm glad I got out. Years of wall to wall progressive knowitalls with a penchant for fixing the world their way, quibbling over the finer distinctions between the Romneys and the Reids.

The LDS Church, historically, jumped in the sack with the Rockefeller/Chase Bankers back in the days of Pres. Grant, roughly speaking the roaring twenties, and ran right along with Prohibition and socialist welfare schemes like Eccles' Federal Reserve economic banking, even before Keynes made a name for himself. I think the LDS leadership has no credibility as a Christian organization modeled on the teachings of Jesus which centered on individual conscience and personal responsibility in all aspects of our lives. I think the LDS policy manual and lesson manuals are the same kind of statist drivel as Common Core or John Dewey "education". Somebody has to have a policy that authoritatively parses all the nuance in life and produces the absolute right views and morals for everyone.

I think that is why the Utah Republicans have all disavowed Trump, who is nothing but a free independent man with a notion of practical management, which does not line up with the LDS or CFR sort of programs. Trump just wants people to be free.

Trump is my kind of man, all the way. I proudly stand for him.

It's no crime for a man to be fascinated by pretty women or to talk about them. Most of you don't have a problem with your lurid pics and discussions of who to hit on right here in the "Family-Appropriate" JazzFAnz threads.

I don't think the State has any business to regulate personal lives, or to endorse lifestyles, or teach sexuality. I don't like government managed education on any issue, even science. Well, maybe on a state level there is no Constitutional bar against States taking up some of these issues, but I think State-sanctioned religions sorta went out back in the 1820s, and I see no real positives for people regulating one another or making personal morals the focus for qualifying anyone for the Presidency.

Except, of course, where we have good laws designed to protect our national interests and personal liberties, and our vested interests in our government. On these issues, Hillary fails. McMullin fails because he's just another Romney sort of statist. Done with that.

 

[Stoked]

The more you post the less I respect you.

 

[Ron Mexico]

[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION] Are you a relative of Ezra Taft Benson? Or did you attend BYU in the 60s-80s?

 

[Siro]

The more you post the less I respect you.

babe now thinks you're a nitwit. Happy?

 

[babe]

[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION] Are you a relative of Ezra Taft Benson? Or did you attend BYU in the 60s-80s?

I chose not to attend BYU because I am consistently a rebel, but smart enough to choose something worth rebelling against. That was my rational reason for choosing to attend the University of Utah, well, sorta. I always make jokes about everything, especially serious stuff.

I am related to some people who have been, for a while or at some point in time at least, pariahs to the LDS community, to a degree that they were not welcome in their local wards. I am also related to, in some degree, to Mitt Romney, George Bush, Maurice Strong, and any other Connecticut Yankee you'll ever hear anything about, as well as everybody whos anybody in England, Wales or Scotland, and should probably confess to being a closet Viking as well. Pres. Monson bragged about knowing my relatives when he was a boy, and Pres. Henry B. Eyring's dad was more a father to me than my natural father.

However, the really significant influence in my life was a battleaxe great aunt who taught me to sit up straight and speak clearly, and say what I think no matter who doesn't want me to, as long as I can back it up with some important reasoning.

I think you do a disgrace to whatever cause you embrace by impugning the merit of those who disagree with you.

 

[babe]

babe now thinks you're a nitwit. Happy?

nitwits are people who don't care what I say or think. As long as you care enough to speak to me, you're not a nitwit.

Well, actually, it's been a long time since I used that term. I dusted it off in writing a scathing letter to Mike Lee telling him he has no credible good judgment if he blanches at supporting Trump when Hillary is the viable alternative. I consider the entire set of Evan McMullin supporters "nitwits" by association with Mike Lee, and the rest of the pious Mormon temple recommend carrying folks who believe personal holiness trumps human rights.

As I see it, Hillary is absolutely the choice of an establishment of nested interests whose thinking has gone off the rails. Of course, the happy little clique of JazzFanzers from Colton to Kicky on down to our happy Game are pretty much vested in this establishment. Many of you have secure interests like jobs that require us to keep on keepin on with the way things are.

I don't think Trump would really hurt you unless you're doing criminal stuff. I have thought, and said, that I expected our mainstream media to dump Hillary and go positive on Trump. I thought so because Hillary's negatives will de-legitimize our Press if they continue to support her, and the policies and directions she will take, straight outta the CFR/UN agenda plans, will discredit the CFR and UN in the near future. It is time for a change, a real change. The sooner the establishment sees it, the better off we will all be.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I chose not to attend BYU because I am consistently a rebel, but smart enough to choose something worth rebelling against. That was my rational reason for choosing to attend the University of Utah, well, sorta. I always make jokes about everything, especially serious stuff.

I am related to some people who have been, for a while or at some point in time at least, pariahs to the LDS community, to a degree that they were not welcome in their local wards. I am also related to, in some degree, to Mitt Romney, George Bush, Maurice Strong, and any other Connecticut Yankee you'll ever hear anything about, as well as everybody whos anybody in England, Wales or Scotland, and should probably confess to being a closet Viking as well. Pres. Monson bragged about knowing my relatives when he was a boy, and Pres. Henry B. Eyring's dad was more a father to me than my natural father.

However, the really significant influence in my life was a battleaxe great aunt who taught me to sit up straight and speak clearly, and say what I think no matter who doesn't want me to, as long as I can back it up with some important reasoning.

I think you do a disgrace to whatever cause you embrace by impugning the merit of those who disagree with you.

Like most your posts 99 percent of that was unrelated rambling that is very tedious to read. You just sound like quotes from Benson and company use to make in the 60s about politics, that's it. I'm not attempting to embrace a cause despite your paranoid assumptions. I also wasn't trying to discredit you but you do seem like the type who is always defensive and feels the need to pretend to be smarter.

 

[babe]

Like most your posts 99 percent of that was unrelated rambling that is very tedious to read. You just sound like quotes from Benson and company use to make in the 60s about politics, that's it. I'm not attempting to embrace a cause despite your paranoid assumptions. I also wasn't trying to discredit you but you do seem like the type who is always defensive and feels the need to pretend to be smarter.

OK, that's understandable as a point of view. I don't think you're stupid or anything like that. I read into your opinions some things I've pulled outta other people I know who share your views. But as I understand it, you're not really in the "Utah Culture", though these comments seem to indicate you do know something about it.

For the record, I understand that disinterested or marginally interested people will hope to find a point somewhere in my remarks, but most of the time I am exploring interrelationships and trying to connect them somehow, for no other point but to try to show a connection.

For example, how to explain Republican Utah politically, when the early Mormons were very socialist, very collectivist, and practically all Democrats before the New York Bankers undertook to redirect this little authoritarian enclave. I think it explains the actions today of Mike Lee pretty good, when he supports banking interests.

 

[b_line]

No, my argument is that he's obviously against gay marriage, so why does he not just say that? Why is he trying to make a True or False question into a multiple choice one?

He is against gay marriage the same way you are against smoking weed. It's not for you, but you respect others right to choose. I don't understand why it's such a hard thing for you to get when you basically said the same exact thing.

Take me for instance, I don't drink, and I find it slightly reprehensible economically speaking, but I totally respect the fact that people choose to drink. Would I outlaw drinking if I had the choice and I was king? I would sure as hell think about it, as I believe that, economically and socially, our society would be far better off for it, but I respect that people are going to drink no matter what.

Evan mcmullin apparently thinks that boning dudes is bad. But he respects that it does not hurt consenting adults, and that people are going to do it regardless of what he thinks. That's what he was saying, imo.

 

[b_line]

So I haven't read the last two pages here, I'm just responding to the OP.

I've listened to McMullin and I think he's a nut job. I think it was on KSL's Doug Wright program or some other local talk show that I listened to. His comments seemed to be an attempt to give "Mormons" a choice other than the degenerate Casino/Beauty Pageant Reality TV mogul who could in no sense appeal to nitwit moralist LDS types.

I've had my questions about Trump being Hillary's Perot, a replay of 1992 that gave us Bill the Perv.

I think most of you JazzFanzers are nitwit lefty dreamers who don't know reality any better, especially Coltin who loves his ivory tower Utopian vision of a progressive LDS world. I used to be in that Utah Campus world, and I'm glad I got out. Years of wall to wall progressive knowitalls with a penchant for fixing the world their way, quibbling over the finer distinctions between the Romneys and the Reids.

The LDS Church, historically, jumped in the sack with the Rockefeller/Chase Bankers back in the days of Pres. Grant, roughly speaking the roaring twenties, and ran right along with Prohibition and socialist welfare schemes like Eccles' Federal Reserve economic banking, even before Keynes made a name for himself. I think the LDS leadership has no credibility as a Christian organization modeled on the teachings of Jesus which centered on individual conscience and personal responsibility in all aspects of our lives. I think the LDS policy manual and lesson manuals are the same kind of statist drivel as Common Core or John Dewey "education". Somebody has to have a policy that authoritatively parses all the nuance in life and produces the absolute right views and morals for everyone.

I think that is why the Utah Republicans have all disavowed Trump, who is nothing but a free independent man with a notion of practical management, which does not line up with the LDS or CFR sort of programs. Trump just wants people to be free.

Trump is my kind of man, all the way. I proudly stand for him.

It's no crime for a man to be fascinated by pretty women or to talk about them. Most of you don't have a problem with your lurid pics and discussions of who to hit on right here in the "Family-Appropriate" JazzFAnz threads.

I don't think the State has any business to regulate personal lives, or to endorse lifestyles, or teach sexuality. I don't like government managed education on any issue, even science. Well, maybe on a state level there is no Constitutional bar against States taking up some of these issues, but I think State-sanctioned religions sorta went out back in the 1820s, and I see no real positives for people regulating one another or making personal morals the focus for qualifying anyone for the Presidency.

Except, of course, where we have good laws designed to protect our national interests and personal liberties, and our vested interests in our government. On these issues, Hillary fails. McMullin fails because he's just another Romney sort of statist. Done with that.

So it's ok for the president to violate personal liberty then? Why don't you go grab someone else by the *****. If you believe a word of that drivel you just posted, I have pretty much lost all respect for you.

 

[b_line]

I don't think Trump would really hurt you unless you're doing criminal stuff.

Are unwanted sexual advances, say. "grabbing by the *****" considered criminal in your mind? Or do women's civil liberties not count for ****?

 

[Siro]

babe gushing over Donald ****ing Trump! A sleazy megalomaniac, and a tabloid superstar. How embarrassing. Can't wait to see the commentary when Kim Kardashian runs for office.