FunkyTown

Ceeboo! You're right, we need to get more to the judging and condemning! We need an Inquisition. YEAH! I should be an Inquisitor - Getting paid to judge and condemn people and take their stuff. I'm gonna Inquisit me a Lexus!

Paul? I'm a little concerned here. The people who are part of other Christian traditions agree that it's difficult, but there's a confusion with regards to just how difficult. Here is what's going through your wife's mind: "We'll be together a few short years, til Death do us part. Then, I have an eternity without the one I've grown to love. Our kids will be without him, if they stay LDS at all." To many LDS, it's "Temple marriage or nothing." I am one of those people. I'm sorry you're struggling and you're right in that everyone does struggle. But recognize that, to your wife, what you're basically saying is that you -won't- be together forever. I couldn't have a relationship like that.

Eliza Dushku, I... Wait, wait: Eliza Dushku is already a member. Assign me as her home teacher!

Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Merry Kwanza! Happy New Year! There are numerous holidays right now. I just attribute a whole heck of a lot more significance to Christmas. If someone were Jewish and said "Happy Hanukkah!" to me, I would not be offended. I would say "Happy Hanukkah!" right back.

The losers of the election can wind up running the country because the 'winners' didn't get the majority government. If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois work together, the simple fact is -they- have more votes under our system. Yes, it's back door dealing. The problem is that the majority of Canadians couldn't agree on who should run the country, so numerous smaller parties are working together. That's not bad, that's the way the system works. Irritatingly, Canada is in the best state to weather the economic crisis and the coalition parties want to change that. Frankly, I hope the Conservatives let it come to a no-confidence vote. I'll vote for the Conservatives despite never having voted for them before... Ever - And I'll vote for them because I want a party that says "Yep. We're doing just fine. Steady as she goes." and not this unholy alliance of NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Seriously... NDP and the Bloc? What is Jack -thinking-? Nonetheless, it is not illegal, it is not unconstitutional. It's just not in the best interests of the Canadian people.

I was given advice by my Patriarch regarding marriage. The man, wise and erudite, gave me three pieces of advice: 1) Don't marry someone you can live with. Marry someone you can't live without. 2) Marry someone who wants to make you a better person, because that's what marriage is: Two people growing together. The third isn't germain to this conversation. However, here's the long and short: You should strengthen your wife when she is weak as she should strengthen you. However, if you're going to get in to a headbutting contest with her over spirituality, don't be surprised if she can't live with your ultimatum. She is eternally minded.

Canuck is exaggerating. The people didn't elect a majority - That means that "The people" disagreed on the direction they wanted the country to go. It doesn't mean that they voted for someone and the losers took over. A minority government happens when one party has more collective votes than any other single party, without having the majority. This forces them to ally with one or more minor factions in order to pass laws. This is important, because in a minority government, if a bill is defeated it forces a No-Confidence vote. Basically, another election. It results in one of two things happening: 1) The government, terrified of proposing laws, lets everything operate pretty much as it always has been. Or: 2) The government comes up with plans that actually have a broad appeal. Huzzah!

In a word: Yes. You are definitely on the wrong path on something that isn't your choice. People investigate the church all the time - Some because they're looking for something to believe in, some for a girl and some because their soul hungers for something more. If he comes to the church and is blessed: wonderful. If your disdain and dislike for his motives drives him from the church, the condemnation would be on you. Let it go. Support him in his investigations. There are a host of reasons why you can't be the judge of his reasons for investigating, but you -can- show him that the church is true and that it changes the lives of members.

You're right, Paul - About that person being wrong to badmouth Catholics. That should never have happened and I'm sorry you were offended, but I thought I'd bring up some points: 1) God gave the Jews a list of health rules called living 'Kosher'. They may not have understood at the time why they couldn't eat pork or mix milk and meat, but we now know that with their poor food preservation techniques that living kosher improved their health dramatically. Don't think of it in terms of, "I just don't see tea as being important." Instead, think of what the Bishop said to the woman who drank a cup of coffee every day when she was interviewed by him when she said "You aren't going to let a little thing like a cup of coffee keep me from the temple, are you?" His response was, "Are you?" 2) A man in Priesthood offended you. This is not the gospel. I'm sorry he offended you, but if you say to yourself "That man offended me. Therefor, I am denying myself the blessings of the Priesthood and the Temple." then, let me assure you, that man is not adversely affected -at all- by your choice to hurt yourself. It's not worth it. Don't let that man have this power over you. I'm sorry you're going through hardships, but think very carefully: All of the things you're saying have challenged your faith are tiny things. If those things challenge your faith, imagine what would happen if a bigger challenge came along. God -always- challenges our faith: If a cup of coffee and a man's ignorant words caused you to run from church, imagine how Job felt.

Many times, I have heard members with similar ideology to your husbands. If all of them were unworthy to hold the priesthood, there would be entire swaths of land where the Priesthood didn't exist. You sound like someone who genuinely loves your fellow man. That speaks volumes of your patience and generosity of soul. Personally, I'd recommend that you continue praying. Pray that you find the right words, that you can say things non-confrontationally, and that you can understand your husbands point of view. Here's what I'd suggest: Ask your husband to pray about how you can help your neighbors with you. Say you think it would be a wonderful idea to be able to provide something for those who need help. Then, suggest that you volunteer at a gay and lesbian support group in your area. Or even attend a 'Friends and family of gays and lesbians' support group. Listen to their stories, do what you can to be loving and supportive. If your husband has to serve someone, he can't hate them. Or he can choose not to serve someone and to be blatantly offensive, in which case he has actively made the choice not to follow scripture.

Hahah. Yeah! Stupid George Bush, I agree, I... Wait, wait... This was an Obama slam, wasn't it? 'Cause... Y'know... Obama's not in power yet and didn't plan this.

You are a passionate individual. Next time, though, instead of burning the bills, just toss them out the window. I could use a sudden windfall -and- it shows how contemptuous you are of the funds!

I have to call you out on this one. This is clearly an ad hominem attack. If everyone who disagrees with your economic policy is a socialist and you don't listen to socialists, what you're -really- saying is that you don't listen to anybody who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks have no place in logical thought. The truth is that economic hardship is not a new idea and very intelligent people have disagreed with your thoughts on it. I could bring up Marx's Das Kapital in sharp relief to your ideals, since he's as far on -his- end of the spectrum as you are on yours. I could also point out that Marxist Communism has never existed in the same way that pure capitalism has never existed, so both of your arguments are purely theoretical in nature. Now -this- is an argument with some meat on it! Yes, you're absolutely right: Historical generations borrowed from their children's future, which has resulted in a steadily mounting debt that has essentially just been swept 'under the rug', basically ignoring the fact that future generations will have to pay that off. Is it selfish to not want to be the generation that suffers crushing poverty due to what essentionally would amount to more than the reparations forced on Germany after World War I? I can empathize with families who would be afraid of that. Overnight, people who saved their whole lives would be thrust in to poverty. People would starve on millions of dollars(Just like what happened after the Treaty of Versailles) and the safety net of government would fall out. This time would make the 30s seem like the 20s(I am exaggerating. Excuse the hyperbole, but it would definitely be worse than the 30s). However, there is another answer: Get our spending under control. A slow, measured payback, with ourselves being able to entirely eliminate the national deficit, would allow this economic scenario to not happen. Look at the time when Social Security was developed: Otto Von Bismarck could see the writing on the wall. People were desperate and angry and hungry. They were looking for real answers to painful poverty. Fascism, Communism and a hundred other economic ideas had gotten their start in this desperate time. It wasn't created out of a sense of evil, but rather a pragmatic need to prevent the public from rising up when it couldn't be provided. This was not a new idea: The Romans called for 'Bread and Circuses', knowing that when a people have food and entertainment, they are far less likely to rebel. <SNIP> I liked what you had to say about sustainable prosperity, because that's ultimately what the concern is now. We know how to have artificial prosperity(Just have another cold war. Everyone wins until the economic meltdown takes place). However, I have been pondering what our essential argument is and I think I have a way of identifying what our core disagreement is. I'm certain you recognize that in a purely libertarian view, much like now, the rich tend to stay rich(Due to the wealthy having enough money to throw around to make investment and to gift to their posterity) and the poor tend to stay poor. You view a more leftist view as hurting the middle class and poor government management results in artificially high prices in the areas government interferes in. I recognize the argument. Without a safety net, one brought on by taxation, the poor will be desperate, but you are correct that the middle class tends to suffer when taxation is brought in and much higher taxes are required in order to do what basic human decency could accomplish. I started to consider what this ultimately means. In my gut, I fiercely believe that the middle class should be willing to give up some comforts to ensure that all may survive and have a shot at prospering. My lack of trust for the truly wealthy mirrors your own lack of trust in the government. However, I recognize that there are some similarities between this and the arguments in heaven and, if I'm to be intellectually honest, I have to point out the flaws in my argument. On the one hand, I'm arguing against self-determination. I'm saying that the government should treat us like idiots, holding our hands to prevent any possible mis-step on our part and to make the playing field -perfectly level-. I'm arguing lowest common denominator. On the other hand, you're arguing basically hope: That people -will- take in those who are left behind because, after all, without taxation and government interference, there is no safety net. That's basically where the similarities between our arguments and the War in Heaven end: Whereas God is perfect, the heads of state and industry are deeply flawed men. As it is, they are -not- the rightful Lords of this world. However, this is very serious. Given the nature of the world economy and given people's passionate stance on things, maybe we should ask the Prophet for a straight answer. It might seem silly that he would answer us directly, but given that this is clearly a difficult time, maybe we could write and ask. I can promise that I would listen to that man.

Hahah. Oh, Captain. You're such a curmudgeon.

I agree with much of what you said, A-train. However, I'm going to bring up economist John Maynard Keynes. He once was used as an argument that, in the long run, the market will always work itself out - Therefore, no government influence in the market is necessary. His response, when people used his arguments to this effect, was "In the long run, we're all dead." He is also quoted as saying “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” This is what I see when I hear these arguments. You're right, of course: The market will balance itself out in the long run(Barring outside interference). However, wars(Such as in Iraq) and artificial scarcity(For example, see Nike's guerilla marketing of some of their shoe products) will often be used to up the value of an item in a market uncontrolled. Worse, these problems can take generations to fix and often result in first one nation and then another become hit by vast poverty. Because I don't want to live as one of those generations that are plunged in to poverty, I vote for regulation. Because I know that companies are just as untrustworthy as any other institute of man, I vote for regulation. Because I believe that man itself is not capable of fair trade until the Saviour comes, I vote for regulation. This requires some thought: What is the right balance between the Machiavellian nature of total free market economics and the tyranny of total government control?

This place is truly a welcoming, fun place. Welcome and have a great day!

You raise a good point, A-train: Subsidizing workers training when companies desperately need them seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse: Clearly the companies should be paying for them since they're the ones benefitting the most from their involvement. And, actually, if I were to be completely honest, the subsidized training that Doctors receive in Canada has resulted in many getting trained here only to be poached away by the US because they pay higher salaries. Doing this doesn't guarantee you get workers, which is why Canada has a dearth of Doctors despite training many. However, the downside to this lies in my own situation: My company is paying 15000 US to relocate me because it would cost them twice as much to train someone to take over my position and they would have someone with no experience on their side. Since North America tends to have high standards of living for those with skills, people flock here if they have a skill. So the downside of government interference is that there's no guarantee of the country having a position filled and taxes will be wasted. The downside of -not- having training is that many companies will simply import their talent, leaving the same people underpriviledged and underpaid. You've given me something to think about, A-train. I'm going to consider this and see if there's a solution.

Oooh - And I'm moving to the London area next month. Welcome to the site!

I'm honestly sorry, Austro. I had planned a big, acidic response to this and you didn't deserve that. So - Deep breath on my part - Here is basically where my concerns lie: 1) You say you didn't accuse him of being Orwellian. You used the word Orwellian to describe something he said. Describing the act as Orwellian while not defining the person as Orwellian is a fine line I disagree with. 2) Governments have been investing money since the dawn of time - Every time the government in the past put grain in silos - Even grain taken as tax - That was an investment to the future. Claiming that he's doing something radically different is, I believe, a Chicken Little scenario. 3) Training -can be- viewed as an investment under the current welfare system. If a man is on welfare, he costs the government(And ergo the tax-payers) money. By training him, you could theoretically take him off welfare and free up those funds for other things - In the same way that buying new energy saving windows is an investment, so could those people be. I'm not saying you're wrong that it won't work - Workfare very rarely does - I'm saying that the dark picture you're painting him in during the current economic crisis seems fanatical rather than driven by logic. To paint it in conspiratorial terms is to miss the real reasons behind it. Ultimately, I feel that the divisive language used by both the left and right(As a centrist) is damaging to the US. What needs to happen is for plain, simple answers that will satisfy our needs to come to the fore. If you believe that no government must exist, come forth - Propose how people will be guaranteed not to lose their jobs or, if they do, their livelihood. Propose how we can be both a humble and caring society while fixing our economic woes. Spell out what the answer is and what both the drawbacks are and positive parts are. I always feel the need to point out the drawbacks to the Libertarian stance because when one listens to the economic standpoint, they seem to indicate that there is no downfall. That is clearly not the case. I also disagree with communist governments, who swing the entire other way.

Defining investment the way Austro was suggesting eliminates numerous real life examples of investors: Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers and Stock Brokers. All three of them take money from some other group and put those funds somewhere else in the hopes of getting a commission on them. That's simple fact - It happens. You could argue that those people are stupid or dangerous, but that was not his argument with that. His argument was that saying it was an investment was simply wrong. That is incorrect A-train. I respect your opinion, but in this he was simply playing misdirection with his wording and trying to demonize a group he disagrees with. What he -should- have said was "I disagree with this policy because -" and not "These people are Orwellian." Now, I agree with government training programs - Apprenticeship programs, student loans, the works. I think it's important to help even disadvantaged children to be able to go to school. However, I believe that this system Obama is creating is simply a system of make-work like Hoover's was. It's the last ditch effort for a group that feels the economy is failing. I understand that. I also feel that a better way of handling this would be to invest generically in -education- so that those who -want- to better themselves have the opportunity, rather than make-work programs that force people to learn a trade they will never do well because they don't care. However, none of these arguments were what Austro discussed. Instead, he simply played misdirection with words and worked like an attack dog(Attacking without reason, merely because it was outside of his mode of thought. For examples, please see my more in-depth post on his article). Actually, A-train, as an aside, I do have a question for you: Given the rising unemployment and lack of skilled tradespeople in the US for the jobs that -do- need people, what would you suggest is an appropriate response? Do you feel the free market would fix that, or merely allow those with low expectations to live their lives the way they want to?

I scored a Centrist on the quiz! Personal scores of 70%, economic of 50%.

Hahah. A 2 MB hard drive? What is that - 30 years old? Actually, if you really -do- have a 2 -megabyte- hard drive, I will totally send you carrots and fresh milk for it. That would be an antique.

And you're right. That's why it was a toss-off at the end rather than one of my main complaints. It's possible some would be confused without it stated expressly because it neatly fits your views. For most, it would be fine, but it's usually something to be stated explicitly.

You are absolutely right, A-train. "I was just following orders" didn't work for the Nuremburg trials and it shouldn't work here. Instead, I will point to specifics in his original article that suggest simple emotional attacks without substance: First, there is the use of the word "investment"—in true government Orwellian fashion—as a euphemism for government spending. Orwell's use of doublespeak was to take a word that is a positive thing and alter its meaning so that people were more compliant. Let's see if that's the case with Dictionary.com's version of Investment: 1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. 1) The government, through taxes, will provide moneys to training agencies. 2) Those training agencies will train people who are currently a drain on the economy and provide them useful skills. 3) Those with useful skills will then provide greater taxes to the government and will provide more to the country itself. In this case, money is being used to provide hopefully a greater return. He could have claimed it was a stupid idea that wouldn't work, but instead chose to use -this- as the definition for Investment: "Investment signifies an accumulation of savings through lower present consumption, which will then be used to achieve (potential) profitable returns in the future." He added 'Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption', which does not exist in any dictionary on earth. Ironically, he was the one engaging in Orwellian doublespeak. Here are some more items I disagree with: Government's solution to government failure is consistent with Mises's theory of intervention: government meddling seems to require more government involvement (and more money). In this case, he simply makes a statement without recourse to saying -why- he believes this. It's just rhetoric unbacked by facts. If he wanted to convince me, he would quote sources from the last time something like this happened: The workfare programs under Herbert Hoover. Since that's the closest thing to Obama's proposal, discuss it. Talk about the historical correlations between the two. Here's another piece: "Standards of living will decrease as there will be a shift from private production and exchange to political demagoguery, as well as taxes levied on the more efficient to subsidize the less efficient, but privileged, group. " He then goes on to talk about why this is bad. This is frankly just poor logic. You can't make sweeping statements without proving it and then basing an entire paragraph on the consequences of an unproven statement makes for poor reading. And as for "Standards of living will decrease", is that correlative or causative? Since these programs tend to be brought out when the economy is at its worst, is it happening -because- of these programs or -in spite-? Please quote sources when saying these things. Again, it's simply self-serving non-logic backed up with no facts. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying I can't take the logic seriously. It's just poorly put together. Here's a direct quote he uses that's, honestly, embarassing: "T]he government can only blunder along, blindly "investing" without being able to invest properly in the right fields, the right products, or the right places. A beautiful subway will be built, but no wheels will be available for the trains; a giant dam, but no copper for transmission lines, etc. These sudden surpluses and shortages, so characteristic of government planning, are the result of massive malinvestment by the government." Is he honestly saying that the government has created a subway with no wheels for the trains or a dam with no copper for transmission lines? Has this in the history of government -ever happened-? It's poetic license. I understand that. It's poetic license in what is essentially disguising itself as logical. The problem is that this isn't logical. It makes sweeping, grandiose statements and doesn't back it up. It's poorly written and illogical. Oh, and the fact that he brought up an article that he himself wrote and quoted it without telling us that he was the one who wrote it? That was poor form as well.

The problem, A-train, isn't that critical thinking is wrong. It's the histrionics. Since coming here, I've heard everything from "Obama will destroy the constitution" to "Obama will institute youth training programs to brainwash our children." Critical thinking is vital and, honestly, when I hear some people I think "That's interesting. I wonder if it's correct?" and with other people, I think "Wow. The logic is spurious. He confuses correlation with causation and... Yes, yes... There's the Hitler argument." I think the concern people have here is that there is a group of people who seem to think that "Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong." - This is normally bad thinking, but when it's coupled with histrionics, it's honestly mind-blowing. Disagreeing with the majority isn't wrong, but if you challenge the majority beliefs, bring evidence. You tend to do well with that. Others don't.