FunkyTown

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." I'm gonna take the Saviour's opinion on this one.

Herein lies the problem: I don't have a problem with the gold standard. I don't - I've said this before and I'll say it again. However, I don't think that people's disagreement with it is necessarily based upon a lack of understanding. Here's what someone might say to counter-argue against the gold standard: What is The Gold Standard?

Hi Sister, In a case like this, I honestly don't know what to say. You've gotten advice on this before and the advice has always been the same. We worry for you and we hope you get the relationship you deserve, but you seem to always go back to the exact same place you were before. We can't give any advice. We just have to ask: "Are you happy with where you are now?" because, if nothing is changed, this is the way your life will be for eternity. And tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Though Canada does have socialist tendencies, I doubt that the economy breakdown will hit us as bad for several reasons: 1) We're an export economy: Power, steel, grain. Canada produces far more than it's 35000000 population consumes. In fact, China loves buying electricity from us. 2) 20 years ago, when the US had a cold, Canada got pneumonia. We were so tied to the wealth of the US that every economic recession hit us bad. This is not the case now. In this global recession, we're suffering far less because we have achieved a global economy and tend to trade with multiple partners. We also, unlike Iceland, are not an economy based upon investment banking. In a global recession, we would suffer loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector(Which we have for a long time, to the point it has dwindled greatly), but little other effects would be felt. Unless other countries decided they didn't need food, electricity or steel, I don't see our economy being greatly affected. 3) Our banking system is heavily regulated and relies far more on the traditional model of lending funds to make money, rather than gathering capital and investing it. It means our banks tend to have fewer dizzying highs or lows. In order for this to affect us, the global recession would have to be long enough and desperate enough that countries simply didn't purchase external foodstuffs or developmental necessities like steel, nickel or the like. Don't get me wrong - Since the US is a major trading partner, a US recession would hurt us. It just would force us to diversify our trading partners.

I strongly believe the buy-outs were a mistake, which is probably in line with what you believe. Basically, the US government is taking the risk on -themselves- for the next few years in the hope that the economy bounces back. If there's another crushing blow to the banking system, the house of cards falls apart and massive inflation hits the US. People who had saved their whole life will suddenly find their savings less than worthless, the ability to purchase basic necessities of life will fail. That's a worst case scenario, but since that's pretty bad, I think they need to recognize that a bad recession is not as bad as a mind blowingly bad bankruptcy. Thankfully, here in Canada banking regulations prevented getting involved in the sub-prime mortgage scandal, so our banks are doing pretty good. But I do empathize and feel badly for my american brethren.

In a logical argument, sweeping statements are not made. Please cite sources for all your points, JBS.

Welcome, Aloren! Hope Utah's treating you well. :) If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Plus, if you're in Utah, try the funeral potatoes. Universally, we all know how good they are.

Wait... Wait... So your question is 'Can you give examples where slavery has occurred with it neither being illegal nor being legal'? Because... If it's legal, the government will necessarily step up to the plate and place legal limitations on slavery. Read the old testament for some examples on redress for slavery. If it's illegal, then it will by nature be criminal activity. That means that you're looking for... What? An example of a decriminalized slavery system akin to what the Canadian Marijuana trade is? If that's the case, then no. It is impossible to come up with an example. Y'know what? You're being absurd. I don't even know why half of us are in this conversation. You clearly have your opinions that will never change. That's fine. I'm simply going to vote away anything that is remotely close to what you're suggesting. Huzzah for freedom. Thankfully, the majority of North Americans agree with me.

Yep. Rameumptom is correct. Here are some samples where government intervention helped: 1) "Load sixteen tons and whattya get? Another day older and deeper in debt." - The 'Work for credit' policy that companies developed, simply because companies could, had to be stopped. Government intervention created minimum wage laws, which helped a lot of people. 2) Child labour laws - Companies used children in dangerous situations, their parents desperate enough to send their flesh and blood in to horrid working conditions. Many died until child labour laws came in to effect that saved innocent kids from suffering on the altar of private greed. 3) Workplace safety laws - Workplace conditions were horrid in the 19th century. People were poisoned and maimed on the job at an alarming pace simply because big business wouldn't foot the bill for better conditions. Those are just three examples of horrid excess -in the United States of America- that occurred when government refused to step in and regulate things. I'm certain the counter-argument will either be, 'But look at (insert stupid thing the government did here) during regulation? That hurt a lot of people.' in which case the counterargument would be 'Yes. Stupid laws result in stupid consequences, but good laws result in good consequences. Therefore, our argument shouldn't be for completely free capitalism, but rather fairly regulated capitalism. It's difficult, but something we should strive for." Personally, I believe that socialized medicine is one of those things that are required for a fair society.

I think you said pretty much what I agree with, Moe. I believe in centrist philosophies - I like capitalism with constraints, taxation with representation, and oversight in to governmental overspending. When I defend some socialist policies, I'm saying "I don't think socialism is the devil. I think it is necessary to have some governmental control on capitalism because pure capitalism feeds upon greed."

Moksha has hit the nail on the head. Everyone: Look at your shoes. Go on. Take a look. Now, look on the net to see where your shoes were made. Were they made in your own country? If not, the chances are they were made by near-slave labor in countries where horrible work conditions are king. Look at your shirts, your shoes, your electronics. How many of them were made in your country for a fair wage? Unrestricted trade(Which is NOT 'Fair trade') and unrestricted capitalism has resulted in an unsustainable economy where companies exploit whoever they can to get whatever product they can. Henry Ford once said there was one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. We, humanity, have failed at this. That is why unrestricted capitalism doesn't work.

It's not a man/woman thing to be critical. But... I'm still really concerned for you. I don't want to council letting a marriage go. I don't believe it and I certainly don't see both sides to this, but know that I worry for you and hope for nothing but the best.

Hahah. You're not supposed to come out and say 'No' to someone who asks if it's okay to date outside your faith, PC! It makes them immediately defensive. I pointed out 'Uh... Y'know... Even Solomon himself wasn't wise enough to maintain a relationship with someone outside his faith' and then pointed out it was dangerous. I'm guessing that's my problem, right? "Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no" and all that.

Quoted for truth.

I'm going to back PC on this one. I may disagree with him on the specifics (Like the Doctrine of Hell we discussed earlier.), but I think we -can not- ascribe qualities to God that he has not -expressly stated-. It's too easy to create a God who falls in to line with what modern people want, which results in the Communist God/The Absolute Pacifism God/The God Who Hates (insert specific group here). Me, I plan on asking God when all is said and done. If I'm wrong about anything, I plan on saying "YAY! I just learned the truth!" rather than assuming something and not listening to God because of pride.

Uncontrolled Capitalism is wrong. It is governmentally mandated economic slavery. Period. End of story. See how I can use the same argument? PS: The United Order was very different from Communism and was instead a form of the socialism you hate so much. Who do I believe? You or Brigham Young. Tough one... John Birch Society... Brigham Young.... John Birch Society... Brigham Young. No, no. That was unfair. I'm clearly venting because you seem to think that a government mandate to help the poor and unfortunate equals satanic practice. It's absurd. Does Communism work? No. People are too selfish to make a system like that work. However, aspects of socialism are -required- for a righteous society to protect the poor and unfortunate from those who would use and abuse them. I am more than happy to point out several horrendous abuses unrestricted Capitalism has caused that resulted in Capitalism being regulated -because everyone recognized these abuses were wrong-. Socialism is a government mandated morality. If you had said "I don't believe you can mandate morality", I would have disagreed and said that it's required that certain things be mandated. I wouldn't have disagreed so vocally. But your hatred of socialism is simply wrong and ignorant.

You marry who you date. Some people do convert due to dating. Some drag their partners down. I have a rule: If Solomon couldn't balance a relationship with a non-member successfully, I won't date 'em. However, I recognize that isn't practical for everyone. Just remember that it's dangerous.

You do realize that, if they didn't teach that it was normal, that kids who found out that some poor kid -with absolutely no control over his situation- would end up being tormented because he belonged to a household that wasn't normal? I can promise you that happened to someone I knew growing up who had two female parents. I'm concerned here. I understand what you're saying, but the -real- victims here would be the kids in that household if this wasn't taught. Does teaching it encourage kids to switch their orientation? I sincerely doubt it.

Touche, Elphie. I don't think anyone can argue that Eleanor Roosevelt was not a great person. Amend my statement to 'Great men and women'.

Home teaching advice: 1) Set up appointments on the first of the month. That way, you can make accomodations when they're gone. If you wait 'til the end, the spirit isn't there as you have to rush everything. 2) The first time you meet your family, it will be awkward. Bring cookies, ice cream or something and let them know you care. 3) Care. Actually care. 4) Know that it is not up to your companion to ensure that home teaching gets done. If he can't do it, don't abandon your family. They need you. Home teaching is the most important calling in the church. People need to know they're loved, that they're taken care of. I have heard some of the most heart-wrenching stories as a home teacher.

Hahah. I'm in London, England. Stop by for a visit and I'll take ya to on the Ghost Walk.

Hey, Checker? With the exception of the Temple Recommend, I don't have any of those things and I still manage to do all right. Now, if only I could find the -right- person.

Okay - I get what you're saying. You see the United States as falling away from the ideals that made it great. I would agree. You're frightened of the consequences of following the path you're currently on. I agree wholeheartedly with that. You seem to indicate that foreign policy of self-involvement in every part of the world and poor/corrupt domestic policies are to blame. I would agree with that. However, I do have some points to make: 1) Moving to a gold standard - Okay. No real problem here. Inflation is controlled by printing more or less money, which eliminates the scary prospect of hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is a very scary and real problem that would wipe out the wealth of those who scrimped and saved their whole life. Kudos - The only problem with it is that it doesn't have the flexibility to create consistent, long term growth of the economy and eventually leads to stagnation. However, I'm certain you realize that and would rather face stagnation than the inevitable crash the current situation involves. Recent banking issues prove a poignant agreement with what you're saying. 2) Moving from a graduated income tax to a flat tax, I presume you were thinking? Since the government needs to pay for schools, roads, hospitals and the like(Unless people want a country where the poor die at a young age, still illiterate), I assume you're talking about moving to a flat tax. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I voted Green in the last election and that's a tenet of their economic policy here in Canada. (And, actually, it's Greens economic policy that makes me want to vote them). 3) Cases could be made for and against them. Your argument seems to be that you're a staunch Constitutionalist. That point can't be argued and, honestly, I don't necessarily disagree. 4) It seems to me that removing the right to vote from anyone is undemocratic. During the Great Depression, this would mean that only the super-wealthy could vote. That invites a different tyranny than currently moving towards. If there were a cabal of powerful businessmen under your model with designs on ruling, they could arrange an artificial economic failure over a period of years that would allow them unprecedented ability to control the government. We'll call this group 'Schmadianton Schmobbers'. Does the current system invite a generational dependance on welfare? I would say so. When people only want their next paycheck because they can't imagine a better life, why work? However, I think under your policy, Democracy would suffer horrendously. 5) For a staunch Constitutionalist, I'm a little uncomfortable with this one to be honest. "Give us your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to breathe free" has been replaced by "We're full up. Go home." The US was founded on the idea that people could get there and enjoy unprecedented religious freedom. That was the ideal of its creation. If you eliminate that, you eliminate the soul of what made the US great - That all men are created equal in the sight of God. Is there a way to allow this immigration and still enjoy the unprecedented standard of living you've become accustomed to? I don't know, but believing in the ideal of the US and striving to achieve what it was meant to be isn't an easy road. And if you don't believe in the greatness of the ideals that the US was founded on, the Constitution is no longer an inspired document. It's just a document. 6) We've already discussed this, so I won't belabour the point. 7) I believe there are three things that require a socialist mindset because all men deserve them: Education(All men should have an equal chance in life), Healthcare(We are measured by how we treat the least fortunate in society - Under your system, an old man who worked his whole life and lost his fortune due to illness would run out of money, be kicked out of the hospital because he can't pay and then die on the street. And nobody from the government would lift a finger to help him because he required social assistance at the end of his life and thus has no voice in the government) 8) Really? NAFTA? Do you honestly think NAFTA resulted in the demise of the American Worker because companies have engaged in a mass exodus to Canada and Mexico? As a Canadian, I can promise you we have not gained unprecedented job creation because of NAFTA. In fact, we are required to provide the US with a certain amount of water each year -regardless of whether we run out of water ourselves- and the one area where we had a better base of production - Software lumber - was found out and immediately tariff'd so the US wouldn't suffer undue hardship. If you want to blame someone, blame cheap overseas labor that can sell things cheaper -even after a tariff-. Frankly, NAFTA is just a poorly thought out bill that -should- have opened our borders more. I'd like to see a completely open Canadian/American border, but that bill was a failure. I think we -should- eliminate it, but I think you're blaming the wrong bill. 9) I have agreed with you on most points, but... As an outsider, I have to point out an inherent hypocrisy to this: The US has made many enemies because of its meddling. Under any anti-terror law, George Bush, Sr would be required to be surrendered because he provided guns and munitions to a group that struck at civilian -and- government targets.(You would remember this as the Iran/Contra Affair). The UN was not formed by socialists, it was formed by great men. It doesn't work, I'll grant you, but it doesn't work because the nations involved are prepared to simply ignore their tenets if it irritates them too much to abide by them. Seriously - Would the US allow inspectors in to your secret weapons plants if another country said you were developing destabilizing weapons? Of course not. The UN is needed as a balancing act, but is mostly a dog and pony show. It's sad, but a truism. However, it -should- be more than that. 10) Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I agree with this wholeheartedly. If any nation threatened the US, I would be the first to try to defend you. And I have socialist leanings.

Prisonchaplain - You have hit the nail on the head. There are certain parts that confuse me to no end about conventional religion and that may be why it never rang true. I desperately -wanted- to know the truth and prayed every night that it would reveal itself to me. It just never came. "Wait... Why does Jesus say 'Why hast thou forsaken me?' if he and God are the same person? Why does he say 'Nevertheless, thy will and not mine be done.' - Isn't he really saying 'Nevertheless, my will and not mine be done.'?" and I was always told it was one of God's mysteries. I had questions about why someone couldn't repent after death and was told 'Because it has been decreed'. I wondered why people went to Hell for not choosing Christ in this life when the world has done its best to obfuscate the truth and make it impossible to -know-. I wondered if the vast majority of the world throughout history were destined for Hell and the fairness of that. Each time, I was given unsatisfactory answers. So I prayed for answers, desperately wanting only to know the truth. What ambiguity am I comfortable with? I'm comfortable with ambiguity regarding the Saints, regarding the future, regarding God's will for me. But I'm not comfortable with ambiguity that could result in eternal burning for billions. -That- I need to know the truth of.

... Get out of there. Now. Now. "Like you did before"? If you think he's on the verge of blowing, trust your instincts. Get out of there and protect yourself and your family. "So you look the same as me"?!?! He is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, for sure, and while that's terrible... It's something YOU have to GET OUT of. Seriously. Before it's too late, get out. Worst case scenario: You overreacted. Best case scenario: You stopped a horrible rampage that resulted in many people getting hurt. Just get out - Go to a woman's shelter. ANYwhere.