Just_A_Guy

I suspect Boyando is referring to this (via Drudge).

Hmm. Based on your understanding of American law, Charlyc: a) What does it mean to be "bankrupt"? b) What happens to a person who is legally declared "bankrupt"?

Exactly. A lot of the stimulus has this philosophy of "we need to get people borrowing again!". Which means that at best we'll see another credit bubble and then, ten years from now, be in the exact same situation as we are today--only with an exponentially larger national debt.

Not smelling smoke, but I noticed the air in Utah Valley was very hazy today--which is odd since we just had rain yesterday. This explains it.

Whereas in a state-run health care system, the ones who get the best care are the ones with the best political connections. Of course, the rich tend to have better political connections, so the rich are still going to be getting better health care . . . For my part, as long as I remain in America, the odds of my one day becoming rich are far better than my odds of one day having good political connections. So, forced to choose between a system that favors the rich and a system that favors the politically connected . . . I choose the former. Just this week I posted a couple of anecdotes about the UK and the Oregon state-run health care systems. You might want to search the forums for them. I've mentioned in other discussions here, the population bomb and other social/economic factors that may well make long-term universal health care unsustainable. If you get people used to being on the dole for long periods of time, then when the federal gravy train gets derailed those people are worse off than they are before--because they have no idea how to take care of themselves (Exhibit A being New Orleans' response to Hurricane Katrina).

There's no such thing as a reliable source. All you can really do is take a left-slanted and right-slanted version of the same event, and try to read between the lines.

Interesting article, but I wonder. Mormonism was founded partly on the premise that the Second Coming would be "soon"--our very name ("Latter-day Saints") implies as much. If five hundred or a thousand years pass with no Second Coming, I think Mormonism would have an awfully difficult time holding together.

That, and prom dresses with sleeves are the next-best thing to burkhas (which are impossible to find these days!)

He. Signed. The. Bill. On this planet, if a President signs a bill, he's usually going to get the blame for all the bad things the bill does. Them's the breaks. It's lonely at the top, and all that.

OK. We both failed. It wasn't Bush's fault, and it wasn't not his fault. Whatever. And apparently a bunch of alien body snatchers came in and replaced almost the entire Republican delegation. But only for that vote (er . . . six votes).

Believer, if you're out to exonerate Bush on this--you're going to fail. Even if he felt his hands were tied, he didn't have to sign the bill. Bills not signed or vetoed within ten days of passage become the law unless Congress adjourns during that time.

Umm . . . who was doing the fear tactics and scare mongering, here? Maybe you're not aware of this because you're not in the US, but there are options in place for Americans who cannot pay for their own healthcare. Not perfect ones, mind you. But contrary to international belief, American hospital doorsteps are not littered with the corpses of people who couldn't afford health care. I agree with you here. Whatever you call the American system, it is not competition or a free market in any meaningful way.

So glad you asked: On the final Conference committee version: House 424-1 (the 1 being Ron Paul, Republican). Senate 89-3 (the 3 being Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint--all Republicans). Signed the Bill: George W. Bush, Republican.

President Bush was the president who signed CPSIA. The regulatory agency had been "bending" the text of the statute in an attempt to not apply it to situations like this; but a recent court decision held that the agency must conform to the plain language of the statute.

The Sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants. Where there has been no baptism, the sacrament doesn't do any good from a theological standpoint. That said, our two-year-old does take it, and we're trying to train her to "think about Jesus" as she does so.

Libertarianism, of course! Seriously--I don't see how you get anarchy from what Bytor advocates. He's saying we should abandon allegiance to party, not government. There is a difference.

Yup. Same reason Pres. Woodruff got the revelation to end polygamy.

The concern is that old books had lead in the ink. And no, Pam, it's unfortunately not a joke. Remember all those lead-tainted toys from China we were hearing about last year? Well, Congress had to Do Something™. And CPSIA is what they did. The same congressional act also applies to used children's clothing and toys: it has to be tested for lead before it's sold at a secondhand store, and last I heard new clothing for children under 12 is now not allowed to have rhinestones (which apparently contain trace amounts of lead). Overlawyered.com has been chronicling the situation for some time, but the major media outlets seem to be largely ignoring the issue.

The sale of children's books printed before 1985 is about to become illegal. (No, this isn't Obama's fault. It's Bush's.)

Lots of good advice here. I'll just plug one more book: Confronting Pornography. And yes, don't get caught in that "I'll deal with it when I'm out of my parents' house" procrastination bit. Because even if you make it through your mission--then you're in a singles ward, and what would that cute blonde think if she saw you pass on the Sacrament one week? Or maybe you're at BYU and you're worried about losing your ecclesiastical endorsement. Then suddenly The One comes along, and you don't want to derail your wedding plans . . . and then you're married, and how can you tell her you concealed this all that time . . . It will never be easier for you to clear this up than it is right now. Do it. :)

Well, if you don't eat . . .

I'm neither a therapist nor a theologian, but it strikes me that we really know (as opposed to inferring) so little about Heavenly Mother that your particular needs aren't going to be filled so much by an academic study of Her as they would be by building relationships with stable, mature women in the here-and-now. (Your mileage may vary, though. :))

No, seven is the perfect family size. Meaning you should have five children (unless you are a polygamist, in which case you need fewer).

Maybe, but at least in some cases sealings can be done even where there was never an official marriage ceremony (this is common, for example, in Danish genealogy). Does the Church have a policy saying that for proxy work, a marriage certificate is needed for jurisdictions A, B, and C but not for jurisdictions X, Y, and Z?

A friend of mine is in an analogous situation (parents were never sealed, divorced after he was born, and married other people). I was with him in a temple recorder's office when he asked what he was supposed to do. He was basically told (in much nicer terms than what I'm about to say) that he needed to wait for both of them to die, and then seal them by proxy and then be sealed to them by proxy. As for who's going to be "with" whom in the hereafter: Well, technically (IMHO), the only person you're "with" all the time is your spouse. So I wouldn't get too worked up about whether I'll be sealed to one, both, or neither parent. Just do as much as you can to keep your temple-marriage intact, and the Lord will work out the rest.