Just_A_Guy

Well, for a lot of us, it's the retirement package that seals the deal.

That may well be the first time I've ever seen Teaching: No Greater Call used to establish doctrine. Re garments: the standard line I've always heard (though never by any official instruction, in the temple or otherwise) is that it's best to wear them at all times except when involved in one of the following activities, dubbed the "four S's": --Sports --Swimming --Shower --uh . . . yeah.

Well, the Seer stone may not ever have made it on the cover, but consider this: Here we see that every Latter-day Saint with access to the official Church Ensign magazine (which I would guess may be over 60%) would have had an opportunity to read about Joseph’s use of a “seer stone.” The seer stone was mentioned in Ensign articles again in 1979, 1986 (Dallin Oaks), 1987, 1993, 1994, and 1997 (Neal Maxwell) and perhaps since then (my search index ends in 1997). In an 1988 article in Ensign entitled, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture,”, Kenneth Godfrey wrote, [Emphasis added] Frankly, if we (and I include myself in this) spent a little more time studying official Church publications, we'd find some useful kernels of truth amid all that fluff.

Yes; it's different. And not to be confused with the American System.

Volokh's got a link to the actual memos (well, a link-to-a-link to the actual memos, via the ACLU's website), and has hosted a (as of last night) reasonably informative discussion from both sides of the issue, here. I read the new Bybee memo last night. Frankly, I wasn't that impressed by most of his reasoning. Haven't gotten around to the other three memos yet.

The "tea party" movement has been around for a couple of months now. Fox News is a Johnny-come-lately. Though I agree that their cheerleading has been a bit over-the-top.

Oh, you mean like Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part I, Section 61 of the United States Code? The IRS has a nice (if somewhat legalistic) summary of anti-tax arguments (and their refutations) here. See also this article, which contains a rather lengthy section on tax protesters and the case law that refutes their arguments.

I'd have an easier time getting worked up about this if I could see how you get "Jesus" from "IHS". But, heck. If they'd left it in, us right-wing loonies would be accusing the White House of subliminally reinforcing the Obama-as-Messiah meme. So . . . whatever.

Wow. Wasn't this guy considered a contender for the Republican 2012 nomination?

Well, if Aristophanes based his Lysistrata off a real-life woman or group of women, the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece could explain Athens' loss to Sparta in the Peloponnesian War.

I like this, except that a) I'd use a marginal-rate structure (so, if you make $100,000 under MOE's plan, you pay 8% on the first $20,000, 10% on the next $30,000, 12% on the next $25,000, and 14% on the last $25,000--that's how our current system does it); b) I'd specify that this is on net income (for the self-employed who have business expenses); c) Like MOE, I'd be flexible as to the actual percentages as long as the top marginal rate weren't more than about 30%; d) I'd allow deductions for children and tax-deferred retirement savings.

Did you read the Sixteenth Amendment?

Other than Lorenzo Snow's experience as related to his granddaughter, I can't think of any publicized experiences. Boyd K. Packer, one of the Church's current apostles, seems to suggest strongly that such experiences continue to happen from time to time. In describing the Salt Lake Temple, he writes: But I cannot think of any publicized account of a visitation of Christ Himself after Snow's account (which, it may be worth noting, he never published himself--it was related by a close family member years after the fact). From reasonably reliable third-party accounts, we do get occasional glimpses at revelations had by prophets within the temple. Forexample, in Adventures of a Church Historian, Leonard Arrington relates a number of Pentecostal spiritual manifestations in 1978 during the meeting in which the Apostles met and determined that the time had come to allows blacks to be ordained to the Church's priesthood. I don't believe he mentions any direct appearance of Christ at that time, however.

I would call it "modern revelation". Next, please?

In honor of the occasion, here is a website with every Form 1040 from 1913 through 2006. Also on this date: 1865: Lincoln dies 1912: The Titanic sinks 1970something: My in-laws got married (really!).

I would submit that it is increase if it comes out of refundable credits. Refundable credits are basically free money from the government.

You are certainly right, in that Bush gave us TARP. But to the extent that libs claim we fiscal conservatives have no right to complain, because Bush spent just as much as Obama does: That's demonstrably false. I think it's also highly questionable that Bush would have started spending money merely for the sake of spending money, as Obama seems to be doing. The Bush bailouts--while obscene--were at least somewhat directed towards the rescue of "key" financial institutions.

Not that I know of, Wyvern. Does BYU also block embedded YouTube videos?

An informative graphic comparing the annual Bush vs Obama deficits (here's the source): Obama's on course to add as much to the national debt in two years as Bush did in eight.

Sounds like Stewart never read de Toqueville. The two are not mutually exclusive. Umm . . . not born yet. Guilt-by-association is a logical fallacy, by the way. Umm . . . we were. (At least, us paleocons. And even the neocons spoke up now and again. Which you'd know if you actually listened to/read Beck and Limbaugh, as opposed to forming your opinions of them based on what Obama told you to think about them). The tea-party movement is not a bunch of mindless morons spouting platitudes fed by Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. It's fiscal conservatives who were gritting their teeth as "their" president spent like a liberal, and now find that "change" means a president who in ten weeks committed us to as much deficit spending (probably more, depending on whose numbers you use) as Bush committed us to in eight years.

That thought came to me as well. On Saturday I tried to find a song I hadn't heard since I was a little boy--Via Dolorosa--and came across a with footage from Gibson's movie (which I have not seen) set against the song as background.Definitely not the portrayal of the Crucifixion that I'm used to seeing. That said, the footage in the Easter video comes from The Testaments--a movie I find problematic on a multitude of levels. I much prefer The Lamb of God.

Let me get this straight: He met the woman at the same place where he currently works, that was at least 18 months ago, he's working 12-15 hours per week, and he's living with his in-laws. I also see by your profile that you're 29, and I presume he's about the same age. Does he have a second job? Has he had a second job for any of the last 18 months? If no to both of the previous questions--is he currently pursuing a graduate degree? If not, you may wish to ask yourself (and him) why a thirty-year-old man has spent the last year-and-a-half working the same amount of hours per week that I worked as a sixteen-year-old.

FWIW, just Saturday I was talking to a guy who has been trying to refinance his house. The loan officer told him he'd have a better chance of doing so if he got behind 2 or 3 months on his current loan first. That's ridiculous.

You disagree with something I never said. I did not speak in absolutes; what I said was that "by paying off the stupid and careless, we aren't making them any smarter or more careful". As long as at least some of those individuals receiving payoffs acted foolishly and carelessly, my statement is correct. In hindsight, yes; I should have been more tactful (frankly, I don't consider "stupid" much of an insult--I frequently frankly admit that I am stupid. I subscribe to Scott Adams's (creator of Dilbert) philosophy that we're pretty much all idiots at one time or another throughout each and every day. But my apologies if I've offended the sensibilities of others). Nevertheless, in our economic system there is--generally speaking--a correlation between wise decisions/hard work and financial success. (If you have statistical evidence otherwise, I'd really love to see it). In an enormous amount of these foreclosure cases you could trace the borrower's financial woes back to borrowing too much, foregoing opportunities for education, starting a family too early, making inappropriate purchases . . . ad nauseum. This wouldn't be any of my business--people are free to make poor decisions whenever and about whatever they please. But, as our big corporations are learning, when you start accepting (or even demanding) public money you also expose yourself to public scrutiny of your past deeds and future intentions. And if you aren't willing to, as the AA says, "take an honest inventory"--you're going to get yourself on the public's shiz-list pretty darned quick.

I'm not sure if that's a compliment or a condemnation! I've heard he speaks about it at some length in The Miracle of Forgiveness; though I've not yet gotten around to reading the book.