New Embassy in London

[Churchmouse]

The United States will build a new embassy in London for one BILLION dollars. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, one in seven people, including children, will go to bed hungry tonight.

[NeuroTypical]

What conclusion do you wish us to draw? America is bad? Capitalism is wrong? We need a new president (or consitution)? The end is near?

(I'd rather not guess before I respond)

[Churchmouse]

What a sad individual you are.

[Guest]

Embassies are built using Federal dollars. Kentucky unemployment is a state issue. So, this is like saying, the LDS Church spent a billion dollars to build a temple while one in 7 families are going hungry in the Lexington Kentucky Stake. It doesn't logically go together.

[marts1]

If I were one of those children I wouldn't care less about what who when or why...

[Palerider]

We need that building in London....who cares 14 illegal humans from Mexico are in Missouri working at construction jobs when we have 11% unemployed in my county that I live in....if you don't know what I am talking about read the articles I posted in current events. The Fed Gov't did nothing, excpet they told the local authorities "to let them go".

[NeuroTypical]

What a sad individual you are.

So, those were genuine questions. I really do want to know what your point is. No need to get insulting, is there?

[pam]

What a sad individual you are.

I have to agree with LM. His questions were valid and your response was a bit rude.

[bytebear]

The United States will build a new embassy in London for one BILLION dollars. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, one in seven people, including children, will go to bed hungry tonight.

This tells me that charitable giving should be done by the private sector, and our taxes should be lowered, so the government doesn't choose what to do with my money. Let me choose to do with it what I feel is right. Lower taxes and reduce government control over welfare programs.

No one is stopping you from giving to those starving children. So, why are you waiting for the government to step in? When we learn that the government is no the answer to all our needs, we will truly learn the meaning of the word "charity."

[volgadon]

No one is stopping you from giving to those starving children. So, why are you waiting for the government to step in?

Exactly.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm still waiting to hear what Churchmouse's point is...

[FunkyTown]

I'm still waiting to hear what Churchmouse's point is...

It's obvious what his point is, LM! Churchmouse wants that billion dollars to go to feed the hungry.

And good on you, CM! I'm proud of you for embracing this socialist tendency of having the government feed the hungry instead of relying upon charity. That's a controversial stance on an LDS website and I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in.

<--- munches on popcorn innocently. He hasn't stirred up a hornet's nest. Honest.

[NeuroTypical]

Oh, I'm not a hornet. Or if I am, at least I recognize that stinging people who want to help the poor isn't the best use of my stinger.

But I can't be sure embracing socialism is what Churchmouse had in mind. I've heard a similar situation (rich folk spend money the wrong way) used to justify all sorts of things. From isolationism, to claiming the rapture is near, to raising taxes, to eliminating the IRS, to outlawing SUV's.

So again, Hey Churchmouse! You've made two statements - America builds expensive embassies, and 1 out of 7 people in Kentucky go to bed hungry every night.

Before I respond, I need a critical bit of information. What's your point?

LM

[marts1]

Probably because of conditions that the people in Haiti are having to endure has a overly disturbing affect on him as it does on many.

[Churchmouse]

I'm sorry. I wasn't making a political staement nor was I looking for a civics lesson. I was just voicing my disgust at where we place our priorities. I thought others here that profess to be followers of Jesus Christ might share that love for children.Someone does " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven."

No. I won't be able to help feed the children of Kentucky. Our farm makes a donation to feed the children in our own county through the "Snack Pak" program. This provides healthy snacks for those children that are hungry here. The only meals they get a day are the ones the school provides. We also make donations from our farm income to Paralyzed Veterans of America, United Negro College Fund, Boy Scouts of America and our local library which has suffered budget cuts. There isn't any more left to give.

Everytime I express an opinion here I get blasted, so I won't be expressing any more. I just take comfort in knowing when the final time comes for compassion some of us will be Judges In Isreal and some won't.

When funkytown agrees with me it's time to go.

[Elphaba]

When funkytown agrees with me it's time to go.

I think he was being sarcastic given your position posts are usually far to the right, and feeding hungry cildren tends to be a more liberal policy.

At least, that's how I read it, but FT can correct me if I'm wrong.

In response to your post, Obama's proposed budget actually raises the amount of monies that funds children's food programs by $1 billion (which many say is still not enough). Conservatives are opposed to this increase, so if you're upset about the government not allotting enough money to feed these children in Kentucky, take it up with the conservatives in Congress, some of whom I suspect you voted for.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

The United States will build a new embassy in London for one BILLION dollars.

Wonder whether it will have a lot of imported Italian marble, rare woods and gold plating?

[Moksha]

I'm sorry. I wasn't making a political staement nor was I looking for a civics lesson. I was just voicing my disgust at where we place our priorities. I thought others here that profess to be followers of Jesus Christ might share that love for children.Someone does " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven."

You are right. Our religious ideals should demand butter and not guns.

[bytebear]

I think he was being sarcastic given your position posts are usually far to the right, and feeding hungry cildren tends to be a more liberal policy.

At least, that's how I read it, but FT can correct me if I'm wrong.

In response to your post, Obama's proposed budget actually raises the amount of monies that funds children's food programs by $1 billion (which many say is still not enough). Conservatives are opposed to this increase, so if you're upset about the government not allotting enough money to feed these children in Kentucky, take it up with the conservatives in Congress, some of whom I suspect you voted for.

Elphaba

Acutally, both the left and the right want to feed children, but the right wants charity to be given from the heart, and the left wants it taken by force.

Again, there is nothing stopping you from giving to these children, or setting up a charity and collecting donations. It happens every day, and billions of dollars are raised, and the government is not involved at all. I would rather have choice as to who controls my money, rather than have it forced to a single bureaucracy which has an extremely poor track record of efficiency.

[Elphaba]

Acutally, both the left and the right want to feed children, but the right wants charity to be given from the heart, and the left wants it taken by force.

I meant the government feeding children tends to be a liberal policy--not that conservatives did not want to feed them.

Your assertion that only conservatives want this to be "from the heart" is absurd. Both sides are full of heart when it comes to feeding hungry children.

Again, there is nothing stopping you from giving to these children, or setting up a charity and collecting donations. It happens every day, and billions of dollars are raised, and the government is not involved at all. I would rather have choice as to who controls my money, rather than have it forced to a single bureaucracy which has an extremely poor track record of efficiency.

I assume there is a reason for your bloviating on about this; however, it certainly had nothing to do with my post.

I was clearly responding to Churchmouse's criticism of the Obama administration for not doing anything to feed hungry children, and that's it. A lecture was not warranted.

Elphaba

Edited February 26, 2010 by Elphaba
A major edit. Please read this version.

[FunkyTown]

Oh, I'm not a hornet. Or if I am, at least I recognize that stinging people who want to help the poor isn't the best use of my stinger.

LM

I would never call you a hornet, LM. I was deliberately taking his statement to the logical conclusion that he would never openly admit was the logical conclusion of his statement based upon previous things he's said.

That's why he said 'When FunkyTown agrees with me, it's time to go.'

If you've read a lot of his historical posts, you'd see that my joke was kind of an inside joke between me and Churchmouse, only with him thinking it wasn't funny.

[Elgama]

ok I am pretty left wing when it comes to me politics but fact is embassies serve a hugely important purpose, and land values in London are expensive. Given where embassies in London are situated it would have had to have been expensive.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Elgama

[Moksha]

Acutally, both the left and the right want to feed children, but the right wants charity to be given from the heart, and the left wants it taken by force.

If charity isn't forth coming then tough luck. Pull yourself up by the boot staps kids. Are there not workhouses?